# HIGHER END AMP SQ IS A MYTH



## cleansoundz

I have used several amps over the past 6 years ranging from RF, LP, McIntosh, MTX, PPI, ARC AUDIO, POLK AUDIO, JBL, ZED, LANZAR OPTI, JL AUDIO, KICKER, ECLIPSE, Etc, Etc. While some amps did have a sound that was pleasing to the ear, I noticed that amps with higher power ratings set to a decent pair of speakers whether they were separates or coaxials sounded just as good as the so called higher end amps. My point is an 100 watt x 4 channel of a good brand sounded just as clean, crisp and clear as the so called higher end brands such as Brax, McIntosh, etc. The same applied to bass as well. I swapped out several good brand of amps with higher end amps to notice very little difference in sound quality using a sealed enclosure. If this is the case, why spend so much money on the so-called higher end brands?


----------



## kyheng

That's why some people said an amp is an amp....
This will be a good debate...
So far I notice amp from different origin do sound different, like a Japan brand will sound slightly different to USA amp. I only used limited of amps so I can't really say much on this...
I'm comparing a JL Audio A6450 to a JDM Pioneer DEH-P01's mini amp...


----------



## subwoofery

If you can't hear a difference, change your speakers 

Kelvin


----------



## RNBRAD

I have to somewhat agree. I've used countless brands over the last 25yrs. I'm currently using 3 different brands (Mcintosh, Alpine, Kicker). I've never really heard that big of a difference. A difference many claim to hear as night and day which I just think it's other factors and not amps. Now I think there is certain instances when an amps performance changes with age or internal capacitors loose their efficiency or change rating and this effects the sound. I'm talking amps that meet the manufacturers original specifications. But with all things perfect from amp design to amp design, at least in my experience, there has been little to no differences especially at comfortable listening levels. Then again I've never used junk and have always used a careful selection in my equipment. I used the 35 series Alpines from 89 to 94, regarded as some of the best Alpines (even amps) ever made for SQ. I switched them out for the Mcintosh in the same system same power replacements. Only noticed a difference at extremely high volumes. Mcintosh kept it's composure better but I attribute it to them being more under rated than the Alpines. Otherwise, audibly speaking, no difference at least there. I want to make that distinction but I'm not going to try to compare one amp to another in different systems, just not practical or accurate. I only give credence to those that have switched out amps from the same system in this fashion. Most of it is all BS!!

*On a side note, my Mcintosh amps are 18-19yrs old and playing like a champ*. My alpines croaked at about the 10yr mark. Every Alpine amp I've ever had lasts about 10yrs then I start having problems. I moved them over to other cars and was actually easier on them. So that's something to be said about running high end gear, or at least McIntosh. My actual Mcintosh rep told me they would easily last 30 plus years and told me to send them in at the 30yr mark to have them evaluated. If they do not meet the original specifications at the 30yrs mark they will fix it till they do. Who else does this?


----------



## Wesayso

I am not a firm believer in high end amps but I do believe in quality and power.
So I chose Genesis as I saw a lot of 20 year old genesis amps still for sale in working condition. I figured it would be nice to try a second hand ~3 year old for not much money. Here in Europe they are priced quite fair/cheap second hand. It worked so well I decided to get another.
I think it is a sheer power difference but they did sound better than the JBL they replaced. I had one serviced (by their designer Gordon the Amp Doctor) and was still under half of their new price and expect to be able to use it for many more years.

It's not german but it is highly regarded over there (lol).


----------



## kyheng

Sometimes what makes a brand expensive is the components used inside.... Like Mcintosh using capacitors that passed 50 their own internal test while Alpine maybe 20 tests....


----------



## cleansoundz

Obviously using quality speakers makes a huge difference. I know about the quality of the components in the inside makes everything different. I notice very little difference between amps in sounds with all else being equal.


----------



## Viggen

Some people cannot tell the difference between a Ferrari and a Honda

If you can't tell the difference, buy the cheaper option.

I went from 20 + year old adcom to pheonix gold elite...... All my adcom amps are now gone


----------



## Coppertone

I must confess I've convinced myself that the more I pay for one, the better my system sounds.


----------



## Sound Suggestions

Coppertone said:


> I must confess I've convinced myself that the more I pay for one, the better my system sounds.


Lol, I've convinced myself as well! On a serious note, i have always been able to tell the difference in sound between the amplifiers everytime i have done a change, and i do agree that the more expensive the amplifier the better the refinement and the quaracter of the sound...some people are colour blind maybe some people are tone deaf 

Some of the amplifier brands that I've had the pleasure of owning (not in specific order)
Pioneer GMH
Orion GT, SX
Orion HCCA
Rockford Fosgate DH, DSM, Power
ADS power plate
Pheonix Gold ZX
The purple monsters (forgot the brand, made in florida...the used to also name some of their other amps "Merlin, Terminator...)
Soundstream Old school Reference series
JL audio Slash v1 v2's
Audison Lrx
Arc Audio SE

I may have forgotten a few, but i feel fortunate to have been able to experience so many different manufacturers, in my opinion every change has been in the right direction.


----------



## RNBRAD

Well you also have to take into affect the psychological thought processes involved which is like the "placebo effect". If you think it's better when in actuality it is not, you may still hear a perceived improvement, though there is none. It's funny how the brain will try to mimic your expectations. This is actual science!!


----------



## Sound Suggestions

^I agree to a point, the mind only remembers difference in sound over maybe a period of 20 minutes or so, but I spend a lot of time in my vehicle (in sales on the road 8 to 10 hrs a day) I get to listen to my gear for a pretty good period of time and I can usually tell what's good or not so good or what's pleasing to my ears.

And easy way to test for difference in sounds from different amplifiers is to visit a high end home theater shop (no best buy) they can easily switch from amp to amp and use the same source same speakers...this is why I have an arcam receiver right now...huge sound difference over everyday brands.

Higher end brands spend more more on internal components/power supplies...the end result is better sound, that's a fact...problem is "how much more money are you willing to spend?" to see a result in better performance


----------



## SaturnSL1

Sound Suggestions said:


> The purple monsters (forgot the brand, made in florida...the used to also name some of their other amps "Merlin, Terminator...)


US Amps


----------



## Sound Suggestions

SaturnSL1 said:


> US Amps


Yes lol! I had used 2 of their series, old school goodness, the one that left an impression on me was the vrx I believe (plexiglass bottom and 1/2 ohm capable) thx


----------



## SaturnSL1

Sound Suggestions said:


> Yes lol! I had used 2 of their series, old school goodness, the one that left an impression on me was the vrx I believe (plexiglass bottom and 1/2 ohm capable) thx


I think you mean VLX, those things are monsters lol. I've got a USA series that's similar to the VLX in that it has a plexi bottom. Mine was broken when I got it though 











Incredible amplifiers though. I'm stoked that I was able to own one for so cheap.


----------



## Sound Suggestions

Yes! Serious power there! You sir are one lucky guy

It's been years since I owed one of those, I also had the USA series then the vlx...both purple!


----------



## SaturnSL1

Sound Suggestions said:


> Yes! Serious power there! You sir are one lucky guy
> 
> It's been years since I owed one of those, I also had the USA series then the vlx...both purple!


You'd have to pick your jaw up off the floor if I told you how much I paid for it.


----------



## asota

With the current very average sounding HU's and DSP's you would have to have a very good ear to hear any difference in amps. In the future as source units and DSP's improve the sonic signatures of amps will be more noticeable and in some cases night and day.


----------



## cleansoundz

The difference in the sounds should be more based with the speakers and through the head units. A rf or kicker 100 x 4 will sound better than a 60 x 4 McIntosh merely because the are more power.


----------



## Sound Suggestions

^ unfortunately I don't think that I can agree with this last comment, I would take the McIntosh amp any day over the kicker or Rockford amp, it's not all about claimed power ratings (but I do agree that having lots of clean power on tap will help greatly on dynamics/headroom and hopefully signal to noise ratio) Kicker/RF may rate their power at greater distortion levels plus at constant 14v....give them less voltage and stop recording your their output at .009/.04 distortion level and you'd probably get 40w or so. Back in the old days people would build whole systems around an amp that would be rated at 22.5w x 2 (the old RF punch45) or even the 25w x 2 Orion HCCA, loud enough to make most people uncomfortable...most manufacturers used to focus more on quality of the sound versus the output levels, they use to rate their power at .004 distortion plus at 12.6volts or so...in fact they were cheater amps and performance much better than their rated power once you lowered the impedance and increased the voltage closer to 14 volts.

Make sure you have a good clean signal to start, also make sure the system isn't starved of available current voltage....the rest is subjective to the owner on which brand they prefer.


----------



## Sound Suggestions

Stick to the saying garbage in garbage out, start with the source and move down the flow...i wouldn't expect the best amplifier in the world to sound good with bad signal going in.

Same goes with subs...place one of the best subwoofer money can buy in a poorly design box and it will sound really bad, then take a decent sub and put it in the perfect box and it will sound good


----------



## jimbno1

This horse is so dead. It reminds me of the Skittles commercial when the Zombie on the bus says "You're boring me to death. I'm already dead and you're boring me back to death!"

No one is going to convince anybody else they can or can't hear a difference between amps.

If you can hear a difference, spend extra money on your amps. 

If you don't hear a difference, buy a reliable amp that has adequate power for your application and is reasonably priced. 

Just for fun somebody start a thread on the audible differences between cables


----------



## cleansoundz

jimbno1 said:


> This horse is so dead. It reminds me of the Skittles commercial when the Zombie on the bus says "You're boring me to death. I'm already dead and you're boring me back to death!"
> 
> No one is going to convince anybody else they can or can't hear a difference between amps.
> 
> If you can hear a difference, spend extra money on your amps.
> 
> If you don't hear a difference, buy a reliable amp that has adequate power for your application and is reasonably priced.
> 
> Just for fun somebody start a thread on the audible differences between cables


I agree with these statements 100 percent.


----------



## Sound Suggestions

not gonna argue  your belief, my belief....as long as we are all happy! ultimately in the end that's what matters


----------



## co_leonard

IMVVVHO (V for very) and based on those I've auditioned, different high-end amps will sound different in different cars with different high-end gear.

And tuning makes the most difference. In the end, the installer's (or the DIY owner's) tune is what you will hear.

Like one time I sat in a car with budget amps (Powerbass ASA600.4) powering not-high-end speakers (Focal 165VR3) with a not-high-end head unit (Eclipse CD7200Mk2). The system was professionally installed, properly wired and RTA-tuned and time-aligned... then re-tuned by ear to sound really good. And it did! It sounded like a system worth 5 times the price. Well-balanced with great focus and staging.

Then I sat in another car with high-end amps (Focal Power Symmetric), high end speakers (Utopia Be Kit No.7) and a high-end head unit (Pioneer ODR RS-D7II with processor). The system had just been installed and only basic crossover settings and amplifier gain (level-matching via oscilloscope) had been done done. No RTA. All EQ set flat. No T/A. Sorry, it sounded bad. Really bad. But its actually what one would expect from an untuned system.

Then the owner of the car brought another amp he wanted to try out. A Zapco REF1000.4 (which is definitely not low-end). The installer swapped it in and adjusted gains. With the previous crossover settings, zero EQ and zero Time Alignment, we were all hard-pressed to hear any difference in sound quality. It sounded equally bad as with the Focal Power Symmetric -which is what we all expected to hear.

That system was since professionally tuned over a 2-3 month period and although I haven't heard it yet, I bet it will beat the ASA600.4-VR3-CD7200Mk2 system hands down in any hardcore SQ competition. I'll also bet novices will hear the big difference with the more expensive system sounding so much better, even to inexperienced ears. 

My 2-cents: with high end amps (or high end gear), what one is getting is the POTENTIAL to sound great. Whether or not it will sound great cannot depend solely on the amp (or any one component). It will depend on the installation and TUNING. 

Merry Christmas, folks!


----------



## Script

I had a friend that felt the same way. We built our systems at nearly the same time. His with some RF amps and i built mine with Zapco...

After slowly replacing every component in his system to be on par with mine, convinced that an amp is an amp. He finally caved and just bought some nice SQ amps... Says it doesn't even sound like the same system now.

I demo amps inside my home on some very nice klipsch reference speakers and can hear a difference between amps. I recently hooked up an old Linear power amp to them and it sounded better than my home stereo amp...


----------



## avanti1960

subwoofery said:


> If you can't hear a difference, change your speakers
> 
> Kelvin


agreed 100%. if you have a detailed, revealing set of drivers, especially a three-way system, it will bring out the differences in amplifier characteristics. 
i have had (3) amps since diving back into aftermarket mobile audio ( a cheap class D, a good class D and a good class A-B). each amplifier demonstrated unique, distinct and repeatable sound characteristic differences. 

if i had left the OEM drivers in the doors i doubt i would have heard any differences.


----------



## avanti1960

jimbno1 said:


> This horse is so dead. It reminds me of the Skittles commercial when the Zombie on the bus says "You're boring me to death. I'm already dead and you're boring me back to death!"
> 
> No one is going to convince anybody else they can or can't hear a difference between amps.
> 
> If you can hear a difference, spend extra money on your amps.
> 
> If you don't hear a difference, buy a reliable amp that has adequate power for your application and is reasonably priced.
> 
> Just for fun somebody start a thread on the audible differences between cables


I do not agree with this. I believe someone who can hear the differences would be able to point them out to someone else in a demo. Once you lock in on the unique characteristics you will be able recognize and detect them. if they are irritating characteristics you will replace the amp. 

I hope others will keep adding to this thread because their real world experiences will help others decide if upgrading amps is worth the investment.


----------



## simplicityinsound

for me, when i design systems for customers, i get them to spend money on things that are worth the most in sonic difference in my opinion. and that usually means that on a set budget, the priorities go towards front stage, installation technique/location and DSP...with amps and subs taking a lesser role, becuase i too believe that amps and subs dont quite make as big of a difference as long as t hey are of a certain quality level.

however, having said that, i have also had the opportunity to install a lot of systems where its the same or almost the same car, same speakers, same location, same processing, but different amps, and being able to do that, i can definitely tell a difference from one amp grade to another. mostly, its with dynamics music at moderately high volumes, you can distinctively hear some amps fall apart (despite similar power ratings) and some shrug it off like it was nothing.

but of course, with most customers who will never get to sample A/B between two identical setups with different amps, they would be happy with either setup...but the same thing can often be said for many aspects of decision making in life....and the desire to have the best is still there.


----------



## Bayboy

I agree Cajunner. It comes down to a point to where you are chasing dragons to attain the smidgen of difference that the majority don't care about. I don't believe in buying high ticket amps, but I do believe in quality drivers and staying above a certain minimum quality level for amp power. Simply overshooting the power level is good enough in most cases to insure you don't reach clipping before the drivers start to breakup. I'm satisfied with that.

Competition-wise may be a different story, but I don't compete so that point to me is moot. I'm actually more impressed with making systems perform & impress that don't have highly tiered brand names attached to show my buddies they don't have to spend a fortune to enjoy good sounds during everyday driving. That doesn't mean I don't respect those items for their esoteric design, I just know that I for one would not be able to tell the difference therefore it would be better spent on drivers.


----------



## RNBRAD

My parent's always said I was special. I just knew I was different because I was the only one wearing the padded helmet.


----------



## cleansoundz

Bayboy said:


> I agree Cajunner. It comes down to a point to where you are chasing dragons to attain the smidgen of difference that the majority don't care about. I don't believe in buying high ticket amps, but I do believe in quality drivers and staying above a certain minimum quality level for amp power. Simply overshooting the power level is good enough in most cases to insure you don't reach clipping before the drivers start to breakup. I'm satisfied with that.
> 
> Competition-wise may be a different story, but I don't compete so that point to me is moot. I'm actually more impressed with making systems perform & impress that don't have highly tiered brand names attached to show my buddies they don't have to spend a fortune to enjoy good sounds during everyday driving. That doesn't mean I don't respect those items for their esoteric design, I just know that I for one would not be able to tell the difference therefore it would be better spent on drivers.


Agreed. I would never use cheap ass amps. The differences I am talking about involve really good speakers and mid to high level amps. Good name amps that put out clean power are those that I am talking about. I will stand by my statement that the sonic differences between amps are not distinguishable enough to justify spending extra money for a name brand. Build quality, access to gain controls and designs are most important to me. Designs for me mean using amps that don't have off the shelf designs.


----------



## squeak9798

subwoofery said:


> If you can't hear a difference, change your speakers
> 
> Kelvin


Seems to me if you can't hear a difference then the problem naturally resolved itself  No need to change anything, especially the amplifier(s) !!


----------



## Niebur3

Many threads of this nature.....I have heard level matched amps on my sound board and there is a difference. Will speakers, tuning and install yield a much bigger difference? Yes, but amps do sound different.


----------



## Sound Suggestions

Come on guys....are you telling us that every TV looks the same, every computer work just as fast, every headphones sound the same, every car drive the same way because they have all an engine, transmission, exhaust that all works together the same, every dvd player or blue ray players will yield the same picture, every dishwasher will get the dishes just as clean as one another because they all use similar technology....i could go on all day!

bottom line, all these manufacturer use (hopefully) their own R&D, they have of choice of different part suppliers (or in house production) I'm sure there is a lot of trial and error by using different parts to achieve their desired sound....didn't the Zapco guy just recently say that during the new build of his amplifier he had to go back n forth to his build house to demo specific parts/components to finally achieve the sound that he felt was most pleasing!...didn't Scott Buwulda comment also that when they build new speakers that he demos numerous different parts to finally achieve the final product where he can take to production....

I'm not arguing that there is a "huge" difference from one another, but in fact to say that they all sound the same is crazy (in "my" opinion)

but again I don't want to beat a dead horse here....

my wife doesn't really care too much about different TV technology or amplifier...but if I change an amp in my car she'll usually look at me and ask me if I've changed anything....or the typical "what have you done!" which I'm sure we"ve all heard from time to time


----------



## PPI_GUY

Good amp+ great drivers+ excellent install and tuning= WIN.


----------



## Sound Suggestions

^ believe me for many reasons I have never bough anything from a "car audio" shop because of the way the amp/speaker/sub sounded from the sound board, so there I do agree...

but for many other reasons I disagree with the analogy that all amplifier sound the same, I may not have the engineer background or can't explain amplifier (topology very well) my 20+ years of experience of first hand switching and swapping gear tells me that not all amplifier/speakers/subs/source units are not created equally...and it would be so sad if it was...if it all sounded the same i'd be rocking some less expensive Legacy/Pyramid products (sorry guys)

to be honest, one thing I do believe is that we all percieve sight/sound/taste differently some of us can see better than others, some can hear better, again maybe just maybe some of the folks here that are debating that all amplifier sound the same maybe have hearing that perceives it that way? (i don't mean that in a bad way) I'm just saying it's like arguing with a colour blind individual that a colour is red when he tells you that it's brown and that everything is brown 

I can't tell you guys to like food the way I like to eat my food...we are all able to make up our own minds when it comes to that...

I think that these types forums here were created by a need for people who share the same passion, to share stories to ask for help...a wonderful supporting idea, so many people here with such great knowledge and experience helping individual or ourselves to persue this audible uforia....plus 1 entrepeneur who hopefully is making a decent living supporting this


----------



## BadSS

Building upon Sound Suggestion’s comments,, I think a lot of these posts about “it all sounds the same”,,, and the pursuing argument,,, revolves around some people refusing to believe that others can hear or perceive details in music that they can’t. 

People have different sized and shaped outer ears. So, it bears to reason that there would be slight variances within the 2K – 5K resonance range of this part of the ear and to some extend the initial “collection of sound”. This might be one of many reasons explaining people’s speaker preference regarding basic tonal characteristics or their ability to hear better details within that range. 

Due to the mechanical complexity involved and the critical role that the middle and inner ear plays in the auditory process (converting sound waves into neurons/neural signals), I can’t help but believe this is another area, for varying physiological or medical reasons, that explains variances in people’s perception of the music and the amount of detail sent for “processing”. It’s like,, good in, good out,,, and bad in,, bad out. 

I don’t think anyone can argue there are people gifted with capabilities that exceed normal, like those with photographic memories and musicians that are able to perfectly play a piece of music instantly after hearing it for the first time. There are also “super tasters” that make up about 25% of the population and those with better than 20/20 vision. These abilities can be witnessed, easily proven, and therefore accepted. 

However, one’s ability to perceive sound and at what detail or recollection of detail is hard to prove, but it certainly stands to reason,, there are more than likely those able to “hear” and perceive sounds better than others. About the closest thing to proof that I know if is that CT scans have shown some areas, other than just the auditory cortex of the brain,, in some people,,, when subjected to sounds are more active than others - typically in areas of the brain that normally deal with recollection. However,, even experts within that field of study can’t agree on what that means – what they can agree on is that no two cortices perform in the exact same way.


----------



## aj1735

How big of a difference do you see in the very high end? I have never had a chance to compare A to B to C all at the same time. None of the shops cary anything really high end other than the top end JL, alpine, kenwood. I have switched from jl 450/4 to a zapco z150.4 in my truck and noticed a big difference between the two of them. 

I would really be curious to try to hear the differences in the very best amps out there. Have there been any good write ups of high end amp shootouts like the mids shootout that Jerry did? I would love to hear very knowledgeable blind opinions of the very best amps that you can get.


----------



## Bayboy

This has been argued before with Richard Clark who posed a challenge that no one has yet to beat:


Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge FAQ


----------



## subwoofery

Bayboy said:


> This has been argued before with Richard Clark who posed a challenge that no one has yet to beat:
> 
> 
> Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge FAQ


Did you understand the purpose of this test? 
And why, in your opinion, is your link relevant to this thread? 

Kelvin


----------



## Bayboy

From what I have read on this test before (some years ago), his point was to prove that when all amps are ran within certain stringent settings (below a certain level of clipping), that there were no audible differences between them that could be detected by the human ear. If you read through his tests it shows that the only differences were per setup through gain & crossover settings in the real world, but in testing with ALL things equal there were none.


To me, this is the same in this thread.

Now can I ask, what is your stance on this?


----------



## thehatedguy

It basically states that things that measure the same, sound the same.


----------



## Bayboy

subwoofery said:


> Did you understand the purpose of this test?
> And why, in your opinion, is your link relevant to this thread?
> 
> Kelvin




I take it from this, that it is not relevant or perhaps I didn't understand the purpose of the test.


----------



## PPI_GUY

The RC Challenge levels the playing field in regards to volume and distortion (clipping) between two amplifiers, to leave us with only tonal variations that he claims do not exist under the conditions of the test. 
This is a purely scientific exercise as it (I assume) doesn't allow any equalization to color the output of either amp. You probably wouldn't want to spend alot of time listening to either amp under these conditions for just that reason. However, his claim seems to remain valid as no one has ever taken his money.


----------



## subwoofery

Bayboy said:


> From what I have read on this test before (some years ago), his point was to prove that when all amps are ran within certain stringent settings (below a certain level of clipping), that there were no audible differences between them that could be detected by the human ear. If you read through his tests it shows that the only differences were per setup through gain & crossover settings in the real world, but in testing with ALL things equal there were none.
> 
> 
> To me, this is the same in this thread.
> 
> Now can I ask, what is your stance on this?


Took me a while to find it but here it is: 
Elite Car Audio : Car Audio Forum - Richard Clark's Amp Challenge 
^ please focus on the part that says _COMMON MISREPRESENTATIONS OF THE AMP CHALLENGE_ 

The RC Amp challenge doesn't say that all amps sound the same... In fact, your link says the opposite. 



> There were appeals to either delete or relocate the posts that were outside the original purpose of the sticky. saratoga's response was
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by saratoga
> I'll probably just delete this crap once its over. Until then, its probably easier for everyone if we keep it in the same thread.
> Members appealed to not have that happen as they felt the discussion was interesting and informative. Moving these posts here is an effort to fulfill that request and stop the disruption of the original thread.
> 
> Please use this thread for any further discussions about hardware testing once it's unlocked. Hair splitting as to what constitutes hardware vs. software testing won't be tolerated.
> 
> Moving the posts and then unlocking this thread may take a bit as I'm trying to be careful to not break the continuity the discussion in the other post had. I'm also trying to make sure any information that might be helpful won't be lost.
> 
> Also any continuation of the rudeness that cause the other thread to be locked and triggered the clean up won't be allowed. If you can't figure out how to play nice you won't be able to play at all.
> ************************************************** ******************************************
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Enigmatic View Post
> land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm"]Expensive amplifiers sound better than ordinary amplifiers debunked.[/URL]
> From that link:
> 
> *Quote:
> Amplifier requirements
> 
> The amplifiers in the test must be operated within their linear power capacity. Power capacity is defined as clipping or 2% THD 20Hz to 10kHz, whichever is less. This means that if one amplifier has more power (Watts) than the other, the amplifiers will be judged within the power range of the least powerful amplifier .
> 
> The levels of both left and right channels will be adjusted to match to within .05 dB. Polarity of connections must be maintained so that the signal is not inverted. Left and Right cannot be reversed. Neither amplifier can exhibit excessive noise. Channel separation of the amps must be at least 30 dB from 20Hz to 20kHz.
> 
> All signal processing circuitry (e.g. bass boost, filters) must be turned off, and if the amplifier still exhibits nonlinear frequency response, an equalizer will be set by Richard Clark and inserted inline with one of the amps so that they both exhibit identical frequency response. The listener can choose which amplifier gets the equalizer*
> and
> 
> *Quote:
> Does this mean all amps sound the same in a normal install?
> 
> No. Richard Clark is very careful to say that amps usually do not sound the same in the real world. The gain setting of an amplifier can make huge differences in how an amplifier sounds, as can details like how crossovers or other filters are set. When played very loud (into clipping), the amplifier with more power will generally sound better than a lower powered amp.
> 
> Most people perceive slight differences in amplitude as quality differences rather than loudness. The louder component sounds “faster, more detailed, more full”, not just louder. This perceptual phenomenon is responsible for many people thinking they liked the sound of a component when really they just liked the way it was set up.*
> but this is where it kind of gets to the point:
> 
> *Quote:
> Does the phrase "a watt is a watt" convey what this test is about?*
> 
> *Not quite but close. Richard Clark has stated that some amplifiers (such as tubes) have nonlinear frequency response, so a watt from them would not be the same as a watt from an amplifier with flat frequency response.*
> What this test ignores is that a more expensive amplifier's quality difference is by and large going to be based on several factors... Such as linearity, or a preferred sound characteristic. Such as a warmer sound, as comes from tubes... Due to solid state amplifiers inherently relying on negative feedback for stability (which cancels out even order harmonics).
> 
> His tests rely on coloring the results to make "all things equal", when in fact they are not. He stacked the deck in his favor, before the test even began. I could respect it, if he wanted to place limitations on the volume control to ensure no one clipped an amp to reveal its identity. But, he went waaaay beyond that.


^ the above quote is from something I saved in .pdf form (don't remember from which website...) - am not gonna rewrite an explanation when someone can do it better than me  

The test is exactly as Jason (_thehatedguy_) posted, "all amps that measure the same, sound the same" - and FYI, no amp measures the same without some form of equalization (lots of it too): 
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/1425818-post366.html 
A post I made that shows the distortion caracteristics over the whole bandwith - please note the frequency response is different for all those amps too 

Kelvin


----------



## quietfly

FWIW, I think amps make a difference, just not as much of a difference as other things like speakers,and processing....


----------



## Bayboy

So let's propose that someone is using a certain tier amp with a supposed sonic signature that is ran from a MS-8. Now take that same MS-8 and another amp on that same level and what do you think would happen after running both through the setup as normal. Would you be hearing the difference of the amp or what has been adjusted by the processor?


----------



## Sound Suggestions

Bayboy said:


> So let's propose that someone is using a certain tier amp with a supposed sonic signature that is ran from a MS-8. Now take that same MS-8 and another amp on that same level and what do you think would happen after running both through the setup as normal. Would you be hearing the difference of the amp or what has been adjusted by the processor?


Source signal will be the same but the different amplifiers will amplify the source signal the way that they were individuality manufactured to do so...by using different parts, power supply, amplifier topology (a, a/B, d...) their is no way each amp will amplify the source signal the same every time! Sure it will sound similar...

Now and I do buy the argument that at 100kms a hour it is very hard to distinguish sound but from one another, but parked and doing critical listening their is no way a Sony xploid will sound the same as a butler tube amp!!


----------



## Bayboy

LOL Those are two extremes, but I get your point. It just seems at some point you will reach diminishing returns in trying to reach beyond what level you are already on, or there is no next level. Has anyone here ever changed amps to something they thought was supposed to be the cat's meow only to find it was fairly lateral at best? Was the supposed slight sonic signature actually worth it in a a normal everyday driving situation? Keep in mind that vast differences in distortion are not what is discussed here, or is it?


----------



## Sound Suggestions

Good point on diminishing returns and that's a big one, how much more money are willing to spend to get that upgrade in sound? I have switched out my gear throughout the years as some of my friends would say at an excessive rate...some of the changes were in the right direction some were not

For some examples;

From the old school Soundsream reference to the Phoenix Gold zx series we're a step backwards

A wierd one was from the old RF punch HD amps to the DSM's I also didn't like the changes as well

One in the right direction was from JL slash to the Audison Lrx this one was huge!

From the Audison to the Arc I was indeferent, lateral move even though they both sounded very different from one another.

I have tried so many different amps, for that I feel blessed (though the process of buying high and selling low is getting old!)

The sound difference were'nt always a huge difference but there was always suddle changes


----------



## Bayboy

Can you elaborate more on why some seemed like a step forward, back, or lateral. The lateral is actually more intriguing since you say they sounded different.


----------



## MarkZ

My amp started to develop a crackle a couple weeks ago -- gain pot needed cleaning -- so I pulled it out, noted where the gains were set, cleaned up all the gain pots (which included turning the gain knobs back and forth), and attempted to reset the gains to the exact location where I marked them. Reinstalled the amp just before christmas, and holy crap everything sounded completely different! Had to completely retune the system and readjust levels at the preamp.

The point of this story is to remind everybody that 1) very slight changes in level can be a big deal; and 2) the *only* true way to ensure that the levels of two amps are identical is to measure them in a controlled manner. Please keep these things in mind when doing a/b tests or sharing anectdotes!


----------



## subwoofery

Bayboy said:


> LOL Those are two extremes, but I get your point. It just seems at some point you will reach diminishing returns in trying to reach beyond what level you are already on, or there is no next level. Has anyone here ever changed amps to something they thought was supposed to be the cat's meow only to find it was fairly lateral at best? Was the supposed slight sonic signature actually worth it in a a normal everyday driving situation? Keep in mind that vast differences in distortion are not what is discussed here, or is it?


I can surely hear a difference in sonic signature between my Milbert BaM-235ab (30 watts @ 8 ohm) VS my Sinfoni Prestigio (also something like 30 watts @ 8 ohm, maybe more like 35 watts) on my ID Horn Ultra... Gains checked before unplugging and plugging the new amp in
My wife can too since the horn system is in her car  

Kelvin 

PS: difference weren't subtle either... Associated to distortion from tubes? Maybe but if we agree that the difference comes from distortion then we can agree that there's differences in sound from 1 amp to another...


----------



## Sound Suggestions

Bayboy said:


> Can you elaborate more on why some seemed like a step forward, back, or lateral. The lateral is actually more intriguing since you say they sounded different.


The step backwards at this point is very subjective since we'd have to go back...way back like 16 to 18 years ago, that step backwards I talk about is the memory of feeling as such...couldn't really elaborate much more on that

The lateral move from Audison Lrx to the Arc se's amps is an interesting one, these we're my findings (opinion/thought/feeling) based on my 2 ears;

Found the Arc to have a nice dynamic very smooth sound (quite natural sounding), for example they kept their composure, it seems like the more you ask of them to more they gave you...music would get louder but with no perceived change in character or added distortion ...which is really nice! To summaries, the Arc's never seem to run out of headroom! Listening to Guns and Roses' November Rain would bring chills to me

The Audison, on the other hand brought emotion out, very dynamic as well but as a little more edge to it! It has an entertaining sound...not necessarily better then the Arc just a little different.

Almost not fair to compare the 2 because the Arc Amps (2300se and the 4200se) vs the all in one chassis of the Audison Lrx 5.1k but if I were to break down how they performed on each speaker I would describe it like this:

12" IDMAX sealed enclosure approx 1.75cu/ft (no stuffing)
Subs section Arc 2300se (1300watts at 2Ohms, class A/B) definitely had more 
more bottom end, more control it seems...but to make it integrate with the rest I had to lower the crossover to 55/60hz down
Vs
Addison (1150watts at 2Ohms class D), a little less warmth on the sub section (not as smooth) but it integrated very well with the midbass

Edge goes to the Arc

Midbass Hybrid Audio L6SE 

Arc 4200se (100w x2 class A/B)
Nice smooth yet dynamic

Audison (channel B 140/160w x2 or so class A/B)
Very good midbass! Probably because of the added output...

Give the edge by a hair to the Audison mostly because the Sub section seemed to integrate so well with the midbass

Widebanders L3SE'S 

Arc 4200se (100w x2 class A/B approx 275hz up) as mention before the Arc just gives you more more of the goodness the more you demand

Audison (50w x2 class A same crossover) not as loud, but just as dynamic with a hair more warmth and extention...for the wattage rating wasn't necessarily perceived as inferior...

Depending on the music choice I would call it very close call between the 2.

Hope that helps a little


----------



## Bayboy

Then it seems to be contrary to what some may say, that in fact the difference was more than one aspect. More like several summed into what is referred to as a sonic signature (gain settings, power output, varying levels of tolerable distortion). Maybe perhaps some extra presence within a certain frequency. That doesn't suggest the amp doesn't add to the signal. It is actually opposite, but perhaps in a pleasing way???

These are guesstimates at best without some sort of measurements, yet we know these exist. Of course, back to the R.C. challenge, if all things were set to measure equal, what would we find? Even Mark Z's example of slight gain change seemingly caused a difference that apparently he may not have been able to recognize his own amp in a blind test just between the different settings using the same amp. The problem with either side is it doesn't prove or disprove the other side. For every point brought out from one side, there is quite a logical rebuttal from the other. 

This again brings up the point of diminishing returns which was the gist of the op's first post. Where does that come in? How will you know that you have reached that pinnacle without wasting further time & money? Or does it essentially become a dragon chasing frenzy when the next "best thing" enters the market? We've seen this a many, many times every time a new amp comes out. People jump on it like crazy, standing in line to grab them before they are even released, later to see them dumping them in the classifieds or storing them in the closets. Some never even being used. Perfect example (although it is not strictly an amp) is the MS-8 craze. No doubt it is obviously a fine piece of work, but for some it did not bring about a necessary improvement or it did not solve the fetish to fiddle. In fact this even occurs with drivers as I am guilty of that myself although I can admit to not reaching "nirvana". There was always something amok to warrant change after a long audition.


----------



## subwoofery

Bayboy said:


> Then it seems to be contrary to what some may say, that in fact the difference was more than one aspect. More like several summed into what is referred to as a sonic signature (gain settings, power output, varying levels of tolerable distortion). Maybe perhaps some extra presence within a certain frequency. That doesn't suggest the amp doesn't add to the signal. It is actually opposite, but perhaps in a pleasing way???
> 
> These are guesstimates at best without some sort of measurements, yet we know these exist. Of course, back to the R.C. challenge, if all things were set to measure equal, what would we find? Even Mark Z's example of slight gain change seemingly caused a difference that apparently he may not have been able to recognize his own amp in a blind test just between the different settings using the same amp. The problem with either side is it doesn't prove or disprove the other side. For every point brought out from one side, there is quite a logical rebuttal from the other.
> 
> This again brings up the point of diminishing returns which was the gist of the op's first post. Where does that come in? How will you know that you have reached that pinnacle without wasting further time & money? Or does it essentially become a dragon chasing frenzy when the next "best thing" enters the market? We've seen this a many, many times every time a new amp comes out. People jump on it like crazy, standing in line to grab them before they are even released, later to see them dumping them in the classifieds or storing them in the closets. Some never even being used. Perfect example (although it is not strictly an amp) is the MS-8 craze. No doubt it is obviously a fine piece of work, but for some it did not bring about a necessary improvement or it did not solve the fetish to fiddle. In fact this even occurs with drivers as I am guilty of that myself although I can admit to not reaching "nirvana". There was always something amok to warrant change after a long audition.


Sure understand that some think it's not worth it - good for them really coz they'll save a whole lot of money  ask me how I know :mean: 

Poing of diminishing return? Sure... Focus on speakers and tuning first <-- will make a greater impact on sound than an ubber expensive amplifier... 

For others, it's not uncommon to upgrade from a Brax to a Sinfoni Prestigio - from an Audison Thesis to a Phass RE2 - from a Soundstream Human Reign (old school one) to a McIntosh MCC602TM 

Are the differences heard due to the design (distortion, bias, power supply) or to the gain matching (levels VS output) - guess we'll never know how those people (those that buy ubber expensive amps) set their gains...
I know how to set my gains though, and when I feel that my system has been tuned to the best I could (never is really) then I try to switch amps in order to see what kind of difference it makes to the system as a whole...

Kelvin


----------



## co_leonard

Bayboy said:


> Then it seems to be contrary to what some may say, that in fact the difference was more than one aspect. More like several summed into what is referred to as a sonic signature (gain settings, power output, varying levels of tolerable distortion). Maybe perhaps some extra presence within a certain frequency. That doesn't suggest the amp doesn't add to the signal. It is actually opposite, but perhaps in a pleasing way???


I would just like to share a story. 

I have two amplifiers of the same brand and the same model. Both are barely a year old. Opening them up, they both show the same date-codes and quality control stamps on the PCB which means they probably came from one manufacturing batch. Carefully examining the individual components, the soldering as well as the build quality shows no visible differences. Safe to say they will measure similarly on a test bench, given the exact same gain settings. 

The capacitors in one of the amplifiers was upgraded. Here are pictures (not actual) of the new capacitors:




























Generic power supply caps were changed to Nichicon KG Gold Tune. Low-level electrolytic caps were replaced with Nichicon ES Muse. The small square polypropylene caps were replaced with Wima MKP. The work was professionally done, with a temperature controlled soldering iron and solder sucker tool. No part of the PCB was damaged in the process. 

Only the caps were upgraded. Nothing else was touched. 

The upgraded amp was used for roughly three weeks (played around 5 hours a day) in a friend's car.

No idea if the upgraded amp will measure the same as the stock amp, but when I swapped it with the stock amp in my car and carefully set (with an oscilloscope) similar gains, it sure sounded a whole lot better!

My friends and I agreed that we started hearing things we didn't hear before. Here are some examples: Low-level details such as pages turning (Salena Jones, We've Only Just Begun), improved attacks (The Sheffield Drum and Track Record - Amuseum) snare drum strikes seemed to "pop" a whole lot more and longer decays on cymbals (it became easier to follow the sound of a cymbal strike decay down to the noise floor) and the sound of the singers mouth opening to sing (Jane Monheit, Somewhere Over the Rainbow).

Just to be sure, we swapped back the stock amp (gain settings reset with the same oscilloscope). Those low-level details all but disappeared. We had to keep really quiet and concentrate to hear what was immediately audible with the upgraded amp.

Then we put back the upgraded amp and the improvements we heard were all back. 

So...

Does this have to do with "watts?" Doubtful. Gains were carefully matched and the amp's output devices were untouched. 

What about other factors such as Frequency Response, Bandwidth, Output Noise, THD+N, TIM, Crosstalk? Maybe. But measuring these are beyond my capabilities. 

Perhaps I should take both amps to a professional and have them measured? 

Happy Holidays!


----------



## MarkZ

co_leonard said:


> What about other factors such as Frequency Response, Bandwidth, Output Noise, THD+N, TIM, Crosstalk? Maybe. But measuring these are beyond my capabilities.
> 
> Perhaps I should take both amps to a professional and have them measured?


I'm going to say that you're the smartest motherfucker on this forum. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic.  You're maybe the only one I think I've seen say this after years and years of amp "debates" on this forum that invariably go nowhere.

To those who insist there's a difference between two amps in their system -- and who may be right -- haven't you guys ever wondered _what_ that difference is?? It's astonishing to me that somebody who's so interested in audio that they spend time on the internet on an audio forum would say, "Hey, these amps sound different from these amps!" and then just ****ing stop right there and never wonder _why_ that might be the case. Then they tell everybody, "dude, Audison amps sound better than Hifonics amps", never really understanding what "better" actually means or whether their subjective impression is tied to differences in design, issues in quality control, or just a fluke with that particular amp that could easily be corrected in some way.

So kudos to you for saying that you'd like to understand why two amps that you've observed to sound different actually sound different. I wish more of us had your attitude.


----------



## schmiddr2

I think it has been acknowledged by a number of people in the following thread.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...level-matched-amps-head-units-sound-same.html



lycan said:


> no offense intended, but the poll is silly. The correct answer is _not_ dependent on ... in fact, only loosely correlated with ... a majority opinion on an audio message board.
> 
> The only _real_ question of interest is : do we have a comprehensive set of specifications that completely describe & determine "the sound" of purely electronic devices (lets not include loudspeakers, for now)? All data ... all scientific investigation, all theory, and all tests ... leads to an affirmative answer.
> 
> If two pieces of audio electronics have the same gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion ... then what is the parameter by which they CAN sound different?
> 
> What is it?
> 
> The type of solder used? If it doesn't impact gain, power, frequency response, noise or distortion ... then it is irrelevant.
> 
> The type of capacitors used? If it doesn't impact gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion ... then it is irrelevant.
> 
> The type of wire used? If it doesn't impact gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion ... then it is irrelevant.
> 
> By the way ... nobody in their right mind says that all amps sound the same. I can pull two amps off the same production line, and set their gain controls different by 0.25dB. They WILL sound different. However, the REASON they sound different is because that gain knob happens to impact one of these : gain, power, frequency response, noise or distortion.
> 
> Conversely, there's always someone who says : "I swapped amps, and i KNOW they sounded different !!!!"
> 
> That's a meaningless statement. What WOULD be a meaningful statement is : "I swapped amps, and i carefully measured gain, power, frequency response noise & distortion to make sure these classic parameters were the same. Then, in a controlled listening test where the name brands were hidden, a statistically significant difference was identified. And because i carefully eliminated the classic variables of gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion, i have come to the conclusion that the difference could NOT be attributed to any of these classic variables".
> 
> Of course, that statement has never been offered in the history of the world.
> 
> So the question always remains : How do you know whether or not the difference you heard can be attributed to : gain, power, frequency response, noise or distortion?
> 
> How could anyone possibly answer this question? Do we have no choice but to wander aimlessly in the dark ... no choice but to rely on guru opinions and internet polls? Is there no logical process to determine if differences can be attributed to gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion? What's the process to determine if these specs are indeed comprehensive?


----------



## MarkZ

Lycan said that, and others too. But what's rare is:



co_leonard said:


> My friends and I agreed that we started hearing things we didn't hear before.





> Perhaps I should take both amps to a professional and have them measured?


I can't recall the last time I saw someone insist that there was a difference between their amps, and _then_ recognize that it's really only a useful observation if you can identify what the difference _is_. 

The "dude, I heard a difference between XYZ and ABC!" posts are completely useless. Just like my post earlier talking about sticking the same amp back into the system and hearing a difference. If you can't identify what the source of the difference is, it's impossible to conclude that there's some intrinsic difference that isn't merely a byproduct of the installation, settings, working condition of the equipment, or subjective factors.


----------



## Bayboy

Man, the more & more I read this thread the more I keep thinking don't bother switching out my old reliable amps. Just reconfigure the system with better drivers/enclosures. Ughhhhh!!


----------



## simplicityinsound

all cars, if you got blind folded, ear muffled, restrained and wrapped in a thick foam blanket and dumped in, would feel identical to you when idling at 1.5mph on glass smooth pavement. 

I keed I keed...cajunner my ears isnt good enough to tell exactly when 100 db is and when it becomes 3db (half as loud) less...i am not that technical, but listening to music such as Keith Dont Go, or Moutain Dance, or any other music that is pretty dynamic, with lots of bass guitars drums and all sorts of things going on all at the same time, at moderately high volumes, meaning volumes that i easily listen to in a car on a daily basis, thats when i can tell a difference. same headunit, same car, same front stage, same processor, and almost the same install. i can especially hear a difference between a good class AB amp, versus a small class D full range i.e. JL XD, arc XDi, etc etc. funny thing is, sometimes i hear quite a difference on the subs from class D to AB...

but then again, perhaps i need more experience with class D amps, as i dont use them that often on subs.

b


----------



## bluecollarvwt

What model genesis is good compared to upper end US brands.im currently running arc se's.also anyone try helix amps?


----------



## MarkZ

cajunner said:


> amplifiers that need time.
> 
> some amplifiers need time, to develop to their best sound. Some need a period where the protection circuitry is based on an analysis of the operating parameters of the speakers they are hooked to, some need time to warm up their operating temperatures to a level that is in the amplifier's "sweet spot" and some need tubes to settle down, and as we all know, temperature fluctuation is a huge factor in whether an amplifier is operating marginally within it's "safe" zone or it's nearing runaway thermal meltdown.
> 
> Now, I remember a time when it was necessary to operate the DSM Rockford's with a period of waiting, and they "opened up" and sounded their best, several minutes after being turned on.
> 
> I have heard this is true of several amp circuits, and that some of the protection schemes and distortion reduction models used by amp designers are chosen based on different ideas of what "audible" distortion is, and when I read that solid state amplifiers that have a lot of negative feedback as part of their design, subsequently reduce the amount of natural 2nd order harmonic information that is disguised as distortion, then I'm wondering why some amps that have higher distortion and noise ratings, can be subjectively, rated so highly? Like the Harmon Kardon CA260/240 amplifiers. Bad on noise/distortion, high on instantaneous current, and so well-liked as to become very collectible 20 years into their sunset?
> 
> Now, I don't know if it's just that amplifier manufacturers have gotten away from these design distinctions or if moving to an all-mosfet specification removes the differences, because it's mostly an argument that goes between bi-polar devices and mosfets, or what?
> 
> I remember how the SoundCraftsmen series of mosfet class H amps were reviewed, as warm and tonally correct, and when Rockford moved to mosfet everything, it was hailed as an improvement, but today there is a resurgence for people who want their old amplifiers' sound back, who want amps made with bi-polar output sections again?
> 
> just an idea why we might have been able to tell when amplifiers sound different, outside of "measurements" and theoretical argument/discussion why the amp in your car is now somehow less capable, than say,
> 
> the amplifier in my car, LOL>>...



Why wouldn't any of those factors be measurable?


----------



## subwoofery

MarkZ said:


> Why wouldn't any of those factors be measurable?


Because he SAID SO!!!!!..... 

Kelvin


----------



## eddieg

Here is my take on this. 

From my 15 years of experience with car audio I could say from the start, this is a lost debate, but so much fun to take part of 

First I think that when dealing with this subject we should separate between tearms and concepts 

Amplitude vs amplifier 

And amplifier as in sound quality speaking vs amplifier as product quality speaking.

For me the saying that an amp is just an amp is true if you speak about amplitude. What an amplifier does is taking an input and increase it with x watts on its output.

When you speak about the concept of amplitude no doubt this is true BUT this is real life, amplifiers today are way past the "thread amplifier" which is just an input -> power supplier -> bulb -> output

Amplifiers nowadays are way more complex and they have noise filters inside them, they have xovers embedded inside, they have all kinds of wire protection circuitry like quite turn on/off etc etc. 

SO first - when I purchase an amp I don't just buy something that does amplitude, I buy a product which means: 

1. It has a certain build quality.
2. It has a certain design that fits my needs.
3. It has a certain weight.
4. It has a certain measurement. 
5. It has a certain brand and prestige which "speaks" to my brain or heart

If I have a car that does not have its rear seat fold able then I would probably look for an amp which has all its potentiometers on top right? not on the side... 

As for sound quality up til today I am using a full class D range amplifier (ZED leviathan) it is by far the best amp I ever used, now, why is that? 

For me, it is because:

1. It is the strongest I ever owned.
2. It has a full bypass to its xovers so it means it does not influence the signal by any kind of manipulation which an xover does.
3. it has excellent THD value
4. it is one of the most efficient amps ever made - and I do not recall any one speaking about efficiency here 

I do recall a guy comparing between two amps that are 30watts at 8 ohms but ever did he check if their xovers are bypassed? if they are both as efficient? if they both have same THD? etc etc... 

I see people that claim that they here differences between two capacitors on the same amp and on the same gain but have they even checked if any thing else was changed during the tests? -> for example air temperature and humidity??? or HU volume level? Have they checked from the first place if the original capacitors are actually any good? 

At the end of the day you are buying a product more than just buying an amplifier, you might be paying some big bucks for a brand and its prestige but lets say for a moment this is true, and yes, you are all stupid for doing that -> but what if you payed 4 times more for a product which would last 4 times longer??? are you stupid now? -> no, you are not!

*What I say is - amplitude is amplitude but an amp is not just an amp.

A good amp could be an amp for life or at least for a long part of it. * 

So choose wisely and be happy with your choices.

Just to end this - in one out of many debates I hear people saying they can here well and clear sounds above 21 and even 22 Khertz - if that was to be true, if I blew a dog whistle they would probably go nuts


----------



## subwoofery

eddieg said:


> I do recall a guy comparing between two amps that are 30watts at 8 ohms but ever did he check if their xovers are bypassed? if they are both as efficient? if they both have same THD? etc etc...


Guess that would be me  

There's so many things that could have made 1 amp sound different than another - freq response, levels or distortion being the most important in this case... 
Between the Milbert (Tube) and the Prestigio (Class A) - both amps are very inefficient (5A VS 6.5A @ idle) and both amps have no Xover. No amp is clipping since I'm using them to power horns which are way more efficient than the 6.5" mid I'm using... Distortion over the whole bandwith? I'm sure it's that but have no equipment to check - did post a few times the distortion profile of some of the most popular and best amps (do a search )... 

One thing I noticed (from a test done from an Italian magazine) is that setting gains can affect the frequency response of the amp itself - the load also has an effect (see below): 








Set gain to the max (0dB) or to the minimum affects the high response (as seen above) but can also affect the low end range (below 100Hz) 
I left the name of the amp aside to lead to a good debate about the differences - not about the brand. One thing I can tell you though is that the amp is highly regarded as being @ the top of the food chain - especially on this forum 

So using the Milbert or the Prestigio @ 8 ohm could very well be a load difference associated to the freq response... So many things to consider don't you think? 

Kelvin


----------



## MarkZ

Yikes. Tell me which amps those are so I can steer clear.


----------



## MarkZ

cajunner said:


> This is another good point about where changes in FR can occur and it's not obvious to the person who connects at a resistive 4 ohm, what the amp is doing in a reactive 16 ohm loop.


I wouldn't count on this behavior being the norm.


----------



## subwoofery

MarkZ said:


> I wouldn't count on this behavior being the norm.


The graph on the left is a behaviour that actually shows in numerous test I have from that magazine - showing a difference from setting the gains from -6dB to 0dB. It either happens in the very low band or @ the very treble 

I'll let people know the name of the amp in a few days  lol

Kelvin


----------



## MarkZ

I think the name of the amp is on your picture. 

The gain thing is slightly surprising. It's just a volume knob. Why is the amp's FR being altered by the volume? Or is the tester's measurement equipment affected by signal magnitude?


----------



## subwoofery

MarkZ said:


> I think the name of the amp is on your picture.
> Missed... (battleship)
> 
> The gain thing is slightly surprising. It's just a volume knob. Why is the amp's FR being altered by the volume? Or is the tester's measurement equipment affected by signal magnitude?


^ that I wouldn't know... Some amps doesn't exhibit any deviation from -6dB to 0dB while others (also good amps) show a change either in the low or high bandwith... 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

cajunner said:


> it says ARC 2300 SE in the folder heading..


Crap... lol I should have deleted that :blush: 

Ohh well - you win 

Kelvin


----------



## eddieg

subwoofery said:


> Guess that would be me
> 
> There's so many things that could have made 1 amp sound different than another - freq response, levels or distortion being the most important in this case...
> Between the Milbert (Tube) and the Prestigio (Class A) - both amps are very inefficient (5A VS 6.5A @ idle) and both amps have no Xover. No amp is clipping since I'm using them to power horns which are way more efficient than the 6.5" mid I'm using... Distortion over the whole bandwith? I'm sure it's that but have no equipment to check - did post a few times the distortion profile of some of the most popular and best amps (do a search )...
> 
> One thing I noticed (from a test done from an Italian magazine) is that setting gains can affect the frequency response of the amp itself - the load also has an effect (see below):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Set gain to the max (0dB) or to the minimum affects the high response (as seen above) but can also affect the low end range (below 100Hz)
> I left the name of the amp aside to lead to a good debate about the differences - not about the brand. One thing I can tell you though is that the amp is highly regarded as being @ the top of the food chain - especially on this forum
> 
> So using the Milbert or the Prestigio @ 8 ohm could very well be a load difference associated to the freq response... So many things to consider don't you think?
> 
> Kelvin


Hey Kelvin

I think that the key is the answer to your last question "So many things to consider don't you think?" 

Actually - there are TOO MANY things to consider 

You may be able to measure amps
you may be able to measure speakers
you may be able to measure head units and so on

But the truth is that you don't listen to amps, you don't listen to speakers and you don't listen to head units

You are listening to a whole sound system and as well - everything around it! 

And the volume knob - if it is digital, then it is hard to explain such difference but if it is analog volume/gain knob - then it can be easily explained, very simple, it is not percise... 

Volume knobs can rust or collect dust which can hurt their ability to be a conductor or visa versa short circuit it. so many times just by clearing volume knobs (gain more to be true) had solved a hiss (SNR) issue in amps. 


IF you payed so much for a milbert and by replacing it with a Sinfoni you started to hear things you never heard before, to be honest - I would ask of milbert for a refund 

I can understand small differences but sounds you never heard before??? I can only guess that A class amplifier can be very unlinear but if it is by that much, what is the point of that? and especially in a car when a sound system becomes "chaos theory" instead of "exact science" 

Still I do think that an amp is mainly an amp though once you implement it in a sound system, it is not just an amp, it is a product which affects and affected by the whole chain and as I said before, choose wisely, a good amp could be an amp for life - thus justifying in any way the price you payed for it.


But the questions that interests me more are the "point of reference" related questions - 

If you did not know that the amps were replaced? would you still have noticed? 

Better yet - If you let your self get used to one setup and drive with it for a while, after how long would you "forget" how the previous setup sounded like? probably after half a day you would loose that point of reference...


----------



## subwoofery

eddieg said:


> Hey Kelvin
> 
> I think that the key is the answer to your last question "So many things to consider don't you think?"
> 
> Actually - there are TOO MANY things to consider
> 
> You may be able to measure amps
> you may be able to measure speakers
> you may be able to measure head units and so on
> 
> But the truth is that you don't listen to amps, you don't listen to speakers and you don't listen to head units
> 
> You are listening to a whole sound system and as well - everything around it!
> You're probably right on that one but to know for sure, we need measurements
> 
> And the volume knob - if it is digital, then it is hard to explain such difference but if it is analog volume/gain knob - then it can be easily explained, very simple, it is not percise...
> 
> Volume knobs can rust or collect dust which can hurt their ability to be a conductor or visa versa short circuit it. so many times just by clearing volume knobs (gain more to be true) had solved a hiss (SNR) issue in amps.
> 
> 
> IF you payed so much for a milbert and by replacing it with a Sinfoni you started to hear things you never heard before, to be honest - I would ask of milbert for a refund
> Never once said that the Sinfoni was better than the Milbert... I simply stated that there was a difference in sonic signature between the 2 amps - even after gain matching...
> 
> I can understand small differences but sounds you never heard before??? I can only guess that A class amplifier can be very unlinear but if it is by that much, what is the point of that? and especially in a car when a sound system becomes "chaos theory" instead of "exact science"
> From my understanding, the Milbert is actually a lot closer to being a class B amp than the Sinfoni - high bias towards class A with idling @ 5A+
> 
> Still I do think that an amp is mainly an amp though once you implement it in a sound system, it is not just an amp, it is a product which affects and affected by the whole chain and as I said before, choose wisely, a good amp could be an amp for life - thus justifying in any way the price you payed for it.
> Don't remember it too well but I think Sinfoni has a lifetime warranty or something like that... There are also other amps where you pay big money and get huge support if something fails even 10 years since the date of purchase... Hard to swallow the big price tag first but it really is worth it in the end if you plan on never selling the amp
> I can understand the need to change from 1 amp to another if you just buy from the "middle of the pack" type of amp (Mosconi AS, Helix Comp, DLS A, Audison LRx & Voce, etc...) It's always nice to have the next best thing or the forum boner...
> 
> 
> But the questions that interests me more are the "point of reference" related questions -
> 
> If you did not know that the amps were replaced? would you still have noticed? My girlfriend surely knew I change something as soon as we drove off (her driving) - asking why is the stage deeper (first from a DLS A2 --> Milbert) and the second time why is the system sounding more dynamic (from Milbert --> Prestigio)
> If you bring your system to where you want it (tuning wise) - live with it for a couple of years without touching its tuning (like I did with my first system) then change only 1 thing (Audison LRx --> Milbert) then yes, I believe you can hear a difference even with gain matching...
> 
> Better yet - If you let your self get used to one setup and drive with it for a while, after how long would you "forget" how the previous setup sounded like? probably after half a day you would loose that point of reference...


Kelvin


----------



## avanti1960

Very useful info in the above test results especially when considering that published technical specifications will never reveal the frequency response at a given speaker load. 

We read these generic boiler plate specs and when the deviation from one amp to another seems miniscule, we start believing that all amps should sound the same- yet our ears tell us another story. 

Not all amplifiers do as well as the one tested above- we would probably be shocked at some of the results. 

To tie it back into the original topic, "better" amplifier SQ is certainly not a myth, whether they are high end classified or not depends on the price of the unit.


----------



## avanti1960

I found the article in the link below to be very enlightening on the topic of this thread. The author has been around a long time and has been reviewing audio gear since the 70's. 
Among the highlights-

*Lower quality amps tend to give an edge to the sound. 
This is how I would describe some of the lower quality amps I have had in my vehicle. Harsh and edgy, almost a very high frequency digital staccato. 

*Ability to deal with different speaker loads. As shown quite clearly in Subwoofery's test pics. Amplifier inputs and outputs are "noise factors" that cannot be controlled by the amplifier. How the amp responds with respect to system interactions is something that is not published by the manufacturer.

*Human perception. In blind taste tests, many people cannot tell the difference between coke and pepsi. 
No wonder we have passionate, spirited debate about the SQ of amplifiers and class distinctions. Quite clearly there are differences and some people can hear them and some people cannot. 

*ABX testing. Our holy grail on this site is ABX blind testing. The author mentions that this is not the best way to audition an amlifier- but rather live with one for a week and then compare to the next sample. 


Do all amplifiers sound alike? | The Audiophiliac - CNET News


----------



## MarkZ

But what's funny is that weird behavior that subwoofery's pictures show is not necessarily the norm. There are much much cheaper amps out there that don't change their response profiles when you adjust the gain. And are perfectly consistent into a wide range of loads. So how do we interpret this? It's not like all amps go ****ing crazy when you change the gain. Just the Arc does (and probably some others).

Here's the million dollar question:

If a cheap $129 Kenwood is perfectly flat, distortion-free, and not very noisy -- and it's this way under all conditions -- is it the "better" amp than a $1500 amp that maybe has some erratic behavior?

Here's the second million dollar question: 

Do these behaviors, which appear to be confined to >10kHz, explain the subjective impressions of people in this thread? Can those measurements explain the issue of dynamics, midrange clarity, and other factors that people talk about? How would that arc amp sound on a pair of midranges that are lowpassed at 3k?


----------



## squeak9798

avanti1960 said:


> I found the article in the link below to be very enlightening on the topic of this thread. The author has been around a long time and has been reviewing audio gear since the 70's.
> Among the highlights-


You found that article enlightening? I read nothing but his subjective opinion with absolutely no supporting objective, emperical evidence. He basically said "Of course there are differences, I know because I can hear them." Very unpersuasive. 



> *Lower quality amps tend to give an edge to the sound.
> This is how I would describe some of the lower quality amps I have had in my vehicle. Harsh and edgy, almost a very high frequency digital staccato.


That was his subjective opinion, no supporting empirical evidence.



> *Ability to deal with different speaker loads. As shown quite clearly in Subwoofery's test pics. Amplifier inputs and outputs are "noise factors" that cannot be controlled by the amplifier. How the amp responds with respect to system interactions is something that is not published by the manufacturer.


As Mark briefly pointed out, there isn't enough information about the test to determine much of anything from the picture Subwoofery posted. 



> *Human perception. In blind taste tests, many people cannot tell the difference between coke and pepsi.
> No wonder we have passionate, spirited debate about the SQ of amplifiers and class distinctions. Quite clearly there are differences and some people can hear them and some people cannot.


Quite clearly _some people think_ they can hear differences; the italicized is a very important but necessary addition to your statement. Some people _claim_ to hear subtle differences not supported by objective empirical measurement, that very much does not make them "quite clearly" able to hear something others can not.



> *ABX testing. Our holy grail on this site is ABX blind testing. The author mentions that this is not the best way to audition an amlifier- but rather live with one for a week and then compare to the next sample.


Again, his subjective opinion. He actually states that when "put on the spot" in such a manor his magical abilities mysteriously disappear.....which to me is a *much* more telling statement......


----------



## Bayboy

MarkZ said:


> But what's funny is that weird behavior that subwoofery's pictures show is not necessarily the norm. There are much much cheaper amps out there that don't change their response profiles when you adjust the gain. And are perfectly consistent into a wide range of loads. So how do we interpret this? It's not like all amps go ****ing crazy when you change the gain. Just the Arc does (and probably some others).
> 
> Here's the million dollar question:
> 
> If a cheap $129 Kenwood is perfectly flat, distortion-free, and not very noisy -- and it's this way under all conditions -- is it the "better" amp than a $1500 amp that maybe has some erratic behavior?
> 
> Here's the second million dollar question:
> 
> Do these behaviors, which appear to be confined to >10kHz, explain the subjective impressions of people in this thread? Can those measurements explain the issue of dynamics, midrange clarity, and other factors that people talk about? How would that arc amp sound on a pair of midranges that are lowpassed at 3k?



If I may answer the first million dollar question, the answer is simple. In some minds, heck not some, a lot in fact, the "Kenwood" example amp will always be an inferior amp simply because it didn't cost as much or have some boutique name attached.


----------



## eddieg

subwoofery said:


> My girlfriend surely knew I change something as soon as we drove off (her driving) - asking why is the stage deeper (first from a DLS A2 --> Milbert) and the second time why is the system sounding more dynamic (from Milbert --> Prestigio)
> If you bring your system to where you want it (tuning wise) - live with it for a couple of years without touching its tuning (like I did with my first system) then change only 1 thing (Audison LRx --> Milbert) then yes, I believe you can hear a difference even with gain matching...


The discussion about an amp being just an amp is always known as a dead debate between two parties so this is why each one give his own take on the subject but should not turn it to a fight.

But if you have an audiophile girlfriend, man that is rare!!!

One hell of a woman - consider a ring! :laugh:


----------



## 14642

subwoofery said:


> Guess that would be me
> 
> There's so many things that could have made 1 amp sound different than another - freq response, levels or distortion being the most important in this case...
> Between the Milbert (Tube) and the Prestigio (Class A) - both amps are very inefficient (5A VS 6.5A @ idle) and both amps have no Xover. No amp is clipping since I'm using them to power horns which are way more efficient than the 6.5" mid I'm using... Distortion over the whole bandwith? I'm sure it's that but have no equipment to check - did post a few times the distortion profile of some of the most popular and best amps (do a search )...
> 
> One thing I noticed (from a test done from an Italian magazine) is that setting gains can affect the frequency response of the amp itself - the load also has an effect (see below):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Set gain to the max (0dB) or to the minimum affects the high response (as seen above) but can also affect the low end range (below 100Hz)
> I left the name of the amp aside to lead to a good debate about the differences - not about the brand. One thing I can tell you though is that the amp is highly regarded as being @ the top of the food chain - especially on this forum
> 
> So using the Milbert or the Prestigio @ 8 ohm could very well be a load difference associated to the freq response... So many things to consider don't you think?
> 
> Kelvin


The amplifier above appears to be a Class-D, since the high frequency output varies so much according to the load. That's caused by the low pass filter that's required on the output of a class-D. You won't see that in a class-AB, since the filter isn't required. The graph in the top left makes absolutely no sense to me if it's an indication of the frequency response at several input sensitivity adjustments unless the input sensitivity adjustment pot somehow loads the output of whatever analyzer is used--If that's the case, I'd call it a faulty design. It's more likely a measurement problem.


----------



## subwoofery

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> The amplifier above appears to be a Class-D, since the high frequency output varies so much according to the load. That's caused by the low pass filter that's required on the output of a class-D. You won't see that in a class-AB, since the filter isn't required. The graph in the top left makes absolutely no sense to me if it's an indication of the frequency response at several input sensitivity adjustments unless the input sensitivity adjustment pot somehow loads the output of whatever analyzer is used--If that's the case, I'd call it a faulty design. It's more likely a measurement problem.


Sweeet, now we're talking... Thanks Andy - as usual, you're spot on  
The freq response changing with the load is in fact a class D amp: 
Hertz HDP5 


Regarding input sensitivity adjustments, I really don't know if it's a faulty design (guess not) but it definitely isn't a measurement problem since I have a few tests that show freq response change from -6dB to 0dB (see below): 









Kelvin 

PS: for those that want to play the guess game - There's 3 x Sinfonis, 2 x Genesis, 2 x Audison, 2 x Celestra, 1 x Steg, and 1 x Focal 
All of the above a considered great amps...


----------



## subwoofery

eddieg said:


> The discussion about an amp being just an amp is always known as a dead debate between two parties so this is why each one give his own take on the subject but should not turn it to a fight.
> 
> But if you have an audiophile girlfriend, man that is rare!!!
> 
> One hell of a woman - consider a ring! :laugh:


She's got a ring on already  With the wedding band coming in August this year  

Kelvin


----------



## asawendo

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> The amplifier above appears to be a Class-D, since the high frequency output varies so much according to the load. That's caused by the low pass filter that's required on the output of a class-D. You won't see that in a class-AB, since the filter isn't required. The graph in the top left makes absolutely no sense to me if it's an indication of the frequency response at several input sensitivity adjustments unless the input sensitivity adjustment pot somehow loads the output of whatever analyzer is used--If that's the case, I'd call it a faulty design. It's more likely a measurement problem.


Hmmm....this is very interesting since I'm using Class D Amp.


----------



## subwoofery

MarkZ said:


> But what's funny is that weird behavior that subwoofery's pictures show is not necessarily the norm. There are much much cheaper amps out there that don't change their response profiles when you adjust the gain. And are perfectly consistent into a wide range of loads. So how do we interpret this? It's not like all amps go ****ing crazy when you change the gain. Just the Arc does (and probably some others).
> 
> Here's the million dollar question:
> 
> If a cheap $129 Kenwood is perfectly flat, distortion-free, and not very noisy -- and it's this way under all conditions -- is it the "better" amp than a $1500 amp that maybe has some erratic behavior?
> Always depends on your goal... If you want an amp to be as described above - then sure, you'll feel much better spending $129 on it than on a much more expensive amp.
> If you want your amp to have close tolerance on parts (no mismatch from L channel to R channel), last longer (not need to change it every month), have better warranty or lifetime warranty, better support, yet to be "perfectly flat, distortion-free, and not very noisy", then some would pay that kind of money to have, in their opinion, the better amp
> 
> Here's the second million dollar question:
> 
> Do these behaviors, which appear to be confined to >10kHz, explain the subjective impressions of people in this thread? Can those measurements explain the issue of dynamics, midrange clarity, and other factors that people talk about? How would that arc amp sound on a pair of midranges that are lowpassed at 3k?
> Distorsion over the whole bandwith - posted many times about that and still feel that it is widely different from 1 amp to another...
> If you remember, it's not only about freq response: gain, power, frequency response, noise or distortion


Kelvin


----------



## Hanatsu

avanti1960 said:


> *ABX testing. Our holy grail on this site is ABX blind testing. The author mentions that this is not the best way to audition an amlifier- *but rather live with one for a week and then compare to the next sample. *


Heard this objection before, it's just because they fail the ABX test and refuse to believe that they couldn't hear a difference, therefore they come up with these objections why ABX testing is faulty. I don't buy it... Seen articles on several occasions where they moved the components from different amps (cheaper/more expensive) and put them in a "black box" and let them listen to them for like a week or so, another test with some speaker/signal cables, same methodology. Guess what? They still failed the test, then they come up with another reason and another... 

If the difference is so great, then it should be clearly audible and a simple ABX test should be child play to finish. If the difference is there but cannot be heard under normal conditions, why should it any concern at all in a car of all places? People that say ABX testing ain't a valid testing method, ain't credible imo.


----------



## MarkZ

asawendo said:


> Hmmm....this is very interesting since I'm using Class D Amp.


Most class D manufacturers will tell you this, actually. This is why it's been brought up in some threads here that higher impedances _aren't_ necessarily better.



subwoofery said:


> Distorsion over the whole bandwith - posted many times about that and still feel that it is widely different from 1 amp to another...
> If you remember, it's not only about freq response: gain, power, frequency response, noise or distortion


Yup, I agree with you and the other guy who said that the simple one-number spec sheets are useless. A data sheet would be much more informative, and could tell you about distortion characteristics as a function of various parameters (like vs. freq, or vs. output level).

But I don't buy the idea that these things are very different from one amp to another. I base this on two things... 1) I've measured them myself for a handful of amps once upon a time ; and 2) it's relatively cheap and easy to design one where the operation is perfect, so it doesn't make any sense why manufacturers would go out of their way to make them imperfect. Why does Arc make their amps' frequency response change with the gain control? Other cheap cheap cheap amps are able to do this without changing freq response, so one can only assume that Arc intentionally did this. [if it's not a measurement error by the tester]


----------



## MarkZ

Hanatsu said:


> Heard this objection before, it's just because they fail the ABX test and refuse to believe that they couldn't hear a difference, therefore they come up with these objections why ABX testing is faulty. I don't buy it... Seen articles on several occasions where they moved the components from different amps (cheaper/more expensive) and put them in a "black box" and let them listen to them for like a week or so, another test with some speaker/signal cables, same methodology. Guess what? They still failed the test, then they come up with another reason and another...
> 
> If the difference is so great, then it should be clearly audible and a simple ABX test should be child play to finish. If the difference is there but cannot be heard under normal conditions, why should it any concern at all in a car of all places? People that say ABX testing ain't a valid testing method, ain't credible imo.


Arny Krueger and John Atkinson debated this issue once upon a time (there's a link to audio). Here's a link to the Stereophile article afterwards, and the diyaudio commentary which is pretty funny.

The great ABX debate: Atkinson vs Kreuger - diyAudio


----------



## thehatedguy

Never thought about the roll off because of the inductor. Makes sense since I think about it


----------



## Hanatsu

MarkZ said:


> Arny Krueger and John Atkinson debated this issue once upon a time (there's a link to audio). Here's a link to the Stereophile article afterwards, and the diyaudio commentary which is pretty funny.
> 
> The great ABX debate: Atkinson vs Kreuger - diyAudio


Quite amusing indeed 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## 14642

thehatedguy said:


> Never thought about the roll off because of the inductor. Makes sense since I think about it


 
That output filter is usually second order or higher, which is why the half-power frequency AND the Q changes so dramatically.


----------



## 14642

I'd say that both camps in the debate take themselves a bit too seriously. Humans devise tests to prove, validate or explain experience. To say that ABX or any other test currently available is incontravertable is silly. To say that science can't be applied to art is equally preposterous.


----------



## avanti1960

MarkZ said:


> But what's funny is that weird behavior that subwoofery's pictures show is not necessarily the norm. There are much much cheaper amps out there that don't change their response profiles when you adjust the gain. And are perfectly consistent into a wide range of loads. So how do we interpret this? It's not like all amps go ****ing crazy when you change the gain. Just the Arc does (and probably some others).
> 
> Here's the million dollar question:
> 
> If a cheap $129 Kenwood is perfectly flat, distortion-free, and not very noisy -- and it's this way under all conditions -- is it the "better" amp than a $1500 amp that maybe has some erratic behavior?
> 
> GOOD QUESTION! Although you left open some variables- I cold imagine a flawed, expensive high end amp sounding smokin' 90% of the time to be more desirable (better) than a low cost amp that never offends but sounds less exciting or dynamic all the time. Someone else may think differently!
> 
> Here's the second million dollar question:
> 
> Do these behaviors, which appear to be confined to >10kHz, explain the subjective impressions of people in this thread? Can those measurements explain the issue of dynamics, midrange clarity, and other factors that people talk about? How would that arc amp sound on a pair of midranges that are lowpassed at 3k?


 I don't think so. However the point of calling to mention those tests is that there are so many parameters and interactions of an amplifier within a system that are not tested and never published such that you could reasonably conclude that sound characteristics based on listening impressions (as mentioned in this thread) could be measured or ferreted out with the right system level testing.


----------



## avanti1960

squeak9798 said:


> You found that article enlightening? I read nothing but his subjective opinion with absolutely no supporting objective, emperical evidence. He basically said "Of course there are differences, I know because I can hear them." Very unpersuasive.
> 
> That was his subjective opinion, no supporting empirical evidence.
> 
> Not trying to submit evidence in a court of law, just trying to relate experiences by a seasoned audiophile. It works for me because I have had similar sonic experiences. Walks like a duck, basically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Mark briefly pointed out, there isn't enough information about the test to determine much of anything from the picture Subwoofery posted.
> 
> Other than not all amplifier characteristics and system interactions are tested for or have specifications published by the manufacturers of amplifiers- and that clearly there are variables that affect the sound- what we hear- despite amps having similar mfg. specs.
> 
> Quite clearly _some people think_ they can hear differences; the italicized is a very important but necessary addition to your statement. Some people _claim_ to hear subtle differences not supported by objective empirical measurement, that very much does not make them "quite clearly" able to hear something others can not.
> 
> I fall in the coke tastes different then pepsi crowd. maybe it's a curse rather than a blessing? subjective or empirical is irrelevant- it's what i hear- day in and day out and i fix my system accordingly. if replacing an amp resolves a sonic issue one possible conclusion is that the amp has better sound reproduction.
> 
> 
> Again, his subjective opinion. He actually states that when "put on the spot" in such a manor his magical abilities mysteriously disappear.....which to me is a *much* more telling statement......


I agree. It's very telling because human interactions - e.g. stress- do alter our perceptions- which makes ABX testing flawed for some. Yet taking your time, living with an amp for a week or so, then making the switch- eliminates the stress factor.


----------



## avanti1960

Hanatsu said:


> Heard this objection before, it's just because they fail the ABX test and refuse to believe that they couldn't hear a difference, therefore they come up with these objections why ABX testing is faulty. I don't buy it... Seen articles on several occasions where they moved the components from different amps (cheaper/more expensive) and put them in a "black box" and let them listen to them for like a week or so, another test with some speaker/signal cables, same methodology. Guess what? They still failed the test, then they come up with another reason and another...
> 
> If the difference is so great, then it should be clearly audible and a simple ABX test should be child play to finish. If the difference is there but cannot be heard under normal conditions, why should it any concern at all in a car of all places? People that say ABX testing ain't a valid testing method, ain't credible imo.


 I agree- to a point. I think variables that have an effect on sound (system interactions) are eliminated from most ABX testing. There are no noise factors considered- how an amp responds if over driven by high midrange / harsh source material, how it responds to the load of different speakers, how it responds to the load of a range of input voltage, etc. For example, many of the issues I have experienced with amplifiers are present on only a percentage of the music i listen to- but still highly repeatable- and highly objectionable- as one example of a system noise factor. if i were involved in an ABX test playing the friendly source material I would fail it as well- which is why extended listening has a better chance of potentially making differences more understood. Good stuff! On


----------



## MarkZ

avanti1960 said:


> I don't think so. However the point of calling to mention those tests is that there are so many parameters and interactions of an amplifier within a system that are not tested and never published such that you could reasonably conclude that sound characteristics based on listening impressions (as mentioned in this thread) could be measured or ferreted out with the right system level testing.


Exactly.

For starters, let's just say that amp manufacturers provide ZERO info about the performance of their amps. They really don't tell us anything about them, aside from maximum power output, and even that can be iffy.

Do they tell us about frequency response? Not usually. They might list a spec that says "20-20kHz", but all that tells us is what their recommended operation range is, not their performance in that range. Sometimes they do add "+/- 1dB" alongside it, which tells us that the FR is probably flat from 20-20k within 2 dB. Ok, that's fair. But this is probably into non-reactive loads.

Do they tell us about distortion? Hardly ever. They might say "<0.1% distortion", but distortion is well-known to vary with output level and frequency, so a single number can't possibly encapsulate that information. Unless they're saying that 0.1% is the worst case scenario for all frequencies and all output levels (below clipping). But they hardly ever mean that. They usually mean @ 1kHz @ max unclipped voltage. Useless.

Do they tell us about noise performance? Usually there's an S/N spec somewhere, but that doesn't directly tell us anything about PSRR. And it certainly doesn't allow us to predict how prone to ground loops the design is. So, again, useless.

Speaker manufacturers are a little better than this because they give us T/S parameters and sometimes a frequency response plot (and when they're really nice, a polar response estimate!). But they also don't tell us anything about distortion performance or linearity.

Bottom line, the way manufacturers report the performance of their equipment is sorely lacking. This is why there became a demand for external testing of these items. Not just to verify that the manufacturers aren't lying, *but to actually provide the information that the manufacturers do not make public*.

Having said all that, manufacturers' reluctance to provide information should _not_ be confused with the idea that this information does not exist, or that it cannot be measured by modern equipment. We've had a few people here volunteer to make these measurements themselves and provide it to the community for free. There's a subforum devoted to it, and a couple popular websites that are commonly referenced, such as:

Zaph|Audio
Medley's Musings | Audio Component Data, Analysis, and Experiences

I don't know of any similar sites for amplifiers. Although CA&E used to have some very basic measurements on their site... I don't know if they still do.


----------



## cjazzy4

This may have been said.....I don't know..... but one thing I have noticed in the car audio equipment battles in the 1 year I have been in car audio.......Is that what sounds best for one may not sound best for another.....what gives....I think it has to do with the individuals psychological way of processing sound.
Sure the higher-end stuff uses better/superior materials to build their amps.speakers,HU etc......But some people do hear with their wallet/purse too......and settles the question of what sounds good.


----------



## MikeGratton

GREAT article on actually testing to show a difference in amplifiers sound 

The Sound of Audio Amplifiers: Can you hear a difference between Amps?


----------



## Hanatsu

> Driving an amplifier into a challenging loudspeaker is significantly more complex than a resistive load. For example, if the load is highly reactive with major phase issues the amplifier can be driven into clipping @ significantly lower output than its rated power. In our lab, using the Audio Precision System, Cascade 2 we were able to drive an amplifier rated @ 250W per channel into clipping with only 35 watts of output..


Any truth to that? If so it can explain lots of things...


----------



## Hanatsu

Is this enough information about how an amp performs with a reactive load btw?


----------



## south east customz

Too bad the DLS ultimates are no longer


----------



## MarkZ

MikeGratton said:


> GREAT article on actually testing to show a difference in amplifiers sound
> 
> The Sound of Audio Amplifiers: Can you hear a difference between Amps?



I didn't read the whole thing. It looks like they just copied and pasted Rod Elliott's site.  But I found a significant error at the beginning...

"_When people talk about the sound of an amplifier, there are many different terms used. For a typical (high quality) amplifier, the sound may be described as "smeared", or having "air" or "authoritative" bass. These terms - although describing a listener's experience - have no direct meaning in electrical terms."

_To me, this is like saying, "A number divided by zero has no meaning." Well, this is sort of true. But in effect, we have a number of tools that can actually make real world divide-by-zeros meaningful and tractable.

There have been a number of studies that have demonstrated the correlation between signal and percept. Like I said in another recent thread, there's a whole NIH-funded field devoted to doing exactly that.  We absolutely can quantify these differences. It doesn't make sense for people to just throw up their hands and say we cannot know these things.


----------



## file audio

excuse my english, first of all , its an honour to read all the post from all the aknowledget expert audiophiles, I have learned lots of things, nothing is written on stone too.
the effect placebo is there indeed, but if you have the money use it, we like to feel we have the best , and as I wasted my 100% of money in audio, for others are just the 1% so they can buy a brax , moscony, mcintosh, tru technology, etc... but sometimes the problem is inside, we want more, IM very sure that my system sounds better than never now that I put a helix amp and the focal krx3, but im going for more, i remember I bought an eclipse amp in a pawnshop for 30 dlls, and really made a good work that amp,, I know there are some oldschool amps being sold for a very little bucks that can make a better work than most class d actual amps, but if you have the money use it,, im so budget limited but even so, I have 2 head units, conected, 2 audiocontrol procesors, 3 amps, all the waves just TO aquire SQ. THIS IS MY SYSTEM VIDEO LINK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLrPBSFtgfQ


----------



## DaleCarter

I have noticed that, the more a person paid for a particular piece of gear, the more benefit they perceived. This is true for everything from audio gear to golf clubs to clothing to guns.

I have spent my life in and around pro audio (large scale music PA's for touring and large theaters) and I have definitely heard them argue about durability, weight, heat management, maintenance issues, cost and a ton of other things, but NEVER sound quality. They seem to understand that, at a certain level, the SQ is the same or so close that it doesn't really matter.


----------



## Bayboy

And that is about the gist of it...


----------



## cjazzy4

DaleCarter said:


> I have noticed that, the more a person paid for a particular piece of gear, the more benefit they perceived. This is true for everything from audio gear to golf clubs to clothing to guns.
> 
> I have spent my life in and around pro audio (large scale music PA's for touring and large theaters) and I have definitely heard them argue about durability, weight, heat management, maintenance issues, cost and a ton of other things, but NEVER sound quality. They seem to understand that, at a certain level, the SQ is the same or so close that it doesn't really matter.


love this video.....nice clean sound


----------



## eddieg

file audio said:


> excuse my english, first of all , its an honour to read all the post from all the aknowledget expert audiophiles, I have learned lots of things, nothing is written on stone too.
> the effect placebo is there indeed, but if you have the money use it, we like to feel we have the best , and as I wasted my 100% of money in audio, for others are just the 1% so they can buy a brax , moscony, mcintosh, tru technology, etc... but sometimes the problem is inside, we want more, IM very sure that my system sounds better than never now that I put a helix amp and the focal krx3, but im going for more, i remember I bought an eclipse amp in a pawnshop for 30 dlls, and really made a good work that amp,, I know there are some oldschool amps being sold for a very little bucks that can make a better work than most class d actual amps, but if you have the money use it,, im so budget limited but even so, I have 2 head units, conected, 2 audiocontrol procesors, 3 amps, all the waves just TO aquire SQ. THIS IS MY SYSTEM VIDEO LINK
> 
> Looking fo SQ. Audio, focal krx3 helix amp - YouTube


This is so painfully true.

The truth is that people do not distinguish between what our ears can hear to what our instruments measure or produce. 

The truth is that some people claim to hear noises in frequncies that only dogs can hear. 

The truth is that our brain does so many manipulations to what we hear or see that we can be easily fulled or tricked - the truth is we are blind, what we see (hear) is nearly a portion of what is being played. 

Taking in addition that beneeth certain gap of db we only hear the higher note, our hearing is selective! and is degraded as we grow up. 

But spending money sure is fun and at least you know for 100% that you got your money's worth and can also brag about it if you want. 

That is for the myth part.

But as for reality part - there is also a lot of sence spending so much money on high-end equipment and the reason for that is exactly as I wrote above, you know what you get for what you give. 

For me, the main reason to high end is that you know that for that product, the vendor made most efforts to put the maximum result on the product it self. 

Meaning - you have to do the minimum effort on that product in order to get best results.

You don't need to hardly do any EQ work on high end speakers - the vendor made them just right to sound the best on the factory xover - that is one example. 

You don't need to do much tuning on a high end amp and you know that it would probably survive an atomic hollacost. 

Some of TRU amps (billet six) are sent packed in a sniper rifle suitcase - that is a very good reason to get frisked at the airport custom's 

And sometimes just knowing that your tweeter's membrain is made out of diamond cuts (accuton) is so sexual arrousing :laugh:

Yet, you know that you can now lay back and relax, enjoy the music (until the next time you get board out of your Fn' mind  )


----------



## file audio

Well, its more notorius the difference between change from pioneer 6.5 speakers to boston pro and the focal krx3 is the best one I hqve listen3d , in amps of course there are differences but we need to have a more trained ears, maybe we dont realize that the goal isnt always happiness, So im trying to enjoy the right now , fighting to stop myself from switching a song for another just to hear how it sounds the next one, cause we lose the joy of music cause the hobbie(vice)factor is stronger than never


----------



## cleansoundz

file audio said:


> Well, its more notorius the difference between change from pioneer 6.5 speakers to boston pro and the focal krx3 is the best one I hqve listen3d , in amps of course there are differences but we need to have a more trained ears, maybe we dont realize that the goal isnt always happiness, So im trying to enjoy the right now , fighting to stop myself from switching a song for another just to hear how it sounds the next one, cause we lose the joy of music cause the hobbie(vice)factor is stronger than never


Very well said. The more I listen to and enjoy my favorite music in my truck, the less I focus on the differences in amp sounds, build quality, etc.


----------



## eddieg

You could just say ignorance is bliss you know.

Not loosing the joy of music is what separates between a sane audiophile to an insane audiophile.

Hearing and listening becomes technical over time, that is for sure -> but this is exactly what drives us in this hobby, we simply try to improve the "best".

Don't forget to smile during.


----------



## ChrisB

Most audiophiles have this mentality:

I paid more for it, therefore it is better!

Custom built tube amps, silver wiring, cable lifters, gold wall sockets, isolating/levitating equipment racks, $8,000 towers that use a Silver Flute woofer with a Vifa XT-25 tweeter per tower, etc. Being an audiophile is the game of he (or she) who spends the most wins!


----------



## Bayboy

^^^^ THIS!!


----------



## Miniboom

Well, I have/had powerful quality amps and less powerful quality amps, from different and same brands, and they do in fact sound different. Allthough very little - but of course, the more you push them, the more obvious the difference.

However, I've also had a decent 5-channel amp from a respected maker. And that one sounded like ****.

I spent hours tuning trying to remove a weird peak in my upper midbass/lower midrange. I gave up as I was changing my car anyway, thinking it must have been a resonance issue either from the door dimensions/size or the car itself, and that it would be fixed when getting a new car.

Putting the same gear in my new car, I got the same freaking problem.

Turns out it was the freaking amp having a "loudness"-like function (built in, not switchable).

In general, I think same wattage/quality amp differences are less important that almost anything else, and I don't think of "amp SQ" when I plan or purchase for my builds. Amp quality and reliability is more important.


----------



## Wesayso

ChrisB said:


> Most audiophiles have this mentality:
> 
> I paid more for it, therefore it is better!
> 
> Custom built tube amps, silver wiring, cable lifters, gold wall sockets, isolating/levitating equipment racks, $8,000 towers that use a Silver Flute woofer with a Vifa XT-25 tweeter per tower, etc. Being an audiophile is the game of he (or she) who spends the most wins!


Buying that Vifa XT-25 separately is actually pretty good value for the money spent . 
But I agree with the general point made here. There are good decent priced (hate to use the word cheap here) products and there are good expensive products though. Not everything that is affordable is good but sadly not everything expensive is good either.
The testing on this site should help us make up our mind but it never really clears up the mystery's around certain expensive gear.


----------



## file audio

Wesayso said:


> Buying that Vifa XT-25 separately is actually pretty good value for the money spent .
> But I agree with the general point made here. There are good decent priced (hate to use the word cheap here) products and there are good expensive products though. Not everything that is affordable is good but sadly not everything expensive is good either.
> The testing on this site should help us make up our mind but it never really clears up the mystery's around certain expensive gear.


Thd% is there but the button functions (shaping sound capanle) and watts from an amp to another is where the notoriuos difference appear, quality reliability and intention or target is what makes a good amp, a Toyota corolla takes me there for sure but the mercedes is the mental placebo, more silent more nice and exoensive but if we put a macintosh shell on a kenwood amp, we will hear the difference, off topic , I read that you have a 88prs using it 2way std, i use the 880prs 3way in the nwo, any sugestions for krx3 central speaker, and sub, strange to rear the rcas is high rear mid front why?


----------



## Golden Ear

The best sounding amps I have are 25 year old Zapco Z220s I got for free. I have bought amps to replace them thinking they would sound better but they don't sound as good. Obviously, I believe all amps don't sound the same and how much I've spent on them has nothing to do with it. It was said earlier and I think it's important, buy quality that you know will last and is built well with good components.


----------



## Wesayso

file audio said:


> off topic , I read that you have a 88prs using it 2way std, i use the 880prs 3way in the nwo, any sugestions for krx3 central speaker, and sub, strange to rear the rcas is high rear mid front why?


I don't quite get the question here... you are running a 3 way with the 880PRS? Passive between mids and tweeters?


----------



## cleansoundz

Golden Ear said:


> The best sounding amps I have are 25 year old Zapco Z220s I got for free. I have bought amps to replace them thinking they would sound better but they don't sound as good. Obviously, I believe all amps don't sound the same and how much I've spent on them has nothing to do with it. It was said earlier and I think it's important, buy quality that you know will last and is built well with good components.


I agree with this statement 100%. The differences in amp sounds are so minute and thats when build quality is more important.


----------



## avanti1960

ChrisB said:


> Most audiophiles have this mentality:
> 
> I paid more for it, therefore it is better!
> 
> Custom built tube amps, silver wiring, cable lifters, gold wall sockets, isolating/levitating equipment racks, $8,000 towers that use a Silver Flute woofer with a Vifa XT-25 tweeter per tower, etc. Being an audiophile is the game of he (or she) who spends the most wins!


not necessarily. you can spend lots of cash on audio and it could sound worse than the cheaper stuff! i love by $70.00 boston acoustics tweeters and despise the focal tweeters that came with a $600.00 comp set.


----------



## ChrisB

avanti1960 said:


> not necessarily. you can spend lots of cash on audio and it could sound worse than the cheaper stuff! i love by $70.00 boston acoustics tweeters and despise the focal tweeters that came with a $600.00 comp set.



Have you ever met a real audiophile that spent at least $100k on his room and hundreds of thousands on his system while bragging to everyone how everything in that room costs more than most people's houses? I did sometime around 1989 or 1990. The individual was a friend of my grandfathers, insanely rich, a billionaire, and a widower in his 50s at the time. He became a recluse after the death of his wife and the only thing he enjoyed was listening to music and drinking. His setup was the only one to date that I have witnessed utilizing an ELP turntable!

Regardless, he was typical of most audiophiles I met over the years. Another was a McIntosh/Klipschorn person. While not quite as elaborate as my grandfather's friend's setup, he bragged about his $15k in room treatments, levitation rack, cable lifters, gold plated wall sockets, and all sorts of other incidental stuff that cost a fortune yet probably had little to no impact on the sound. Well, aside from the room treatments... 

I also met a few more in my profession, usually super wealthy business owners, and the one common denominator that all of them had was bragging about the cost of their gear.


----------



## WR Sugar

For me, it's about matching the components. You need dynamic headroom without distortion and the dampening factor is also significant, imo. If you get both of these correct, then its a matter of seasoning to taste... swapping caps in the amps to suit, et al. I use planars from 900 up. They will absolutely tell you where your system lacks and are very responsive to upstream components. The theory that "power is power" is simply rubbish and has been disproved, but its great fun to talk about!


----------



## matdotcom2000

I dont think its a myth its more like the guys said before about build quaility and honestly preference, power, and current draw.. I currently have 7 or 8 amps in my possession and have owned many many many more... I am in the middle of a build and decided to have a head to head with my Arc Audio xxk 4150 (badass specs for a decent price), Monitor 1 2.70 (cheap price great build quality), Zapco c2k 2.0 (possibly SQ myth amp), and last but not least old school zapco z250c4...
I played each one of the amplifiers on tweeters, mids, midbass.. They all were different and I would use different amps for different reasons..
Honestly for midrange and tweeters I would rank the amps
1. C2k 2.0 2. Monitor1 3.z250c4 4.xxk4150
Midbass was totally different BTW all amps were bridged
1.xxk4150 2. C2k 2.0 3. Monitor1 4. z250c4
I ranked them based on my needs and personal taste. I honestly think that the Zapco c2k amplifiers are the BEST bang for buck SQ amps... They beat the pants out of most high end amplifiers IMO in price, power, and sound.. I have had arc SE, TRU, Helix etc... There is no comparison.. Honestly in my test I was pulling for the Monitor1 because of price and Size, Thinking I could sell the rest and get more than 60 bucks an amp, but in some test they just didnt match up totally.. 

So bottom line High END amps are NOT a MYTH depending on the amp and what your needs and taste are..


----------



## avanti1960

ChrisB said:


> Have you ever met a real audiophile that spent at least $100k on his room and hundreds of thousands on his system while bragging to everyone how everything in that room costs more than most people's houses? I did sometime around 1989 or 1990. The individual was a friend of my grandfathers, insanely rich, a billionaire, and a widower in his 50s at the time. He became a recluse after the death of his wife and the only thing he enjoyed was listening to music and drinking. His setup was the only one to date that I have witnessed utilizing an ELP turntable!
> 
> Regardless, he was typical of most audiophiles I met over the years. Another was a McIntosh/Klipschorn person. While not quite as elaborate as my grandfather's friend's setup, he bragged about his $15k in room treatments, levitation rack, cable lifters, gold plated wall sockets, and all sorts of other incidental stuff that cost a fortune yet probably had little to no impact on the sound. Well, aside from the room treatments...
> 
> I also met a few more in my profession, usually super wealthy business owners, and the one common denominator that all of them had was bragging about the cost of their gear.


i had a friend in high school who had wealthy parents and both his home and car audio system had the best money could buy. luckily he was not the bragging type. at some point i would guess it drives someone slightly neurotic if the sound of their investment does not line up with the price they paid- either they admit they wasted their cash or trick themselves into believing the sound. 
there are times when i think about certain speakers for example and believe that they would sound poor only because of the cost. however i personally am all about sound and could care less about bragging rights. unfortunately i think i am a person who can tell the difference and am tempted to upgrade when i hear issues related to a component (or so i believe). 
i do think high end amps sound better.


----------



## avanti1960

matdotcom2000 said:


> I dont think its a myth its more like the guys said before about build quaility and honestly preference, power, and current draw.. I currently have 7 or 8 amps in my possession and have owned many many many more... I am in the middle of a build and decided to have a head to head with my Arc Audio xxk 4150 (badass specs for a decent price), Monitor 1 2.70 (cheap price great build quality), Zapco c2k 2.0 (possibly SQ myth amp), and last but not least old school zapco z250c4...
> I played each one of the amplifiers on tweeters, mids, midbass.. They all were different and I would use different amps for different reasons..
> Honestly for midrange and tweeters I would rank the amps
> 1. C2k 2.0 2. Monitor1 3.z250c4 4.xxk4150
> Midbass was totally different BTW all amps were bridged
> 1.xxk4150 2. C2k 2.0 3. Monitor1 4. z250c4
> I ranked them based on my needs and personal taste. I honestly think that the Zapco c2k amplifiers are the BEST bang for buck SQ amps... They beat the pants out of most high end amplifiers IMO in price, power, and sound.. I have had arc SE, TRU, Helix etc... There is no comparison.. Honestly in my test I was pulling for the Monitor1 because of price and Size, Thinking I could sell the rest and get more than 60 bucks an amp, but in some test they just didnt match up totally..
> 
> So bottom line High END amps are NOT a MYTH depending on the amp and what your needs and taste are..


what qualities about the Zapco are better- bass (mainly), dynamics, or midrange / high frequency clarity?


----------



## scottp2765

I agree with many of you on this. Some higher quality amps last longer and I do hear a slight difference between them I had an Orion 800.4 one of the new old school models it sounded wonderful dynamic clean. I know have two JL 300/2 amps and they sound wonderful ...very clean...and dynamic. I have noticed they also pick up less or actually no noise where the orion had some very faint alternator whine to it I could never quite get rid of. Still loved it. Gobs of power...I think power wise I can not tell the difference between the slash amps and it even though they are 50 more watts per channel. 

What I have noticed and what really blew me away recently was the difference the head unit makes ...I had what I thought was good ..An Alpine X305 with the optional imprint processor. I recently swapped it for a Kenwood X997. The difference was immediate and night and day. I am really disappointed in Alpine as I always thought they had really great equipment. And some of the older stuff is really great. But no matter how I tuned the 305 with imprint it never sounded anywhere near as good as this Kenwood. Not even close not a little bit close ....it was Pyramid bad.

I also think that speakers make a huge difference and think that is why most of us here keep swapping them out I currently have SPX17's in front and Boston Pro 6's in back. I did have Pro's all around at one point but sold the front pair after hearing the SPX 17's in a sound board. The system sound very good ...fabulous even. But I have noticed the lack of midbass in the SPX's everone else on here describes. I do however think they sound amazing in a way I can't really explain. Clean maybe...accurate...they separate instruments well and image great. I had a set of Boston SPZ's in my old car that I sold and never should have though....I think they are the best speakers I have ever owned. But in the spirit of this Addiction I will probably be going with a different front set soon hoping to get that SPX sound with more midbass 

But I digress ...this was about amps. I can also tell the difference between Class D and Class AB I think. It's not that I don't like the sound of Class D amps ...I do. But to me they sound more edgy....powerful for the rating typically. I had a ED nine.5 that was really powerful and clean for it's rating and not typically considered a "quality" amp ....not sure if any of this helps but it is my opinion...good luck.


----------



## matdotcom2000

avanti1960 said:


> what qualities about the Zapco are better- bass (mainly), dynamics, or midrange / high frequency clarity?


Honestly the best amp in the bass region was the monitor 1.. That little amp is VERRRRYYYYY sweeet for the price, the hell with JL audio, MTX and who ever. It is the best bang for buck for size, power, and sound.. IT has a warm sound with great bass and dynamics. But the XXK was just more refinded and tight on midbass. But the C2k is transparent on mids and tweeters, very clear, Not all muddy. Not to say most amps are muddy. You would not know that your sound was muddy until you compare this amp with another amplifier. I was veryy happy with the monitor1 until I compared it to the C2k honestly.. The only reason I purchased a C2k was because it was dirt cheap and I have owned them before (couldnt remember how they sounded)....


----------



## soundhertz

cleansoundz said:


> The difference in the sounds should be more based with the speakers and through the head units. A rf or kicker 100 x 4 will sound better than a 60 x 4 McIntosh merely because the are more power.


That is pure and utter rubbish. How is it that people think that amps done make a difference in sound? All electronics change the sound in some way. ALL!! Nobody knows what neutral is because everything colours the sound. Trust me, I have owned a LOT of expensive amps and I will tell you they are not created equal, regardless of power specs. My Orion NT amps are some of the cleanest, most dynamic and powerful amps I've used. And they are 50x2 and 100x2. I would put these up against pretty much anything.


----------



## MarkZ

soundhertz said:


> That is pure and utter rubbish. How is it that people think that amps done make a difference in sound?


Read the thread and you'll see why some people think that.


----------



## soundhertz

MarkZ said:


> Read the thread and you'll see why some people think that.


I have read the thread. The thing is, an amp is "supposed" to just amplify the sound. Look at the hundreds of different designs with all the different quality components inside. How can they all sound the same? Impossible. That is a ridiculous notion. If that's the case, I will go buy a $50 flea market amp and sell my NTs. I'm sure they are rated to put out more power. 
Also, let's have a head unit test. Run each head unit through a high quality sound processor and rta the signal and I bet a $100 head unit will sound every bit as good as an ODR. I just don't understand why it's so hard to believe why a head unit makes all the difference but an amplifier makes none? 
I recently swapped out my Orion NT 200 amplifiers for a JL Audio 900/5. For test purposes only. Same power, 100watts x4, not using the sub channel. I gotta say that it was no comparison. I had hoped for more out of the JL but it came up wayyyy short. I was a little disappointed, to be honest. I was kinda looking forward to the easy install, lol!


----------



## Hanatsu

soundhertz said:


> I just don't understand why it's so hard to believe why a head unit makes all the difference but an amplifier makes none?


Imo, it's other way around


----------



## ChrisB

soundhertz said:


> My Orion NT amps are some of the cleanest, most dynamic and powerful amps I've used. And they are 50x2 and 100x2. I would put these up against pretty much anything.


I know for a fact that those Orion amplifiers are underrated, so the 50x2 and 100x2 are a misnomer for comparison purposes. One of the things I learned through out my chase for the SQ holy grail is that POWER to be the key to being able to tell the difference between amplifiers, not the actual brand of amplifier itself. For example, I went from 75 watts RMS per door to 300 watts RMS per door, and I noticed a HUGE difference in dynamics. Everything sounded so much cleaner and my amplifiers were barely breaking a sweat.

Now, allow me to scientifically analyze this for a second. Let's make the assumption that I can get your Orion amplifier to measure the same as another amplifier as verified with an Audio Precision at an output level far below clipping. At 15% to 20% power output capacity, do you honestly think you'd be able to tell the difference between your Orion and the other amplifier that measures identically in a double blind a/b/x test? If so, please explain how or why you'd be able to hear such a difference.

With all that stated, don't get me wrong, I believe in paying a premium for a quality product that will hold up in the harsh environment that the automobile has to offer. I just refuse to pay a premium for something because it is known to have the golden ear award for Sound Quality. Been there, done that, learned from that mistake, and moved on!:laugh:


----------



## soundhertz

ChrisB said:


> I know for a fact that those Orion amplifiers are underrated, so the 50x2 and 100x2 are a misnomer for comparison purposes. One of the things I learned through out my chase for the SQ holy grail is that POWER to be the key to being able to tell the difference between amplifiers, not the actual brand of amplifier itself. For example, I went from 75 watts RMS per door to 300 watts RMS per door, and I noticed a HUGE difference in dynamics. Everything sounded so much cleaner and my amplifiers were barely breaking a sweat.
> 
> Now, allow me to scientifically analyze this for a second. Let's make the assumption that I can get your Orion amplifier to measure the same as another amplifier as verified with an Audio Precision at an output level far below clipping. At 15% to 20% power output capacity, do you honestly think you'd be able to tell the difference between your Orion and the other amplifier that measures identically in a double blind a/b/x test? If so, please explain how or why you'd be able to hear such a difference.
> 
> With all that stated, don't get me wrong, I believe in paying a premium for a quality product that will hold up in the harsh environment that the automobile has to offer. I just refuse to pay a premium for something because it is known to have the golden ear award for Sound Quality. Been there, done that, learned from that mistake, and moved on!:laugh:


Actually, those Orions aren't very underrated. BidDWiz did a test at 13.8 volts, with a reactive load, and it only mildly exceeded its rated power.
But yeah, lots of power is definitely a great thing. I once used 2 Genesis monoblocks to power my front stage once. Incredible head room!
I guess as long as the system sounds good, that's all that matters.


----------



## t3sn4f2

soundhertz said:


> How can they all sound the same? Impossible. That is a ridiculous notion.


Yeah, about as ridiculous as time travel into the future.


----------



## BuickGN

I've already stated many times why I use the amps I use. Power, size, efficiency, quality, practically non existent noise floor. To me my HDs are "good enough". I do not believe I would gain anything from a more expensive amp, I have a McIntosh collecting dust. 

What I do believe just like some others here is power is the key. More power has almost always equaled better SQ. If I went with cheap amps I would make sure to have lots of power on tap and I bet I wouldn't lose much if any SQ unless the noise floor was high.


----------



## Hanatsu

BuickGN said:


> I've already stated many times why I use the amps I use. Power, size, efficiency, quality, practically non existent noise floor. To me my HDs are "good enough". I do not believe I would gain anything from a more expensive amp, I have a McIntosh collecting dust.
> 
> What I do believe just like some others here is power is the key. More power has almost always equaled better SQ. If I went with cheap amps I would make sure to have lots of power on tap and I bet I wouldn't lose much if any SQ unless the noise floor was high.


Kinda agree with that.


----------



## MinnesotaStateUniversity

t3sn4f2 said:


> Yeah, about as ridiculous as time travel into the future.


hmm...


----------



## t3sn4f2

MinnesotaStateUniversity said:


> hmm...


.....


----------



## cleansoundz

I started this thread about higher end amps and sq. However, I have to state my latest findings. Recently I ran a JBL GTO 804ez rated at 80 watts rms x 4, RF 400x4 rated at 50 watts rms x4 and a RF 600x4 rated at 75 watts rms x 4. Gains were set with my DD1. They all sounded good. I just purchased a new CDT SQA 4075 rated at 75 watts x4 rms and let me tell you that this amp blew all of those listed amps away. The gains on my CDT were set with my DD1. I would think the CDT was grossly underrated for the difference to be so apparent. However according to the birth sheet on the RF P400x4 and 600x4, they are underrated as well but sound nothing like my CDT. No way does my CDT come out of my truck.

What do you all make of this?
BTW my birth sheet on the CDT has it rated at 79 watts per channel at 4 ohms.


----------



## MarkZ

soundhertz said:


> I have read the thread. The thing is, an amp is "supposed" to just amplify the sound. Look at the hundreds of different designs with all the different quality components inside. How can they all sound the same? Impossible. That is a ridiculous notion.


I believe this point was addressed too, although I might be thinking of another thread.

The great fallacy among "audiophiles" is that a piece of equipment is defined by the "quality" of the components inside. I think they believe that because they don't know how the actual equipment WORKS, so the differences must be with the guts. Well, that's somewhat true, but it's less about the "quality" of the components, and more about the "quality" of the design. A great design can use cheap components.

If you brought an amplifier to me and said, "Mark, how can I make this amp better??" I would first say, "Better how?" Then you would probably say you want improved distortion performance, lower noise, flatter frequency response from 20-20k, etc. To achieve those three things, virtually every modification I would suggest would probably be related to the design, not the components selected within the design. In fact, with a few exceptions, it's usually a bad idea to replace components in an already well-thought-out design.

So, the difference between your Orion amp and, say, the post-DEI Orion amps has less to do with the company putting "name brand" components inside, and more to do with the design overhaul that occurred when they bought out Orion.

But even more importantly, the fact is that there are a ****load of ways to skin a cat. You can alter a circuit to look completely different from another one, but make it behave in the same exact manner.

IMO, some of you guys should spend less time wondering about what's inside your amplifiers and more time trying to figure out how to objectively and systematically measure amplifier performance. Because at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what comes out of the ass of the amplifier, and whether or not it's as clean as the other amplifier.




> Also, let's have a head unit test.


Been done. Search the site.


----------



## Golden Ear

So what you're saying is differently designed amps sound different?


----------



## t3sn4f2

Golden Ear said:


> So what you're saying is differently designed amps sound different?


:bash:

:wiseguy::rifle:


----------



## MarkZ

Golden Ear said:


> So what you're saying is differently designed amps sound different?


I'm saying that if we're gonna talk about one amp being different from another amp, internally, 1) let's first have a ****ing clue about what those differences are; and 2) let's know what those differences MEAN. 

The idea that Orion's NT amplifiers are better than Orion's XTR amplifiers because one uses Toshiba transistors and the other uses Sanken transistors would be such an oversimplistic account of the situation that it's really a big embarassing facepalm.

I know nothing about cars. I do know that my Volvo has a 16 gallon gas tank and a Saturn I borrowed once had a 13 gallon gas tank. I like the way my Volvo drives much better, so therefore bigger gas tanks mean better driving cars. See? In this example I violated both criteria: 1) I really don't have any clue about the differences of those two cars under the hood aside from the gas tank; and 2) I have no idea that the size of the gas tank results in better performance. In other words, I should shut the **** up about what's under the hood, and stick to my subjective impressions about how the Volvo drives vs. the Saturn.

So let's skip the whole discussion about what parts are in the amplifier, because most of the people commenting in this thread don't know what those parts DO.


----------



## thehatedguy

You surely can't be implying that the (performance of the) sum of the parts is greater than the parts itself.


----------



## Golden Ear

t3sn4f2 said:


> :bash:
> 
> :wiseguy::rifle:


Lmao:laugh:


----------



## t3sn4f2

Golden Ear said:


> Lmao:laugh:


----------



## t3sn4f2

Golden Ear said:


> Lmao:laugh:


----------



## Golden Ear

Mark, thank you for the analogy. I, for one, don't know anything about the differences between what's inside cheap amps and expensive amps. I do, however, know that I like the sound of my Rockford Fosgate 4 channel amp more than my Zed Draconia. The RF is older and was cheaper so I believe psychoacoustics can be removed from the equation. The RF is 75 wpc versus the Draconia's 150wpc so more power can be removed from the equation. Maybe my ears like class AB over class D? Idk


----------



## subwoofery

MarkZ said:


> I'm saying that if we're gonna talk about one amp being different from another amp, internally, 1) let's first have a ****ing clue about what those differences are; and 2) let's know what those differences MEAN.
> 
> The idea that Orion's NT amplifiers are better than Orion's XTR amplifiers because one uses Toshiba transistors and the other uses Sanken transistors would be such an oversimplistic account of the situation that it's really a big embarassing facepalm.
> 
> I know nothing about cars. I do know that my Volvo has a 16 gallon gas tank and a Saturn I borrowed once had a 13 gallon gas tank. I like the way my Volvo drives much better, so therefore bigger gas tanks mean better driving cars. See? In this example I violated both criteria: 1) I really don't have any clue about the differences of those two cars under the hood aside from the gas tank; and 2) I have no idea that the size of the gas tank results in better performance. In other words, I should shut the **** up about what's under the hood, and stick to my subjective impressions about how the Volvo drives vs. the Saturn.
> 
> So let's skip the whole discussion about what parts are in the amplifier, because most of the people commenting in this thread don't know what those parts DO.


... but the smaller gas tank is lighter therefore it has a better 0-60 miles performance - correct? 

Kelvin


----------



## BuickGN

subwoofery said:


> ... but the smaller gas tank is lighter therefore it has a better 0-60 miles performance - correct?
> 
> Kelvin


That's assuming the larger tank is filled to capacity.


----------



## subwoofery

BuickGN said:


> That's assuming the larger tank is filled to capacity.


Less gas in the tank = less centrifugal force = better handling when cornering  

Kelvin


----------



## BuickGN

subwoofery said:


> Less gas in the tank = less centrifugal force = better handling when cornering
> 
> Kelvin


More gas = more weight aft of the axle to aid in weight transfer (not squat) under acceleration and less lift under braking *assuming a front engine RWD config tank aft of the axle, and not a 944 Porsche. Just a couple assumptions and weight sucks but I'm trying to win an argument.


----------



## Golden Ear

Are these still amp analogies? :laugh:


----------



## BuickGN

Golden Ear said:


> Are these still amp analogies? :laugh:


Amp placement at the cars cg and instant center is of utmost importance to not only improve sq due to less centrifugal force on the amp during cornering but also so it doesn't throw the cars handling balance off. Or something like that.


----------



## subwoofery

BuickGN said:


> More gas = more weight aft of the axle to aid in weight transfer (not squat) under acceleration and less lift under braking *assuming a front engine RWD config tank aft of the axle, and not a 944 Porsche. Just a couple assumptions and weight sucks but I'm trying to win an argument.


I'll give you this one coz I know your knowledge about cars and performance :thumbsup: 
However I'm always ready to argue about audio 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

Golden Ear said:


> Are these still amp analogies? :laugh:


You have 2 cars - 1 is a heavier well engineered car: a MERC S-class (class A/B) while the other is also well built car but with way more technology: a TESLA hybrid (class D) 

Since both can cruise on a freeway @ 65mph (20Hz-20kHz) for an hour without showing any signs of strain (distortion), does that make both cars the same (sound the same)? 

What if both cars are asked to go from point A to point B while following a pattern (music) - ACCelerate hard for 10 seconds then BRaKe hard for 5 seconds then go to the Left lane and ACC then BRK then go to the Right lane and start all over ; *yet both cars arrive @ point B exactly at the same time* (end of the song) - will the driver experience the exact same kind of driving sensations (listener)?  

How's that for an analogy? 

Kelvin


----------



## MarkZ

thehatedguy said:


> You surely can't be implying that the (performance of the) sum of the parts is greater than the parts itself.


Of course not! 



Golden Ear said:


> Mark, thank you for the analogy. I, for one, don't know anything about the differences between what's inside cheap amps and expensive amps. I do, however, know that I like the sound of my Rockford Fosgate 4 channel amp more than my Zed Draconia. The RF is older and was cheaper so I believe psychoacoustics can be removed from the equation. The RF is 75 wpc versus the Draconia's 150wpc so more power can be removed from the equation. Maybe my ears like class AB over class D? Idk


FWIW, psychoacoustics can NEVER be removed from the equation unless you specifically control for it. Expectation is one thing, but knowing in advance that they are different amps is another.



subwoofery said:


> You have 2 cars - 1 is a heavier well engineered car: a MERC S-class (class A/B) while the other is also well built car but with way more technology: a TESLA hybrid (class D)
> 
> Since both can cruise on a freeway @ 65mph (20Hz-20kHz) for an hour without showing any signs of strain (distortion), does that make both cars the same (sound the same)?
> 
> What if both cars are asked to go from point A to point B while following a pattern (music) - ACCelerate hard for 10 seconds then BRaKe hard for 5 seconds then go to the Left lane and ACC then BRK then go to the Right lane and start all over ; *yet both cars arrive @ point B exactly at the same time* (end of the song) - will the driver experience the exact same kind of driving sensations (listener)?
> 
> How's that for an analogy?
> 
> Kelvin


More like:

"accelerate a little bit for 10 seconds, lightly brake, take a nap, eat a sandwich, accelerate up to 20mph again."

20-20k is easy. Let's see how these ****ers do with RF, and then we can use the accelerate and brake hard analogy.


----------



## soundhertz

MarkZ said:


> I believe this point was addressed too, although I might be thinking of another thread.
> 
> The great fallacy among "audiophiles" is that a piece of equipment is defined by the "quality" of the components inside. I think they believe that because they don't know how the actual equipment WORKS, so the differences must be with the guts. Well, that's somewhat true, but it's less about the "quality" of the components, and more about the "quality" of the design. A great design can use cheap components.
> 
> If you brought an amplifier to me and said, "Mark, how can I make this amp better??" I would first say, "Better how?" Then you would probably say you want improved distortion performance, lower noise, flatter frequency response from 20-20k, etc. To achieve those three things, virtually every modification I would suggest would probably be related to the design, not the components selected within the design. In fact, with a few exceptions, it's usually a bad idea to replace components in an already well-thought-out design.
> 
> So, the difference between your Orion amp and, say, the post-DEI Orion amps has less to do with the company putting "name brand" components inside, and more to do with the design overhaul that occurred when they bought out Orion.
> 
> But even more importantly, the fact is that there are a ****load of ways to skin a cat. You can alter a circuit to look completely different from another one, but make it behave in the same exact manner.
> 
> IMO, some of you guys should spend less time wondering about what's inside your amplifiers and more time trying to figure out how to objectively and systematically measure amplifier performance. Because at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what comes out of the ass of the amplifier, and whether or not it's as clean as the other amplifier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been done. Search the site.


Yep, the "ass end of the amplifier". That is what I do. Level match the suckers and listen to well known tracks. Amplifiers with the same factory power ratings sound entirely different. Properly set up. Please enlighten me on this phenomenon. Nothing biased. In fact, some of the amplifiers which I liked better were not mine. Disappointing, to say the least.


----------



## Hanatsu

I like moar powah


----------



## soundhertz

Hanatsu said:


> I like moar powah


Good for you. "clap hands"


----------



## msmith

I stopped listening to amplifiers many years ago... I decided to listen to music, instead. Much more rewarding!


----------



## NightScreams

Meh, I don't really get it personally, taking car audio this seriously I mean. I'm not in my car long enough to listen much more than 2 or 3 songs at a time usually all while bumper to bumper traffic, cussing or reacting to stupid drivers or being annoyed at home skillet over there driving along side of me blasting four clipping 15's of some self absorbed rapper repeating how gangsta G he is wit dem shkanky ho's bull crap as his trunk rattles like someone's in there trying to bust their way out with a broken coil spring. Toss in some road noise, the hill jack behind me in the Diesel with winter tires who lost his exhaust, the distracting blonde trying to air out her ***** with her leg up on the dash on the other side of me, the douchebag in front who can't signal properly ..etc, I mean it's always something.:mean:
I learned that no amount of sound deadening or quality amplifier shuts out all that crap. So long as the amp isn't noisy I don't bother getting too fancy with it.
All I know is you guys must live and drive through some nice quiet countryside's far more often and longer than I get to or something. 

I do all my real listening at home where it's much more quiet and relaxing with a good pair of can's and amp. Now that's where it's at


----------



## MarkZ

soundhertz said:


> Yep, the "ass end of the amplifier". That is what I do. Level match the suckers and listen to well known tracks. Amplifiers with the same factory power ratings sound entirely different. Properly set up. Please enlighten me on this phenomenon. Nothing biased. In fact, some of the amplifiers which I liked better were not mine. Disappointing, to say the least.


Factory power ratings are about as useful as arguing over who manufactured the resistors in the amp. What the manufacturer stamps on the heatsink is probably not an accurate depiction of what's coming out of the ass end of the amplifier.

I'm very curious in getting my hands on the two amps that people report are so markedly different. I want to figure out WHY they're different. In other words, objectively measuring what's coming out of the ass end of the amplifiers and correlating that to what we hear. You guys aren't even a little interested in that question?


----------



## MarkZ

NightScreams said:


> I do all my real listening at home where it's much more quiet and relaxing with a good pair of can's and amp. Now that's where it's at


I hope you're talking about your wife and not headphones.  I find wearing headphones to be too fatiguing.


----------



## Golden Ear

NightScreams said:


> Meh, I don't really get it personally, taking car audio this seriously I mean. I'm not in my car long enough to listen much more than 2 or 3 songs at a time usually all while bumper to bumper traffic, cussing or reacting to stupid drivers or being annoyed at home skillet over there driving along side of me blasting four clipping 15's of some self absorbed rapper repeating how gangsta G he is wit dem shkanky ho's bull crap as his trunk rattles like someone's in there trying to bust their way out with a broken coil spring. Toss in some road noise, the hill jack behind me in the Diesel with winter tires who lost his exhaust, the distracting blonde trying to air out her ***** with her leg up on the dash on the other side of me, the douchebag in front who can't signal properly ..etc, I mean it's always something.:mean:
> I learned that no amount of sound deadening or quality amplifier shuts out all that crap. So long as the amp isn't noisy I don't bother getting too fancy with it.
> All I know is you guys must live and drive through some nice quiet countryside's far more often and longer than I get to or something.
> 
> I do all my real listening at home where it's much more quiet and relaxing with a good pair of can's and amp. Now that's where it's at


I drive around all day long and I live in a calm part of the world so I do bother to have a nice system in my truck. Even though I have a nice stereo at home, I get to listen more in my truck.


----------



## Golden Ear

MarkZ said:


> I'm very curious in getting my hands on the two amps that people report are so markedly different. I want to figure out WHY they're different. In other words, objectively measuring what's coming out of the ass end of the amplifiers and correlating that to what we hear. You guys aren't even a little interested in that question?


I'm interested in that question and a couple others - which sounds better, how much does it cost, and where can I get one?


----------



## subwoofery

NightScreams said:


> Meh, I don't really get it personally, taking car audio this seriously I mean. I'm not in my car long enough to listen much more than 2 or 3 songs at a time usually all while bumper to bumper traffic, cussing or reacting to stupid drivers or being annoyed at home skillet over there driving along side of me blasting four clipping 15's of some self absorbed rapper repeating how gangsta G he is wit dem shkanky ho's bull crap as his trunk rattles like someone's in there trying to bust their way out with a broken coil spring. Toss in some road noise, the hill jack behind me in the Diesel with winter tires who lost his exhaust, the distracting blonde trying to air out her ***** with her leg up on the dash on the other side of me, the douchebag in front who can't signal properly ..etc, I mean it's always something.:mean:
> I learned that no amount of sound deadening or quality amplifier shuts out all that crap. So long as the amp isn't noisy I don't bother getting too fancy with it.
> All I know is you guys must live and drive through some nice quiet countryside's far more often and longer than I get to or something.
> 
> I do all my real listening at home where it's much more quiet and relaxing with a good pair of can's and amp. Now that's where it's at


Really don't want to be in your shoes :surprised:

Kelvin


----------



## soundhertz

subwoofery said:


> Really don't want to be in your shoes :surprised:
> 
> Kelvin


Yeah, no ****, lol! I live in a spot with nice roads and 90% country driving. In a nice quiet, sound deadened BMW 5 series. I actually CAN hear my music, even when I am driving! :-0


----------



## NightScreams

yeah I live in a City where it can get very packed, not as bad as NY or nothing but it's certainly enough annoyances and external sounds to where there is no way I could listen hard enough to hear every little instrument so no point. The JLA XD amp sounds clean and clear enough for me. I mean I could crank it really loud like some do to shut it out but I find it a tad disrespectful plus I don't care for it too loud anymore.

Plus working construction without hearing protection for so many years didn't help either.


----------



## inspector3711

I'll bite this hook. I have much more experience in home audio. I have noticed a difference in sound in home amplifiers over the years. Some amplifiers from the 1970's had a very warm sound that is pleasing to my ears (Marantz, Sansui, to name a couple). 

In the 80's I purchased a Carver receiver based on it having the same quality. I've owned two Harmon Kardons that also had that "feel". Some like it, some don't.

My last unit was a high end Onkyo. I found it to be very accurate, but I truly missed that sound.

After 5 years of struggling with it, I went out and bought a new Marantz. Not quite as warm as the others, but somewhere in between.

So in my opinion there can be a difference in how the sound "feels" to me.


----------



## Hi-FiDelity

MarkZ said:


> Factory power ratings are about as useful as arguing over who manufactured the resistors in the amp. What the manufacturer stamps on the heatsink is probably not an accurate depiction of what's coming out of the ass end of the amplifier.


"But my Audiobahn has 15000 wpc printed on it with chrome flames, that means it has to be totally bad ass and do rated right?" 

Seriously though I've also noticed that most of the time when a company slaps there power ratings all over the box, manual, and the amp and put's "vents/intakes/decals/random ****" all over it, it usually isn't all that great. Kinda like when a 16 year old bolts wings and a fart cannon to a cavalier to tell the world how bad ass he is, all it really says is "I'm a tool and don't realize that no matter what I do it's still a caviler and I probably should have saved my money and gotten something that is actually fast". The same goes for amps a Boss/Legacy/Pyle can slap whatever "edgy/cool/boss" decals and print 6,000,000,WATTS on every square inch of the box and amp, but in the end it's still a cheap amp.


----------



## avanti1960

inspector3711 said:


> I'll bite this hook. I have much more experience in home audio. I have noticed a difference in sound in home amplifiers over the years. Some amplifiers from the 1970's had a very warm sound that is pleasing to my ears (Marantz, Sansui, to name a couple).
> 
> In the 80's I purchased a Carver receiver based on it having the same quality. I've owned two Harmon Kardons that also had that "feel". Some like it, some don't.
> 
> My last unit was a high end Onkyo. I found it to be very accurate, but I truly missed that sound.
> 
> After 5 years of struggling with it, I went out and bought a new Marantz. Not quite as warm as the others, but somewhere in between.
> 
> So in my opinion there can be a difference in how the sound "feels" to me.


Home systems are my personal reference for SQ and achieving that type of sound in the car has been challenging. 
Without proof though I would guess that the warm sound has more to do with bass being reproduced by speakers in nice solid wood enclosures of appropriate size, corner speaker locations for bass reflection / enhancement as well as a relatively quiet environment that tends not to create the challenging peaks and nulls present in a vehicle's cabin- as opposed to the idea that the warmth originates from amplifier characteristics. 

Anyone ever connected a home system to their car drivers?


----------



## soundhertz

Well the two amps here were the Genesis dual mono and the Xtant 2200i. The Xtant just sounded and performed better. Both great companies with non-bloated stats. 
One thing I find funny. How much power do tweeters really need? Because, with my JL900/5, my highs sounded a bit harsh. Absolutely no harshness with my orion nts. So, goes to show, it's not just about power. Period.


----------



## Hi-FiDelity

soundhertz said:


> Well the two amps here were the Genesis dual mono and the Xtant 2200i. The Xtant just sounded and performed better. Both great companies with non-bloated stats.


There are exceptions to the rule and those companies would be two of them. 




soundhertz said:


> One thing I find funny. How much power do tweeters really need? Because, with my JL900/5, my highs sounded a bit harsh. Absolutely no harshness with my orion nts. So, goes to show, it's not just about power. Period.


The overall design has a lot more to do with the way an amp sounds than how many watts it puts out.


----------



## eddieg

Hi-FiDelity said:


> "But my Audiobahn has 15000 wpc printed on it with chrome flames, that means it has to be totally bad ass and do rated right?"
> 
> Seriously though I've also noticed that most of the time when a company slaps there power ratings all over the box, manual, and the amp and put's "vents/intakes/decals/random ****" all over it, it usually isn't all that great. Kinda like when a 16 year old bolts wings and a fart cannon to a cavalier to tell the world how bad ass he is, all it really says is "I'm a tool and don't realize that no matter what I do it's still a caviler and I probably should have saved my money and gotten something that is actually fast". The same goes for amps a Boss/Legacy/Pyle can slap whatever "edgy/cool/boss" decals and print 6,000,000,WATTS on every square inch of the box and amp, but in the end it's still a cheap amp.


That would be a direct result of BAD technical plannig, a poor layout and poor elements chosen. 

You will get the WATTS that is no doubt, but along side with them you will get poor SNR and when heat is going up, poor performance.

Noisy power suppliers, noisy layout of elements, bad filtering etc. 

Then when you get an amp which is quarter of that power but it is strong enough to move your speaker right, you get puzzled that it sounds better - the above is why. 

And remeber: With great power, comes great responsibility :laugh:


----------



## inspector3711

> Without proof though I would guess that the warm sound has more to do with bass being reproduced by speakers in nice solid wood enclosures of appropriate size, corner speaker locations for bass reflection / enhancement as well as a relatively quiet environment that tends not to create the challenging peaks and nulls present in a vehicle's cabin- as opposed to the idea that the warmth originates from amplifier characteristics.


Certainly speakers and room acoustics have some bearing on sound, but I was specifically speaking to differences in amplifier sound. This difference is subjective, but I have compared different amplifiers side by side many times. The warmth I'm pointing out I typically associate with tube amplifiers. 

I have even gone as far as comparing my wife's guitar amplifiers. She has two solid state units and one tube amp. There is a night and day difference between them.

Bob Carver spent a good amount of time trying to model the tube sound into his solid state amplifiers and he succeeded to some degree. I haven't listened to his newer Sunfire brand, but I have a feeling he went down the same avenue.

You can take a Carver receiver and compare it in the same room with the same speakers and speaker placement to say a newer Sony or Pioneer and you will hear a difference. The same can be said for the old Marantz and Sansui receivers.


----------



## soundhertz

I challenge the people who are against amps sounding different to go and get some of the high end amps I have owned and try them against their new class d stuff. Not even close when you go to the old high end amps. Been there, tried that. Wished the small class d would have but simply can't compete with sound.


----------



## Hi-FiDelity

An amp is an amp..until you turn it on.


----------



## soundhertz

Hi-FiDelity said:


> An amp is an amp..until you turn it on.


Exactly


----------



## BuickGN

soundhertz said:


> I challenge the people who are against amps sounding different to go and get some of the high end amps I have owned and try them against their new class d stuff. Not even close when you go to the old high end amps. Been there, tried that. Wished the small class d would have but simply can't compete with sound.


I've got a McIntosh 4 channel and JL HD amps. The HDs are powering my system including the Esotar 110s which are VERY revealing tweeters. The Mac is collecting dust. Why, because there was absolutely no difference in the way they sounded except the HDs have a non existent noise floor and are better behaved when pushed to the limit. The decision to go class D was very simple. No difference in sound quality with all of the advantages of class D. 

You either wanted to hear a difference or you tried a crap class D. I'm not afraid to spend money on audio, my tweeters cost as much as some people's systems. If there was anything to be gained from an inefficient and overpriced class AB I would have one in my car. 

In the beginning I used to tell people what's in the car and more than half said they could tell I'm running class D because of the artifacts and harshness. When I stopped saying I had class D and even lied saying they were powered by the Mac all of a sudden people thought the system was great and warm and all of the usual stuff people believe about AB amps. 

There is no difference in a good class D full range amp and an old AB unless the AB is coloring the sound. There was no difference in the Mac, HD, and $90 Interfire AB amp at lower levels.


----------



## Hanatsu

BuickGN said:


> I've got a McIntosh 4 channel and JL HD amps. The HDs are powering my system including the Esotar 110s which are VERY revealing tweeters. The Mac is collecting dust. Why, because there was absolutely no difference in the way they sounded except the HDs have a non existent noise floor and are better behaved when pushed to the limit. The decision to go class D was very simple. No difference in sound quality with all of the advantages of class D.
> 
> You either wanted to hear a difference or you tried a crap class D. I'm not afraid to spend money on audio, my tweeters cost as much as some people's systems. If there was anything to be gained from an inefficient and overpriced class AB I would have one in my car.
> 
> In the beginning I used to tell people what's in the car and more than half said they could tell I'm running class D because of the artifacts and harshness. When I stopped saying I had class D and even lied saying they were powered by the Mac all of a sudden people thought the system was great and warm and all of the usual stuff people believe about AB amps.
> 
> There is no difference in a good class D full range amp and an old AB unless the AB is coloring the sound. There was no difference in the Mac, HD, and $90 Interfire AB amp at lower levels.


Agree 100%. My opinion as well. Tried tons of amps, found that speakers, install and DSP makes the biggest difference ^^


----------



## soundhertz

BuickGN said:


> I've got a McIntosh 4 channel and JL HD amps. The HDs are powering my system including the Esotar 110s which are VERY revealing tweeters. The Mac is collecting dust. Why, because there was absolutely no difference in the way they sounded except the HDs have a non existent noise floor and are better behaved when pushed to the limit. The decision to go class D was very simple. No difference in sound quality with all of the advantages of class D.
> 
> You either wanted to hear a difference or you tried a crap class D. I'm not afraid to spend money on audio, my tweeters cost as much as some people's systems. If there was anything to be gained from an inefficient and overpriced class AB I would have one in my car.
> 
> In the beginning I used to tell people what's in the car and more than half said they could tell I'm running class D because of the artifacts and harshness. When I stopped saying I had class D and even lied saying they were powered by the Mac all of a sudden people thought the system was great and warm and all of the usual stuff people believe about AB amps.
> 
> There is no difference in a good class D full range amp and an old AB unless the AB is coloring the sound. There was no difference in the Mac, HD, and $90 Interfire AB amp at lower levels.


Well, maybe the Mac was your problem.  Kidding. I tried the JL HD and I was hoping it would suffice for space saving install. I really was. No bias at all. I was hoping to make the change but top end and bottom end suffered compared to my NTs. So, sold the JL. The Jl isn't smooth enough on the top without big time EQing. And the NTs have a beautiful bottom end like no other that I've tried.


----------



## soundhertz

Hanatsu said:


> Agree 100%. My opinion as well. Tried tons of amps, found that speakers, install and DSP makes the biggest difference ^^


Really? Well, why not buy a nice source unit, ****ty speakers, ****ty amps and ****ty everything? Just dsp the hell out of it. Perfect.


----------



## t3sn4f2

soundhertz said:


> Really? Well, why not buy a nice source unit, ****ty speakers, ****ty amps and ****ty everything? Just dsp the hell out of it. Perfect.


Is that a well thought out response? I sure hope not, for your audio sake.


----------



## ryan roberts

lol.. very entertaining read!!.the jl full range class d amps have come along way siince xtant released the 100 watt monoblocks 10 or so years ago.. I can always hear the difference between amps that I swap in and out of my system,but only at very high volume which is where my volumes always at.. lol.. with better amps I can achieve the same volume with my crossovers turned down, achieving better midbass punch without any audible distortion.. and also allows the same volume without giving me a headacheafter an hour of high volume listening.. I'm a fan of 8 volt eclipse decks before an audiocontrol 3.1 volume all the way up on CD player with volume controlled by the 3.1halfdin processor..with a clean source,a nice linear volume control and real CDs.. lol.. I can always hear a difference, I may not remember what the previous amp sounded like, but I can tell if my midbass sounds like hell and if my tweets are giving me a headache.. for those of us who listen to music at highvolumes at all times with lots of different types of music and who know everysong in our music collection very personally, there is a difference between amps! ..the only problem with the old inneficient amps like the esoteric e8 later bought by diamond and called the d8 series is that u had to up ur alt amperage and get a couple AgM batteries to power them.. but if u do so, u would hear a dramatic difference at extreme levels over time...


----------



## ryan roberts

especially if u have real kickpods that are solidly built and ur mids aren't in ur door.. lol..good kicks+high powerhandling low distortion mids coupled with a clean high-power amp =awesome midbass and and a system that's actually fun to listen 2 at highvolumes..


----------



## ChrisB

soundhertz said:


> I challenge the people who are against amps sounding different to go and get some of the high end amps I have owned and try them against their new class d stuff. Not even close when you go to the old high end amps. Been there, tried that. Wished the small class d would have but simply can't compete with sound.


I challenge you to take the Richard Clark challenge. Since you can tell the difference, it should be easy for you to win $10,000 from him. Just think, you'll be the hit of all the audiophile magazines!

In all honesty, the fact is even in tests where amplifiers weren't altered to measure the same, there were many instances where the most golden of ears could not pick out which amp was which with any statistical significance. Now, let's factor in the worst reproduction environment known to man, the car, and the subtle differences between how the various quality amplifiers sound really become a moot point.

Then again, if I was super loaded, I would run Audison Thesis amplifiers just because I could.


----------



## ryan roberts

lol.. so ill install a zapco iforce amp in my car and a zapco competition series amp in my car of equal power there gonna sound the same?..I already know they don't, when I spend an hour trying to adjust levels and wondering if maybe I have a speaker out of phase just to come to the conclusion that everything's hooked up correctly, and that its just the amp ,then I can confidently say I can hear a difference, cuz that's happened a 1000 times..


----------



## Oliver

ChrisB said:


> Then again, if I was super loaded, I would run Audison Thesis amplifiers just because I could.


Gives me something to talk about is why I bought them


----------



## ryan roberts

it would be interesting to take that challenge..if the comparison test was held in my car with with my music and with my volume levels then it could possibly be very telling..


----------



## Oliver

*Richard Clark $10,000 Amplifier Challenge FAQ *

Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge FAQ

Comments from Richard Clark



> of course my challenge includes tube amps---thats what got it started to begin with----while most tube amps have more distortion than transistor amps it is still usually below the audible level of a couple percent---the biggest audible difference is like Big T said---the higher output impedance created by the transformer windings causes a slight frequency dependant amplitude difference---while this is usually less than a db or so except in the worst designs (the "super" amps without negative feedback really have this problem big time)the effect is subtle but audible-----and since it naturally happens at the resonant places of the speaker it is sometimes very pronounced----it is easily duplicated with a small value resistor in series with the speaker-----RC-
> 
> and just to show you how people misunderstand my challenge *someone recently told me he could pass the test if he didn't have to be "blindfolded"*----thats what his understanding of a "double blind" test was---so much for scientific understanding.....


----------



## Golden Ear

Quote from the article: "Does this mean all amps sound the same in a normal install?

No. Richard Clark is very careful to say that amps usually do not sound the same in the real world. The gain setting of an amplifier can make huge differences in how an amplifier sounds, as can details like how crossovers or other filters are set. When played very loud (into clipping), the amplifier with more power will generally sound better than a lower powered amp.

Most people perceive slight differences in amplitude as quality differences rather than loudness. The louder component sounds “faster, more detailed, more full”, not just louder. This perceptual phenomenon is responsible for many people thinking they liked the sound of a component when really they just liked the way it was set up.

I changed amps in my system to another one with the same measured power and I hear a sound quality difference. Does this show that the test results are invalid?

No. Installing a new amplifier involves setting the gains and crossovers, and any slight change you make to those settings is going to affect how things sound."

So is this why my friends car sounded so much better when he replaced his Pyle amp with an Arc Audio amp? Because of the gain and crossover settings? Or is it because the claimed power of the Pyle wasn't the real amount of power it had? I can't remember the claimed power of both amps but I know they were close.


----------



## ryan roberts

hmm.. hard to disagree with a scientist or Dr...lol.. wonder if he ripps some three6 Mafia on his caraudio system...I'm kinda jaded maybe because a friend of mine owns an electronics repair shop next door to our shop, he's an engineer and tells me that kind of stuff, but he also tells me my dynaudio special 25's don't sound as good as his klipschorns and I think klipsche speakers sound like dookey..lol.. and everytime he sits in my car I get the volume to 50% and he cringes like alil beeeotch.. lmao! ..I may be wrong on this subject but ur not gonna find me installing a crunch amp in my car anytime soon because my subconscious will tell my ears that I'm hearing noise and sloppy midbass and thin sounding tweets..


----------



## ryan roberts

I see what ur saying.. that's actually interesting.. and I agree level and processing controls will vary greatly and play a role in the final comparison.. honestly the other day I installed a Jensen amp and hooked it to a set of Morel tempo 6x9's in 6x9 boxes in a full sized blazer and it blew me away!!.lol I listened to about 10 songs before I delivered the vehicle to the customer..  I love car audio


----------



## Hanatsu

Matrix HiFi --> Blind testing high end full equipments

I find that one very interesting xD



> How can it be possible that a basic system with such a price difference against the "reference" one, poorly placed, using the cheapest signal cables found, couldn't be distinguished from the more expensive one?


Good question ^^


----------



## Bayboy

21 pages of debate with respectable views from both sides, but it is futile. 

All I can say at this point is that as long as the gear is affordable, durable, low distortion, quiet, small enough to pack as many channels into the allotted space, and has the power& features I need, then I'm going to use it. I love my old AB amps, but getting 7 channels in a small amp rack ain't easy. If whatever fits that criteria is not considered high end, then so be it.


----------



## ryan roberts

good point,they are called systems afterall.. u can only fit so much equipment and quote a customer so much $...but now that I think about it, I have always opted for better speakers ran off a quality entry level amp if it was necessary to stay within a budget..I just hope that young car audio minds don't take this thread the wrong way because a crappy amp isn't crappy amp period!! u will be more succeptible to noise, overrated power,and breakdowns..what this thread is really saying is that a propperly designed amp compared to the same amp that has been upgraded to better caps gold plated rcas etc..will not have a noticeable audible difference...once u have reached the point of dimminishing returns the point of this thread hold true on any subject.. but if every aspect of ur system has been excessively addressed then the accumulation of all those little differences will make a difference.. not only in sound but also longevity..


----------



## soundhertz

ChrisB said:


> I challenge you to take the Richard Clark challenge. Since you can tell the difference, it should be easy for you to win $10,000 from him. Just think, you'll be the hit of all the audiophile magazines!
> 
> In all honesty, the fact is even in tests where amplifiers weren't altered to measure the same, there were many instances where the most golden of ears could not pick out which amp was which with any statistical significance. Now, let's factor in the worst reproduction environment known to man, the car, and the subtle differences between how the various quality amplifiers sound really become a moot point.
> 
> Then again, if I was super loaded, I would run Audison Thesis amplifiers just because I could.


Just think of the beautiful amps I will buy with my $10,000.


----------



## soundhertz

t3sn4f2 said:


> Is that a well thought out response? I sure hope not, for your audio sake.


It was a joke.


----------



## WRX/Z28

I personally used to be a big believer in the differences in amps. I too had swapped amps multiple times and heard a difference each time. It was only when I picked up a decent set of bookshelf speakers and ran multiple amps that were level matched through the same pair of speakers over and over that I determined for myself that there is no audible difference between amplifiers that are similar power and level matched. Anyone that tests this for themselves PROPERLY will come to the same conclusion. 

If you don't bother to do this, or don't know how to do this, you will continue to live in ignorance of the facts... 

Anyone local to NJ is welcome to stop by and experience this in person. 

That being said, I still pick better quality amps from reputable manufacturers simply for reliability, space savings, connction capabilities, and thermal management. There are plenty to choose from, so find what fits your needs/budget, but don't buy on SQ...


----------



## brianhj

Different capacitors in the circuit will give you different sound. It's just the way things are.


----------



## Bayboy

brianhj said:


> Different capacitors in the circuit will give you different sound. It's just the way things are.


Question.... Since most here employ some sort of processing and in depth ones at that, can two different amps sound similar (aside from thd) with just fine adjustments?


----------



## brianhj

Bayboy said:


> Question.... Since most here employ some sort of processing and in depth ones at that, can two different amps sound similar (aside from thd) with just fine adjustments?


Similar? Sure.. but not exactly the same. Unless you have an infinite set of points to adjust on the frequency spectrum. But that's a given. When looking at the big picture 31 bands is not very many!


----------



## Bayboy

brianhj said:


> Similar? Sure.. but not exactly the same. Unless you have an infinite set of points to adjust on the frequency spectrum. But that's a given. When looking at the big picture 31 bands is not very many!


Gotcha.... I take it some of these high end amps are that distinct? That would be a tough one for me being that I haven't heard any of these amps that I can remember.


----------



## Aaron Clinton

WRX/Z28 said:


> ....
> 
> That being said, I still pick better quality amps from reputable manufacturers simply for reliability, space savings, connction capabilities, and thermal management. There are plenty to choose from, so find what fits your needs/budget, but don't buy on SQ...


*I agree with this for sure.*


----------



## Hanatsu

Measure FR and distortion with RoomEQ through the speakers with amp1. Switch amp measure again with 'amp2' - level match. Any changes should be visable in FR/phase/distortion, decay. It's after all, what we hear. The only thing not measurable would be IMD (still dunno how measure that). Anyone ever tried this?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## file audio

Well i fell on mcintosh mc440 still not noticing big ddiferences but i guess im connect ing wrong impedances. Finished read the manual ten minutes ago..


----------



## file audio

Hehe they advertized twice and warning! don t use channel 5&6 with xover at 80 or 120hz ..


----------



## carlchj

Ok this is confusing to me. so can someone please break it down to the simplest terms for me? I am and have been for many years been a fan of Pioneer. That being said. If Im understanding this thread correctly half of you are saying that the PRS-D4200F 4x75 at $500 is no better than the GM-D8604 4x100 at $200 The other half are saying it is. Im in the market for a good amp and thought I had decided until I started reading this thread....... little help pleas.....


----------



## SilkySlim

My tests have concluded much different results than the Richard Clark challenge. The fact of dumbing down the capacity the of the different amps and and then EQing them to take out major differences? Really? So to have a neutral sound let's go ahead and spend hours tuning them out. I get the tube 30watt vs. SS 30watt challenge but it should be straight up. I have found that everything you introduce in the signal chain can have an effect on the sound. 
I have done very objective test with normal non sound guys test subjects and audiophiles and had clear results even with similarly rated amps. Did it based on final db output per amp on true full range speakers worth more than most cars. There was distinct sound character to different models, brands, designs, etc.
I like to start at the most neutral position when tuning. But that being said a properly calibrated, and tuned system will always sound better. 
On more simplistic source, amp, and speaker system the differences will be more obvious. I do believe that if you know what you are doing the power of the new processors do allow you to tune out many differences introduced by amp design power and current delivery being the same. In the car at least. I have found many differences on how amps react to speaker loads also. In cars you don't run into as many challenges but in home you may have electrostatic, planar, and other non traditional diaphragms these can really change the sound of an amp.


----------



## WRX/Z28

SilkySlim said:


> My tests have concluded much different results than the Richard Clark challenge. The fact of dumbing down the capacity the of the different amps and and then EQing them to take out major differences? Really? So to have a neutral sound let's go ahead and spend hours tuning them out. I get the tube 30watt vs. SS 30watt challenge but it should be straight up. I have found that everything you introduce in the signal chain can have an effect on the sound.
> I have done very objective test with normal non sound guys test subjects and audiophiles and had clear results even with similarly rated amps. Did it based on final db output per amp on true full range speakers worth more than most cars. There was distinct sound character to different models, brands, designs, etc.
> I like to start at the most neutral position when tuning. But that being said a properly calibrated, and tuned system will always sound better.
> On more simplistic source, amp, and speaker system the differences will be more obvious. I do believe that if you know what you are doing the power of the new processors do allow you to tune out many differences introduced by amp design power and current delivery being the same. In the car at least. I have found many differences on how amps react to speaker loads also. In cars you don't run into as many challenges but in home you may have electrostatic, planar, and other non traditional diaphragms these can really change the sound of an amp.


So it's worth spending $1500 on an "SQ amp" for it's non-eq'd sound difference instead of buying a $300 amp and using an eq built into almost any deck, or god forbid a $200-300 audio control unit?

The point is that amps don't do anything magical to the signal, and small FR differences can easily be eq'd out, leveling the playing field. Now he also says "any non-linear FR". The point of an amp is music reproduction. If it introduces it's own FR to your music, it's failing at it's only job (accurately reproducing the signal it's fed) however, Richard Clark shows that EQ work fixes that. IE, buy an amp and an eq to get that "sounds different" effect...

Most from the "amps sound different" camp are claiming that the differences are not merely from FR changes, and are "imaging" or "subtle cues" differences. RC proves this is not the case, and an eq with one band moved 3db most often make a larger difference in sound than a different amp. 

There is no magical SQ amp. Most competently build amps perform in a linear fashion, but even those that don't can be accounted for.


----------



## car8961

I can understand not hearing a difference a quiet levels but not at the spl level the music was intended to be listened at.If you can't tell the difference you should listen to live music to hear how an instrument actually sounds.Use test cd's or apps. for education.Then tell me there is hardly a diff.


----------



## t3sn4f2

car8961 said:


> I can understand not hearing a difference a quiet levels but not at the spl level the music was intended to be listened at.If you can't tell the difference you should listen to live music to hear how an instrument actually sounds.Use test cd's or apps. for education.Then tell me there is hardly a diff.


And if you _can_ tell the difference and you aren't overdriving the amp then you should read the following article.

NwAvGuy: What We Hear


----------



## SilkySlim

I'm sorry but I've had way to many experiences where changes in Dac's or amps have made very noticeable differences. My wife who has some hearing loss in one ear has walked in to the room and ask why the system doesn't sound right she couldn't even stay and listen she said that it was uncomfortable and all that changed was either an amp or dac. So to think that there is this " big great conspiracy from this big grossly profitable industry" is total BS and hogwash. It is a dying industry in which it's most wildly profitable figures have barely scratched the surface of what the avg. starting programmer of apple and Microsoft made during the same time. These are the guys that have made money cutting down the quality of music for the sake of convinence and portability. Easily measurable. I don't see him attacking them? I am not saying that everything marketed to improve sound has been effective and there have been many that we're hookie at best. I have been involved in blind test and have had no trouble picking out what I like consistantly. I have seen novices notice too.


----------



## madcad95

I can hear the difference between my crown a6000gti and a db drive 7.5 or a hifonics sampson or an everest 10k and even though the crown is less power then the others I prefer it.


----------



## t3sn4f2

Alright, you knuckleheads asked for it! 

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/technical-advanced-car-audio-discussion/86892-audiophile-banana.html


----------



## rton20s

carlchj said:


> Ok this is confusing to me. so can someone please break it down to the simplest terms for me? I am and have been for many years been a fan of Pioneer. That being said. If Im understanding this thread correctly half of you are saying that the PRS-D4200F 4x75 at $500 is no better than the GM-D8604 4x100 at $200 The other half are saying it is. Im in the market for a good amp and thought I had decided until I started reading this thread....... little help pleas.....


Define "better." Better build quality? I'm pretty sure? Better warranty? I believe so, though it will have long been expired by now. 

Audibly better? I don't know. The amps are very similar in terms of spec, including the +0 dB, -3 dB frequency response numbers. The D8604 bests the D4200F in power, but the D4200F bests the D8604 in SNR and THD. Is either of these enough to make a difference in what you hear? I don't know. Especially not without seeing frequency response graphs from each amp. 

All that said, I would bet that given the same set of circumstances between the two, the PRS-D4200F will probably last longer the the GM-D8604. Does that mean the GM-D8604 is no good? I hope not, I just picked one up to use in the wife's car!


----------



## Hanatsu

t3sn4f2 said:


> Alright, you knuckleheads asked for it!
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...audio-discussion/86892-audiophile-banana.html


Lol. This sums it up.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## minbari

t3sn4f2 said:


> Alright, you knuckleheads asked for it!
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/technical-advanced-car-audio-discussion/86892-audiophile-banana.html


ha ha, her statement at the end says it all. "when you want to beleive it is organic, its just tastes better."


----------



## GlassWolf

cleansoundz said:


> I have used several amps over the past 6 years ranging from RF, LP, McIntosh, MTX, PPI, ARC AUDIO, POLK AUDIO, JBL, ZED, LANZAR OPTI, JL AUDIO, KICKER, ECLIPSE, Etc, Etc. While some amps did have a sound that was pleasing to the ear, I noticed that amps with higher power ratings set to a decent pair of speakers whether they were separates or coaxials sounded just as good as the so called higher end amps. My point is an 100 watt x 4 channel of a good brand sounded just as clean, crisp and clear as the so called higher end brands such as Brax, McIntosh, etc. The same applied to bass as well. I swapped out several good brand of amps with higher end amps to notice very little difference in sound quality using a sealed enclosure. If this is the case, why spend so much money on the so-called higher end brands?


no amplifier should have a "sound." Amps should be completely transparent if they do their job properly. When you buy a higher end amp what you buy is superior board layout and design, better quality components inside for better longevity and consistency across the board from amp to amp, and typically, better company support if you do have an issue with the product. There is more to quality than just the sound of something. I'm not, however, trying to convince you to spend two grand on an amplifier if you can get something just as good for cheaper. Just remember that you also have to look at dynamic headroom of the amplifier (power supply is a big chunk of the price in a quality amp) which will determine how good the amp sounds when you really push it to it's limits. The better amp's limits will far exceed that of the cheaper amp. Anyway, when people are looking to upgrade an audio system for a car, I usually tell them to buy a "good" amp and not a "great" amp if money is an issue. The amplifiers are one of the least effective ways to improve an audio system. speaker choice and placement, for example, is far more able to change a system's timbre for a listener than a bigger or more expensive amp will.

If you truly believe, however, that a "watt is a watt no matter what," then I suggest this to you: Compare a Pass Labs or First Watt amplifier rated at, say, 18 WPC to an AV receiver in a home stereo system, that's rated for 130 WPC, and tell me which one is the better amplifier. The 25 pound toroid in the First Watt amp will make a tremendous difference over the 35 pound AVR, even with a far lower rated power output.


----------



## asawendo

GlassWolf said:


> no amplifier should have a "sound." Amps should be completely transparent if they do their job properly. When you buy a higher end amp what you buy is superior board layout and design, better quality components inside for better longevity and consistency across the board from amp to amp, and typically, better company support if you do have an issue with the product. There is more to quality than just the sound of something. I'm not, however, trying to convince you to spend two grand on an amplifier if you can get something just as good for cheaper. Just remember that you also have to look at dynamic headroom of the amplifier (power supply is a big chunk of the price in a quality amp) which will determine how good the amp sounds when you really push it to it's limits. The better amp's limits will far exceed that of the cheaper amp. Anyway, when people are looking to upgrade an audio system for a car, I usually tell them to buy a "good" amp and not a "great" amp if money is an issue. The amplifiers are one of the least effective ways to improve an audio system. speaker choice and placement, for example, is far more able to change a system's timbre for a listener than a bigger or more expensive amp will.
> 
> If you truly believe, however, that a "watt is a watt no matter what," then I suggest this to you: Compare a Pass Labs or First Watt amplifier rated at, say, 18 WPC to an AV receiver in a home stereo system, that's rated for 130 WPC, and tell me which one is the better amplifier. The 25 pound toroid in the First Watt amp will make a tremendous difference over the 35 pound AVR, even with a far lower rated power output.


That's very true Glasswolf...

In my experiences with some good or great power amp (both oldschool and new school) I always pick ones with superior design board and also decent power supply in order to deliver their job flawlessly. 

A good or great power amp which sound transparent (so true to the source) and have no coloration and noticeable distortion even in peak dynamic music always been my favorite.

 

Best Regards

Asawendo


----------



## Zippy

t3sn4f2 said:


> And if you _can_ tell the difference and you aren't overdriving the amp then you should read the following article.
> 
> NwAvGuy: What We Hear


I get a laugh every time I read that. I love the fact they never mention that sound travels in waves. What happens to waves when they interact with each other? They distort each other. Yes we only hear up to the 20k range. Does that prevent a sound that we can not hear from distorting a sound that we can? The answer is no. So, YES higher frequencies that we can not hear do influence sounds we hear all the time.

Back to the topic, Is there a difference between higher end amps and low end amps when it comes to SQ? 

Let's go over some facts and logic. 

Each part has ratings of tolerance, unbanded (generic up to 20% variance), silver banded (up to 10% variance), gold banded (up to 5% variance), and Military spec (up to 1% variance). These parts are how far they can be off rating and still earn their band. 

All amplifiers are using one of a few circuit layouts to amplify signals. These are the classes of amplifiers. Manufacturers add some protection to keep us from damaging what we purchase and ourselves also. 

When you buy a higher end amp, they should be using higher end parts. Less variance = truer to measured parts = closer to perfect sound reproduction. Now this does not prevent unbanded parts from being off enough in opposite ways to end up sounding just as good. What you are paying for is a guaranteed better sounding amp on averages. 

Is it possible for a lower end amp to end up sounding better than a higher end amp?

Absolutely. 

How often will that happen? 

About as often I will win the lottery.


----------



## GlassWolf

and that actually links back to why people love old school car stereo products. For me, I'm an old Orion fan, and their higher end products used full MilSpec components throughout, which not only had tighter tolerances, but were able to operate in greater temerature ranges with larger variances in voltage without damage, which in short, meant they held up better to age and abuse. Even today, over 20 years later, the most I have to do to restore most of those old amps is just re-cap them, since electrolytics have a limited lifespan anyway. The KEF Reference home speakers I restore use components that were hand matched for tolerance, so every pair of speakers were serialized as xxxxA and xxxxB matched pairs. Tolerances can, as noted above, matter. When I build amplifiers, I go through the components like the caps, and use a capacitance meter to sift through a bag of the caps and find matched sets, to keep everything as tight as I can from one end to the other. Does it make an audible difference? Probably not, but I know it will be as acurate as I can get it.


----------



## file audio

You can decide to breathe the air from the city or the woods.. at the end of the day is air... but what about quality! ? Some can say theres an ear placebo...but


----------



## t3sn4f2

Zippy said:


> I get a laugh every time I read that. I love the fact they never mention that sound travels in waves. What happens to waves when they interact with each other? They distort each other. Yes we only hear up to the 20k range. Does that prevent a sound that we can not hear from distorting a sound that we can? The answer is no. So, YES higher frequencies that we can not hear do influence sounds we hear all the time.


24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

AES E-Library » Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback
BAS Experiment Explanation page - Oct 2007

"[Engineering Report] Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.” The tests were conducted for over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. *The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles.* *The test results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of the playback systems.* The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only at very elevated levels."


You aren't the only one who chuckles.


----------



## Zippy

I think a lot of people miss what an actual audiophile is all about. The audiophile posers are most often connected with the term. 

A real audiophile is all about exact reproduction of what was recorded. They want to be there in the recording studio with the artist and musicians to hear with their own ears what it was like. Audiophiles will go to extremes to achieve this end. This causes audiophiles to seek the best quality recording to reproduce the closest possible sound to what it was like in the studio. This is why 192kHz/32-bit matters to a real audiophile.

A poser is someone who claims to be able to hear a difference at those levels of reproduction. They generally have inadequacy issue so they want to be better than everyone else. This leads them to make claims that are impossible to substantiate.

I am an audiophile. My home audio system is insane. I can tell which key of a saxophone is being pressed on my McCoy Tyner New York Reunion CD at any point in time. I can tell you which direction and distance each instrument is located in relation to where I sit. That is what being an audiophile is about. Immersion in the sound to be able to place yourself there. if you swap high end amps I can not hear a difference. If you swap out my Magnepans I can tell a difference unless it's to a Mark Levinson. Planar speaker make a world of difference since they produce the full spectrum of sound from one exact spot. Component speaker sets (tweet mid and 3 mid bass) do have peaks and valleys in their sound reproduction that can be heard. The golden ear hearing sound frequencies that others can not is all myth created by posers with self esteem issues.

So please keep us real audiophiles out of that bad group of posers.


----------



## file audio

Zippy said:


> I think a lot of people miss what an actual audiophile is all about. The audiophile posers are most often connected with the term.
> 
> A real audiophile is all about exact reproduction of what was recorded. They want to be there in the recording studio with the artist and musicians to hear with their own ears what it was like. Audiophiles will go to extremes to achieve this end. This causes audiophiles to seek the best quality recording to reproduce the closest possible sound to what it was like in the studio. This is why 192kHz/32-bit matters to a real audiophile.
> 
> A poser is someone who claims to be able to hear a difference at those levels of reproduction. They generally have inadequacy issue so they want to be better than everyone else. This leads them to make claims that are impossible to substantiate.
> 
> I am an audiophile. My home audio system is insane. I can tell which key of a saxophone is being pressed on my McCoy Tyner New York Reunion CD at any point in time. I can tell you which direction and distance each instrument is located in relation to where I sit. That is what being an audiophile is about. Immersion in the sound to be able to place yourself there. if you swap high end amps I can not hear a difference. If you swap out my Magnepans I can tell a difference unless it's to a Mark Levinson. Planar speaker make a world of difference since they produce the full spectrum of sound from one exact spot. Component speaker sets (tweet mid and 3 mid bass) do have peaks and valleys in their sound reproduction that can be heard. The golden ear hearing sound frequencies that others can not is all myth created by posers with self esteem issues.
> 
> So please keep us real audiophiles out of that bad group of posers.


Its an honour to read something by a real audiophike with perfect pitch! Well I can said for myself that I love audio. Now I live the idea that become a vice to reproduce the best audio posible in a non recomended environment MY TRUCK . Sometimes I realize no matter what and how hard I try, im not going to sound like the bowers an W and onkio bose etc system I checked and listened on best buy.


----------



## minbari

Zippy said:


> I think a lot of people miss what an actual audiophile is all about. The audiophile posers are most often connected with the term.
> 
> A real audiophile is all about exact reproduction of what was recorded. They want to be there in the recording studio with the artist and musicians to hear with their own ears what it was like. Audiophiles will go to extremes to achieve this end. This causes audiophiles to seek the best quality recording to reproduce the closest possible sound to what it was like in the studio. This is why 192kHz/32-bit matters to a real audiophile.
> 
> A poser is someone who claims to be able to hear a difference at those levels of reproduction. They generally have inadequacy issue so they want to be better than everyone else. This leads them to make claims that are impossible to substantiate.
> 
> I am an audiophile. My home audio system is insane. I can tell which key of a saxophone is being pressed on my McCoy Tyner New York Reunion CD at any point in time. I can tell you which direction and distance each instrument is located in relation to where I sit. That is what being an audiophile is about. Immersion in the sound to be able to place yourself there. if you swap high end amps I can not hear a difference. If you swap out my Magnepans I can tell a difference unless it's to a Mark Levinson. Planar speaker make a world of difference since they produce the full spectrum of sound from one exact spot. Component speaker sets (tweet mid and 3 mid bass) do have peaks and valleys in their sound reproduction that can be heard. The golden ear hearing sound frequencies that others can not is all myth created by posers with self esteem issues.
> 
> So please keep us real audiophiles out of that bad group of posers.


you are all over the place. you claim that "posers" want stuff that cant be heard or substantianed yet you want 32 bit 192 khz samples that also cant be differentiated from 44.1khz.

make up your mind.


----------



## 14642

What about recordings that aren't a reproduction of any single live event? And ones that include room synthesis on either the individual instruments or on the mixdown to make it seem like the recording was made with all the musicians together in one place? How do you audiophiles reconcile your need to hear exactly what was recorded? I love "how the artist INTENDED it to sound". How do you know what he intended? 

I'll take believability over accuracy any day.


----------



## Hanatsu

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> What about recordings that aren't a reproduction of any single live event? And ones that include room synthesis on either the individual instruments or on the mixdown to make it seem like the recording was made with all the musicians together in one place? How do you audiophiles reconcile your need to hear exactly what was recorded? I love "how the artist INTENDED it to sound". How do you know what he intended?
> 
> I'll take believability over accuracy any day.


I kinda agree......

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## rton20s

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I'll take believability over accuracy any day.


Just wanted to toss in that many of us are still anxiously waiting for "The Head Cheese" to reveal his "secret."


----------



## Hanatsu

Zippy said:


> This causes audiophiles to seek the best quality recording to reproduce the closest possible sound to what it was like in the studio. This is why 192kHz/32-bit matters to a real audiophile.


Wow.. 32-bit 192kHz. I'm pretty happy with 256k Mp3 streamed from my iPod xD


----------



## Zippy

minbari said:


> you are all over the place. you claim that "posers" want stuff that cant be heard or substantianed yet you want 32 bit 192 khz samples that also cant be differentiated from 44.1khz.
> 
> make up your mind.


Am I missing something here? At the begining of the post i covered that inaudiable frequences change soundwaves that we hear all the time. If you dont notice the higher than human hearing frequency that does not prevent and audiable impact on soundwaves that you can here. I also said an audiophile wants the cleanest possible recording to start with which is why 192khz/32-bit is important to the real audiophile and that a poser is the one who thinks they can hear a difference where there is not a noticeable one. How is highest quality source for best possible reproduction contradicting anything? The more data to reproduce, the better the output. The goal of an audiophile is the best sound they can produce with what they have, wether or not a slight difference can be heard or not is irrelevant. We audiophiles, to an extent, are nut cases. How have I been all over the place?

Oh, and on the 44.1khz comment. I know a recording engineer that played back a studio recording of an artist back for them at 192khz/32-bit and the artists responce was "that's the first time I've ever heard the same thing out here as I have heard in the there." It's not about the frequency recorded so much as it is about how much is recorded. With 192khz/32-bit there is way more data to reproduce. Going from a 44.1khz CD to a 192khz/32-bit wav file is similar to going from a 128 bit mp3 to a CD as far as amount of data to reproduce. The audible difference is just not as dramatic.


----------



## minbari

Zippy said:


> Am I missing something here? At the begining of the post i covered that inaudiable frequences change soundwaves that we hear all the time. If you dont notice the higher than human hearing frequency that does not prevent and audiable impact on soundwaves that you can here. I also said an audiophile wants the cleanest possible recording to start with which is why 192khz/32-bit is important to the real audiophile and that a poser is the one who thinks they can hear a difference where there is not a noticeable one. How is highest quality source for best possible reproduction contradicting anything? The more data to reproduce, the better the output. The goal of an audiophile is the best sound they can produce with what they have, wether or not a slight difference can be heard or not is irrelevant. We audiophiles, to an extent, are nut cases. How have I been all over the place?


again you are claiming that the "posers" are the ones that claim to be able to hear things that are inaudble. the difference between those two is inaudble.


> Oh, and on the 44.1khz comment. I know a recording engineer that played back a studio recording of an artist back for them at 192khz/32-bit and the artists responce was "that's the first time I've ever heard the same thing out here as I have heard in the there." It's not about the frequency recorded so much as it is about how much is recorded. *With 192khz/32-bit there is way more data to reproduce. Going from a 44.1khz CD to a 192khz/32-bit wav file is similar to going from a 128 bit mp3 to a CD as far as amount of data to reproduce.* The audible difference is just not as dramatic.



no its not. its like going from a 500 hp ferrari to a 750 hp ferrari. yes you have more power and yes it will go faster, but 0-60 is nearly the same.

since a CD is not 32 bit and is not 192khz, your point is moot. how many albums can be gotten at that bitrate and sample rate? just about none. where are 95% of all the mp3 and wav and other lossless formats ripped from? CDs
Just because you have tons more data doesnt equate into tons more fidelity. its law of diminishing returns at its best.


----------



## t3sn4f2

Hanatsu said:


> Wow.. 32-bit 192kHz. I'm pretty happy with 256k Mp3 streamed from my iPod xD


32bit is the new it thing ever since they started coming out with 32bit capable DAC chips. Too bad the effective number of bits of everything made to date is still limited to 19. Every little bit counts though right. Take for example, the other day I went out of my way to scrap some bug **** off my car's bumper, because I knew the weight reduction and reduce drag would improve my gas mileage.


----------



## Zippy

minbari said:


> again you are claiming that the "posers" are the ones that claim to be able to hear things that are inaudble. the difference between those two is inaudble.
> 
> 
> 
> no its not. its like going from a 500 hp ferrari to a 750 hp ferrari. yes you have more power and yes it will go faster, but 0-60 is nearly the same.
> 
> since a CD is not 32 bit and is not 192khz, your point is moot. how many albums can be gotten at that bitrate and sample rate? just about none. where are 95% of all the mp3 and wav and other lossless formats ripped from? CDs
> Just because you have tons more data doesnt equate into tons more fidelity. its law of diminishing returns at its best.


Who says I've been starting with CDs? Remember that nuts comment I made earlier. Here's a URL to where you can get a good selection. There are a lot more sites like this one. 

https://www.hdtracks.com/

PS: I have zero music I did not pay for. So no downloaded music equates to total control over what source material is used.


----------



## minbari

read this. maybe you will understand why 192khz sampling is pointless, if you wont beleive me.

where do they get thier masters from? I highly doubt the recording companies lend out the master recording from studios.

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed


----------



## Zippy

t3sn4f2 said:


> 32bit is the new it thing ever since they started coming out with 32bit capable DAC chips. Too bad the effective number of bits of everything made to date is still limited to 19. Every little bit counts though right. Take for example, the other day I went out of my way to scrap some bug **** off my car's bumper, because I knew the weight reduction and reduce drag would improve my gas mileage.


And you know what, I'm glad those chips are now affordable. Any new purchases will be 32-bit. As to the 19bit recordings, I'd like to show you some 24 bit recordings from 2007 and before. 

192/24 Master WAV Discs


----------



## Zippy

minbari said:


> read this. maybe you will understand why 192khz sampling is pointless, if you wont beleive me.
> 
> where do they get thier masters from? I highly doubt the recording companies lend out the master recording from studios.
> 
> 24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed


Yup, I've read that and laughed before. Remember I'm nuts.

Follow this link for masters you can buy. 192/24 Master WAV Discs


----------



## minbari

yup, I guess arguing with crazy people is pointless.

wow $45 for a $10 album that doesnt sound better, what a bargain.



Zippy said:


> And you know what, I'm glad those chips are now affordable. Any new purchases will be 32-bit. As to the 19bit recordings, I'd like to show you some 24 bit recordings from 2007 and before.
> 
> 192/24 Master WAV Discs



you have 120db of dynamic headroom with only 16bits!??! what the hell are you going to do with 32 bits? music is not that dynamic. its not a matter of "being a nutty guy" its just wont happen and is complettely worthless.


----------



## sirbOOm

Get yourself a tube amplifier and call me in the morning. That's a difference. Wabam!


----------



## Zippy

minbari said:


> yup, I guess arguing with crazy people is pointless.
> 
> wow $45 for a $10 album that doesnt sound better, what a bargain..


Keep in mind some of those recording were never release in any other format. 



minbari said:


> you have 120db of dynamic headroom with only 16bits!??! what the hell are you going to do with 32 bits? music is not that dynamic. its not a matter of "being a nutty guy" its just wont happen and is complettely worthless.


How else are you getting as close to analog recording quality reproduction in a digital format?


----------



## minbari

Zippy said:


> How else are you getting as close to analog recording quality reproduction in a digital format?


analog still has a limitation to how much dynamic range is possible. you dont get infinity db crest factor just because it is analog.


----------



## t3sn4f2

t3sn4f2 said:


> 32bit is the new it thing ever since they started coming out with 32bit capable DAC chips. Too bad the *effective number of bits* of everything made to date is still limited to 19. Every little bit counts though right. Take for example, the other day I went out of my way to scrap some bug **** off my car's bumper, because I knew the weight reduction and reduce drag would improve my gas mileage.





Zippy said:


> And you know what, I'm glad those chips are now affordable. Any new purchases will be 32-bit. As to the 19bit recordings, I'd like to show you some 24 bit recordings from 2007 and before.
> 
> 192/24 Master WAV Discs


Effective number of bits - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Effective number of bits (ENOB) is a measure of the quality of a digitised signal. The resolution of a digital-to-analog or analog-to-digital converter (DAC or ADC) is commonly specified by the number of bits used to represent the analog value, in principle giving 2N signal levels for an N-bit signal. However, all real signals contain a certain amount of noise. ENOB specifies the number of bits in the digitised signal above the noise floor.[citation needed] Often ENOB is used as a quality measure also for other blocks like sample-and-hold amplifiers. This way also analog blocks can be easily included to signal-chain calculations as the total ENOB of a chain of blocks is usually below the ENOB of the worst block."

Again, *the best* components at any price are just beginning to approach the 19bit range.

Now someone will then say why then have that level of digital headroom in the digital domain if it can't be realized in the recording or export processes? Because the dynamic range headroom is beneficial in the production/mastering process where many individual tracks are mixed together and or manipulated. Once you export to the listening medium, anything over 16 bit is wasted. Even a DSP stage since unlike in music production, there is only one digital stream to process.

http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Bit_Depth

"32 BitSome see 32 bit recording as taking things to extremes. Although 32 bit recording can in theory have better technical specs than less bits, it is not often such great bit depth is needed. General purpose recording does not need 32 bit depth for the same reason clothing sizes do not come in increments of 1/1000th of an inch. 

Finding audio sources capable of providing signals with better dynamic range than than 24 bit resolution is a demanding task. A 32 bit data stream records 65,000 times the dynamic range of 16 bit CD audio. In real world applications, a lot of those bits will be normally recording nothing but very low level background noise. 

Also bear in mind that in many cases you will exporting to a 16 bit format (there are not many computer media players that support playing 32 bit files, and if you are burning to a standard audio CD, that format is by definition 16 bit). 

But if you want the highest standards (for example, operate a recording studio), expect to do a large amount of manipulation of the data before export, and have audio source equipment with an extremely low noise floor, 32 bit recording (which is the default setting in Audacity) will give the best possible quality and avoid the bit depth having any effect on the sound even after heavy manipulation of the audio. 

Much of the reason for this is that Audacity uses "float" format for 32 bit recording instead of fixed integer format. Normalised floating point values are quicker and easier to process on computers than fixed integer values and allow greater dynamic range to be retained even after editing. This is because intermediate signals during audio processing can have very variable values. If they all get truncated to a fixed integer format, you can't boost them back up to full scale without losing resolution (i.e. without the data becoming less representative of the original than it was before). With floating point, rounding errors during intermediate processing are negligible. 

The (theoretically audible) advantage of this is that 32-bit floating point format retains the original noise floor, and does not add noise. For example, with fixed integer data, applying a compressor effect to lower the peaks by 9 dB and separately amplifying back up would cost 9dB (or more than 2 bits) of signal to noise ratio (SNR). If done with floating point data, the SNR of the peaks remains as good as before (except that the quiet passages are 9dB louder and so 9dB noisier due to the noise they had in the first place). 

The advantage of using 32 bit float to work with holds even if you have to export to a 16 bit format. Using Dither on the Quality tab of Audacity Preferences will improve the sound quality of the exported file so there are only minimal (probably non-audible) effects of downsampling from 32 bit to 16 bit."


----------



## GlassWolf

While you all argue about 24 or 32/192, I am going to point out that it only matters in studio mastering, and not at all for playback. What does make a massive difference in audible playback though, is how well the album you play was mastered by the studio engineer. Read the wiki page on "loudness wars" and you'll see why a $45 CD of Pink Floyd's Dark side of the monn from MFSL sounds so much better than the original mass-pressing CD release of the same CD that sold for $13. I'm far more interested in the engineer's work and dynamic range of the album than I am in how many bits the DAC has on which it's being played back in a car with 70dB of road noise.


----------



## minbari

GlassWolf said:


> While you all argue about 24 or 32/192, I am going to point out that it only matters in studio mastering, and not at all for playback. What does make a massive difference in audible playback though, is how well the album you play was mastered by the studio engineer. Read the wiki page on "loudness wars" and you'll see why a $45 CD of Pink Floyd's Dark side of the monn from MFSL sounds so much better than the original mass-pressing CD release of the same CD that sold for $13. I'm far more interested in the engineer's work and dynamic range of the album than I am in how many bits the DAC has on which it's being played back in a car with 70dB of road noise.


And how is your 16 bit max cd better than my 16 bit max cd?

sent from my phone using digital farts


----------



## GlassWolf

The work done by the studio sound engineer in re-mastering the album for CD from the original master studio recordings is superior on the MFSL CD, as compared to the mass-pressing version. This is the case for a number of high-end CD releases that were re-mastered by better engineers using the original master studio recordings of the albums, like Sony Mastersound, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, and the like. I never said the physical CD itself was any different. We're not comparing SACD or DVD-A to CD here, and quite frankly, even then I dislike multi-channel audio tracks, and most SACDs only sound better than the original CDs due to the re-mastering, not the increase in bits or any of that nonsense. Too many labels, executives, engineers, and artists want an album to have more dynamic compression so it sounds "louder" and therefore "better" to the untrained ear of most listeners. I, on the other hand, like many better engineers, prefer superior dynamic range on a recording, even if it means you have to turn the volume up a little higher to get the same average audible volume (reference volume) from the CD as compared to one recorded with a ton of dynamic compression.

Want to audition the difference? Get a copy of both Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms, from the original 1986 release, and the newer 1991 digitally remastered release.
The original has fat superior engineering. The "digitally remastered" version has higher dynamic compression that turns the cymbals on the drum set into something resembling a person slapping wet leather. It's horrid. "digitally remastered" usually translates into "lots of compression, and a lot less quality."
The re-mastering quality will make a much greater audible difference to an album than the DAC used for a CD.


----------



## 14642

^^ This


----------



## lizardking

The older Dire Straits you mentioned sounds much better on the orginal...which does need turned up if you want it loud. One of the best recorded around.


----------



## t3sn4f2

I always go for the oldest version of an album or track I can find, but at least for me, it's hard to know exactly what I'm getting since my music comes from itunes and subscription services. I very often come across two albums that are alike in every way yet one is the louder compressed version. Even though they are both from the 80's. Then I also don't know if the ones that only have one version have been manipulated in the same way and not labeled. Is the CD like this, how the hell will I ever know?!


----------



## minbari

GlassWolf said:


> Since you seem to be reading comprehension challenged, I'll use smaller words this time: The work done by the studio sound engineer in re-mastering the album for CD from the original master studio recordings is superior on the MFSL CD, as compared to the mass-pressing version. This is the case for a number of high-end CD releases that were re-mastered by better engineers using the original master studio recordings of the albums, like Sony Mastersound, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, and the like. I never said the physical CD itself was any different. We're not comparing SACD or DVD-A to CD here, and quite frankly, even then I dislike multi-channel audio tracks, and most SACDs only sound better than the original CDs due to the re-mastering, not the increase in bits or any of that nonsense. Too many labels, executives, engineers, and artists want an album to have more dynamic compression so it sounds "louder" and therefore "better" to the untrained ear of most listeners. I, on the other hand, like many better engineers, prefer superior dynamic range on a recording, even if it means you have to turn the volume up a little higher to get the same average audible volume (reference volume) from the CD as compared to one recorded with a ton of dynamic compression.
> 
> Want to audition the difference? Get a copy of both Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms, from the original 1986 release, and the newer 1991 digitally remastered release.
> The original has fat superior engineering. The "digitally remastered" version has higher dynamic compression that turns the cymbals on the drum set into something resembling a person slapping wet leather. It's horrid. "digitally remastered" usually translates into "lots of compression, and a lot less quality."
> The re-mastering quality will make a much greater audible difference to an album than the DAC used for a CD.


lol, calm down. I mis-understood what you were getting at. I thought you werre trying to join the "more bits is better crowd" I complettely agree with you there. I have some of the original CDs from the 90s of albums that sound much better than the latest "better" version. 

I dont understand this trend to remaster louder. cant you just turn up the volume knob if you want it louder? why does the recording have to be loud (simple answer is it doesnt)

not sure it is worth more than 4x as much though.


----------



## t3sn4f2

minbari said:


> lol, calm down. I mis-understood what you were getting at. I thought you werre trying to join the "more bits is better crowd" I complettely agree with you there. I have some of the original CDs from the 90s of albums that sound much better than the latest "better" version.
> 
> *I dont understand this trend to remaster louder. cant you just turn up the volume knob if you want it louder? why does the recording have to be loud (simple answer is it doesnt)*
> not sure it is worth more than 4x as much though.


I think the trend took off around the time that mass digital music storage on portable compact digital players became a reality. It all went to **** once the main playback system for the masses became a low powered headphone amp hooked up to a limited output ear bud. High quality tracks just can't push those devices to their limit without excess compression.


----------



## GlassWolf

minbari, sorry about that. too much facebook lately. too much arguing over politics. it puts me on edge.

Anyway, please do a google search on "wiki loudness wars" and read the article on wiki. It's fascinating, and explains a lot of your questions.

In short, however, the loudness wars started back in the days of radio DJs using vinyl 45RPM single records to play music. Record label reps would drop into the broadcast studios to see the DJs (disc jockeys.. disc being record) and drop off new singles for the DJs to play. Now at the time, radio really pushed most record sales in the day. No internet, digital music, etc, so everybody wanted an "edge" to make their single stand out. This lead to the "hot pressing" of records, wherein the studio engineer would bump up the reference level for the recording by a few dB, compressing the dynamic range of the single, but thereby making it louder by a little bit than everybody else's singles. This was before the days of normalization in studios via DSP and what have you, so it worked quite well, and something about human hearing and psycho-acoustic engineering to keep in mind, is that louder = better to the human mind, so if you do a blind test on people, and play two absolutely identical tracks, but increase the volume of one by as little as 0.2dB, that one will sound better to the auditioners than the quieter track. Note also that 0.2dB is a consciously imperceptible change in volume, but it is enough that the human ar can detect it subconsciously.

OK, fast forward to the 90s, CDs, digital studio mastering (ADD CDs and DDD CDs)
er, OK I gotta split.. time to run out the door.. to be continued...


----------



## 14642

Dynamic range compression can be pretty effective in making a table radio with woofers the size of quarters sound better than the crap it is. It would be nice if the guys who record this garbage could do a better job and allow the designers of playback systems to include the compression there, where it belongs.


----------



## rton20s

Andy and others... any thoughts on this PONO playback system that Neil Young has been preaching about? I signed up on the PONO sight for updates, but haven't heard word one. Seems to me, he is attempting to restore dynamic range back to digital music.


----------



## 14642

IN my opinion, the problem isn't DATA compression, it's dynamic range compression and there is no correlation between the two. There is no inherent dynamic range compression in data compression algorithms like MP3 or AAC. I'm not going to buy all the music I own again for some higher resolution format. MP3 at 256k is indistinguishable from CD as far as I can hear except for one thing--not preserving phase between the two channels sometimes breaks matrix surround algorithms. 

Lastly, the shortcomings of most playback systems do much more to degrade the listening experience than either data or dynamic range compression.


----------



## sirbOOm

So in summary, I think we have determined that the MP3 ruined music as well as singers who use Autotune. And Obama. Obama had something to do with it, for sure!


----------



## Hanatsu

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> IN my opinion, the problem isn't DATA compression, it's dynamic range compression and there is no correlation between the two. There is no inherent dynamic range compression in data compression algorithms like MP3 or AAC. I'm not going to buy all the music I own again for some higher resolution format. MP3 at 256k is indistinguishable from CD as far as I can hear except for one thing--not preserving phase between the two channels sometimes breaks matrix surround algorithms.
> 
> Lastly, the shortcomings of most playback systems do much more to degrade the listening experience than either data or dynamic range compression.


This ^^


----------



## 1998993C2S

*Oh , , , your crack'in me up!*

Just browsing through this "highend amp SQ myth" thread... Too Funny.




RNBRAD said:


> My parent's always said I was special. I just knew I was different because I was the only one wearing the padded helmet.


----------



## ccapehart1980

the only thing i noticed like for example the my old orion HCCA i get so much more wattage running at .5 ohm without breakin a sweat as opposed to like my current planet audio amp if a got it down to 1 or .5 ohms it probably **** the bed or go into protect clip whatever


----------



## captainobvious

I figured I'd post a link here as we will be doing some testing (crude blind A/B) of various amps so that we can hear for ourselves. Both higher dollar/mid lower dollar and AB vs class D 

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...-blind-tests-amplifiers-time-hear-myself.html


----------



## g7kobayashi

I bought a lot of amps from ebay and ECA about 8 or 9 years ago.
Most of them are old school gears including the PPI AX606.2,
Orion concept series, US Amps TU-4360, Blade VT-100 & SE645?,
Soundstream The Contimuun, PG MS-1000, Celestra VA-250, 
TRU C-7, Butler TD-1500, and some other models I can't recall.
I also bought the ARC 2500XXK & 4150XXK here in Taiwan.
You may ask why, and the answer is simple,
I wanted to find the sound I liked best!

I tested them not only in the car but also in the house 
and the difference was much easiler to be telled in the house.
And the difference was Bigger when Better speakers were used.
I even think that some of the amps sound better than 
some home amps with higher price ranges.
(I'm assuming this is because of the power suply.)

When it's hard for me to tell the difference in the car,
I'd say that it's because of the noise of my car.


----------



## PPI_GUY

GlassWolf said:


> minbari, sorry about that. too much facebook lately. too much arguing over politics. it puts me on edge.
> 
> Anyway, please do a google search on "wiki loudness wars" and read the article on wiki. It's fascinating, and explains a lot of your questions.
> 
> In short, however, the loudness wars started back in the days of radio DJs using vinyl 45RPM single records to play music. Record label reps would drop into the broadcast studios to see the DJs (disc jockeys.. disc being record) and drop off new singles for the DJs to play. Now at the time, radio really pushed most record sales in the day. No internet, digital music, etc, so everybody wanted an "edge" to make their single stand out. This lead to the "hot pressing" of records, wherein the studio engineer would bump up the reference level for the recording by a few dB, compressing the dynamic range of the single, but thereby making it louder by a little bit than everybody else's singles. This was before the days of normalization in studios via DSP and what have you, so it worked quite well, and something about human hearing and psycho-acoustic engineering to keep in mind, is that louder = better to the human mind, so if you do a blind test on people, and play two absolutely identical tracks, but increase the volume of one by as little as 0.2dB, that one will sound better to the auditioners than the quieter track. Note also that 0.2dB is a consciously imperceptible change in volume, but it is enough that the human ar can detect it subconsciously.
> 
> OK, fast forward to the 90s, CDs, digital studio mastering (ADD CDs and DDD CDs)
> er, OK I gotta split.. time to run out the door.. to be continued...


Your elaboration on the early days of increased volume on certain vinyl promo records reminded me of the TV commercial loudness wars from the late 90's thru the early 2000's. Remember how annoying it was to be watching your favorite show and then getting blasted out of the room when a commercial came on? I suppose the same thinking that caused engineers to bump up the output on a 45rpm single in the early days persisted in marketing right up to only a decade ago. Every little advantage taken. 
Thankfully, TV manufacturers also saw the opportunity to make a few dollars by offering volume limiting circuits in their products much the way radio stations finally wised up and installed the same limiters in their broadcast chain. 
A comment on the subject of this entire thread, I'd buy a higher end amplifier for it's long term durability and production value. If you perceive a better sonic experience as a result, that's a bonus in my opinion. 
Also, please consider purchasing an American made product. Yes, I know many of the so-called Made In USA products are assembled with parts made abroad. But, at least the assembly process does result in the employment of a few Americans along the way.


----------



## jonatbaylor

I call bs on the OP. There is a huge difference among the SQ of amps. Everyone can have a personal opinion on what sounds good, but to say there is little difference in the sound is a huge reach. i.e. A tube amp, like my Butler BK sounds warmer and more full than orion, SS, Arc etc. The only non tube amp that sounds even remotely close are the Mcintosh amps. So "better" is in the ear of the beholder. But there is absolutely a different sound...and I think better and worse sounding HiFi amps. 

If you buy different amps and can't tell the difference between them, then you need to be looking at a lot of things.

1. Check your hearing
2. Try different speakers
3. Is your amp bad?
4. What kind of speakers were being used?
5. How was the system put together? 
6. Who tuned the setup? 
7. What was used to tune the setup?
8. What kind of vehicle was used?
9. Where were speakers placed?
10. etc etc


----------



## I800C0LLECT

jonatbaylor said:


> I call bs on the OP. What speakers were being used?
> 
> If you buy different amps and can't tell the difference between them, then you need to be looking at 3 things.
> 
> 1. Check your hearing
> 2. Check your speaker location and installation
> 3. Is your amp bad?



Amps do sound different...but can you make the resulting sound similar/the same to a different setup? Yup. Can you make a good amp sound absolutely terrible? Yup.

Maybe he tuned his installs to his liking and couldn't hear a difference. Would you proclaim that amps sound different no matter the install or tune?


----------



## jonatbaylor

My first post was pretty long winded, I cut it down drastically, and I just edited it to include more of my original thoughts.


----------



## captainobvious

The problem is that the vast majority of people have never done a blind AB on amplifiers that have been properly level matched using the exact same reference devices and material. Until you do that, an argument is pretty much moot.


----------



## cajunner

PPI_GUY said:


> Also, please consider purchasing an American made product. Yes, I know many of the so-called Made In USA products are assembled with parts made abroad. But, at least the assembly process does result in the employment of a few Americans along the way.


this deserves a thread all on it's own.

I am going to make a couple of observations, that appear to be insinuations.

but it's okay, we all know what I do and it's not meant to cause anyone harm.

let's say you can't afford the Mosconi, the Sinfoni, the Helix/Brax or the Phass.

but you like the way they look.


that's fine, but if you buy a Chinese product, you get more of the same.

if you want to see more Chinese product, you support that. You buy that, you promote that, you outsource your mother so you can be a part of that.

if you like American product, if you like to be able to say "I'm doing what I can to not contribute to more of the wasteland that American car audio has become," you'll buy stuff and run stuff made here.

I'm not the most patriotic guy, I have my moments and I'm pretty damn cheap, all things considered.

but if I have a choice, if I'm "that guy" who can afford JL or Lunar or McIntosh or old JBL or whoever, and I'm driving a Chevy but fill the car with Chinese goods, then I'm not being as considerate as I may think.

consider this:

the reason there are several Danish, German, Italian, and Japanese companies making better quality goods today, is because there is a market for those goods.

There is NO reason why America can't have a market for goods made here, no matter if they are more expensive than an American named company pushing foreign-made goods on people because they abuse the namesake.

people will find out, people will build behind those products as long as they make the grade, as long as they are comparable to the same priced product as the Gladen or the Ground Zero MSRP

right?

Is it that there is a set amount of profit demanded by shareholders, that skimps out all these American-in-name-only companies, or is it something else? Is it that China has supported their buildhouses with the capital and investment into placement machines, and America's model of capitalism and competition, as a model, doesn't compete?

Is it the slave labor wages over there, is it the pollution unchecked, is it wise to continue to support the communist capitalists?


hmm..


----------



## rockytophigh

cajunner said:


> this deserves a thread all on it's own.
> 
> I am going to make a couple of observations, that appear to be insinuations.
> 
> but it's okay, we all know what I do and it's not meant to cause anyone harm.
> 
> let's say you can't afford the Mosconi, the Sinfoni, the Helix/Brax or the Phass.
> 
> but you like the way they look.
> 
> 
> that's fine, but if you buy a Chinese product, you get more of the same.
> 
> if you want to see more Chinese product, you support that. You buy that, you promote that, you outsource your mother so you can be a part of that.
> 
> if you like American product, if you like to be able to say "I'm doing what I can to not contribute to more of the wasteland that American car audio has become," you'll buy stuff and run stuff made here.
> 
> I'm not the most patriotic guy, I have my moments and I'm pretty damn cheap, all things considered.
> 
> but if I have a choice, if I'm "that guy" who can afford JL or Lunar or McIntosh or old JBL or whoever, and I'm driving a Chevy but fill the car with Chinese goods, then I'm not being as considerate as I may think.
> 
> consider this:
> 
> the reason there are several Danish, German, Italian, and Japanese companies making better quality goods today, is because there is a market for those goods.
> 
> There is NO reason why America can't have a market for goods made here, no matter if they are more expensive than an American named company pushing foreign-made goods on people because they abuse the namesake.
> 
> people will find out, people will build behind those products as long as they make the grade, as long as they are comparable to the same priced product as the Gladen or the Ground Zero MSRP
> 
> right?
> 
> Is it that there is a set amount of profit demanded by shareholders, that skimps out all these American-in-name-only companies, or is it something else? Is it that China has supported their buildhouses with the capital and investment into placement machines, and America's model of capitalism and competition, as a model, doesn't compete?
> 
> Is it the slave labor wages over there, is it the pollution unchecked, is it wise to continue to support the communist capitalists?
> 
> 
> hmm..


Good Lord man lol. How about MMATS or Linear Power??? Did I open the wormhole?


----------



## cajunner

rockytophigh said:


> Good Lord man lol. How about MMATS or Linear Power??? Did I open the wormhole?


I'm coming off a long caffeinated stretch, I think my brain needs bran...


but yes.

If it's American, I can get behind it.

at the most basic level, below any price constraints, below any marketing campaigns, below all the subconscious reminders of how we've sold out to the Chinese, even our debt belongs to them, we must all understand that our country is a product of our making.


we don't like the fact that American Car Audio, the juggernaut is now that whimpering tiger, crouching mouse?

it's our own fault!


you, and you, and you, and you.


and me.

we're all abusing ourselves, when we abuse our country. We are self abusers.


that's right, friends.

stroke me, stroke me... STROKE...


----------



## rockytophigh

oh I agree....I just got a MMATS 1700D in the mail....built in China.

& it doesn't get much better than Billy Squier....all American


----------



## captainobvious

I'll make it very simple...

We're not in 'booming' economic times. The foreign made product is not only as good or better performance, it's also cheaper. Why should an American settle for same or less quality/performance simply to buy the product produced in his/her country?


----------



## cajunner

captainobvious said:


> I'll make it very simple...
> 
> We're not in 'booming' economic times. The foreign made product is not only as good or better performance, it's also cheaper. Why should an American settle for same or less quality/performance simply to buy the product produced in his/her country?


we have a moral imperative to support our own country's economics.

in good times, and in bad times.

there's enough second-hand equipment available now, that one need not focus their purchasing dollars to the lowest common denominator.

every time you see evidence of America's "success" in Sam Walton's enterprise, it's because the promise of capitalism has been thwarted from the inside out, we're supporting China's rise to first-world status by being outsmarted by the communist objective.

sure, you can say that it doesn't matter if you, the lowly 9 buck an hour wage earner, buys Chinese goods because you need goods, and sure you can defend your personal economics because the economy doesn't revolve around your pissant portfolio, but 50% of this country is just LIKE YOU.

so, half our country riding the poverty line, has to have the goods and buys the Chinese their leg up, while taking our jobs and our resources away from us.

if that's not a good shoot, I don't know, man..


it seems to me that the old arguments about the cars, and buying American, make a lot more sense once you get older and begin to weigh the percentages in the context of contest, and that the commies ain't being your best buds, when they short you on product quality but take your money anyway.

eventually, the pendulum has to swing back, but it might be when China decides to call this nation, "China Minor" or some moniker that suggests we're not only beholden to their economics, but their politics as well.


----------



## Golden Ear

^That has been my thought and opinion, as well, for a long time now. We'll put, cajunner! Maybe that's why the government uses half of all our tax dollars for military purposes? So that when China decides to call in our debt we go to war since all we have is paper money that isn't worth the paper it's printed on and coins that aren't worth their weight in the zinc they're made out of (the penny) because we no longer have real currency like gold and silver to back it up.


----------



## captainobvious

There are plenty of ways to combat the issue including import taxes and tarrifs. If it's legitimately hurting the US economy to that extreme, then is it the consumer that's the bad guy? In a free market, supply and demand should regulate themselves. The issue arises when a country like China- who has a larger population and lower cost of living (and as such lower wages and cost of production) is able to produce the good much cheaper than a country like the US.
That can (and does) force US companies out of the market unless they are protected by regulation. The U.S. has shifted towards being less of a producer and more of a services provider.


----------



## WestCo

captainobvious said:


> I'll make it very simple...
> 
> We're not in 'booming' economic times. The foreign made product is not only as good or better performance, it's also cheaper. Why should an American settle for same or less quality/performance simply to buy the product produced in his/her country?


My offerings will all be rock solid and made in America. Just have to get a little creative and do contract labor and closely monitor quality control. 

I don't have employees I have private contractors who do good work for me and are well trained.


----------



## WestCo

Zed and MMATS are solid offerings.

Zed makes a better class D than MMATS IMHO
I prefer the Zed Levi to pretty much any MMATS a-b amp.
But both are American made.

Zed has had some QC problems lately but Mantz makes it right. It costs the customer about 27$ in return shipping.


----------



## Hanatsu

jonatbaylor said:


> I call bs on the OP. There is a huge difference among the SQ of amps. Everyone can have a personal opinion on what sounds good
> 
> 1. Check your hearing
> 2. Try different speakers
> 4. What kind of speakers were being used?
> 5. How was the system put together?
> 6. Who tuned the setup?
> 7. What was used to tune the setup?


Pfff... "Huge" - I call BS on that. Most who believe there is an audible difference would rather describe it as "subtle". An amp shouldn't do anything else than amplifying whatever signal it's fed with, if it changes the sound audibly with an "huge" amount I'd be damn worried. 

1. This is the largest problem here, ears or I'd prefer to say the brain is easily fooled by impressions. Whether you believe it or not we are biased by our preconceived thoughts of what is true or not. If you are a "believer" that the amps will sound different, will will hear differences. The "skeptics" are pretty much the opposite and do not expect to hear much difference. To remove the bias from the calculation, we blind test stuff. There have been several cases where audiophiles and experts have not been able to discern much differences between high end and entry level amps and equipment. If the difference was that huge, these endless discussions wouldn't occur in the first place. 

2. Different speakers, especially "home audio" speakers with passive crossovers can introduce difficult reactive loads that causes the amp to show any weaknesses quicker. So yes, an amplifier performs differently with different loads.

4. Speakers are the weakest link in any system, being high distortion devices - high end or not. This is a fact. Disregarding the the point above, having great performing speakers would likely reveal differences in the rest of the system easier. The differences between speakers however, can be "huge". I can back that up with measurements, as well.

5. Install, very very important. A bad install can totally destroy the possibility of a good sounding system. This is always the top priority to get right before even looking at equipment.

6. Knowledge to tune a system is just as important as knowing to install the equipment correct.

7. Hopefully a proper DSP... but seriously - you cannot re-tune a system after changing amps and then look for differences between the former and current setup.


----------



## cajunner

Hanatsu said:


> Pfff... "Huge" - I call BS on that. Most who believe there is an audible difference would rather describe it as "subtle". An amp shouldn't do anything else than amplifying whatever signal it's fed with, if it changes the sound audibly with an "huge" amount I'd be damn worried.
> 
> 1. This is the largest problem here, ears or I'd prefer to say the brain is easily fooled by impressions. Whether you believe it or not we are biased by our preconceived thoughts of what is true or not. If you are a "believer" that the amps will sound different, will will hear differences. The "skeptics" are pretty much the opposite and do not expect to hear much difference. To remove the bias from the calculation, we blind test stuff. There have been several cases where audiophiles and experts have not been able to discern much differences between high end and entry level amps and equipment. If the difference was that huge, these endless discussions wouldn't occur in the first place.
> 
> 2. Different speakers, especially "home audio" speakers with passive crossovers can introduce difficult reactive loads that causes the amp to show any weaknesses quicker. So yes, an amplifier performs differently with different loads.
> 
> 4. Speakers are the weakest link in any system, being high distortion devices - high end or not. This is a fact. Disregarding the the point above, having great performing speakers would likely reveal differences in the rest of the system easier. The differences between speakers however, can be "huge". I can back that up with measurements, as well.
> 
> 5. Install, very very important. A bad install can totally destroy the possibility of a good sounding system. This is always the top priority to get right before even looking at equipment.
> 
> 6. Knowledge to tune a system is just as important as knowing to install the equipment correct.
> 
> 7. Hopefully a proper DSP... but seriously - you cannot re-tune a system after changing amps and then look for differences between the former and current setup.


the thing that people like to point at, is the competition arena.

why is it the high-priced equipment, usually ends up in the winner's circle?

let's imagine that it's not because the equipment is better, but like you say, it's the bias.

so to demonstrate, we need to have a car made up with all extremely expensive equipment, but with a little modification involved.

the guts of all the components are swapped for cheaper, mid-fi alternatives.

this vehicle is then placed into competition for a year, without anyone giving away the secret.

if it wins at all, that's proof of bias.

if it wins a few competitions, against the high cost equipment-equipped competitors, then it's not just proof, but something more, it's vindication.

if it never wins, and everyone cannot understand how such a well-equipped, expertly installed system seems to never engage the judges, then you'll have a different perspective with which to combat those who say amps don't matter, or have "subtle" differences in their sonics.

that would bring about a sea-change, like the Klippel has wrought from speaker manufacturers who must now care about things like distortion and finite element analysis, when they used to be able to hide behind descriptors. 

"warm, thick, solid" "clean, crisp, sterile"

haha..


----------



## WestCo

There is no point arguing sometimes. Let them think their ppi amp is sonically identical to a Mosconi.

Either way, I am going with the class A biased over the class D. Sorry it sounds better to me. Feels like I have said it a thousand times, but this "it's all the same" mentality is complete B.S. 

As the last poster mentioned, THD is a B.S. value. You can't distinguish THD below 0.5% there is no way, unless you are super human. Frequency response is also not as important as people make it out to be. No one talks about resolution, which to me is pretty messed up because I would rank it higher than THD and FS.


----------



## WestCo

Anyone that can make a cdt tweeter sound like a focal utopia or a scan speak illuminator; gets a free beer on me and a pat on the back. Install isn't going to fix that.

Some of those budget friendly amps can be modified to sound REALLY good. The lanzar opt is a great amp and doesn't cost a ton of money it can easily compare with amps costing 3 or even 4 times the cost with 75$ in mods...

It's just like the RCA debate. If everything is the system isn't up to par, odds are buying an expensive amp or source isn't going to have a huge benefit. That is where these arguments fall apart.


----------



## Hanatsu

cajunner said:


> the thing that people like to point at, is the competition arena.
> 
> *why is it the high-priced equipment, usually ends up in the winner's circle?*
> 
> let's imagine that it's not because the equipment is better, but like you say, it's the bias.
> 
> so to demonstrate, we need to have a car made up with all extremely expensive equipment, but with a little modification involved.
> 
> the guts of all the components are swapped for cheaper, mid-fi alternatives.
> 
> this vehicle is then placed into competition for a year, without anyone giving away the secret.
> 
> if it wins at all, that's proof of bias.
> 
> if it wins a few competitions, against the high cost equipment-equipped competitors, then it's not just proof, but something more, it's vindication.
> 
> if it never wins, and everyone cannot understand how such a well-equipped, expertly installed system seems to never engage the judges, then you'll have a different perspective with which to combat those who say amps don't matter, or have "subtle" differences in their sonics.
> 
> that would bring about a sea-change, like the Klippel has wrought from speaker manufacturers who must now care about things like distortion and finite element analysis, when they used to be able to hide behind descriptors.
> 
> "warm, thick, solid" "clean, crisp, sterile"
> 
> haha..


They know to get the most out of their stuff 

I agree with what you're saying, would be interesting indeed to do such a test. Those who are the "winning circle" obviously have superior install and tuning skills. Sometimes I do wonder if the judges are biased somehow, they listen to systems, judge them - while they are perfectly aware of what gear they are listening at. They are obviously expecting a good geared system to sound better than a "mediocre geared" system. How is that any different from people making sighted reviews on different equipment? Several of these judges compete themselves and have have thoughts about what gear is best etc etc etc. I never once gotten the same points of a competition sheet from two different judges even though the system remained unchanged.


----------



## Hanatsu

WestCo said:


> Anyone that can make a cdt tweeter sound like a focal utopia or a scan speak illuminator; gets a free beer on me and a pat on the back. Install isn't going to fix that.
> 
> Some of those budget friendly amps can be modified to sound REALLY good. The lanzar opt is a great amp and doesn't cost a ton of money it can easily compare with amps costing 3 or even 4 times the cost with 75$ in mods...
> 
> It's just like the RCA debate. If everything is the system isn't up to par, odds are buying an expensive amp or source isn't going to have a huge benefit. That is where these arguments fall apart.


I don't think anyone are debating the differences of speakers. The speaker is the only component that's operating the "acoustic" area. All other components are purely electrical. The acoustic distortion is different, we can't fix non-linear distortion, time domain ringing, a bad power response etc etc with a DSP (electronically).

This is one of the reasons I'm very considerate when choosing speakers and measuring them.


----------



## Hanatsu

WestCo said:


> There is no point arguing sometimes. Let them think their ppi amp is sonically identical to a Mosconi.
> 
> Either way, I am going with the class A biased over the class D. Sorry it sounds better to me. Feels like I have said it a thousand times, but this "it's all the same" mentality is complete B.S.
> 
> As the last poster mentioned, THD is a B.S. value. You can't distinguish THD below 0.5% there is no way, unless you are super human. Frequency response is also not as important as people make it out to be. No one talks about resolution, which to me is pretty messed up because I would rank it higher than THD and FS.


THD is a BS spec, especially when it's not presented as a graph over frequency. I don't get one thing, it's like amplifiers (or any equipment) have to sound 110% identical OR so widely different so the are nothing alike. There's nothing in-between. I DO believe there is differences in ALL equipment, but the discussion is ridiculous. There's very very few people who have done fair comparisons of equipment, taking the necessary steps to get everything right.

I'm not gonna comment on the class A vs D debate, it's completely meaningless really on several points. I know it's more complicated measuring an amp but still... I cannot comprehend WHY noone has been able to show definitive proof what it is the makes them sound different. It's done with speakers all the time, there's no argument there. Why not with amps as well then? Studies have shown that the audibility of non-linear distortion is non-linear at best, just posting THD numbers isn't enough to evaluate anything really. It's not that the measurements can't tell what's good or not, it's more that they are not comprehensive enough.


----------



## cajunner

Hanatsu said:


> I don't think anyone are debating the differences of speakers. The speaker is the only component that's operating the "acoustic" area. All other components are purely electrical. The acoustic distortion is different, we can't fix non-linear distortion, time domain ringing, a bad power response etc etc with a DSP (electronically).
> 
> This is one of the reasons I'm very considerate when choosing speakers and measuring them.


a good point.

when Bob Carver designed his amplifiers to have sonic signatures that correspond with commercially successful designs, then marketed them that way, it wasn't acknowledged by the golden eared crowd. They didn't want to believe that a guy could turn a box of solid state, into a tube amp sound.

but listening tests proved Bob to have the ability, and the amps to do just that.


so, if we unleash the Bob factor on this debate, and Bob takes a relatively inexpensive amplifier circuit and does his guru thing, and it suddenly sounds exactly like the class A Mosconi's sonic signature, or it sounds exactly like the HS Fidelity tube amp, or the Milbert, etc., then what?

is it proof that it's the circuit, and not the parts, is it proof that it's not the price, but the installation details?

I think it's easier to get yourself to believe a high priced amp is actually sonically better through your personal eval techniques, like swapping amps or listening to other's builds, than it is to prove that a high priced amp is actually sonically better by testing through blind comparison.

and that goes back to sighted concerns. I think that the basic car amplifier circuit used today is such, that outside of defective parts or an inherently flawed design, the sonic characteristics are held in lycan's vernacular, "within an envelope of gain, distortion, noise" to be indistinguishable for about 90% of the product floating around in today's market.


----------



## Hanatsu

cajunner said:


> ...and that goes back to sighted concerns. I think that the basic car amplifier circuit used today is such, that outside of defective parts or an inherently flawed design, the sonic characteristics are held in lycan's vernacular, "within an envelope of gain, distortion, noise" to be indistinguishable for about 90% of the product floating around in today's market.


Yes. Distortion is a wider concept that many believe. The "character" of the equipment (and speakers) would fall under this category. A non-flat frequency response or a non-flat phase vs frequency response is also distortion (for example). Every distortion discussion seem to be about that useless THD number and how inaudible it is.


----------



## WestCo

Hanatsu said:


> Yes. Distortion is a wider concept that many believe. The "character" of the equipment (and speakers) would fall under this category. A non-flat frequency response or a non-flat phase vs frequency response is also distortion (for example). Every distortion discussion seem to be about that useless THD number and how inaudible it is.


Thank you for posting this.


----------



## Hanatsu

WestCo said:


> No one talks about resolution, which to me is pretty messed up because I would rank it higher than THD and FS.


Missed that one. What resolution are you talking about? and what is FS?


----------



## ChrisB

I still want to know how all these subtle nuances are picked out between amplifiers while actually driving the car. Even the most quiet of luxury automobiles puts out between 68 and 72 decibels measured road noise, give or take a few dB. I'm sure it's easy to pick out those 6 watts of class A biased audio while cruising down the interstate with 68 dBA of road noise entering the cabin...

Then there is the non-equidistant placement of the speakers from the listening position. Sure, digital processing can help, but what happens when you look left or right while driving the car? What about if you lean over to grab something, recline back in your seat, slump down a little in the seat at the end of the day, etc. Heaven forbid you have a passenger whose leg blocks part of your midbass driver's path to your ears.

Yeah, I'm sure there is a huge difference in all these amplifiers that measure within 1dB of each other over the normal hearing frequency range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Furthermore, I am really sure that one can actually pick out the differences while actually driving. 

I once met someone who told me that he could hear the grass grow... That's what some of these "mah amplifier is better because," with no measured data to support the claim, debates are starting to remind me of.:laugh:


----------



## WestCo

Hanatsu said:


> THD is a BS spec, especially when it's not presented as a graph over frequency. I don't get one thing, it's like amplifiers (or any equipment) have to sound 110% identical OR so widely different so the are nothing alike. There's nothing in-between. I DO believe there is differences in ALL equipment, but the discussion is ridiculous. There's very very few people who have done fair comparisons of equipment, taking the necessary steps to get everything right.
> 
> I'm not gonna comment on the class A vs D debate, it's completely meaningless really on several points. I know it's more complicated measuring an amp but still... I cannot comprehend WHY noone has been able to show definitive proof what it is the makes them sound different. It's done with speakers all the time, there's no argument there. Why not with amps as well then? Studies have shown that the audibility of non-linear distortion is non-linear at best, just posting THD numbers isn't enough to evaluate anything really. It's not that the measurements can't tell what's good or not, it's more that they are not comprehensive enough.


I think a REAL problem with testing is generally actual music is not used. It's either noise or test tones. 

On the amplifier debate, it's 100% engineering. At the core the "best" class A's will beat the best class A/B's. Understanding that amplifier class is only one of the parameters that matter. Heck there are class D's out there which definitely beat some class A/b amps. But it's the closed-mindedness mentality that is aggravating to me and people unwilling to even try something because they think it doesn't matter.


----------



## WestCo

ChrisB said:


> I still want to know how all these subtle nuances are picked out between amplifiers while actually driving the car. Even the most quiet of luxury automobiles puts out between 68 and 72 decibels measured road noise, give or take a few dB. I'm sure it's easy to pick out those 6 watts of class A biased audio while cruising down the interstate with 68 dBA of road noise entering the cabin...
> 
> Then there is the non-equidistant placement of the speakers from the listening position. Sure, digital processing can help, but what happens when you look left or right while driving the car? What about if you lean over to grab something, recline back in your seat, slump down a little in the seat at the end of the day, etc. Heaven forbid you have a passenger whose leg blocks part of your midbass driver's path to your ears.
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure there is a huge difference in all these amplifiers that measure within 1dB of each other over the normal hearing frequency range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Furthermore, I am really sure that one can actually pick out the differences while actually driving.
> 
> I once met someone who told me that he could hear the grass grow... That's what some of these "mah amplifier is better because," with no measured data to support the claim, debates are starting to remind me of.:laugh:


I park my car when I do critical listening, engine off.


----------



## WestCo

Hanatsu said:


> Missed that one. What resolution are you talking about? and what is FS?


The ability to distinguish between between one individual frequency and another. Example 3000hz vs 3001hz or even a smaller difference say between 3000hz to 3000.1hz etc.

FS = frequency response. It's important but not the whole picture.


----------



## Hanatsu

ChrisB said:


> I still want to know how all these subtle nuances are picked out between amplifiers while actually driving the car. Even the most quiet of luxury automobiles puts out between 68 and 72 decibels measured road noise, give or take a few dB. I'm sure it's easy to pick out those 6 watts of class A biased audio while cruising down the interstate with 68 dBA of road noise entering the cabin...
> 
> Then there is the non-equidistant placement of the speakers from the listening position. Sure, digital processing can help, but what happens when you look left or right while driving the car? What about if you lean over to grab something, recline back in your seat, slump down a little in the seat at the end of the day, etc. Heaven forbid you have a passenger whose leg blocks part of your midbass driver's path to your ears.
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure there is a huge difference in all these amplifiers that measure within 1dB of each other over the normal hearing frequency range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Furthermore, I am really sure that one can actually pick out the differences while actually driving.
> 
> I once met someone who told me that he could hear the grass grow... That's what some of these "mah amplifier is better because," with no measured data to support the claim, debates are starting to remind me of.:laugh:


Yep, this is my main argument as well. If you use the car AS a car, ANY subtle differences will be pointless. Speakers however will be put more to the test at higher volume required to overcome the "high noise floor of the road". High volume requires high power output (or efficient drivers). So for those guys that think that this discussion is all but BS, I suggest getting the most efficient, powerful, small amp they can find


----------



## cajunner

ChrisB said:


> I still want to know how all these subtle nuances are picked out between amplifiers while actually driving the car. Even the most quiet of luxury automobiles puts out between 68 and 72 decibels measured road noise, give or take a few dB. I'm sure it's easy to pick out those 6 watts of class A biased audio while cruising down the interstate with 68 dBA of road noise entering the cabin...
> 
> Then there is the non-equidistant placement of the speakers from the listening position. Sure, digital processing can help, but what happens when you look left or right while driving the car? What about if you lean over to grab something, recline back in your seat, slump down a little in the seat at the end of the day, etc. Heaven forbid you have a passenger whose leg blocks part of your midbass driver's path to your ears.
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure there is a huge difference in all these amplifiers that measure within 1dB of each other over the normal hearing frequency range of 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Furthermore, I am really sure that one can actually pick out the differences while actually driving.
> 
> I once met someone who told me that he could hear the grass grow... That's what some of these "mah amplifier is better because," with no measured data to support the claim, debates are starting to remind me of.:laugh:


here is a claim:

let's say you only have hearing up to 10 Khz, through age and environment-related degeneration of the hearing apparatus.

let's say you were born with 20 to 20, and held that ability through your teens into your twenties.

now, you've got the neural network, the infrastructure to support 20 to 20, but the little speaker in your head says you have to top out at 10, the little hairs are broken. The eardrum is stiff, like your knees. The stapes isn't tight to the anvil, haha...

so, you've got the network, but you've got faulty in-out hardware.

sound familiar?

now, let's say that your brain adjusts. The range you had before, is compacted to work better, in the truncated range you work with now.

the way you hear, like blind people, goes through a transitional process where you are more sensitive to what you CAN hear, as opposed to being able to hear at the extremes.

this is what I think happens when we are driving our cars.

the static noise level is higher, so we have to be able to make the neural deficit up, we have to be able to discern a musical signal with greater precision through the noise background.


so it's possibly more important to have less THD at speed, than it is in a closed and anechoic environment.


I know, that's preposterous and how can anyone have the ability to make a judgement call about amplifiers when prevailing logic says that you shouldn't be able to tell squat, but that's part of the mystery.


imho, of course.


----------



## Hanatsu

WestCo said:


> I think a REAL problem with testing is generally actual music is not used. It's either noise or test tones.
> 
> On the amplifier debate, it's 100% engineering. At the core the "best" class A's will beat the best class A/B's. Understanding that amplifier class is only one of the parameters that matter. Heck there are class D's out there which definitely beat some class A/b amps. But it's the closed-mindedness mentality that is aggravating to me and people unwilling to even try something because they think it doesn't matter.


Music is composed of tones. A multitone test would be adequate to serve as a substitute for music. IMD cannot be tested unless there's more than one tone present. 

Amplifier classes is a funny subject. Most people doesn't even know what's the actual differences are. But yeah, speaking generally - many are close-minded (that goes for both sides of the arguers).


----------



## WestCo

Hanatsu said:


> Music is composed of tones. A multitone test would be adequate to serve as a substitute for music. IMD cannot be tested unless there's more than one tone present.
> 
> Amplifier classes is a funny subject. Most people doesn't even know what's the actual differences are. But yeah, speaking generally - many are close-minded (that does for both sides of the arguers).


It's been a long road and I came to the conclusions I currently have. It's a possibility that I am also closed minded I don't mean to be stubborn either.

If someone suggests a product I try to obtain it (usually used) try it and form my own opinion.


----------



## Hanatsu

WestCo said:


> The ability to distinguish between between one individual frequency and another. Example 3000hz vs 3001hz or even a smaller difference say between 3000hz to 3000.1hz etc.
> 
> FS = frequency response. It's important but not the whole picture.


FR = Frequency response 

It's not the whole picture, indeed. It's among the most important specs, most amps does 20kHz pretty easily though. The speakers on the other hand... not to mention that we are on an audio forum. How many here can actually hear the entire highest octave?

I'm skeptical about this "resolution". Such small differences will be masked by the adjacent frequency if the level difference is passed a certain point. I remember reading a document by Gedlee about the masking of frequencies and distortion. This is used in lossy mp3 coding and I can't discern any difference between 256kBit+ mp3 and CD even on a $100000 system - I actually have done that... nothing wrong with my hearing, my ears are fine to about 17kHz. I do know that certain people seem to be more sensitive to different types of distortion. It might be the ultimate reason why we have our preferences.


----------



## WestCo

Hanatsu said:


> FR = Frequency response
> 
> It's not the whole picture, indeed. It's among the most important specs, most amps does 20kHz pretty easily though. The speakers on the other hand... not to mention that we are on an audio forum. How many here can actually hear the entire highest octave?
> 
> I'm skeptical about this "resolution". Such small differences will be masked by the adjacent frequency if the level difference is passed a certain point. I remember reading a document by Gedlee about the masking of frequencies and distortion. This is used in lossy mp3 coding and I can't discern any difference between 256kBit+ mp3 and CD even on a $100000 system - I actually have done that... nothing wrong with my hearing, my ears are fine to about 17kHz. I do know that certain people seem to be more sensitive to different types of distortion. It might be the ultimate reason why we have our preferences.


Sorry for the typo >.>

Great points as well, maybe I will be more open minded as to why some people don't think differences exist.


----------



## tjswarbrick

Some people can't perceive the differences - and some don't want to. I think it does take a certain level of training, or at least practice, to tell the difference a component or cable can make in the sound. As with wine or chocolate tasting, trying out different bikes or skis, or basically any other subjective use of your senses - an individual's experience, knowledge, and yes biases, will play into it - but just because you (or I!) can't perceive a difference doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If I can't tell the difference, I'd be foolish to pay more for the "better" product. But if someone else can, and they have the means to do so, more power to them.

2 home-audio examples about perception and choice:
I was running NHT SuperZero's off a Sumo Andromeda amp and a Mission 12" sub w/ built-in 150 watt amp to fill in the bass (with a 'mates Pioneer Elite LD/CD player as the source) for the main L/R, and he had a receiver and some full-range Pioneer HT speakers, and a matching center, for surround and center. One day he swapped it out - put his Pioneer's in front, and moved my SuperZero's to the rear. He was happy because it looked good and would play loud. I only noticed because I put in Eric Clapton's "Unplugged", and listened to a track I'm very familiar with, and wondered where the depth and detail went. (Then I looked up, and saw his towers where my bookshelf's were supposed to be.) Instead of a fleshed-out 3-dimensional soundstage, I got a flat wall of sound between the speakers. The frequency response wasn't bad, though there was a little chestiness in the midbass I had not heard before (the SuperZero's are very neutral, but far from "warm") - he liked it better because the sound effects were "louder." 

Around the same time, I had given my PSB Alpha's (the original ones) to my dad so he could build a HT. He got some big, cheapie pioneers and I think a Sony receiver. I came to help him set it up - but got frustrated because it never sounded decent. I put it to 2-channel, placed the PSB's on stands in an equilateral triangle with his chair, and spun his favorite Johnny Cash. It wasn't as good as I get at home, but it was very present and alive. He says "Wow. It sounds like he's singing here in the room!"
Next time I visit, he's got the Pioneer's surrounding the TV, the PSB's at different heights pointing to different places in the room, and the subwoofer turned up way too high. You can lead a horse to water...

As for autosound, it's true that many sublte differences will be masked by the car's acoustics and inherrent noise - and it's really difficult to compare amps directly in your own car, in your instal - but within the bounds of my budget, I'd rather start with the best gear I can rather than start with something that can probably be made to work with a good enough installation and lots of tweaking. 

In a previous mobile system, I went from Craig to RF to Hafler to PPI amps and while all were decent and none were unlistenable, each time, while not every aspect of the sound improved, some aspects changed and overall I was glad I spent the money to upgrade. But most of my passengers and people I showed it off to couldn't tell. Please don't take this the wrong way, or as any kind of dis - in my opinion, it's because they weren't as familiar with it as me, and they didn't know WHAT to listen FOR.
In some ways, they are lucky - they could buy equipment based on frequency response, looks, ease of installation or lowest price and be Very happy.
Unfortunately, once you find yourself able to discern the difference between MP3 and CD, amps, cables, etc. you can't go back the other way...


----------



## cajunner

I would say that the same people who claim to be able to 'train' their ears to hear the difference, put that training to the test.

if it's really a matter of conditioning and exercises designed to make the ear more sensitive than normal, why aren't we getting those?

let's see what everyone's preparation for the listening tests are comprised of, let's have a tutorial, right?


I mean, forget going out and listening to live, unamplified musical instruments in a club setting, forget going to your local hi-fi dealer's sound room and checking the uber-goodies for their "tonal superiority" or "air" and forget earphone references, we're on a mission here!

How does one gain this unique ability among audiophiles, that audiometrics has certainly eluded the population, how does the madness start?

distortion generators/tracks?

autosound 2000 briefs? (uncomfortable, in the crotch)

steroids?

what?


----------



## tjswarbrick

You can't "forget" live, unamplified music - that's the actual reference. Though a club setting may not be the best place to do it.
But I don't get to listen to enough of it, so for me it was spending time in boutique audio shops (I used to have 5 within about 1/2 hr of my home, and lots of free time) listening to well-recorded music over different systems.
The catch-22 is that you have to be able to tell what's well-recorded to make the exercise worthwhile in the first place.
Finding what the dealers and manufacturers said I should expect from the gear (with a BIG grain of salt - always), listening, reading up on it, and listening more. Then buying some for myself.

*Or maybe we're just wired differently. *

I'm not going to pretend that a stereo or surround system of ANY quality or price can approach the sound of real instruments in an actual space - but that doesn't mean that some gear doesn't bring you closer than others, or that it's not worthwhile to try. But you have to make your own choice about how close you want/need to get. And, frankly, i don't want my car stereo to sound like my home stereo - in the car I want a little thump and plenty of volume; in a home system the same bass boost gets tiresome over time.


----------



## Hanatsu

tjswarbrick said:


> Some people can't perceive the differences - and some don't want to. I think it does take a certain level of training, or at least practice, to tell the difference a component or cable can make in the sound.


LOL. This is beyond ridiculous. You shouldn't have to be TRAINED to hear a damn difference. Omg... holy crap /thread unsuscribed. Getting out.


----------



## tjswarbrick

Dude. Sorry. Maybe training was the wrong word. But sometimes I don't notice minute differences between things until I've familiarized myself with what to look for. What makes Snap-on better than Kobalt? Or Dom Perinon better than Cooks? Or Ferarri better than Honda? The list goes on, and for some people the correct answer is NOTHING. And that's great, too.

Anyway, I was just trying to offer a different perspective. I'm not here to offend anybody and am only in this hobby for fun so I'm dropping out, too.


----------



## cajunner

tjswarbrick said:


> Dude. Sorry. Maybe training was the wrong word. But sometimes I don't notice minute differences between things until I've familiarized myself with what to look for. What makes Snap-on better than Kobalt? Or Dom Perinon better than Cooks? Or Ferarri better than Honda? The list goes on, and for some people the correct answer is NOTHING. And that's great, too.
> 
> Anyway, I was just trying to offer a different perspective. I'm not here to offend anybody and am only in this hobby for fun so I'm dropping out, too.


whoa, hey man..


there's no reason to get excited, now.


this is just a myth buster thread, you're gonna get the back and forth so just go with it....


we're all in it for fun.


anyways, I probably shouldn't have zoomed in on your training statement, because there's a very real element of truth in that, just like your other senses the real possibility of sharpening up the skill set, is there.

Can you tell me where a vanilla bean was grown? Some people can, and coffee, and wine...


I'm of the opinion that there isn't enough preparation for people, there's not enough "judge class" going on, for people to say we're all on a level playing field.

at the very least, it should be acknowledged that each of us comes with a different hearing ability, and we go from there.

I want to be a hearing athlete, but lack the exercise program, eh?


----------



## BuickGN

tjswarbrick said:


> Dude. Sorry. Maybe training was the wrong word. But sometimes I don't notice minute differences between things until I've familiarized myself with what to look for. What makes Snap-on better than Kobalt? Or Dom Perinon better than Cooks? Or Ferarri better than Honda? The list goes on, and for some people the correct answer is NOTHING. And that's great, too.
> 
> Anyway, I was just trying to offer a different perspective. I'm not here to offend anybody and am only in this hobby for fun so I'm dropping out, too.


Except I can write a couple pages on what makes a Ferrari better than a Honda or Snap-On better than Kobalt. And that's just objective, there are plenty of subjective ways Ferrari is better than Honda that the vast majority would agree on. 

My experiences have led me to believe that plenty of power in a well designed but average priced amp is more important than a high end amp. It's not like I didn't have the money, I even owned a couple of very high end amps when I decided on the JL HD amps. Maybe I'm just not trained to hear the difference but there was just no audible difference between the high end and mid level amps but when I added more power to my mid level amps the system did sound better and you didn't have to crank it up too much no notice the difference.


----------



## Mitsu1grn

Greetings!

I have refrained from getting into this argument, but since I have had PM's asking me to give my opinion on this, here is my OPINION.

When evaluating amplifiers, be they car or home, I have found that the biggest difference that I notice is in noise floor. I.E. how quiet is the amplifier? Does it add any extraneous noise? When amps are dead quiet, depth of stage, three dimensionality of images, placement and separation of images are where the biggest differences occur.

I have always evaluated amplifiers on my home system. I know the speakers, the CD player and the PreAmp characteristics very well. I personally believe that the preamp is the second most important piece of the audio equation,( next to speakers of course). 

I always use a reference amp as the standard. Home evaluation I defer to my Marantz Reference, in car audio, its the Adcom 4702. They are not the last word by any means in amplifier technology. They are amplifiers I am familiar with. Imaging and Staging is where I can tell differences in amplifiers. I personally believe it has a lot to do with the differences in impedance matching between the pre amp signal and what the amplifiers are designed to want. I certainly believe that circuit design, part compliment and how good the signal is transferred from point A to point B in the amp matters. WBT binding points, low ESR capacitors and a kick ass power supply that rejects noise are just examples that I have noticed in solid designs. 

Bottom line for me is resolution. How much detail is revealed in the recording. That is what I am listening for. 

One request was made on the music I use in evaluation of amps or a system in general. I use 1 recording. It is a Reference Recording recorded at the Meyerson in Dallas, Texas. John Rutter:Requiem and five anthems. It has a spectacular sense of space and it is the acid test for evaluation of any component's preservation of low level detail. You can hear shuffling of feet and the turning of pages as the musicians are playing. If your system is up to it, on the fourth track, there is a huge choir the will come into play along with an enormous pipe organ and the entire orchestra. If your system is up to it, you can hear layering from front to rear of the orchestra on the stage, detect extreme depth with the organ playing behind the orchestra and the choir coming in above the orchestra and in front of the organ. Amplifiers attempting to handle 16 hz notes and maintain enough control to have the soundstage maintain focus and not smear images are not easy to find. I personally have found few in either home or car that can do it. 

Something for the masses to consider!

Nick Wingate


----------



## cmusic

I agree with Nick. The noise floor of an amp, and the whole system, is super critical in resolving details in the music that affect the soundstage. One thing to note is that the gain settings of the whole system need to be optimized in order to hear these fine details. Even if the amps have a high S/N ratio, a noisy head unit and/or processor(s) before the amp could affect the noise heard and the noise masking the finer details. 

On the IASCA test CD there is a fade to 0 bits music track that at 1:00 into the track, the signal went completely music playing to 0 bits and no noise should be heard. I think at the 1:00 mark the signal was -70 dB from the start of the track. Judges were supposed to raise the volume of the track and clearly hear the music up to the 1:00 mark. If noise masked the music before 1:00 then either you had noisy equipment in the system or you did not have your gain structure set properly. If the music completely stopped before 1:00, then a noise gate somewhere in the system was interrupting the audio signal. If the judges could hear to 1:00 then it meant you passed the test and your system had an S/N ratio greater than 70 dB. 

In my last competition system (2003-2004) I had an Alpine F#1 7990 and H900, a Brax X2400 amp powering Scan 12M mids and D2004 tweeters. In that system I could hear the noise gate used in the studio on the recording kicking in at 1:02! I had some judges at the 2003 IASCA finals said they heard a noise gate kick in when judging this track and they thought it was in my system. I had to question them about at what time the noise gate kicked in, and that there was no noise gate in my system. I ended up with perfect scores for noise and very high scores for SQ.


----------



## SilkySlim

BuickGN said:


> Except I can write a couple pages on what makes a Ferrari better than a Honda or Snap-On better than Kobalt. And that's just objective, there are plenty of subjective ways Ferrari is better than Honda that the vast majority would agree on.
> 
> My experiences have led me to believe that plenty of power in a well designed but average priced amp is more important than a high end amp. It's not like I didn't have the money, I even owned a couple of very high end amps when I decided on the JL HD amps. Maybe I'm just not trained to hear the difference but there was just no audible difference between the high end and mid level amps but when I added more power to my mid level amps the system did sound better and you didn't have to crank it up too much no notice the difference.


In my auditioning I have noticed this as well both in home, car and commercial. I notice it greater when running full range. With that though I will say that about any level price amp. Even when a larger amp is pulling the same amount of current at the same volume level I have noted smoother highs, warmer mids, lower extension and fuller bass. These results are very general but pretty typical from manufacture to manufacture. 
Along these lines I like to think that there is a 90-10 rule. Analyze your listening. Are you building your system for 90% of your listening or 10% when you listen to competition and well recorded discs or vice verse. If 90% of your listening is AM talk radio. Then you will most likely not notice much difference. If most of your listening is some of the for mentioned reference recordings will expose more in your system. You will not notice nearly as much if your speakers are crap or your system is not properly installed and calibrated. 
Apart from what was just said. My opinion is noise floor is very important to detail as well as how they achieve it. Are they using too much feed back cancellation? I also think that the amps response curve is also very important. As I don't believe in over EQing.
On this note in calibrating many systems I have found that there are so many factors in a great at system. The balance of the system is more important than a single component but every component plays an important part.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


----------



## cajunner

something else to consider, is that for some people, mid-grade is the best they have experience with, it's one thing to be wowed in some showroom but it's another to have months of listening time put in, in your own space where you can be there on your good and your bad days.

so, if you have long-term experience with extremely high definition, or resolution product, then the differences between what you've become accustomed, to that of something less revealing, and more mid-fidelity will be easier to distinguish.

a lot of people who attempt to say amplifiers and source units are basically hard to tell from each other, may not ever have had the seat time.

I can certainly tell differences between source units, set to flat or with tone modification engaged. Amplifiers too, but I don't necessarily contribute that to a great hearing ability, as much as knowing I have a sonic signature of auditory memory that "kicks in" when certain triggers are hit.

that's something that may be at work here, like those people with total recall, Marilu Henner, and that crowd. Who's to say their auditory memory isn't intact, and doesn't last for just the 20 seconds or whatever they say it is? some people may have a better memory of what they hear, and some people may have a better hearing of what they remember, and for a doozy, some people may remember better, and heard it better to boot!

so, we're not all the same. We all have our own unique loudness curve, we all have drop-outs and little resonant peaks in our hearing, some is physiological and some is related to memory, and some might just be genetic-based.


Babe Ruth could read a newspaper at 20 feet, they say...


----------



## WinWiz

Amps really should not color the sound, but that said the amp inside my expensive dynaudio sub 600 does sound relly nice, especially compared to the GZ titanium class D amp I just sold...


----------



## Stratous

This is a retarded debate. Of course my Zed Leviathan sounds better than Planet Audio. When is the last time Audiopipe or Planet Audio has won a SQ competition? Yesterday I spent time in a Store called The Audio Edge. They sell brands like Arc, Digital Designs, Hybrid audio and other high end stuff. I had a chance to listen and compare the different brands using the same amp and different amps. I definitely heard a difference. I must say though, the Hybrid Audio Legatia V's sound so awesome. So, I heard a difference between the different brands. The kicker was, I thought the Hybrid Audio Legatia's sounded the best, but the store owner liked the Arc Black's better. So, in retrospect, sound quality is in the ear of the listener. Sound is subjective to the listener.


----------



## BigDNY

Age old debate.

A good amp should not impact sound quality at all. It should simply take the input signal, amplify its magnitude and send out and exact, but larger copy of what came in. I want my amps to be a transparent as possible.


If you like one amp's sound over another it means you like something about the way it is changing the input or maybe the lack of changing comparing to another amp.


----------



## turbo5upra

Stratous said:


> This is a retarded debate. Of course my Zed Leviathan sounds better than Planet Audio. When is the last time Audiopipe or Planet Audio has won a SQ competition? Yesterday I spent time in a Store called The Audio Edge. They sell brands like Arc, Digital Designs, Hybrid audio and other high end stuff. I had a chance to listen and compare the different brands using the same amp and different amps. I definitely heard a difference. I must say though, the Hybrid Audio Legatia V's sound so awesome. So, I heard a difference between the different brands. The kicker was, I thought the Hybrid Audio Legatia's sounded the best, but the store owner liked the Arc Black's better. So, in retrospect, sound quality is in the ear of the listener. Sound is subjective to the listener.


If the amps on the board were matched output level wise and far from clipping you would be hard pressed to tell which you were listening to... Speakers on the hand are all together another story.


----------



## captainobvious

Stratous said:


> This is a retarded debate. Of course my Zed Leviathan sounds better than Planet Audio. When is the last time Audiopipe or Planet Audio has won a SQ competition? Yesterday I spent time in a Store called The Audio Edge. They sell brands like Arc, Digital Designs, Hybrid audio and other high end stuff. I had a chance to listen and compare the different brands using the same amp and different amps. I definitely heard a difference. I must say though, the Hybrid Audio Legatia V's sound so awesome. So, I heard a difference between the different brands. The kicker was, I thought the Hybrid Audio Legatia's sounded the best, but the store owner liked the Arc Black's better. So, in retrospect, sound quality is in the ear of the listener. Sound is subjective to the listener.



As posted above, it is absolutely critical in any amp demoing that the amps in question are properly level matched so that they are on an even playing field. If you were hearing big changes with just an amp change and all other things being equal, than those amps are certainly not properly level matched for a fair comparison...or one of the amps had an issue which caused it to stand out (noise, etc).

I would venture to say this is common practice though. If you're demoing from a dealer soundboard and they want to move a certain product, they only have to slightly boost the gain vs the competition for a perceived better/more dynamic sound.


----------



## jsketoe

we used to do that in car audio retail back in the day. Old RF series one amps. Those freaking things would get down almost as hard as the punch 60x2 and 40x2. We had to bump the gains on the 40 and 60. LOL


----------



## WinWiz

Toms Hardware blind tests concluded that a cheap 2$ ic dac is just as good as a 2000$ external hifi dac regarding SQ: 
Audiophile PC Sound - The Real Cost of Hi-Fi - Tom


----------



## Hanatsu

WinWiz said:


> Toms Hardware blind tests concluded that a cheap 2$ ic dac is just as good as a 2000$ external hifi dac regarding SQ:
> Audiophile PC Sound - The Real Cost of Hi-Fi - Tom


Yep ^^

My tests confirm there's no audible difference between my Pioneer P99RS and a $100 Sony HU except lower noise floor. I couldn't pick the right one in a blind test connected to otherwise high end gear... You pay for design, build quality and features. Imo, if you wanna improve the sound you either get better speakers, more power, more tuning features (DSP) and invest time into improving install. Modding amps, pre-amps, source units and crap to gain better SQ is to 99% a waste of time imho. It's generally the circuit as a whole that determines the performance, not single component swaps.

All audible features can be measured, just figure out how to correlate those measurements with psychoacoustics and we can start figuring out what sounds good or not by simply looking at data and ignore all those audiophile BS subjective terms. With speakers I have a pretty good idea what sounds good by just looking at FR and polar response, non-linear distortion plots and CSD/BD. A BL-curve also tells lots of a drivers performance. The speakers are the only high distortion devices in the system, as long as you got an adequate amount of power available.


----------



## FG79

I just found out today that a certain percentage of the population cannot smell the side effects of Asparagus in their urine...

And we all know a certain percentage of the population is color blind.

I'm sure you can see where I'm headed with this....

People keep saying "if you level match two amps of equal power they shall sound the same!". 

I don't know what world they are living in. I have heard a 75 x 2 amp set at low gains with more balls than another amp 150 x 4 ever had at any gain setting.

And it's not outright power/dynamics/spl either. I hear certain amps of lower power sound "sweeter" than a more powerful amp. 

I'm sure the cynics will say it's distortion or something. Naturally it has to be, as it's their nature to want to be dismissive of things in general. 

I've been around this hobby a little over ten years now, and over the last 6 or 7 years I've heard a ton of great home and car audio amps and they absolutely make a difference. I was floundering around with run of the mill entry level amps depressed with my sound and my friend demanded I swap them out for some vintage amps. I was the resident cynic, refusing to comply until I issued him an ultimatum that if I wasn't happy he would pay for it.

He complied, I bought them and he never had to settle up. My first thought was "why didn't I go to this guy first?!". 

I would say that the big difference between what I consider to be good/great amps and bad amps isn't outright power or bass. It's the difference between a "full" sound and a "thin" one. And if you happen to prefer a "thin" sound then getting a "better" amp is not going to make it more pleasing.....probably worse sounding!

So it's basically an issue of taste. Most people are too afraid to "go there" in the audio world. It's the biggest "walking on eggshells" I've ever seen when it comes to expressing preferences and opinions. Everybody has strong opinions on who the hot chicks are, the best looking cars, houses, furniture, clothing. It's kinda accepted that a Ferrari is a better looking car than say a VW Beetle. You're free to think the Honda is better looking but you're in a tiny minority and at risk of being teased. 

The smooth, laidback sound with strong midrange is the correct sound. The thin, brittle, make your ears bleed is not the correct sound. There's a lot of variance in between, but better sound is definitely closer to the former than the latter. The former takes years of experience to acquire, the latter is quite popular for most off the bat (yours truly included). I had s*** listening taste back in the day.

Nobody ever loved beer or scotch the first time they drank it. I wouldn't expect most people without lots of listening experience to like a good all tube system playing 1/4" reel to reel tape. 

But eventually they should. And if they never do, they're not worthy.

Plain and simple, there I said it.


----------



## FG79

Hanatsu said:


> Yep ^^
> 
> My tests confirm there's no audible difference between my Pioneer P99RS and a $100 Sony HU except lower noise floor. I couldn't pick the right one in a blind test connected to otherwise high end gear... You pay for design, build quality and features. Imo, if you wanna improve the sound you either get better speakers, more power, more tuning features (DSP) and invest time into improving install. Modding amps, pre-amps, source units and crap to gain better SQ is to 99% a waste of time imho. It's generally the circuit as a whole that determines the performance, not single component swaps.
> 
> All audible features can be measured, just figure out how to correlate those measurements with psychoacoustics and we can start figuring out what sounds good or not by simply looking at data and ignore all those audiophile BS subjective terms. With speakers I have a pretty good idea what sounds good by just looking at FR and polar response, non-linear distortion plots and CSD/BD. A BL-curve also tells lots of a drivers performance. The speakers are the only high distortion devices in the system, as long as you got an adequate amount of power available.


A friend had a very smart Engineer measures the differences between two amps. One was $7k and sounded average, the other was $25k and sounded a lot better. Everybody was in agreement with which sounded better to them.

Guess which amplifier measured "better"? Hint, it wasn't the expensive one.

My biggest issue with the idea that everything can be measured -- I don't think we know everything that should be measured, and how to correlate it to equate to "good sound". Outright power, THD, is useless for determining what sounds good. 

At times I would correlate a reduced frequency response of a pair of headphones or a tape deck as sounding better (e.g. 30 - 17khz vs. 20 - 20khz) because you roll off the top and bottom which smooths the highs and "adds" midrange. This is not always the case, but I've seen it as such. 

Who do you know ever thinks like that? The true scientist/engineer would blindly say that the 20-20 should be better than 30-17; that less THD is better than more, etc. 

This stuff is very, very complicated. Because if it truly was easy, speaker/amplifier/etc. manufacturer would be a piece of cake, and all designs would sound the same. 

People who try to champion digital as superior to analog citing greater signal to noise ratio and dynamic range fail to acknowledge the two are totally different domains altogether. You can only listen to music in analog, so the process of converting digital TO analog means there's something lost in translation. 

It's like saying 7 kilometers is greater in distance than 5 miles, because 7 > 5. 

On the issues of distortion, my theory on why gear with more distortion often sounds better is because when you filter out a lot, it's not just noise you're eliminating, but a good amount of the actual sound you want too. When you reduce/boost a frequency on an EQ, it's not just done in a vacuum....other frequencies are affected as well. 

I'm an EE so naturally I have an interest in this stuff, particularly in correlating why I like what I like. But the difference is, I take it from the point of view that my ears are the source to trust and work backwards. Not, "this stuff measures good so I have to like it no matter what".

People think the placebo effect is only reserved for the audiophiles who think in lush and warm terms. It is also very real (perhaps even more real IMO) with those that get excited over a spec sheet all by itself. 

The problem with measuring sound is the typical logic is to say something closer to one extreme or the other is better than the other. Perhaps the reality is somewhere in the middle.....a certain range is what is pleasing and anything above and below that range is not as good. 

To a level I understand why people care so much about #s and specs.....you want to know if you will like something before dropping big cash on it. I get it.

However, there has to be a way to listen to something first if it matters that much to you. Either that or you take the risk and listen to it first. Another alternative is to find other people with similar tastes and then if they get access to the sound, you can leverage their experience for your use.

I have a few people in that camp, and for the most part whatever they like, I'll like. And even if there's slight disagreement on taste, it can be described in terms that we all understand. "This has more weight than that one, but not as open".


----------



## namesmeanlittle

I'm gonna say this macintosh is now a joke. More importunely bigger amps have headroom and don't have to work hard to move a 6 by 9 when it has 6 outputs and half power vs 2 outputs 500F way in to clipping with eggs and bacon cooking on the heatsink. Always look to the pro audio world for most of this they use oversized amps for tweeters so they don't distort. Also half the hi end amps in lower brands are a joke they are a little better sometimes but no triumph. there are some hi end amps that sound good, ya know there not even high end there sq... its not about the name pot off the hood and look underneath, look at the caps the resistor tolerances extra... isolation transformers misfit outputs are all good signs, but i highly don't recommend a sq amp for most people they don't care really. most people want sharp clean power not natural pure sounding power they don't know how to listen to it, sq just means it is closer to how the world sounds. Some car audio i like unnatural i like clean sharp tweeters in a car listening to rap not lots but over noted and stand out. A real sq system doesn't sound because there is no distortion from the system it reproduces exactly what is given in the input.


----------



## captainobvious

FG79 said:


> People keep saying "if you *level match two amps of equal power *they shall sound the same!".
> 
> I don't know what world they are living in. *I have heard a 75 x 2 amp set at low gains with more balls than another amp 150 x 4 ever had at any gain setting.*
> 
> And it's not outright power/dynamics/spl either. I hear certain amps of lower power sound "sweeter" than a more powerful amp.


If you've never been part of a true AX blind comparison, you'll always be a "believer" or a "wonderer" about amplifier 'sound'.


----------



## ChrisB

captainobvious said:


> If you've never been part of a true AX blind comparison, you'll always be a "believer" or a "wonderer" about amplifier 'sound'.


Back when I was a believer, I was shocked to learn that what I liked was actually intentional distortion produced by the amplifier.  It wasn't until I had some seat time with said amplifier playing music that had distortion in the music itself that I realized that I DID NOT like said amplifier! Go figure... 

That caused me to embark on a semi scientific test where I used some decent Klipsch speakers, performed some level matching with a Fluke 117 and an oscilloscope, then started listening myself. I mean REALLY listening! Even knowing which amplifier was playing, I was hard pressed to tell the difference, with the exception of one that was known to have a sonic variance. The variance was an equal loudness contour built-in to said amplifier with a higher than usual distortion level that could be measured.

Isn't it crazy that I knew it sounded different and it measured different too? I swear this hearing is believing argument is the same as science versus religion. I better watch it because I may be labeled a racist for saying that.


----------



## WinWiz

A speaker that measures perfect can sound boring while a nice sounding tube amp can measure quite bad...
So SQ isn't as easy or simple as some people clam!


----------



## FG79

captainobvious said:


> If you've never been part of a true AX blind comparison, you'll always be a "believer" or a "wonderer" about amplifier 'sound'.


I will take a blind test anytime, anywhere. 

My version of disproving this blind listening test theory is I've heard some real cheap s*** speakers being driven by some real top end home audio amplifiers, and the sound is unreal.

Big soundstage, lots of midrange presence, images nice....people asking "where's the sub?". All from 4" drivers in a tiny bookshelf, sealed enclosure. 

Of course it has its limits but it sounds legitimately audiophile. The cheap speakers disappear and it becomes very difficult to believe they are producing the sound they are producing. But they are. 

I submit we need to have more of these exhibitions.....a cheap speaker being driven by some great amp/DAC/etc. vs. an expensive speaker being driven by some run of the mill cheap amplifier. 

The range of quality in car audio is a lot more compressed than home audio, so it takes a bit more of a good ear to hear the differences but they are there too. 

A blind test might be enough to sway things that are very, very close together, but when the difference is sufficient, it won't change the end result.


----------



## FG79

WinWiz said:


> A speaker that measures perfect can sound boring while a nice sounding tube amp can measure quite bad...
> So SQ isn't as easy or simple as some people clam!


Finally, we are getting somewhere. Someone who is eloquently calling it as it is. 

While my camp gets criticized for "swearing by tubes and passion", the opposite camp wants to defend a bunch of science to no end. 

One wants to go by what they hear, the other by what they read.

If you took an unbiased layperson with no knowledge whatsoever on audio and asked them what they thought mattered, which side do you think they would take?

You think they wanna be wowed by what they hear or what you tell them about the equipment's specifications?

LOL. 

This is why the female layperson often makes the better decision about gear, because she is essentially 100% ears and 0% theory. And they also tend to have better hearing and have 0 ego surrounding science and gear. 

My friend sells gear for a living and he tells the story time and time again of a guy who comes in to argue theory vs. sound. He brings in his gear to compare to what is in store, and if he doesn't hear the difference himself, he is told to bring his wife in and without fail she will choose opposite of what he does. 

So much of this audiophile community is about ego. If you "don't know about T/S parameters, you don't know what you're talking about" is sorta the gist of this. 

It's probably worthy of its own thread title in this subforum:

"HAVING A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE ON AUDIO MAKES YOU A BETTER LISTENER"



BTW, I always highlight that I'm a Professional Engineer by day. So that means I spend more time than most making engineering decisions and using science to get my job done. I'm not against engineering by any means. 

However, I have an "objective" job. This topic of audio is very, very "subjective". As soon as you deviate from objective and go into subjective, you have to separate the science from the art, or at least TEMPER it.


----------



## turbo5upra

Correct me if I'm wrong- the general conclusion of this test is: There might be very subtle differences in the amps tested but it's not enough to warrant getting your panties in a knot... It should be more about clean power- efficiency and feature set as long as you use a quality product.

We're installing in a car that goes down the road at 70mph- With that noise floor and paying attention to driving I would bet nobody can blindly pick an amp...

Once the car is parked install and tune are much bigger factors followed by speakers than amp technology- very few cars I've heard I feel would make substantial gains by simply swapping amplifier technologies.


----------



## kyheng

How to compare an amp to another? There's no way in real world.
Unless a brand that can comes out same channel amp with different class. Like brand A makes 2 types of 2 channel amp, 1 is class AB while another is class D, both output the same power.
Just another example : I'm taking an Alpine MRV-F409 compare to a Rockford Fosgate's Power series 4 channels. Will it be fair?


----------



## turbo5upra

kyheng said:


> How to compare an amp to another? There's no way in real world.
> Unless a brand that can comes out same channel amp with different class. Like brand A makes 2 types of 2 channel amp, 1 is class AB while another is class D, both output the same power.
> Just another example : I'm taking an Alpine MRV-F409 compare to a Rockford Fosgate's Power series 4 channels. Will it be fair?


Unsure why you can't compare them- set gains so that both amps stay out of clipping- make sure the output is equal... Listen to them and pick out the nuances be it good or bad of each...


----------



## Hanatsu

turbo5upra said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong- the general conclusion of this test is: There might be very subtle differences in the amps tested but it's not enough to warrant getting your panties in a knot... It should be more about clean power- efficiency and feature set as long as you use a quality product.
> 
> We're installing in a car that goes down the road at 70mph- With that noise floor and paying attention to driving I would bet nobody can blindly pick an amp...
> 
> Once the car is parked install and tune are much bigger factors followed by speakers than amp technology- very few cars I've heard I feel would make substantial gains by simply swapping amplifier technologies.


Correct...

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## ChrisB

turbo5upra said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong- the general conclusion of this test is: There might be very subtle differences in the amps tested but it's not enough to warrant getting your panties in a knot... It should be more about clean power- efficiency and feature set as long as you use a quality product.
> 
> We're installing in a car that goes down the road at 70mph- With that noise floor and paying attention to driving I would bet nobody can blindly pick an amp...
> 
> Once the car is parked install and tune are much bigger factors followed by speakers than amp technology- very few cars I've heard I feel would make substantial gains by simply swapping amplifier technologies.


That is what I learned too... Unfortunately the "hearing is believing" crowd think there is some mythical force that sets them apart from the rest of humanity. It can't be measured, but they can sure as heck tell you it is different as long as they know which amplifier is playing.

Too bad the limiting factor in car audio is the car itself.:laugh:


----------



## squeak9798

FG79 said:


> I will take a blind test anytime, anywhere.
> 
> My version of disproving this blind listening test theory is I've heard some real cheap s*** speakers being driven by some real top end home audio amplifiers, and the sound is unreal.
> 
> Big soundstage, lots of midrange presence, images nice....people asking "where's the sub?". All from 4" drivers in a tiny bookshelf, sealed enclosure.
> 
> Of course it has its limits but it sounds legitimately audiophile. The cheap speakers disappear and it becomes very difficult to believe they are producing the sound they are producing. But they are.
> 
> I submit we need to have more of these exhibitions.....a cheap speaker being driven by some great amp/DAC/etc. vs. an expensive speaker being driven by some run of the mill cheap amplifier.
> 
> The range of quality in car audio is a lot more compressed than home audio, so it takes a bit more of a good ear to hear the differences but they are there too.
> 
> A blind test might be enough to sway things that are very, very close together, but when the difference is sufficient, it won't change the end result.


Every scientifically valid blind test I'm aware of has concluded you are wrong. Power, gain, noise, distortion and frequency response. As long as these are within inaudible limits, there's no difference in sound. And it's not hard nowadays to build an amp that fits those qualifications.


----------



## Hanatsu

squeak9798 said:


> Power, gain, noise, distortion and frequency response. As long as these are within inaudible limits, there's no difference in sound.


Precisely! Everything is contained within those parameters.


----------



## Hanatsu

FG79 said:


> One wants to go by what they hear, the other by what they read.
> 
> If you took an unbiased layperson with no knowledge whatsoever on audio and asked them what they thought mattered, which side do you think they would take?
> 
> This is why the female layperson often makes the better decision about gear, because she is essentially 100% ears and 0% theory. And they also tend to have better hearing and have 0 ego surrounding science and gear.


A blind AX/ABX test will remove all theoretical knowledge from the equation so the point is moot. Sighted tests WILL ALWAYS be biased, more so if you have knowledge about the subject as you pointed out.

There have been many many blind tests over the years, nothing have been conclusive of these mysterious differences.


----------



## namesmeanlittle

I'm just gonna through this out there i am sick of the people who measure THD as the sound indicator harmonic distortion is rather the amp is on frequency nothing else it doesn't matter that much because most people can't tell a C from a C that is 3 clicks off in an instrument to began with so why would 1.3 hurtz matter? as long as it is consistent with all the channels of the amp. phasing is a big one people bluntly forget, resolution, transistant, extra are all not under THD and are vastly more importuned to sound that a few hurtz.


----------



## FG79

Hanatsu said:


> A blind AX/ABX test will remove all theoretical knowledge from the equation so the point is moot. Sighted tests WILL ALWAYS be biased, more so if you have knowledge about the subject as you pointed out.
> 
> There have been many many blind tests over the years, nothing have been conclusive of these mysterious differences.


It's a big claim to say that ALL listeners cannot discern differences between gear as opposed to "a good amount", "many", or "most". 

I think it's time to put some money down on this stuff....a wager of sorts. 

I'd even do the wager with a minimal amount of listening time for each track, provided I could hear several tracks, preferably my own. 

One thing that's interesting about blind tests that doesn't always reflect real world buying decisions (which is why we do them), is that if I have a system at home that has been stagnant for a few months, or a year plus....one knows the sound of it very, very well. If you change any component, it will be easily spotted, especially an amp. 

To have to acclimate to a brand new system, and then differentiate it on the spot makes the challenge tougher, but not impossible. But do realize that it plays a role. 

I've even been in situations where I couldn't fully appreciate what I was hearing until a full twenty or thirty minutes went by. It's worth spending that much time to improve your life, no?

I'm almost certain 99% of the people on here if given enough time to differentiate between gear would be able to tell the differences. For example, swap out an amp in their system for a month then put the old one back in....everybody who cares will notice the difference.


----------



## GLN305

I never planned to throw my 2 cents in here, but here it goes.

IMO, the build quality of the amplifier has alot to do with power output. More available power equates to later clipping. Later clipping equates to someone believing the amp sounds better. Someone believing the amp sounds better is why this thread was started. More power = higher perceived SQ.


----------



## rton20s

Just a question FG79... How far away from and what were you doing when they did the blind amp test last month? I thought they were within driving distance of you in DC. I could be quite wrong though.


----------



## FG79

rton20s said:


> Just a question FG79... How far away from and what were you doing when they did the blind amp test last month? I thought they were within driving distance of you in DC. I could be quite wrong though.


I moved from DC in early December, and live far, far away now.

It will be a year or two before I can come back to visit.


----------



## kyheng

turbo5upra said:


> Unsure why you can't compare them- set gains so that both amps stay out of clipping- make sure the output is equal... Listen to them and pick out the nuances be it good or bad of each...


Well, class D amps in theory can give a better and more steady output, given the actual efficiency are much higher than class AB amps. 
Anyway, enjoying music are subjective.


----------



## rton20s

FG79 said:


> I moved from DC in early December, and live far, far away now.
> 
> It will be a year or two before I can come back to visit.


Maybe it is time to organize a similar blind amp comparison in your region then.


----------



## FG79

squeak9798 said:


> Every scientifically valid blind test I'm aware of has concluded you are wrong. Power, gain, noise, distortion and frequency response. As long as these are within inaudible limits, there's no difference in sound. And it's not hard nowadays to build an amp that fits those qualifications.


Let me ask you something......have you ever heard any real home audio, blind or no blind test?

People with any real experience listening to different amps on a same speaker rarely ever repeat this mantra you are espousing.

We set up a few rooms at one of the mid-atlantic home audio shows every year. Two of our rooms feature speakers that retail rather low on the high end scale (one is $1500, the other maybe $2500).....both small speakers -- one is a 2 way bookshelf with a 5.25" woofer, the other is a floorstander with a pair of 4" woofers. The overall value of each system is in excess of $15,000.

The sound that comes out of them belies their size. All the time we are asked where the sub is. 

People come into the room with no preconceived notion of anything. Music is played for them or their requested music is put on. Nobody is there suggesting anything in their ears about the amps, DACs, cables, etc. 

The systems get good reviews and are respected. . 

The amps make those two rooms. The speakers themselves are nice but by themselves won't light the world on fire. A decent amount of people really think they are hearing the speakers do all the work. It's not terrible that they think that since it helps sell the speakers. Win/win no matter how you cut it. 

I recommend getting out there a bit. One show is worth a few years of browsing these forums.


----------



## turbo5upra

kyheng said:


> Well, class D amps in theory can give a better and more steady output, given the actual efficiency are much higher than class AB amps.
> Anyway, enjoying music are subjective.


Would this not be a power supply issue? Be it actual power supply in amp incorrectly sized- or battery too small- or alternator...


----------



## captainobvious

FG79 said:


> Let me ask you something......have you ever heard any real home audio, blind or no blind test?
> 
> People with any real experience listening to different amps on a same speaker rarely ever repeat this mantra you are espousing.
> 
> We set up a few rooms at one of the mid-atlantic home audio shows every year. Two of our rooms feature speakers that retail rather low on the high end scale (one is $1500, the other maybe $2500).....both small speakers -- one is a 2 way bookshelf with a 5.25" woofer, the other is a floorstander with a pair of 4" woofers. The overall value of each system is in excess of $15,000.
> 
> The sound that comes out of them belies their size. All the time we are asked where the sub is.
> 
> People come into the room with no preconceived notion of anything. Music is played for them or their requested music is put on. Nobody is there suggesting anything in their ears about the amps, DACs, cables, etc.
> 
> The systems get good reviews and are respected. .
> 
> The amps make those two rooms. The speakers themselves are nice but by themselves won't light the world on fire. A decent amount of people really think they are hearing the speakers do all the work. It's not terrible that they think that since it helps sell the speakers. Win/win no matter how you cut it.
> 
> I recommend getting out there a bit. One show is worth a few years of browsing these forums.



If you were in the area, I'd be willing to arrange a simple test which would allow you to hear exactly for yourself. Our tests included 50 watt per channel amps up to 150wpc amps...some old, some new, some cheap and some very pricey, some class A/B, some class D, some excellent build quality, some...not so much. When they are all fed the exact same source simultaneously and properly level matched, all playing through the same equipment under the same conditions and in the same environment, I'd wager you will find it extremely difficult to tell the amplifiers apart. My test used Martin Logan electrostats which present a more difficult load for the amplifiers and are very revealing speakers. My testers had a very hard time with simple AX testing. I'd say trying to pick/determine an amplifier out of the lineup with any semblance of consitency would have been a lesson in futility.


----------



## cajunner

FG79 said:


> I recommend getting out there a bit. One show is worth a few years of browsing these forums.


so being paraded around by salesmen trying to earn their kids' college tuition, in front of who knows what kind of electronic wizardry, in a "room" that looks nothing, sounds nothing like the one you'll set up in at home, is going to trump learning about the differences in speakers from the actual designers of the speakers on these forums?

did not know that.


----------



## squeak9798

FG79 said:


> Let me ask you something......have you ever heard any real home audio, blind or no blind test?
> 
> People with any real experience listening to different amps on a same speaker rarely ever repeat this mantra you are espousing.


Then why have people like yourself with all of this real world experience been unable to prove that superior hearing ability in scientifically valid testing? It's not me spouting some mantra, it's the facts of the matter based on the evidence both from our understanding of electrical theory and the demonstrated inability of the human auditory system to identify a difference in sound outside of those listed. 

Prove otherwise. Conduct a scientifically valid experiment that proves your point....because so far no one else has been successful at it that I'm aware of. Every experiment I'm aware of does not support your claims.


----------



## strakele

If the difference between properly level matched amps that measure the same regardless of internal components, brand name, and price tag was noticeable, SOMEBODY would have taken Clark's $10k by now.

The fact is, not one single person has ever been able to accurately tell the difference between amps when they didn't know which one they were listening to. Until someone can, all the pretty marketing prose, anecdotal sighted experiences, and 'professional' reviews mean absolutely nothing.

Fellippe I bet I could find a couple of guys who would pay your airfare and room if you flew out one weekend and took the test that captainobvious set up and were able to back up your claims in the blind test.


----------



## Hanatsu

I've heard systems in the $200000 range. Sounds great... my $4000 sounds just as good. Price does not equal performance. I've done several blind tests, many many equipment swaps both in my home audio system and car. system. What matters?

# Source material (recording)
# Speakers
# Room treatments
# Power
# DSP (car audio)

Amp classes, highend cables, highend source units, high end DACs etc etc. I call BS on that. Differences that can't be measured cannot be heard, period.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## WestCo

Hanatsu said:


> I've heard systems in the $200000 range. Sounds great... my $4000 sounds just as good. Price does not equal performance. I've done several blind tests, many many equipment swaps both in my home audio system and car. system. What matters?
> 
> # Source material (recording)
> # Speakers
> # Room treatments
> # Power
> # DSP (car audio)
> 
> Amp classes, highend cables, highend source units, high end DACs etc etc. I call BS on that. Differences that can't be measured cannot be heard, period.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


Remember people are sensitive to different things.


A/B a stock c2k 4.0 and then listen to one of Matt R's class A biased amps. There is a huge difference there to my ears. 

At the end of the day it's all about what matters to you.


----------



## Hanatsu

Tested a $100 Sony HU yesterday, performed just as good as my Pioneer P99RS in the RMAA tests. I couldn't hear any difference from the raw output in my home audio setup either when they were properly level matched. Of course, the P99's DSP will make the system sound better ^^

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## Hanatsu

My ears might suck then. I don't even care about lossless. Mp3 256k is fine, sounds equal to CD quality imo.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## Hanatsu

WestCo said:


> Remember people are sensitive to different things.
> 
> 
> A/B a stock c2k 4.0 and then listen to one of Matt R's class A biased amps. There is a huge difference there to my ears.
> 
> At the end of the day it's all about what matters to you.


Sure if there's an audible difference then we can measure it as well 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## WestCo

Hanatsu said:


> Tested a $100 Sony HU yesterday, performed just as good as my Pioneer P99RS in the RMAA tests. I couldn't hear any difference from the raw output in my home audio setup either when they were properly level matched. Of course, the P99's DSP will make the system sound better ^^
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


I am not a big fan of the p99rs either. I would not be surprised if you liked the raw sound of the Sony more in that case. 

This is the state of the car audio market. Most of the gear is only average at best; plain and simple. So it's understandable that the majority of it sounds the same to most people. Look at some of the high end sources on the Asian market, there is a big difference there.

And it's been my findings that the minor differences add up. It took a looong time to find the source units, amps, speakers, and dsp's that I liked the best for everyday use. 

Look at the z400.2 that thing has a TON of power but it sounds dull for full range output. It's a full range amp that should only be used for subs (it get's much better with mod's but stock is really dull... There is a case when you'd be better off buying a ppi 900.2 or whatever the model number is. Because that is a solid little amp and it really does well for the cost.


----------



## tjswarbrick

I couldn't pick out my own system (home or car) 100% accurately 100% of the time. Sometimes it just sounds different. Some say it's the quality of the input power. I find it has more to do with my levels of rest, hunger, stress and listening fatigue (among other things.) Still, I have heard components which sound better, and those which sound worse. I have heard systems (with my own speakers) which can't compare to what I have, and other systems that completely blow it away. A meter telling me what my output, distortion, voltage, headroom etc may or may not be aren't going to mean diddly when I walk into a listening room and hear an open window on the sound - with rich tonality, vast soundstaging, pinpoint imaging, and you-are-there palpability. It's awesome when you first experience it, but chasing it can get very expensive very quickly.

I understand some people rely on the scientific method to prove a point or validate their beliefs.

What I don't understand is why those who can't hear much difference between cables, amps, DAC's or whatever have you - or can't faithfully reproduce and pick out a difference in whatever setting they set up - insist upon telling the rest of us that since they can t prove there is a difference, then there IS NO difference.

I invite you to visit an audio salon with high-end gear, and have them set up 2 different systems - one with affordable, off-the-shelf gear and one with high-falutin, mega-dollar snake-oil-conataining gear. The first can sound remarkably good. I can't guarantee the second will sound better to you, but if it does it can be a mind-blowing experience. If, however, it sounds no different to you - that does not mean that it sounds no different to me.


----------



## rton20s

I don't think anyone is arguing that you won't be able to hear a difference in sound. I think what they are arguing is that you could make them to sound the same. By using the scientific methods mentioned for measuring the equipment so that the output looks the same from a scientific standpoint (within a reasonable margin of variance) what you hear in a blind comparison is not going to be distinguishable. 

Simply put (probably for the 100th time), if it measures the same, it will sound the same.


----------



## WestCo

tjswarbrick said:


> I couldn't pick out my own system (home or car) 100% accurately 100% of the time. Sometimes it just sounds different. Some say it's the quality of the input power. I find it has more to do with my levels of rest, hunger, stress and listening fatigue (among other things.) Still, I have heard components which sound better, and those which sound worse. I have heard systems (with my own speakers) which can't compare to what I have, and other systems that completely blow it away. A meter telling me what my output, distortion, voltage, headroom etc may or may not be aren't going to mean diddly when I walk into a listening room and hear an open window on the sound - with rich tonality, vast soundstaging, pinpoint imaging, and you-are-there palpability. It's awesome when you first experience it, but chasing it can get very expensive very quickly.
> 
> I understand some people rely on the scientific method to prove a point or validate their beliefs.
> 
> What I don't understand is why those who can't hear much difference between cables, amps, DAC's or whatever have you - or can't faithfully reproduce and pick out a difference in whatever setting they set up - insist upon telling the rest of us that since they can t prove there is a difference, then there IS NO difference.
> 
> I invite you to visit an audio salon with high-end gear, and have them set up 2 different systems - one with affordable, off-the-shelf gear and one with high-falutin, mega-dollar snake-oil-conataining gear. The first can sound remarkably good. I can't guarantee the second will sound better to you, but if it does it can be a mind-blowing experience. If, however, it sounds no different to you - that does not mean that it sounds no different to me.


Friend request sent!


----------



## strakele

tjswarbrick said:


> I couldn't pick out my own system (home or car) 100% accurately 100% of the time. Sometimes it just sounds different. Some say it's the quality of the input power. I find it has more to do with my levels of rest, hunger, stress and listening fatigue (among other things.) Still, I have heard components which sound better, and those which sound worse. I have heard systems (with my own speakers) which can't compare to what I have, and other systems that completely blow it away. A meter telling me what my output, distortion, voltage, headroom etc may or may not be aren't going to mean diddly when I walk into a listening room and hear an open window on the sound - with rich tonality, vast soundstaging, pinpoint imaging, and you-are-there palpability. It's awesome when you first experience it, but chasing it can get very expensive very quickly.
> 
> I understand some people rely on the scientific method to prove a point or validate their beliefs.
> 
> What I don't understand is why those who can't hear much difference between cables, amps, DAC's or whatever have you - or can't faithfully reproduce and pick out a difference in whatever setting they set up - insist upon telling the rest of us that since they can t prove there is a difference, then there IS NO difference.
> 
> I invite you to visit an audio salon with high-end gear, and have them set up 2 different systems - one with affordable, off-the-shelf gear and one with high-falutin, mega-dollar snake-oil-conataining gear. The first can sound remarkably good. I can't guarantee the second will sound better to you, but if it does it can be a mind-blowing experience. If, however, it sounds no different to you - that does not mean that it sounds no different to me.


Psychoacoustics are very powerful. If you know that you're more subject to the effects of psychoacoustics (everyone is to some degree), then by all means, buy the more expensive gear that you think sounds better.

If you think, whether consciously or completely subconsciously, that the amp with Brax or McIntosh written on the top will sound better than the one with Kicker written on it... it will. Whether it does in reality or not. If your mind thinks it will, it will. So knowing that, if buying more expensive amps will make you enjoy your system more, then do it. That's why they make them. Just realize that the difference in sound lies only in your head, not in reality. 

That's why those who know there isn't a difference insist there isn't a difference. Because we know that when presented with a blind test, using speakers, amplifiers, and music of your own choosing, you would not be able to correctly identify which amp you were listening to with much more accuracy than random guessing, no matter how much sleep you got, how good your health and nutrition was for the past few days, and if you got laid the night before.


----------



## cajunner

okay, I'm going to bat for the audiophiles.

captainobvious had a test that demonstrated, no reliable outcome when different amps were adjusted for gain only.

nobody tightened up their (amps) frequency response, distortion, or noise numbers to a threshold beyond the limit of human hearing.

this is far from the amp challenge, it's exactly like what happens when people change amps in their own cars.

I have heard easily discernible differences between amplifiers with only this consideration. 

I don't know if the amps were out of specs, or working with compromised components. 

I don't know anything other than the fact that I bought them new, I installed them myself, I did it right and I heard differences.

anything else is traveling outside of a consumer threshold, it's going beyond the normal relationship between products and performance.

manufacturers make things, we buy things, there are differences in those things.


----------



## 2DEEP2

strakele said:


> If the difference between properly level matched amps that measure the same regardless of internal components, brand name, and price tag was noticeable, SOMEBODY would have taken Clark's $10k by now.
> 
> The fact is, not one single person has ever been able to accurately tell the difference between amps when they didn't know which one they were listening to. QUOTE]
> 
> I know two people who beat the Richard Clark Test. Neither was paid.
> 
> I had an OEM let me review their new amp technology and I told them what the THD curve looked like JUST BY LISTENING.
> 
> Can you make two amps some the same for a limited band, sure.
> 
> Too bad that's not how amps are used.
> 
> However, just because an amp cost more does not mean it sounds better.
> 
> The fact that some amps disappear and others have sonic signatures, means you just need to know what to listen for to pick out the difference BLIND TEST or NOT.
> 
> This is independent of the amps power.
> 
> But can I give the other amp the same sonic signature, sure.
> 
> Too bad most of go to the store and buy and amp and wire it up.
> 
> In this case, one amp can be different.
> 
> But if OEM A makes and amp and OEM B makes and amp and they are basically the same amp, you may never hear a difference between OEM A or B. This is regardless of the fact that amp A is 3 times the cost of amp B.
> 
> Yes, I've done blind test and was 4 for 4 and 6 for 6 at correctly identifying A verses B.


----------



## strakele

2DEEP2 said:


> I know two people who beat the Richard Clark Test. Neither was paid.
> 
> Link? Story? Proof of any kind? I did read that in the beginning of the challenge a couple people 'won' but that was before he increased the precision of level matching to .1dB - the matching was less accurate at the beginning, and therefore easier to identify a difference based on small level differences.
> 
> But can I give the other amp the same sonic signature, sure.
> 
> Assuming two amps sound different, if they can be made to sound the same with minimal effort, what's the benefit of getting one over the other, all else being relatively equal?
> 
> Yes, I've done blind test and was 4 for 4 and 6 for 6 at correctly identifying A verses B.
> 
> Where and when was this done? Who else was there?


Just wanting more info...


----------



## I800C0LLECT

tjswarbrick said:


> I couldn't pick out my own system (home or car) 100% accurately 100% of the time. Sometimes it just sounds different. Some say it's the quality of the input power. I find it has more to do with my levels of rest, hunger, stress and listening fatigue (among other things.) Still, I have heard components which sound better, and those which sound worse. I have heard systems (with my own speakers) which can't compare to what I have, and other systems that completely blow it away. A meter telling me what my output, distortion, voltage, headroom etc may or may not be aren't going to mean diddly when I walk into a listening room and hear an open window on the sound - with rich tonality, vast soundstaging, pinpoint imaging, and you-are-there palpability. It's awesome when you first experience it, but chasing it can get very expensive very quickly.
> 
> *I understand some people rely on the scientific method to prove a point or validate their beliefs.*
> 
> What I don't understand is why those who can't hear much difference between cables, amps, DAC's or whatever have you - or can't faithfully reproduce and pick out a difference in whatever setting they set up - insist upon telling the rest of us that since they can t prove there is a difference, then there IS NO difference.
> 
> I invite you to visit an audio salon with high-end gear, and have them set up 2 different systems - one with affordable, off-the-shelf gear and one with high-falutin, mega-dollar snake-oil-conataining gear. The first can sound remarkably good. I can't guarantee the second will sound better to you, but if it does it can be a mind-blowing experience. If, however, it sounds no different to you - that does not mean that it sounds no different to me.


And then there's others that can't prove it but by extension must have better ears or something above those others?

What happens when you're placed in front of equipment and lose the a/b/c blind test? You do realize how many people have failed those blind test? The only way those special ears have ever proven to hear something "different" consistently is when they know exactly which amplifier is playing or which RCA cable or speaker wire is being utilized.

*Amplifiers do sound different from each other...but they all have the capacity to sound extremely similar; to the point that it's indistinguishable to another*

So if you're telling me that straight out of a box, amps sound different...I agree. But if you're telling me that they'll always have a "signature" of sorts I disagree. Well, there is of course stand outs like tube amps. Why is it that we can easily tell a tube amp from any other and also consistently measure that distinguishable difference?

My opinion is that these ultra amazing audiophiles should have the capacity to setup all their equipment specifically to their taste with repeatable and measurable results vs. "I know a good amp when I hear it!" Because it's really hard to take you for your word when nobody has ever consistently and repeatedly called out one amp vs. another in a blind test.

I'm not trying to be a jerk and I apologize. It just baffles me that nobody has ever been able to consistently pass a/b blind tests but this thought process has led people to purchase $5k power cords for their amplifier because it changes the sound characteristics. Am I crazy?


----------



## cajunner

How about this:

If I'm not able to do anything more than change amps out, is it okay to say I can hear differences in similarly powered amps?


because that's what probably 80% of the people are arguing about. Their own perception bias set aside, the truth is they haven't matched gains, or set up a testing scheme to prove their ears.

I know I'm guilty of it. I admit it, I never went all the way and had people switching things out behind a door or wall in blind tests.

I also believe, operative word here, believe, that I did hear things like a Pioneer amp sounding a little dull on the top end, or my US Amps not being quite as clear as a PPI Art amp, same power ratings. But the US Amps was better at bass?

Or how Alpine amps are great on highs but had trouble with 2 ohm loads on bass, and Rockford was pretty good at all frequencies.

Or Sony, freakin' old school Sony was super clean, and newer Sony, WALMART the blue Sony, kind of sucked... I had the 502's running mono into JBL T545's and they should have impressed me more...

anyways, if you've been in this hobby as long as I have, you'll pick up some associations and some subjective thoughts about amps that may or may not hold up in a test.


----------



## WestCo

cajunner said:


> How about this:
> 
> If I'm not able to do anything more than change amps out, is it okay to say I can hear differences in similarly powered amps?
> 
> 
> because that's what probably 80% of the people are arguing about. Their own perception bias set aside, the truth is they haven't matched gains, or set up a testing scheme to prove their ears.
> 
> I know I'm guilty of it. I admit it, I never went all the way and had people switching things out behind a door or wall in blind tests.
> 
> I also believe, operative word here, believe, that I did hear things like a Pioneer amp sounding a little dull on the top end, or my US Amps not being quite as clear as a PPI Art amp, same power ratings. But the US Amps was better at bass?
> 
> Or how Alpine amps are great on highs but had trouble with 2 ohm loads on bass, and Rockford was pretty good at all frequencies.
> 
> Or Sony, freakin' old school Sony was super clean, and newer Sony, WALMART the blue Sony, kind of sucked... I had the 502's running mono into JBL T545's and they should have impressed me more...
> 
> anyways, if you've been in this hobby as long as I have, you'll pick up some associations and some subjective thoughts about amps that may or may not hold up in a test.


Os Sony is the bomb... There is a reason why I have 4 OS Sony sources in my closet. 

Or maybe I am just crazy; who can say really? lol


----------



## Hanatsu

WestCo said:


> Os Sony is the bomb... There is a reason why I have 4 OS Sony sources in my closet.
> 
> Or maybe I am just crazy; who can say really? lol


We're all crazy in this hobby... xD

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## cajunner

WestCo said:


> Os Sony is the bomb... There is a reason why I have 4 OS Sony sources in my closet.
> 
> Or maybe I am just crazy; who can say really? lol


some people think it's the Sanken output transistors.

like we can hear a transistor difference, in a blind test?

all I know is those transistors are expensive to replace, and didn't come on low-grade product back in the day. If you look at the bill of materials in the old Sony product, it was not corner cutting components. They spent money to build those amps and it showed in the quality of the sound.

now it's all about mosfet outputs, but there was a period where using mosfets on the outputs was frowned upon, during that small window of time where amplifier manufacturers were at odds in their designs.

class d is doing away with a lot of the old advertising copy and uses techniques and components that weren't possible back then, so it's kind of unfair to put say, an old Harman Kardon CA260 vs. a JL HD amp, but it'd be fun to see what people thought about it, or if they could hear a difference in sonic signatures between those amps at reasonable levels, and gain matched. Maybe there was something to the claims of ultra wide bandwidth, maybe "high current capability" wasn't just a way of saying the amp met it's specs...


----------



## Sound Suggestions

It's like some of you guys saying that all bacon and cheese burgers all taste the same....even though some may have double cheese, some maybe all dressed and some with just mustard on it! Oh and don't get me started with the fries, yep they all taste the same...why wouldn't they? They all are the same Potatoe aren't they?.....similar sure (lol)

New to Tapatalk! It's not bad


----------



## cajunner

Sound Suggestions said:


> It's like some of you guys saying that all bacon and cheese burgers all taste the same....even though some may have double cheese, some maybe all dressed and some with just mustard on it! Oh and don't get me started with the fries, yep they all taste the same...why wouldn't they? They all are the same Potatoe aren't they?.....similar sure (lol)
> 
> New to Tapatalk! It's not bad


as a sense, our hearing isn't as finely tuned a mechanism as taste is, I think that's part of the problem too.

and not everyone hears the same, but most everyone tastes similarly. 

but going back to the idea that amp manufacturers putting high-end parts into their circuits and doing a lot of testing before approving an amp's recipe as suitable for production, is all just an exercise in overkill....

I think we need to figure out why an amp is made to perform to higher standards, or to more stringent thresholds of measurement, if anything under 1% is damn hard to tell one amp from another.

It's not just reliability concerns, unless...


hey, maybe that's why so many companies are just taking their business to China, they can't convince the buying public that one amp sounds better than another, so essentially they are all building the same amp, one that makes the most profits!


that's depressing.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Sound Suggestions said:


> It's like some of you guys saying that all bacon and cheese burgers all taste the same....even though some may have double cheese, some maybe all dressed and some with just mustard on it! Oh and don't get me started with the fries, yep they all taste the same...why wouldn't they? They all are the same Potatoe aren't they?.....similar sure (lol)
> 
> New to Tapatalk! It's not bad



I think what we're saying is...if we prep all those burgers in the same manner and cook them in the same pan then they CAN taste VERY similar...to the point of being indistinguishable  Fries too!

They will certainly vary prior to any of that though.


----------



## Sound Suggestions

I agree to a degree, I believe manufacturers are subcontracting Chinese build house due to cheaper costs and the consumers need and perception they we require a million watts from our amplifiers....I remember back in the day when 25 x 2 was plenty enough to drive almost the whole system


----------



## FG79

captainobvious said:


> If you were in the area, I'd be willing to arrange a simple test which would allow you to hear exactly for yourself. Our tests included 50 watt per channel amps up to 150wpc amps...some old, some new, some cheap and some very pricey, some class A/B, some class D, some excellent build quality, some...not so much. When they are all fed the exact same source simultaneously and properly level matched, all playing through the same equipment under the same conditions and in the same environment, I'd wager you will find it extremely difficult to tell the amplifiers apart. My test used Martin Logan electrostats which present a more difficult load for the amplifiers and are very revealing speakers. My testers had a very hard time with simple AX testing. I'd say trying to pick/determine an amplifier out of the lineup with any semblance of consitency would have been a lesson in futility.


I'd love to come down next time I'm in the area. Right now I'm in Diego Garcia, about 9,600 miles from NYC. It may be till 2016 till I get back, but I will be back. 

And then you gotta come down to DC, where the monster amps reside under one or two roofs. 

Deal?


----------



## quality_sound

So you're on vacation banging Brits and Navy chicks. lol. 

Man I muss Diego. Best deployment ever. 

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## FG79

tjswarbrick said:


> What I don't understand is why those who can't hear much difference between cables, amps, DAC's or whatever have you - or can't faithfully reproduce and pick out a difference in whatever setting they set up - insist upon telling the rest of us that since they can t prove there is a difference, then there IS NO difference.


Thank You, this is the gist of what I'm saying. 

We have a huge bell curve in society for people's talent level in all sorts of endeavors....sports, academics, business acumen, etc. Not everyone's hearing ability is created equal. Some people are legitimately superior than others, often much more superior.

There are people who cannot even hear the difference between home speakers that are out of phase and one that is in phase (a very noticeable difference).

Also others who cannot distinguish what analog sound is qualitatively outside of tape hiss or cracks/pops. There's a very real sound to good analog tape/vinyl and if you cannot hear it, don't tell me I can't. 

Again, we are very P.C. in the audio world. I don't know why. We need more soup nazis in here to set the record straight. 




cajunner said:


> okay, I'm going to bat for the audiophiles.
> 
> captainobvious had a test that demonstrated, no reliable outcome when different amps were adjusted for gain only.
> 
> nobody tightened up their (amps) frequency response, distortion, or noise numbers to a threshold beyond the limit of human hearing.
> 
> this is far from the amp challenge, it's exactly like what happens when people change amps in their own cars.
> 
> I have heard easily discernible differences between amplifiers with only this consideration.
> 
> I don't know if the amps were out of specs, or working with compromised components.
> 
> I don't know anything other than the fact that I bought them new, I installed them myself, I did it right and I heard differences.
> 
> anything else is traveling outside of a consumer threshold, it's going beyond the normal relationship between products and performance.
> 
> manufacturers make things, we buy things, there are differences in those things.


Well I rarely ever compare amps on power ratings, and it's pretty rare to get two amps I would consider that even put out the same amount of power. 

And I've pointed out that there are amplifiers that don't put out a ton of power that sound better than those that do. 

This idea that you can tune all amplifiers to sound the same......it's almost insulting to hear that. 

There's no level matching for some for some of the big boy amps I've heard in my life. None whatsoever. 



2DEEP2 said:


> strakele said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the difference between properly level matched amps that measure the same regardless of internal components, brand name, and price tag was noticeable, SOMEBODY would have taken Clark's $10k by now.
> 
> The fact is, not one single person has ever been able to accurately tell the difference between amps when they didn't know which one they were listening to. QUOTE]
> 
> I know two people who beat the Richard Clark Test. Neither was paid.
> 
> I had an OEM let me review their new amp technology and I told them what the THD curve looked like JUST BY LISTENING.
> 
> Can you make two amps some the same for a limited band, sure.
> 
> Too bad that's not how amps are used.
> 
> However, just because an amp cost more does not mean it sounds better.
> 
> The fact that some amps disappear and others have sonic signatures, means you just need to know what to listen for to pick out the difference BLIND TEST or NOT.
> 
> This is independent of the amps power.
> 
> But can I give the other amp the same sonic signature, sure.
> 
> Too bad most of go to the store and buy and amp and wire it up.
> 
> In this case, one amp can be different.
> 
> But if OEM A makes and amp and OEM B makes and amp and they are basically the same amp, you may never hear a difference between OEM A or B. This is regardless of the fact that amp A is 3 times the cost of amp B.
> 
> Yes, I've done blind test and was 4 for 4 and 6 for 6 at correctly identifying A verses B.
> 
> 
> 
> I can totally buy that with regards to your performance in the blind test.
> 
> Also, more expensive doesn't necessarily mean better gear. That's another part of the audio world that's super challenging.....$5k gear that sounds great and $20k gear that sounds like crap.
> 
> BTW, I heard the amp challenge is with test tones? Is that correct? If so, that really is a cheap way out and nullifies the test in my opinion on a stupid technicality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I800C0LLECT said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then there's others that can't prove it but by extension must have better ears or something above those others?
> 
> What happens when you're placed in front of equipment and lose the a/b/c blind test? You do realize how many people have failed those blind test? The only way those special ears have ever proven to hear something "different" consistently is when they know exactly which amplifier is playing or which RCA cable or speaker wire is being utilized.
> 
> *Amplifiers do sound different from each other...but they all have the capacity to sound extremely similar; to the point that it's indistinguishable to another*
> 
> So if you're telling me that straight out of a box, amps sound different...I agree. But if you're telling me that they'll always have a "signature" of sorts I disagree. Well, there is of course stand outs like tube amps. Why is it that we can easily tell a tube amp from any other and also consistently measure that distinguishable difference?
> 
> My opinion is that these ultra amazing audiophiles should have the capacity to setup all their equipment specifically to their taste with repeatable and measurable results vs. "I know a good amp when I hear it!" Because it's really hard to take you for your word when nobody has ever consistently and repeatedly called out one amp vs. another in a blind test.
> 
> I'm not trying to be a jerk and I apologize. It just baffles me that nobody has ever been able to consistently pass a/b blind tests but this thought process has led people to purchase $5k power cords for their amplifier because it changes the sound characteristics. Am I crazy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I've said before, the process of buying high end gear is not of the blind test nature. And even if it was, it should be a lot more than just 30 seconds on for A and 30 seconds on for B.
> 
> I'd love to see the results of a 30 minutes for each piece of gear, blind test.
Click to expand...


----------



## cajunner

the people who say "just let me take you down to Harry's high end audio salon, you'll hear a difference by God" are also being a little mischievous with the truth.

A salesman's job is to create those differences in your mind, so you can justify one model over the other, because once you lock in on the better one, you're purchase ready. The obstacle for the salesman is overcome with your certainty that you're getting the better item.

This simple logic, the poetic license of salesmen in their craft, precludes any gesture to really "see a difference" for yourself. If you are so sure of your abilities, try and tell the salesman to leave you alone for 1 hour, while you decide for yourself if you can hear a difference. Chances are you'll be politely refused. Some excuse will be available, "I'm sorry sir, we can't let customers alone with the equipment. We've tried it in the past and had broken product result from it, so as a policy we cannot allow you to sell yourself. I'm here and paid very well to sell you. I'm a professional sir, I do this for a living. Leave the information to me, and I'll guarantee your satisfaction. Now come this way, I have a room all ready to go for your extended audition. But first, let me tell you why this model will impress you with it's timbre, it's complete blackness of background, it's noiseless and distortion free circuitry is unparalleled in the audio realm"


haha...


----------



## FG79

cajunner said:


> so being paraded around by salesmen trying to earn their kids' college tuition, in front of who knows what kind of electronic wizardry, in a "room" that looks nothing, sounds nothing like the one you'll set up in at home, is going to trump learning about the differences in speakers from the actual designers of the speakers on these forums?
> 
> did not know that.


If you hear the right systems setup by the right people, absolutely yes.

As I've said before, there's a proper spectrum of good sound just like there's a proper spectrum of good music. 

Designing a speaker on 100% science, 0% art is a recipe for something that will okay at best, terrible at worst. Designing 100% art and 0% science is a crap shoot from amazing to terrible.

Need to have a healthy blend of both. 

The way to design good gear is to have the vetted ear voice it. One guy designs it, the other listens to it. Makes recommendations, it gets tweaked, listen again, and continue on this path until you reach something nice. 

If the designer or engineer does not know what good sound is, he will not be able to create it by himself. 



squeak9798 said:


> Then why have people like yourself with all of this real world experience been unable to prove that superior hearing ability in scientifically valid testing? It's not me spouting some mantra, it's the facts of the matter based on the evidence both from our understanding of electrical theory and the demonstrated inability of the human auditory system to identify a difference in sound outside of those listed.
> 
> Prove otherwise. Conduct a scientifically valid experiment that proves your point....because so far no one else has been successful at it that I'm aware of. Every experiment I'm aware of does not support your claims.


Nice to know, and I'm comfortable not having to prove it.....because I don't think it's possible to prove it if only for one simple reason:

It would mean that you would have to admit you were wrong. And nobody in this community likes to do that (egos are too big). Coming out of the closet would be easier than saying "oh shhh, you're right, I was wrong." :laugh:

Case in point, some guys have been proven wrong in the court of law ( a certain audio store I know). But he's got gear and a few hours, and a lot of patience.

WTF am I gonna do with just WORDS?





strakele said:


> If the difference between properly level matched amps that measure the same regardless of internal components, brand name, and price tag was noticeable, SOMEBODY would have taken Clark's $10k by now.
> 
> The fact is, not one single person has ever been able to accurately tell the difference between amps when they didn't know which one they were listening to. Until someone can, all the pretty marketing prose, anecdotal sighted experiences, and 'professional' reviews mean absolutely nothing.
> 
> Fellippe I bet I could find a couple of guys who would pay your airfare and room if you flew out one weekend and took the test that captainobvious set up and were able to back up your claims in the blind test.


I would like to take the test, but with one caveat....

I supply my amps of choice to go along with what's provided. 

Don't get it twisted guys....I'm not here to tell the world I can hear the difference between a PDX and a JL slash and every single amp ever made.

But I'm here to tell you that a few of the amps I like versus others.....I'm very willing to play that game. I might not get 100% but I sure as hell won't get 0%, haha.

Where was this event held out of curiosity?



Hanatsu said:


> I've heard systems in the $200000 range. Sounds great... my $4000 sounds just as good. Price does not equal performance. I've done several blind tests, many many equipment swaps both in my home audio system and car. system. What matters?
> 
> # Source material (recording)
> # Speakers
> # Room treatments
> # Power
> # DSP (car audio)
> 
> Amp classes, highend cables, highend source units, high end DACs etc etc. I call BS on that. Differences that can't be measured cannot be heard, period.


LOL, why do you cling so hard to that glass half full mentality?

I want to be inspired in life, to experience greatness. I don't want my sh*** Yugo to all of a sudden be equal to a Ferrari.....I want the Ferrari!

My biggest excitement in home audio gear is as follows:

1. Power amps
2. Pre amps
3. Speakers
4. DACs
5. Turntables
6. Phono stages
7. Cables/interconnects

The price points for power amps that I want to hit are : $3000, $7000, $10,000, $25,000. 

Pre-amps around $5k (add $3k more for phono stage). 

Speakers, a custom set around $12-14k would suffice for a very, very long time. 

DAC around $3500
Turntable around $6-7k
Cables/interconnects about $3-4k

This is a lot of money, yes, but in the grand scheme of things it's not too insane. Cars, boats, watches, luxury real estate, etc. can and do cost more than this and in most cases won't be as good an investment for enjoyment and value. 

If you're topping out at $4k, that's kinda cool in the short term but when you get bored after 6 months or a year, then you're stuck. Been there, done that, it's terrible.

You would have to become a near billionaire to be "done" with this stuff. Much more enjoyable path.

I also live a life of vices. A different mentality on this stuff. 

I see it as more of a drug than a hobby.


----------



## cajunner

very enlightening.

I agree to some extent, that there is the art of speaker voicing that goes with home audio passive crossover design, and the matching of drivers to not clash in timbre, dynamic response, or polar response, directivity.

but in car audio, each car is a unique test bed, and the old rules are literally obsoleted from the start.

each car audio component, HAS to meet with a standard, there's no easy win with passive crossover voicing that makes a cheap set of drivers sound quite good in practice.

this is why I think it's even more important than the old fall back, "you can't hear anything below 60 db at 35 mph on up, anyways."

you have to literally match everything in place, and deal with a reflection prone nightmare of uneven seating position biased, compartment resonance inducing, vibration transmitting, buzz box on tires that rumble so loud you need 12 db of bass gain just to hear your bottom end...

so no, I think we're all hitting the wall when we say we're actually paying for performance that is prerequisite with price. An all Cadence system may not wow you on the prestige but it has all the working parts to make you blink when you weren't aware of what you were listening to, in a demo.


----------



## cubdenno

cajunner said:


> as a sense, our hearing isn't as finely tuned a mechanism as taste is, I think that's part of the problem too.
> 
> and not everyone hears the same, but most everyone tastes similarly.
> 
> but going back to the idea that amp manufacturers putting high-end parts into their circuits and doing a lot of testing before approving an amp's recipe as suitable for production, is all just an exercise in overkill....
> 
> I think we need to figure out why an amp is made to perform to higher standards, or to more stringent thresholds of measurement, if anything under 1% is damn hard to tell one amp from another.
> 
> It's not just reliability concerns, unless...
> 
> 
> hey, maybe that's why so many companies are just taking their business to China, they can't convince the buying public that one amp sounds better than another, so essentially they are all building the same amp, one that makes the most profits!
> 
> 
> that's depressing.


It's not depressing. As DS-21 put it, "Amplification has become a commodity." Buy a proven reliable design that puts out the power you require with inaudible distortion in it's power band without adding or taking away anything. 

We cling to brands as a prestige item. If most knew that the prestige brands often come from the same place as a "lesser" brand. Heck some even use the same board. 

They are a commodity. Plain and simple. Why? Because what is available is most often the case "Good enough". Why spend more for an inaudible improvement. Hey, if you want a certain look, or the pride of saying I rock brand X, that is perfectly fine. no judgement from me at all. I am attached to Sundown amps because I love the no nonsense black old fashioned heatsink. That's it. They provide the power to suit my needs. They all match. they do not sound better/worse than the Boston Acoustics, Cadence,Orion, Phoenix Gold,Rockford,Tru, Arc and Audison amps I cycled through in my own personal search for Amplifier nirvana.


----------



## Hanatsu

FG79 said:


> If you hear the right systems setup by the right people, absolutely yes.
> 
> As I've said before, there's a proper spectrum of good sound just like there's a proper spectrum of good music.
> 
> Designing a speaker on 100% science, 0% art is a recipe for something that will okay at best, terrible at worst. Designing 100% art and 0% science is a crap shoot from amazing to terrible.
> 
> Need to have a healthy blend of both.
> 
> The way to design good gear is to have the vetted ear voice it. One guy designs it, the other listens to it. Makes recommendations, it gets tweaked, listen again, and continue on this path until you reach something nice.
> 
> If the designer or engineer does not know what good sound is, he will not be able to create it by himself.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice to know, and I'm comfortable not having to prove it.....because I don't think it's possible to prove it if only for one simple reason:
> 
> It would mean that you would have to admit you were wrong. And nobody in this community likes to do that (egos are too big). Coming out of the closet would be easier than saying "oh shhh, you're right, I was wrong." :laugh:
> 
> Case in point, some guys have been proven wrong in the court of law ( a certain audio store I know). But he's got gear and a few hours, and a lot of patience.
> 
> WTF am I gonna do with just WORDS?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to take the test, but with one caveat....
> 
> I supply my amps of choice to go along with what's provided.
> 
> Don't get it twisted guys....I'm not here to tell the world I can hear the difference between a PDX and a JL slash and every single amp ever made.
> 
> But I'm here to tell you that a few of the amps I like versus others.....I'm very willing to play that game. I might not get 100% but I sure as hell won't get 0%, haha.
> 
> Where was this event held out of curiosity?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, why do you cling so hard to that glass half full mentality?
> 
> I want to be inspired in life, to experience greatness. I don't want my sh*** Yugo to all of a sudden be equal to a Ferrari.....I want the Ferrari!
> 
> My biggest excitement in home audio gear is as follows:
> 
> 1. Power amps
> 2. Pre amps
> 3. Speakers
> 4. DACs
> 5. Turntables
> 6. Phono stages
> 7. Cables/interconnects
> 
> The price points for power amps that I want to hit are : $3000, $7000, $10,000, $25,000.
> 
> Pre-amps around $5k (add $3k more for phono stage).
> 
> Speakers, a custom set around $12-14k would suffice for a very, very long time.
> 
> DAC around $3500
> Turntable around $6-7k
> Cables/interconnects about $3-4k
> 
> This is a lot of money, yes, but in the grand scheme of things it's not too insane. Cars, boats, watches, luxury real estate, etc. can and do cost more than this and in most cases won't be as good an investment for enjoyment and value.
> 
> If you're topping out at $4k, that's kinda cool in the short term but when you get bored after 6 months or a year, then you're stuck. Been there, done that, it's terrible.
> 
> You would have to become a near billionaire to be "done" with this stuff. Much more enjoyable path.
> 
> I also live a life of vices. A different mentality on this stuff.
> 
> I see it as more of a drug than a hobby.


Yeah ok. You just like my friend with the insanely expensive system... him and me are the direct opposite when it comes to these kind of things. I don't see it your way, simple as that. I don't care at all about turnables and stuff. I want an iPod or a computer, nothing else. My main interest in audio is processing. I believe in stuff I can measure, to me there are nothing beyond that. I'm NOT an audiophile, I enjoy music. I want to be able to play loud and have a clean, neutral sounding system with a realistic sound stage. All attainable with DSP, room treatments and an adequate amount of clean power imo.

This thread is pointless beyond belief, we are not gonna convince eachother of anything.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## captainobvious

FG79 said:


> I would like to take the test, but with one caveat....
> 
> I supply my amps of choice to go along with what's provided.
> 
> Don't get it twisted guys....I'm not here to tell the world I can hear the difference between a PDX and a JL slash and every single amp ever made.
> 
> But I'm here to tell you that a few of the amps I like versus others.....I'm very willing to play that game. I might not get 100% but I sure as hell won't get 0%, haha.


Yep that's the point of the tests...to show that "guessing correctly" is simply that...a guess. These tests usually show evaluators results near 50% +/- accuracy...essentially a coin flip. Most of the tests done are blind ABX evaluations where the proctor plays samples from amplifier A and from amplifier B, then from either one of the 2 (amplifier X). This is a bit of a flawed method in that it requires the evaluator to remember 2 different sources with which to compare to a third unknown.
In my tests, I made it even simpler by doing AX tests. These play a known amplifier A sample, and then an unknown X sample. The X could be the same A amplifier or a different one. All the evaluator has to do is determine if they are hearing the same A source or something different. 

All of the other factors remain constant (room, speakers, cables, source and material, etc).




FG79 said:


> Where was this event held out of curiosity?


It was done in a hotel meeting room. I chose this for the larger size and and better damped room qualities.




FG79 said:


> LOL, why do you cling so hard to that glass half full mentality?
> 
> I want to be inspired in life, to experience greatness. I don't want my sh*** Yugo to all of a sudden be equal to a Ferrari.....I want the Ferrari!
> 
> My biggest excitement in home audio gear is as follows:
> 
> 1. Power amps
> 2. Pre amps
> 3. Speakers
> 4. DACs
> 5. Turntables
> 6. Phono stages
> 7. Cables/interconnects


I really would love for there to be big differences in the sound of the power amplifiers, but there just isn't. That doesn't mean that I would simply choose the cheapest of the bunch though either. There are many other things to consider.

I would say that from your list above though, that speakers are by FAR the component that most changes the sound in a given system. Amplifiers aren't even close to being in the same discussion as far as that goes.




FG79 said:


> The price points for power amps that I want to hit are : $3000, $7000, $10,000, $25,000.
> 
> Pre-amps around $5k (add $3k more for phono stage).
> 
> Speakers, a custom set around $12-14k would suffice for a very, very long time.
> 
> DAC around $3500
> Turntable around $6-7k
> Cables/interconnects about $3-4k


No one should begrudge you for wanting a more expensive product, just like no one should feel belittled by having 'cheap gear'. What the blind tests aim to do is show each evaluator what, if any differences _*they*_ are able to hear irrelevant of the role psycho-acoustics play based on things like marketing, visual stimulus, price points, etc...so that they can make more informed decisions. 
If I know that I don't hear a difference between the $200 amplifier and the $2000 amplifier, then at least I know that that particular issue shouldn't weigh in my decision of whether or not to purchase either amp. I may still choose to buy the more expensive amplifier because it looks nicer, has a more robust or different type power supply(regulated?), uses higher quality or tighter toleranced parts (reliability), is made here in the USA, or by a company that provides excellent support...who knows. 
On the flip side, perhaps someone realizes that they don't hear the difference and would like to allocate those funds to an area that *does* make a siginificant impact for them, like better speakers, professional quality installation, nicer finishing touches...heck even a nicer car to begin with.

I think that at the very least, being involved in the blind testing will help the evaluator to better understand how much of a difference the products in question will _actually_ make for them, versus basing their decisions on marketing nonsense, or the opinions of others.





FG79 said:


> This is a lot of money, yes, but in the grand scheme of things it's not too insane. Cars, boats, watches, luxury real estate, etc. can and do cost more than this and in most cases won't be as good an investment for enjoyment and value.
> 
> If you're topping out at $4k, that's kinda cool in the short term but when you get bored after 6 months or a year, then you're stuck. Been there, done that, it's terrible.
> 
> You would have to become a near billionaire to be "done" with this stuff. Much more enjoyable path.
> 
> I also live a life of vices. A different mentality on this stuff.
> 
> I see it as more of a drug than a hobby.


What it all boils down to is getting enjoyment out of the hobby we all love. We will all find "value" to be a subjective thing


I really believed that amps sounded very different before creating the test setup, demoing and then eventually proctoring the blind evaluations. I have no problem admitting I was misguided. That said, I didn't go with the cheapest amplifiers for my installation either. In fact, they are fairly pricey. But I based my decision on things different than simply the sound.


----------



## Hanatsu

There are two types of people. I began with car audio and went to home audio afterwards and there are those who began with home audio and later began with car audio. We tend to have different thoughts on what's of importance. The car audio dudes tend to care less for subtle differences because of all the compromises we are forced to make and focus on the 'real' improvements. Home audio guys tend to think that changing headunits, amps, cables somehow will improve things just as much as they (are supposed to) do in a home setup. Understand that home setups and car setups sometimes are worlds apart, the environment is the main source for distortion. In a small cabin along with a huge noise floor while driving and add the huge crosstalk of window reflections etc - what do we want to attack? Subtle things that we might or might not hear OR the fact that the environment screwed up the response by 15+/- dB lol. 

Also I have an OCD about hating overpriced stuff...

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## cajunner

cubdenno said:


> It's not depressing. As DS-21 put it, "Amplification has become a commodity." Buy a proven reliable design that puts out the power you require with inaudible distortion in it's power band without adding or taking away anything.
> 
> We cling to brands as a prestige item. If most knew that the prestige brands often come from the same place as a "lesser" brand. Heck some even use the same board.
> 
> They are a commodity. Plain and simple. Why? Because what is available is most often the case "Good enough". Why spend more for an inaudible improvement. Hey, if you want a certain look, or the pride of saying I rock brand X, that is perfectly fine. no judgement from me at all. I am attached to Sundown amps because I love the no nonsense black old fashioned heatsink. That's it. They provide the power to suit my needs. They all match. they do not sound better/worse than the Boston Acoustics, Cadence,Orion, Phoenix Gold,Rockford,Tru, Arc and Audison amps I cycled through in my own personal search for Amplifier nirvana.


you must agree with your signature.... lol.


I look at amplifiers like Brax, Luxman, that big Sony, and various others and I think there has to be a reason for using all those higher cost parts inside.

the thicker board traces, the signal path shortening, the radio interference rejection from ground plane and physical board separation...

McIntosh is known for their rigid specifications, and meeting specs. They come from that old school, laboratory measurement branding and their amplifiers have to be different, if only to exhibit exemplary durability.

Celestra, wow. Sinfoni, very nice. Adcom, what a huge piece of real estate for so little watts, I mean twice the size footprint from separate power supply, why would they do that?

I can't do it, there has to be something provable about the sound. I'm set in my ways.

Too many years of Audio and Stereo Review, under the belt to believe the differences aren't still quantifiable through examination, and hearing. The Absolute Sound, I am not but I appreciate their efforts.

If it really has come to a simple case of anything above 85 db of S/N, and enough power for the job, then I'm obsolete. I have no business attempting to make a system sound better by upgrading amplifiers.

I'm like John Henry, fighting the steam-powered railroad machine. Only at the end of the race, I'm broke in the wallet, hahaha...


----------



## cubdenno

cajunner said:


> you must agree with your signature.... lol.
> 
> 
> I look at amplifiers like Brax, Luxman, that big Sony, and various others and I think there has to be a reason for using all those higher cost parts inside.
> 
> the thicker board traces, the signal path shortening, the radio interference rejection from ground plane and physical board separation...
> 
> McIntosh is known for their rigid specifications, and meeting specs. They come from that old school, laboratory measurement branding and their amplifiers have to be different, if only to exhibit exemplary durability.
> 
> Celestra, wow. Sinfoni, very nice. Adcom, what a huge piece of real estate for so little watts, I mean twice the size footprint from separate power supply, why would they do that?
> 
> I can't do it, there has to be something provable about the sound. I'm set in my ways.
> 
> Too many years of Audio and Stereo Review, under the belt to believe the differences aren't still quantifiable through examination, and hearing. The Absolute Sound, I am not but I appreciate their efforts.
> 
> If it really has come to a simple case of anything above 85 db of S/N, and enough power for the job, then I'm obsolete. I have no business attempting to make a system sound better by upgrading amplifiers.
> 
> I'm like John Henry, fighting the steam-powered railroad machine. Only at the end of the race, I'm broke in the wallet, hahaha...


I have come to believe it. Like you, I was also set in my ways. really this forum started the opening of my eyes. I wanted to believe that those high end amps were worth the money and gave an audible advantage. What I found for my use, was they didn't. 

So you upgrade every component in the amp to silver plated magic mil spec, .001% tolerance...... and you have a $2500 150 watt per channel amp with a frequency response that extends 1 hertz to 100000 hertz +/-1db at .000001% distortion with a S/N of 120db vs a $200 dollar amp 15-20000 hertz +/- 3db at .01% distortion 95db S/N. that i am going to use to power a speaker mounted in the door of my car playing limited bandwidth. I don't compete. Both will play my speakers to the desired output of loud and clear. Both amps add no eq boost or cut. Distortion and noise floor are both below threshhold of hearing let alone my 42 year old ears in a car I drive and listen to music in. Both amps are competant designs and durability is approximated to the same. And when both amps are driven within their comfort zone without clipping, both should sound the same within reason. If they don't, it would be easily quantifiable as to why by measuring what they are adding or subtracting. 

This argument has spanned the 6 years or so I have been on the forum, so I am sure it will continue. I am sure there is something you are paying for in the higher end amps. Hopefully it's the design, protection circuit, clip circuit, aesthetics, physical size... Something. Hell some want to look at it as they invested X dollars and they have "That".

I think that those who are on that revolving door of changing amps out searching for that amp nirvana... The ones who will swap out an amp and claim that they have found it only to see them changing out and selling off... well addiction comes in many forms and psycho acoustics eventually ends and you find yourself right back where you started so wash rinse repeat. A lot of us have been there.:blush:

And those that disagree... Hey it's cool. it's your money and maybe you have better ears than I do.


----------



## cajunner

cubdenno said:


> I have come to believe it. Like you, I was also set in my ways. really this forum started the opening of my eyes. I wanted to believe that those high end amps were worth the money and gave an audible advantage. What I found for my use, was they didn't.
> 
> So you upgrade every component in the amp to silver plated magic mil spec, .001% tolerance...... and you have a $2500 150 watt per channel amp with a frequency response that extends 1 hertz to 100000 hertz +/-1db at .000001% distortion with a S/N of 120db vs a $200 dollar amp 15-20000 hertz +/- 3db at .01% distortion 95db S/N. that i am going to use to power a speaker mounted in the door of my car playing limited bandwidth. I don't compete. Both will play my speakers to the desired output of loud and clear. Both amps add no eq boost or cut. Distortion and noise floor are both below threshhold of hearing let alone my 42 year old ears in a car I drive and listen to music in. Both amps are competant designs and durability is approximated to the same. And when both amps are driven within their comfort zone without clipping, both should sound the same within reason. If they don't, it would be easily quantifiable as to why by measuring what they are adding or subtracting.
> 
> This argument has spanned the 6 years or so I have been on the forum, so I am sure it will continue. I am sure there is something you are paying for in the higher end amps. Hopefully it's the design, protection circuit, clip circuit, aesthetics, physical size... Something. Hell some want to look at it as they invested X dollars and they have "That".
> 
> I think that those who are on that revolving door of changing amps out searching for that amp nirvana... The ones who will swap out an amp and claim that they have found it only to see them changing out and selling off... well addiction comes in many forms and psycho acoustics eventually ends and you find yourself right back where you started so wash rinse repeat. A lot of us have been there.:blush:
> 
> And those that disagree... Hey it's cool. it's your money and maybe you have better ears than I do.



well put.

I'd have to add, I also like the 2-way stuff, the real radios.

And in that scheme, when Ranger brought in the surface mounted boards, people were against it, it wasn't able to put out the power, it wasn't as clear, it wasn't easy to work on, etc.

Kinda the same thing that goes on in the discrete op-amps that Burson would sell to replace the chips.

And all these people swear that there's a real difference. I can understand the tube guys, I've heard tube amps that rolled off their ends of the spectrum, and soft clipping an output transformer can be quite pleasing as well, but since you're admitting you like distortion at that point, how is your opinion relevant still?

I know your comparison is subject to rules. Silver, actual silver boards, with silver leads on the resistors and Black Gate caps, and various other little baubles of inordinate value, do contribute to sonics to some degree because you can measure the differences. Intrinsically, the copper is 3% less able as a conductivity attribute.

And when you shrink down a signal path, when you are able to shorten it and clear it of too many extra feedback and corrective circuits, when you can run the bias up because you've put in a complement of transistors that are meant to run, and do it well...

they could probably build an amp that tops the PPI MPH6300 or whatever, that no-holds barred amp was.

it might cost 30 grand in parts, or you might have to restart the Black Gate production line to do it, you might have to use cryogenics, or super snake oil to get there, but I'm positive that the mid-grade car audio consumer amp can be beaten in ABX testing.

I'm sure of it!


----------



## 2DEEP2

strakele said:


> Just wanting more info...


The 2 cases were addressed by Richard Clark in the CarSound forums years ago.

My 4 for 4 and 6 for 6 was at CES at Sony booth around 1998' - 2000' when class D amps and MP3 were being introduced.


----------



## FG79

captainobvious said:


> I really believed that amps sounded very different before creating the test setup, demoing and then eventually proctoring the blind evaluations. I have no problem admitting I was misguided. That said, I didn't go with the cheapest amplifiers for my installation either. In fact, they are fairly pricey. But I based my decision on things different than simply the sound.


What's really frustrating is that I feel that you are simultaneously right and wrong.

Right in that amongst the amps you demo'd the differences weren't staggering enough to notice.

And wrong in that, I feel that you haven't heard everything that is out there. Your original premise was absolutely correct, but if the gear you are testing it on is all run of the mill stuff, then you probably won't detect a huge difference at all. 

Synthesis Roma/A100T/Los Angeles, Audio Note Gaku On, SAP Anniversary OTL, Western Electric 124....these amps are amazing and unique sounding to an extent that you cannot replicate them, without physical modifications. Turning knobs won't do you any good. 

I'd like to have this setup for you, and I can arrange it whenever you're willing to make the trip to Northern VA, just PM me. I'd even ask you to bring some POS speakers with you....radio shack, best buy, computer speakers, whatever....and ideally they will be tiny monitors. I'll almost insist on it. 

Of course there will be nice speakers to listen to them too, and you should listen to them. But nothing will drive home the point with any authority unless POS speakers are used, IMHO. 

Can we agree that if POS speakers are made to sound nice (accurate, smooth sounding, realistic soundstage, strong midrange presence, bass that belies their size, etc.) that this amp debate was worth it?


----------



## Hanatsu

Audiophiles... 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## cubdenno

FG79 said:


> What's really frustrating is that I feel that you are simultaneously right and wrong.
> 
> Right in that amongst the amps you demo'd the differences weren't staggering enough to notice.
> 
> And wrong in that, I feel that you haven't heard everything that is out there. Your original premise was absolutely correct, but if the gear you are testing it on is all run of the mill stuff, then you probably won't detect a huge difference at all.
> 
> Synthesis Roma/A100T/Los Angeles, Audio Note Gaku On, SAP Anniversary OTL, Western Electric 124....*these amps are amazing and unique sounding to an extent that you cannot replicate them, *without physical modifications. Turning knobs won't do you any good.
> 
> I'd like to have this setup for you, and I can arrange it whenever you're willing to make the trip to Northern VA, just PM me. I'd even ask you to bring some POS speakers with you....radio shack, best buy, computer speakers, whatever....and ideally they will be tiny monitors. I'll almost insist on it.
> 
> Of course there will be nice speakers to listen to them too, and you should listen to them. But nothing will drive home the point with any authority unless POS speakers are used, IMHO.
> 
> Can we agree that if POS speakers are made to sound nice (accurate, smooth sounding, realistic soundstage, strong midrange presence, bass that belies their size, etc.) that this amp debate was worth it?


Then these amps are adding something. Simple as that. Higher 2nd order harmonic distortion which we tend to find pleasing possibly... Some sort of possibly natural boost in some area on the frequency response due to the amplifier's handling of the reactive load. What's great is that it can be measured. Why do you think there is "That tube sound"? 

Regardless, DIYMA is not an audiophile site... Yet. I really hope that it doesn't become one. I will take science and engineering over marketing buzzwords any day. If you have amplifiers properly level matched and neither amp has any sort of EQ circuit engaged and harmonic distortion is inaudible. The amplifiers should sound the same. If not, it WILL be possible to measure why. Only in the home audio and car audio world can what you describe and state your opinion on is it possible. This stuff lasts about 10 seconds on the pro side.


----------



## rton20s

FG79 said:


> And wrong in that, I feel that you haven't heard everything that is out there. Your original premise was absolutely correct, but if the gear you are testing it on is all run of the mill stuff, then you probably won't detect a huge difference at all.
> 
> Synthesis Roma/A100T/Los Angeles, Audio Note Gaku On, SAP Anniversary OTL, Western Electric 124....these amps are amazing and unique sounding to an extent that you cannot replicate them, without physical modifications. Turning knobs won't do you any good.


As already mentioned, these amps are adding *something* to the signal. Modifying it somehow to get the unique characteristics you describe. 

In regards to your "run of the mill" comment, I would have to disagree. Sure, the selection of amplifiers were not $25k "Audiophile Grade" home audio gear, but in the car audio world, they were nothing to sneeze at. Sure there was some upper-mid and even lower-mid level participants, but some models are considered quite high end for car audio. In other words, I think it was a very fair sampling of high quality *car audio* amplifiers that has no reason to be dismissed. 

In case anyone needs a refresher, the blind test amps were...
Arc Audio XDi804
Diamond Audio D7054
JL Audio HD900/5
Phoenix Gold ELITE.4
Soundstream REF4.920
Xtant X604
Zapco Z-150.6
Zed Audio Leviathan


----------



## Hanatsu

Higher 2nd order distortion is not pleasing though, it's just less instrusive than odd order. (Imo)

The tube sound might be caused by a slightly attenuated FR in the midrange. That can be EQed if you want though.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## cubdenno

Hanatsu said:


> Higher 2nd order distortion is not pleasing though, it's just less instrusive than odd order. (Imo)
> 
> The tube sound might be caused by a slightly attenuated FR in the midrange. That can be EQed if you want though.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


Many express it gives that "warm" sound

I just want amplified what is in the original signal. So I agree with you.


----------



## captainobvious

rton20s said:


> As already mentioned, these amps are adding *something* to the signal. Modifying it somehow to get the unique characteristics you describe.
> 
> In regards to your "run of the mill" comment, I would have to disagree. Sure, the selection of amplifiers were not $25k "Audiophile Grade" home audio gear, but in the car audio world, they were nothing to sneeze at. Sure there was some upper-mid and even lower-mid level participants, but some models are considered quite high end for car audio. In other words, I think it was a very fair sampling of high quality *car audio* amplifiers that has no reason to be dismissed.
> 
> In case anyone needs a refresher, the blind test amps were...
> Arc Audio XDi804
> Diamond Audio D7054
> JL Audio HD900/5
> Phoenix Gold ELITE.4
> Soundstream REF4.920
> Xtant X604
> Zapco Z-150.6
> Zed Audio Leviathan



Should also be noted that 3 of those were class D designs, while the rest were A/B. 


There should be no "voicing" of an amplifier. Its job is to take the input signal and increase it's magnitude, unmolested. If an amplifier playing is changing the sound, it's either been engineered to alter the frequency response of the signal, or it's poorly designed/malfunctioning...or it's being used in the wrong application (eg- the user running it into clipping, etc)


----------



## Hanatsu

cubdenno said:


> Many express it gives that "warm" sound
> 
> I just want amplified what is in the original signal. So I agree with you.


Yes. It certainly changes the character, I'd rather put it like this; if the distortion (THD) mainly consist of 2nd order HD. It's good, 2nd order HD tend to be least noticeable and "rounds" the sound a bit, I've found that high HD2 tend to sound a little "fuzzy", the opposite of transient. High HD3 (above HD2) tend to sound clearer, giving the sound an edge, overly transient. Causes listening fatigue after a while and is generally unpleasant after some time. 

Also remember that with harmonic distortion comes intermod distortion as well. These two are linked to each other. IMD3 and higher products can be nasty IME. The way we perceive non-linearities are complicated as well, seems like it's volume dependent and that the ear introduces non-linearities too at high volumes, masking distortion from the device/transducer.


----------



## t3sn4f2

rton20s said:


> As already mentioned, these amps are adding *something* to the signal. Modifying it somehow to get the unique characteristics you describe.


Smiley face curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

""


----------



## subwoofery

Might be a good read for those that have an open mind  

The Decware Audiophile Tube Amplifier / Model ZEN TORII MKIII 

Kelvin


----------



## FG79

To those who are hung up on tube amps "adding" something, has it ever occured to anyone that maybe solid state amps and lesser amps are "subtracting" stuff?

When a sound is "thin" in playback, I don't care what the #s say, the sound has had something tangibly removed from it. 

And those amps are not "amazing" strictly for their tone. They give the speakers dynamics, projection and bass response superior to "normal" amps. Can you EQ all of that into your system? LOL.

It would be like saying you can EQ an 8" sub in a small sealed box to put out a 40 hz tone like a 15" in a huge ported enclosure. 

You can't teach height in basketball, you can't teach horn dynamics to conventional drivers, and you can't teach those "physical" qualities in lesser amplifiers.

Bottom line is the tube sound to me is a more natural sound than solid state. That it happens to be more enjoyable is not a bad thing....it's hilarious that this is considered "a problem". Like not using salt or spice on food because that's not how real food tastes raw. 

This thread got slightly derailed....it went from amps vs. amps to tube/solid state. Both are legit, but let's stick to amp to amp. 

So to sum up I'm saying that I'm comparing good/not as good amp in terms of how close it comes to sounding natural and/or pleasing, not as much as as alleged input and output graphs would suggest.


----------



## Hanatsu

The 15" vented vs 8" sealed comparison would be like comparing a 50w amp to a 500w amp. 

I hope you didn't just say that a tube amp have better "bass response" than a SS. This is certainly not the case. It's very important to impedance match a tube amp to the speaker. Still, with a load connected it's unlikely a tube amp inhibits a flat response. The response can be measured and EQed to match with any other amp. The "soft clip" characteristic is harder to mimic as it relates to the non-linear distortion domain. There's no magic involved, we can measure the difference.

Btw, what is dynamics? Dynamic Range? I don't understand subjective explainations...

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## FG79

Hanatsu said:


> The 15" vented vs 8" sealed comparison would be like comparing a 50w amp to a 500w amp.
> 
> I hope you didn't just say that a tube amp have better "bass response" than a SS. This is certainly not the case. It's very important to impedance match a tube amp to the speaker. Still, with a load connected it's unlikely a tube amp inhibits a flat response. The response can be measured and EQed to match with any other amp. The "soft clip" characteristic is harder to mimic as it relates to the non-linear distortion domain. There's no magic involved, we can measure the difference.
> 
> Btw, what is dynamics? Dynamic Range? I don't understand subjective explainations...
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


Some tube amps absolutely do have better bass response than SS. The SS that is really powerful for bass will sacrifice smoothness.

The SS that attempt to be audiophile (e.g. Krell) does not have the midbass response of a good tube amp. 

Dynamics. I'm not great at defining it scientifically, but think of the attack of a drum kit or percussion instrument. A dynamic system will hit hard and fast compared to one that is not as dynamic.

Often you will notice this more in the recording. A very dynamic recording has a big range from quiet to very loud, whereas one that is not (typically a LOUD recording like modern pop and rap music) has a small range. Listen to the drums on a well made recording vs. typical modern day pop or rock recording.

So an amplifier, just like a speaker can improve on what's already there.

If you're so hung up on EQ, why even bother differentiating between speakers? You can EQ speakers to sound however you want if you think you can do it with amps.

Listen to a typical run of the mill OEM car stereo. They take some pretty s*** speakers and in many cases can get the tonal signature to sound nice, maybe pretty nice. They EQ to a flat curve typically or something decent and voila the tone is fine. So what's the catch?

Not a ton of dynamics, headroom, SPL, presence, etc. The sound of the system feels like it is in the doors more than the soundstage. The over use of EQ (along with an average amplifier) contributes a lot to this. 

You may not ever want to agree with me about amps, tubes , etc. but if you think EQ is a magical fix-anything-without-any-compromises-ever tool, you are sadly mistaken.

It is the spice, not the main dish. 

The purpose of EQ in a car is to fine tune stuff, not transform the sound entirely.


----------



## Hanatsu

No, the main purpose of EQ is to compensate for the environment. As I said you can fix the frequency response with EQ. In a car it's certainly one important part of the "dish".

EQ won't do much good in fixing ringing in the time domain, it won't improve the power response or the non-linear distortion unique to all speakers. Subs on the other hand can be EQed to sound pretty much the same. OEM speakers ain't necessary bad, too little power, "all seat" T/A, weird FR curves, sometime bad speaker placement etc etc contribute to that 'typical' OEM sound.

Big difference between the low-intensity parts and high-intensity parts of a track is certainly dynamic range. Need a dynamic track first off, adequate power output, a correctly tuned sustem and transient/high output speakers.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

If its improving something, like midbass response, then its doing so via a built in change in frequency response. Period. 

Do you think the artists record music hoping someone will change the sound based on their preference? Whether it be by a change in frequency response at the amp, or some crazy eq curve?

Let me ask you this. Are you one of those rediculous audiophiles that wont watch live music anymore unless its in the perfect venue with the perfect equipment?

If so, you've already lost the forest for the trees.


----------



## Hanatsu

Exactly ^^

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## FG79

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> If its improving something, like midbass response, then its doing so via a built in change in frequency response. Period.
> 
> Do you think the artists record music hoping someone will change the sound based on their preference? Whether it be by a change in frequency response at the amp, or some crazy eq curve?
> 
> Let me ask you this. Are you one of those rediculous audiophiles that wont watch live music anymore unless its in the perfect venue with the perfect equipment?
> 
> If so, you've already lost the forest for the trees.


You might like to cling to this "what the artists preferred" as it sounds all nice in theory but two things:

a) There really is no re-shaping of an EQ curve. What you see as adding, I see as restoring. It's not adding bass if the recording doesn't have it. In home audio, you rarely ever have too much bass. And more important than bass is something called WEIGHT and if you do not know what that is, I won't be able to explain why it's important. 
b) Artists for the most part do not know much about their preference or care either way. If anything, most don't know what's good for them. 

There's a lot of misinformation on what tubes do to sound as if they transform Skrillex into Etta James. 

The idealist way of looking at these things go out the window when you have to admit that something that sounds nice is actually quite desirable. If it is colored a bit, B.F.D.

Case in point: every good car audio system has a midbass peak in it. If it doesn't, it will sound boring (unless you only listen to classical music). Home audio flatness does not translate to cars, even with the engine off.

And no, I don't hold out on concerts if they are not in elite settings. As big an audiophile as I am I've maybe only been to 1 or 2 concerts where the sound was actually very good. Unamplified music is the obvious exception where most of it sounds good.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Weight is just an audiophile term for having a certain curve to the eq. Just like thin sounding, full sounding, etc. 

But were not going to agree on that, so ill bow out. As said above, your camp isn't going to budge, and neither is mine. I dont believe in magic. It either is or isn't. If it is, it can be measured. If it isnt, it can be as well. 

You should really consider measuring all of these amps you claim can do magical things. It might open your eyes a little.


----------



## Hanatsu

FG79 said:


> Case in point: every good car audio system has a midbass peak in it. If it doesn't, it will sound boring (unless you only listen to classical music). Home audio flatness does not translate to cars, even with the engine off


Since when? Most systems I've measured doesn't have a "midbass peak", what frequency range do you consider to be 'midbass'? I consider 'midbass' to be ~80-160Hz. There should be a shelf around 160-200Hz where the bass is increasingly higher than the lower midrange but there's no need for a peak really, in fact - the lower two octaves should be louder than midbass frequencies imo.

Having a flat response in the car will not sound "flat" as it would in a large room, yes. Finally 'something' we can agree on...


----------



## FG79

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Weight is just an audiophile term for having a certain curve to the eq. Just like thin sounding, full sounding, etc.
> 
> But were not going to agree on that, so ill bow out. As said above, your camp isn't going to budge, and neither is mine. I dont believe in magic. It either is or isn't. If it is, it can be measured. If it isnt, it can be as well.
> 
> You should really consider measuring all of these amps you claim can do magical things. It might open your eyes a little.


They measure like s***, every last one of them.


----------



## FG79

Hanatsu said:


> Finally 'something' we can agree on...


I'm a hard working guy!

Can we also agree that Volvos are underrated cars?


----------



## Hanatsu

Ppfft. Volvo... streets are crawling of those cars here lol.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy 3 via Tapatalk.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

FG79 said:


> They measure like s***, every last one of them.


I meant more along the lines that you would find that the amps that sound similar to you, measure similar.

I prefer amps that add nothing to the sound. If the recording is bad, then its bad. If its good, why purposely screw with it. I used to have this argument with a guy who wanted people to eq their system for different recordings, to make up for bad recordings. 

Thats why I started listening to lp's ripped to wav in the car. With the music I listen to, its just better mastered. 13db dynamic range vs 5db for some songs.


----------



## FG79

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> I meant more along the lines that you would find that the amps that sound similar to you, measure similar.
> 
> I prefer amps that add nothing to the sound. If the recording is bad, then its bad. If its good, why purposely screw with it. I used to have this argument with a guy who wanted people to eq their system for different recordings, to make up for bad recordings.
> 
> Thats why I started listening to lp's ripped to wav in the car. With the music I listen to, its just better mastered. 13db dynamic range vs 5db for some songs.


I still think that you are not seeing my point that tubes are not coloring the sound in a certain direction anymore than solid state is coloring it in a different direction.

When I tell people all the time that brass and woodwind instruments shouldn't sound harsh on recordings because they never do in real life, guess which amp technology is closer to the real thing?

Time and time again, the tubes are more natural sounding. 

Once you've experienced it enough you cannot go back to SS, in a home system. 

Anyways, that's my two cents. I have done more than enough on this topic.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

I'm not concerned with solid state vs tube. I'm simply saying that if the signal is any different coming out than it is going in, then the amp is changing the sound. I'm of the opinion that amp amp is ONLY there to amplify the signal, not change it.

How often have you listened to live brass and woodwind? Because I played violin for years in a full orchestra, and ill tell you first hand that brass and woodwind can be very harsh, depending on how they are played. Some pieces call for that, others dont. An amp should never dull the excitement of harsh brass when its supposed to be harsh. So saying that they are never harsh in real life just isnt true. Thats like people that say the sax and the piano should never sound aggressive.


----------



## FG79

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> I'm not concerned with solid state vs tube. I'm simply saying that if the signal is any different coming out than it is going in, then the amp is changing the sound. I'm of the opinion that amp amp is ONLY there to amplify the signal, not change it.
> 
> How often have you listened to live brass and woodwind? Because I played violin for years in a full orchestra, and ill tell you first hand that brass and woodwind can be very harsh, depending on how they are played. Some pieces call for that, others dont. An amp should never dull the excitement of harsh brass when its supposed to be harsh. So saying that they are never harsh in real life just isnt true. Thats like people that say the sax and the piano should never sound aggressive.


They can sound harsh and aggressive if it's real. I just find that lesser amps tend to make the listening experience more painful all around and less enjoyable. 

And that's how it is for me, enjoyment. 

We'll agree to disagree on what's better. 

BTW, amps by themselves don't control everything with the sound. DACs, phono stages, and interconnects/cables will color the sound some more. 

So much area for coloration. I tried to step out of my analog/tube igloo many, many times trying to figure out this theoretical concept of a completely NEUTRAL recording technique and playback system.

I just think that it's an impossible feat to achieve. Everything colors sound, and I'd rather hear SS/digital guys say they prefer the sound for the sound's sake than claim it's more REAL, just because some #s might SUGGEST it is. 

It ain't. 

I would look at speakers as having more coloration than many give credit for. 

Instead of losing sleep at night worrying about this stuff, I just concern myself with what sounds good, what feels good.


----------



## cajunner

audio as a pain reduction strategy? No wonder no one likes generics...


or, audio as an endorphin-releasing, ecstasy-inducing rush? 


or maybe a replacement strategy for those coming off of some dependency, can you feel that?

it's the sound of a thousand tweeters, trying to make 20 hertz...


----------



## Woosey

subwoofery said:


> Might be a good read for those that have an open mind
> 
> The Decware Audiophile Tube Amplifier / Model ZEN TORII MKIII
> 
> Kelvin


That's a stunning looking amp man.... Like the looks of that...


----------



## SilkySlim

If it feels good do it. Lol I like what sounds good and that is such a subjective thing that changes as people gain experience hearing different equipment and pushing the limits. In theory an amp is neutral and blind in ambition to increase the level of the signal. In truth and reality it by the shear nature alters the signal. Not to mention it's an ac power converter and speed control for a very needy complex and varying electric motors. Are there levels of diminishing returns of course but to say it's a myth no. I have seen to many great amps and great speakers that don't sound good together only to swap out an amp and it return to greatness. Some amp designs on both sides do not play well together.  
The biggest differences I have heard is on true full range speakers that place amps under full stress. Power and current capabilities of the amp seem to make the most difference. That's why you'll see most mega dollar high end home amps are gargantuan mono blocks. 

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


----------



## quickaudi07

I went through few amps myself, I love my hobby, and did switch to different amps through out my driving years.

I sure did noticed what is a cheep amp and good amp, than it goes with quality of an amp, and how it works and preforms under high volumes, and heat, in a hot sunny day!

You need to take a lot in to consideration when buying a system for your car, you want it to look good to your eyes, and sound even better. Not only installation is the main key, but also what speakers you will install in your car, and good insulation you have for the doors and throughout the car.

I'm sure since everyone here have few hounded dollars amps, if not more, you wouldn't go back to boss amp.. lol 

That being said, you get what you pay for. I have Mosconi amps, got them about a year ago and love them. one of the best sound quality amps i have owned. 

Why spend more if you like what you have 

That's just my opinion.


----------



## captainobvious

Quality, fully regulated power supplies are where it's at for car audio.


----------



## captainobvious

quickaudi07 said:


> Why spend more if you like what you have
> 
> That's just my opinion.



In the never ending quest for "better" 
That's why so many of us continue to tweak and change things out. I've finally settled on my amplifiers and am off of that merry-go-round. I've already come to the conclusion that I WILL NOT get any better sound with different amplifiers. The Zed's have all of the features I want- the power configuration, beautiful aesthetics, uber quality in design, construction and materials, excellent customer support, and they are made right here in the USA. Nothing else I want or need in an amplifier. I've used, demo'd and tested many amplifiers over the years and I'm glad to finally say I'm done searching. 

Plain and simple- amplifiers are not a game changer to the "sound" of a system. Until you have done proper blind tests with various amplifiers, you simply cannot appreciate that fact. If you want to change the sound of a system, the amplifier is closer to the bottom of the list of things to monkey with. Speakers and tuning are easily the most impactful changes to the overall sound of a system. If you're swapping amplifiers to change that sound, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## schmiddr2

I just installed a JL 900/5. And coming from the ID i5800 it seems to be an upgrade in power/responsiveness, not necessarily in SQ though. Completely unscientific subjective info I know, but I like the difference so I thought I would add to this debate. And BTW, the ID is an A/B amp and the JL is D, so I don't agree with the class A/B always over D people.


----------



## turbo5upra

schmiddr2 said:


> I just installed a JL 900/5. And coming from the ID i5800 it seems to be an upgrade in power/responsiveness, not necessarily in SQ though. Completely unscientific subjective info I know, but I like the difference so I thought I would add to this debate. And BTW, the ID is an A/B amp and the JL is D, so I don't agree with the class A/B always over D people.



while the 5800 is a nice amp for the money it's a bit short in the output department at 65 watts a channel- vs the jl at 100...


----------



## Hanatsu

schmiddr2 said:


> so I don't agree with the class A/B always over D people.


I never will. Efficiency and power. The most efficient amps are class D, the most powerful, smallish amps are usually class D. So I prefer class D 

Build quality, size, design etc are pretty important as well. The only component in a system that sounds different are speakers imo. This can be proven by simple acoustic measurements as well. They're the only high distortion devices in a system, if you looking for improvements change speakers, add more power, add a DSP (if you don't got one) and improve the install. That's about it.


----------



## JimmyDee

Hanatsu said:


> I never will. Efficiency and power. The most efficient amps are class D, the most powerful, smallish amps are usually class D. So I prefer class D


I have to agree with this... although I'm still struggling with the idea.

I've always had an 'old school' mentality, where a big heavy A/B amp is the only way to go. I've looked at the newer Digital amps (JL and Alpine) in fascination, and thought they were a 'nice idea'... but nothing was going to beat my good ol' American brute power.

About a week ago, if finally decided to make the switch (mainly because I decided to run my front speakers active, and needed an extra couple channels). 

I've been using Zapco amps for years, and I still think they are incredible amps, but I decided to try the new Focal Power Digital amplifiers.

FPD 900.6 | Focal America

Not only am I pleased with the power output of these amps, but I also think they sound JUST AS clean as my Zapco. 

Since I didn't do an 'apples to apples' comparison (I changed my front sound stage to active, and upgraded my sub), it would be impossible for me to say the Digital amps sound better... but I can say that the amp upgrade, and the active speaker set-up DEFINITELY sounds a lot better!

Digital amps have come a long way in the past few years, and I am satisfied that a decent Class D (JL, Focal, Alpine, etc) can compete with any of the big Class A/B amps now. The bonus is that they are substantially smaller (easier to hide / stealth), and they don't turn your trunk into an oven. I swear I could cook a roast beef in my trunk, with that old Zapco!


----------



## cajunner

you know what my problem with class D is?

it's not as simple as "newer class D amps are better, and can now compare with AB amps" it's the other thing.

I know what used to count for something in the build of a class AB, you had certain benchmark components used that were known to be higher quality, you could look into an AB amp and see things that explained higher cost and higher expected performance.

then, you could say "I'm paying this much, because the amp has *this* in it" and most amp designers agree they would use that part if they could, in all their amps.

you don't see this with class D as much, if at all. 

you get the "this generation of class D is better, because well, we made changes" or you get the "the speed of the rectifier widgets is faster now, so this is possible" or "the class D circuit has matured" but you don't get to look into a class D amp and say "matched mosfet" or "Sanken outputs" or "bourns 10 turn pots" or whatever, there's no culture to skew favorites, and the various 'tests' that people run pitting class D against each other is inconclusive.

I want the marketing of class D to catch up to AB, I want to hear things that matter like "bipolar outputs" and "complementary symmetry circuit design" and "triple Darlington output arrays" or other bits and baubles.

They could tout the speed of their transistors, or the op-amp distortion, or anything that would lead me to believe they produce a superior class D amp and I'd have something. They tried at the start, Tri-path and Hypex, ICE and whatever, but it all fell into a big class D advertising black hole, it's now "trust us, we're making class D like nobody is making class D" and it is not working!


----------



## JimmyDee

cajunner said:


> you know what my problem with class D is?
> 
> it's not as simple as "newer class D amps are better, and can now compare with AB amps" it's the other thing.
> 
> I know what used to count for something in the build of a class AB, you had certain benchmark components used that were known to be higher quality, you could look into an AB amp and see things that explained higher cost and higher expected performance.
> 
> then, you could say "I'm paying this much, because the amp has *this* in it" and most amp designers agree they would use that part if they could, in all their amps.
> 
> you don't see this with class D as much, if at all.
> 
> you get the "this generation of class D is better, because well, we made changes" or you get the "the speed of the rectifier widgets is faster now, so this is possible" or "the class D circuit has matured" but you don't get to look into a class D amp and say "matched mosfet" or "Sanken outputs" or "bourns 10 turn pots" or whatever, there's no culture to skew favorites, and the various 'tests' that people run pitting class D against each other is inconclusive.
> 
> I want the marketing of class D to catch up to AB, I want to hear things that matter like "bipolar outputs" and "complementary symmetry circuit design" and "triple Darlington output arrays" or other bits and baubles.
> 
> They could tout the speed of their transistors, or the op-amp distortion, or anything that would lead me to believe they produce a superior class D amp and I'd have something. They tried at the start, Tri-path and Hypex, ICE and whatever, but it all fell into a big class D advertising black hole, it's now "trust us, we're making class D like nobody is making class D" and it is not working!


I hear what you're saying...

The first thing I did, when I got my Focal Digital amps, is pull the cover off to see what they looked like inside. I should have taken a picture, but I didn't. Nevertheless, I could clearly see that they were assembled very well, using high quality components. What I couldn't see (and nobody can see), is what is inside the chips, the SCR's, etc... that's where 'quality' becomes subjective, as there is no physical way to tell.

At the end of the day, the only judgement I can make, is done by my ears. The new Focal Digital amps sound just as good, just as clean, and just as loud as my Zapco A/B amps did. With a lot less heat, and taking-up a lot less space in my trunk.

I still appreciate a quality built A/B amp. I always will. But I can't see myself going back to them... not at this point.


----------



## cajunner

jimmydee said:


> I hear what you're saying...
> 
> The first thing I did, when I got my Focal Digital amps, is pull the cover off to see what they looked like inside. I should have taken a picture, but I didn't. Nevertheless, I could clearly see that they were assembled very well, using high quality components. What I couldn't see (and nobody can see), is what is inside the chips, the SCR's, etc... that's where 'quality' becomes subjective, as there is no physical way to tell.
> 
> At the end of the day, the only judgement I can make, is done by my ears. The new Focal Digital amps sound just as good, just as clean, and just as loud as my Zapco A/B amps did. With a lot less heat, and taking-up a lot less space in my trunk.
> 
> I still appreciate a quality built A/B amp. I always will. But I can't see myself going back to them... not at this point.



a post like this, even 10 years ago, seemed ludicrous.

the effective marketing of class D is nothing, compared to the tipping point of conventional wisdom.

surfboard amps will fall away, people will wonder who were these crazy people who used half their trunk space for amplification, and had to install a second alternator to run them.

hell, I wonder that now, and I'm one of 'em.


----------



## porscheman

and for all the zed bashers, those new focal amps are Steve's work


----------



## quickaudi07

Me and my friend had an argument the other day in regards to amps, power, speaker control, and processors. I told him this is what i look and look forward from an amp, he likes class D amps because they are small form factor and to him they sound as good as Class A/B amps. So i decided to take one of my amps out of my car, cuz he was pissing me off with an argument, he removed his JL HD amp and connected mine for short period of time. after getting a good listen with my Mosconi amp, he decided i was right, and it made a huge difference between My Mosconi and JL HD amp..

I think it all depends on a user, what they want out of a sound, and what kind of room they have at the same time to put the gear in.. Also $$$$$ talks... But at the end, everyone is looking for that sweet spot of music that they enjoy and always love.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Unless they were level matched within a db or less, it wasn't a fair comparison. Even then, it wasn't a fair comparison because he knew what amp was going in, and the amount of time it took to put that amp in and listen again.


----------



## rton20s

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Unless they were level matched within a db or less, it wasn't a fair comparison. Even then, it wasn't a fair comparison because he knew what amp was going in, and the amount of time it took to put that amp in and listen again.


Shouldn't this be set to "autoreply" by DIYMA at this point? It was bound to be said by someone.


----------



## ChrisB

What I have come to realize is that people will believe what they want to believe when it comes to amplifiers. It is pretty much the same as politics and religion except I haven't seen any major wars started over amplifiers!


Sent from my iPhone 5S using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanatsu

quickaudi07 said:


> Me and my friend had an argument the other day in regards to amps, power, speaker control, and processors. I told him this is what i look and look forward from an amp, he likes class D amps because they are small form factor and to him they sound as good as Class A/B amps. So i decided to take one of my amps out of my car, cuz he was pissing me off with an argument, he removed his JL HD amp and connected mine for short period of time. after getting a good listen with my Mosconi amp, he decided i was right, and it made a huge difference between My Mosconi and JL HD amp..
> 
> I think it all depends on a user, what they want out of a sound, and what kind of room they have at the same time to put the gear in.. Also $$$$$ talks... But at the end, everyone is looking for that sweet spot of music that they enjoy and always love.


Rofl... "huge"

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## subwoofery

rton20s said:


> Shouldn't this be set to "autoreply" by DIYMA at this point? It was bound to be said by someone.


Why should it? The Mosconi has a bump in its frequency response (like all Steg amps) so it has been designed to sound different... 

Kelvin


----------



## sbeezy

subwoofery said:


> Why should it? The Mosconi has a bump in its frequency response (like all Steg amps) so it has been designed to sound different...
> 
> Kelvin


thank you for pointing it out!.... it even says on their website they use "DSP" for the signature sound... i dont see what the rage is about mosconi...


----------



## Sound Suggestions

But come on....don't all amps sound the same 

New to Tapatalk! It's not bad


----------



## captainobvious

cajunner said:


> you know what my problem with class D is?
> 
> it's not as simple as "newer class D amps are better, and can now compare with AB amps" it's the other thing.
> 
> I know what used to count for something in the build of a class AB, you had certain benchmark components used that were known to be higher quality, you could look into an AB amp and see things that explained higher cost and higher expected performance.
> 
> then, you could say "I'm paying this much, because the amp has *this* in it" and most amp designers agree they would use that part if they could, in all their amps.
> 
> you don't see this with class D as much, if at all.
> 
> you get the "this generation of class D is better, because well, we made changes" or you get the "the speed of the rectifier widgets is faster now, so this is possible" or "the class D circuit has matured" but you don't get to look into a class D amp and say "matched mosfet" or "Sanken outputs" or "bourns 10 turn pots" or whatever, there's no culture to skew favorites, and the various 'tests' that people run pitting class D against each other is inconclusive.
> 
> I want the marketing of class D to catch up to AB, I want to hear things that matter like "bipolar outputs" and "complementary symmetry circuit design" and "triple Darlington output arrays" or other bits and baubles.
> 
> They could tout the speed of their transistors, or the op-amp distortion, or anything that would lead me to believe they produce a superior class D amp and I'd have something. They tried at the start, Tri-path and Hypex, ICE and whatever, but it all fell into a big class D advertising black hole, it's now "trust us, we're making class D like nobody is making class D" and it is not working!



Great post. Marketing certainly has a lot to do with the perceived image of the class D amplifiers. I think the simple size factor throws people off too. How could something that small be that powerful and still sound as good as my behemoth A/B amp?
I think there are some very well engineered, quality class D designs out there right now, specifically the JL HDs and the new Zed amps. I've tested and demo'd quite a many amplifiers, including the blind amp testing in my sig. I chose to go with the Zed class D amps, so take that for what its worth. I think the Leviathan III's are superior to the class A/B Zapco Z amps I was running previously, and they are very highly regarded as well.


----------



## rton20s

subwoofery said:


> Why should it? The Mosconi has a bump in its frequency response (like all Steg amps) so it has been designed to sound different...
> 
> Kelvin


Because regardless of where you, I, or anyone else falls on the "All amps sound the same" debate, comments like TooStubborn2Fail's will always show up when someone swaps out amps and notices a difference. It wasn't really a comment on the debate, but rather on the way things work here on DIYMA.


----------



## quality_sound

subwoofery said:


> Why should it? The Mosconi has a bump in its frequency response (like all Steg amps) so it has been designed to sound different...
> 
> Kelvin


Which ones?


----------



## subwoofery

rton20s said:


> Because regardless of where you, I, or anyone else falls on the "All amps sound the same" debate, comments like TooStubborn2Fail's will always show up when someone swaps out amps and notices a difference. It wasn't really a comment on the debate, but rather on the way things work here on DIYMA.


I know what you meant  

Just pointing out that since amps that measured the same, sounded the same and most agree with that - then Mosconi amps won't ever sound the same as an amp that has a flat frequency response, coz Mosconi amps don't have a flat response... 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

quality_sound said:


> Which ones?


All amps in the AS range 

Kelvin


----------



## rton20s

subwoofery said:


> coz Mosconi amps don't have a flat response...


Until you throw a DSP into the mix.


----------



## quality_sound

subwoofery said:


> All amps in the AS range
> 
> Kelvin


How have I missed this? Link?


----------



## sbeezy

quality_sound said:


> How have I missed this? Link?


THE SOUND
Analogue signal processors used in strategic points of the amplification stage, contribute to the uniqueness of sound and timbre of MOSCONI AS series.
The audio power stages and the DC/DC converter use exclusively AUTOMOTIVE MOSfet devices and provide high power supply coupled with high speed transient response.
The pre amplifier circuitry has very low noise to eliminate hiss. The amplifier also has time delay turn on mute to prevent transient thumps. These are standard in the Mosconi design.


----------



## subwoofery

quality_sound said:


> How have I missed this? Link?


I'll post a few screenshots when I get home coz I don't have all my files with me @ work :laugh:

Kelvin


----------



## cleansoundz

subwoofery said:


> Why should it? The Mosconi has a bump in its frequency response (like all Steg amps) so it has been designed to sound different...
> 
> Kelvin


I am glad to know this because after years of trying out different amps I have learned that not all amps sound the same and some do not have a flat frequency response. What other amps besides, RF Power Series, Mosconi and Steg amps do not have a flat frequency response?


----------



## cajunner

cleansoundz said:


> I am glad to know this because after years of trying out different amps I have learned that not all amps sound the same and some do not have a flat frequency response. What other amps besides, RF Power Series, Mosconi and Steg amps do not have a flat frequency response?


many class D amps have flanging frequency response based on impedance, and several amps have crossovers that are optimistic with their silk-screened, and manual-stated parameters.

as stated before, by knowledgeable members the preamp section is responsible for much more of the amp's "flavor" and setting everything to flat, isn't necessarily how those amps will be used.

just having a simple single band parametric in the bass region on an amp, can alleviate a huge issue in the in-car response and negate the need for extra processing.

sub-sonic filtering is also preamp, and that can do some wonders saving your vented or IB subs.

the level adjustment in built-in crossovers, is outside of input gains, and also preamp parts.

once you get past all the features and down to a gain block, sure many amps will sound similar, but it's all those extra features and using good parts for those features to work properly, all add up to the sonic signature of the amp more than a crude amp test can show.


----------



## subwoofery

Top left: AS 100.4 
Bottom left: AS 200.4 
Top Right: AS 200.4 
Bottom right: AS 200.2 & AS 100.4

Kelvin 

PS: sorry I know it's small but I used to have access to imageshack but now I have to upgrade


----------



## Hanatsu

Proof that all amps don't sound the same xD

Still, I want an amp to produce a flat response. That bump will cause power issues as well.

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## captainobvious

subwoofery said:


> Top left: AS 100.4
> Bottom left: AS 200.4
> Top Right: AS 200.4
> Bottom right: AS 200.2 & AS 100.4
> 
> Kelvin
> 
> PS: sorry I know it's small but I used to have access to imageshack but now I have to upgrade



It's hard to see this and the scale. How large of a peak in low end response is that showing? Also, is this with the crossovers defeated and everything flat?

Thanks


----------



## FG79

subwoofery said:


> I know what you meant
> 
> Just pointing out that since amps that measured the same, sounded the same and most agree with that - then Mosconi amps won't ever sound the same as an amp that has a flat frequency response, coz Mosconi amps don't have a flat response...
> 
> Kelvin


Since I hear this axiom quoted a million times, please elaborate:

Amps that measure the same sound the same......measured how? frequency response? average power output?

Also how are we measuring them....oscilloscope, DMM, RTA'ing the sound from a reference point of speakers/source/cables/etc?


----------



## Woosey

captainobvious said:


> It's hard to see this and the scale. How large of a peak in low end response is that showing? Also, is this with the crossovers defeated and everything flat?
> 
> Thanks


I just found the graph of the AS65.2 it has the same hump..

Looks like top of the hump is @ about 40/45 Hz


Edit: I really had no idea that they did this.... Also about STEG....

Edit again: this is Audio system X-ion 100.2 on the left ( they do it too ) DOH!!!

Right is AS65.2 and it seems the hump is maxed @ about 35Hz


----------



## cajunner

how many amp manufacturers used 40/45 hz as the basis for an equalization circuit in their amps over the years?

I think I remember reading how Rockford Fosgate was the first to use it, Punch equalization, and ever since there's no shortage of copycat circuits in the market...

I don't know if that's because 40 hz is uniquely constructed to hit the pleasure centers of man's brain, or it's the logic of marketing working into the engineering dept. and the proven success of the first implementation that drives it.


----------



## subwoofery

captainobvious said:


> It's hard to see this and the scale. How large of a peak in low end response is that showing? Also, is this with the crossovers defeated and everything flat?
> 
> Thanks


It's a 1dB bump that goes up from 160Hz (0dB point) and back to 0dB around 18Hz with the highest point being around 35Hz 

Kelvin 

edit: everything set to flat, Xovers defeated


----------



## subwoofery

FG79 said:


> Since I hear this axiom quoted a million times, please elaborate:
> 
> Amps that measure the same sound the same......measured how? frequency response? average power output?
> 
> Also how are we measuring them....oscilloscope, DMM, RTA'ing the sound from a reference point of speakers/source/cables/etc?


Everything is in my signature. You need an amp to have ALL those requirements the same in order to sound the same. 

Kelvin


----------



## diy.phil

^ha ha yeah - with this info lately. 
there was a time when people said a good amp is transparent. now it's like... gimme a bump!! (ok too)


----------



## subwoofery

cajunner said:


> how many amp manufacturers used 40/45 hz as the basis for an equalization circuit in their amps over the years?
> 
> I think I remember reading how Rockford Fosgate was the first to use it, Punch equalization, and ever since there's no shortage of copycat circuits in the market...
> 
> I don't know if that's because 40 hz is uniquely constructed to hit the pleasure centers of man's brain, or it's the logic of marketing working into the engineering dept. and the proven success of the first implementation that drives it.


Here to add to the discussion 









Kelvin


----------



## Hanatsu

FG79 said:


> Since I hear this axiom quoted a million times, please elaborate:
> 
> Amps that measure the same sound the same......measured how? frequency response? average power output?
> 
> Also how are we measuring them....oscilloscope, DMM, RTA'ing the sound from a reference point of speakers/source/cables/etc?


Frequency response, Power output into reactive loads, steady state non-linear distortion vs power, noise floor and crossovers (slope, Q). These will describe the amp's audible performance.

Slew rate, TIM, output impedance and stuff like that doesn't matter much imo. 

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## Hanatsu

I've measured clipping from an amp by doing a speaker measurement (acoustic). 3rd order HD jumped in the entire range when the amp started to clip. Any audible distortion the amp put out should be visible in a simple speaker measurement comparision.

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## thehatedguy

Well I mean you used to have to deal with 12s that wanted 2 cubic each sealed. Now they are going into boxes half to 3/4 that size.

But that was more like 20 years a go on that front.

10-12 years a go I would have sworn that I would never use or like a full range class D amp...but I put a few JL HDs in and really have liked them a lot, and I couldn't stand their class a/b amps.




cajunner said:


> a post like this, even 10 years ago, seemed ludicrous.
> 
> the effective marketing of class D is nothing, compared to the tipping point of conventional wisdom.
> 
> surfboard amps will fall away, people will wonder who were these crazy people who used half their trunk space for amplification, and had to install a second alternator to run them.
> 
> hell, I wonder that now, and I'm one of 'em.


----------



## strakele

subwoofery said:


> It's a 1dB bump that goes up from 160Hz (0dB point) and back to 0dB around 18Hz with the highest point being around 35Hz
> 
> Kelvin
> 
> edit: everything set to flat, Xovers defeated


So with a simple 1dB bump at 35Hz with a Q of around .75 on your DSP, you too can have that high end Mosconi sound for a fraction of the price!

I think the point of all of this is that even if 2 amps don't sound the same out of the box due to variations in FR or other measurable quantities, they can be made to sound EXACTLY the same VERY easily.


----------



## captainobvious

I'd still challenge people to actually properly level match and evaluate amplifiers blind to "hear" the difference. I'll bet people still couldn't pick the Mosconi out of a lineup if they were put to blind evaluations even knowing it has a built in "hump" in response.


----------



## Woosey

Basically mosconi is flat 20 to 20k +-1db then right?


----------



## thehatedguy

Depending on the speakers used, there could be differences in amplifiers that could be audible that EQ could not fix. Crossover distortion can't be fixed with EQ but you would only be worried about that with high efficiency speakers.


----------



## Woosey

captainobvious said:


> I'd still challenge people to actually properly level match and evaluate amplifiers blind to "hear" the difference. I'll bet people still couldn't pick the Mosconi out of a lineup if they were put to blind evaluations even knowing it has a built in "hump" in response.


How about that challenge with a subwoofer instead of a fullrange speaker?


----------



## Hanatsu

subwoofery said:


> Here to add to the discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kelvin


Wow... high distortion AND screwed up FR.


----------



## Hanatsu

Crossover distortion... it should not be audible in any competently built A/B design. Increase bias if you're concerned about it at low output.


----------



## thehatedguy

When you have 110 dB sensitive horns and listening at 85-90 dB...how much of a watt are you listening to? It is audible in those situations.

And just "increase the bias" might not be as easy as popping the back cover off and turning a trim pot- though it could be.


----------



## cajunner

captainobvious said:


> Great post. Marketing certainly has a lot to do with the perceived image of the class D amplifiers. I think the simple size factor throws people off too. How could something that small be that powerful and still sound as good as my behemoth A/B amp?
> I think there are some very well engineered, quality class D designs out there right now, specifically the JL HDs and the new Zed amps. I've tested and demo'd quite a many amplifiers, including the blind amp testing in my sig. I chose to go with the Zed class D amps, so take that for what its worth. I think the Leviathan III's are superior to the class A/B Zapco Z amps I was running previously, and they are very highly regarded as well.


it gets better, when higher end amp manufacturers are pitting each others' class D designs against each other, vying for market share.

I read something about the inductor that scrubs the square wave out of the signal, cutting into the effective damping factor, and I want to believe it.

but then I read something about transformers, or more specifically auto-formers, or output transformers used in highest end McIntosh designs, and figure that has to color the sound too, right?

just trying to draw a parallel between component use, having some definable quality in the build.

I mean, your high end amp designers used to rely on matched bi-polar transistors, film caps in the pre-amp, class A drive in the pre-amp, and the weight of the heat sink, the amount of cooling capability, etc. counted for something. Class D means none of that matters, it's all a little voodoo going on and even people who are at the top, say class AB is the superior circuit, and that it's superior in the bass!

now it's like a switched power supply vs. the transformer-based, there's no way anyone's going to lug around a mobile transformer anymore if they can get switched boxes that are 1/5 the weight and do the job. If you can't tell the difference, I don't know...

I'm glad you like the Leviathan in it's 3rd phase, it does look great on the inside and yet, I don't know if any of these other class D designs should go clear, or top-less, too...

because I don't know what to look for, or at in a class D design, I don't know what the amp designers have to choose from or what constitutes higher build costs, elevated bill of materials, that sort of thing.


----------



## captainobvious

cajunner said:


> it gets better, when higher end amp manufacturers are pitting each others' class D designs against each other, vying for market share.
> 
> I read something about the inductor that scrubs the square wave out of the signal, cutting into the effective damping factor, and I want to believe it.
> 
> but then I read something about transformers, or more specifically auto-formers, or output transformers used in highest end McIntosh designs, and figure that has to color the sound too, right?
> 
> just trying to draw a parallel between component use, having some definable quality in the build.
> 
> I mean, your high end amp designers used to rely on matched bi-polar transistors, film caps in the pre-amp, class A drive in the pre-amp, and the weight of the heat sink, the amount of cooling capability, etc. counted for something. Class D means none of that matters, it's all a little voodoo going on and even people who are at the top, say class AB is the superior circuit, and that it's superior in the bass!
> 
> now it's like a switched power supply vs. the transformer-based, there's no way anyone's going to lug around a mobile transformer anymore if they can get switched boxes that are 1/5 the weight and do the job. If you can't tell the difference, I don't know...
> 
> I'm glad you like the Leviathan in it's 3rd phase, it does look great on the inside and yet, I don't know if any of these other class D designs should go clear, or top-less, too...
> 
> because I don't know what to look for, or at in a class D design, I don't know what the amp designers have to choose from or what constitutes higher build costs, elevated bill of materials, that sort of thing.


Here you are...a couple of snips from Zeds info on his approach to class D design. I highlighted some of the more important points but it's a great read.



ZedAudio said:


> Class A and class B amplifiers do not have output filters and so the feedback network is always taken off from the output node of the amplifier. Class D amplifiers have a “monkey on their backs” in that they ALL have to have an output demodulator filter to get rid of the
> high frequency carrier. Class D amplifiers are simply Pulse Width Modulated power supplies where the modulation is the audio signal._* How good or bad they sound depends on how the whole design is implemented. *_
> Our class D amplifiers are of the *self oscillating* type which has proved to be simpler and better sounding than driven types (Where a fixed clock at some high frequency is used as the carrier). Analogous to FM or AM radio where the signal is transmitted at some high frequency, your radio picks up this signal (Which contains both the carrier and the audio) and then finally demodulates ie. Filters out the carrier leaving just the audio.
> The absolute vast majority of sub woofer class D amplifiers sold today come from Asia and they typically use designs from one or two different companies. They all make one error, their feedback is taken BEFORE the output filter. What does this mean? *Quite simply the deficiencies of the inductor and capacitor in the filter will contaminate the signal and the response will vary with frequency.*
> 
> The reactance (AC resistance) of the coil which after all is in series with the speaker is calculated from this formula Xl = 2 x Pi x F x L.
> Xl = Reactance = AC resistance
> Pi = 3.14
> F = Frequency at which we want to calculate Xl
> L = Inductance of the coil.
> Simple example: F is 100KHz and L is 150uH (150 micto Henry) typical of these amps.
> Xl = 94.2 ohms at 100KHz
> Xl = 0.0942 ohms at 100Hz
> Xl = 0.0188 ohms at 20Hz.
> The 94.2 ohms is great because at 100KHz we want it has high as possible for maximum rejection of the carrier. However we see in the narrow range from 20Hz to 100Hz is has varied by a ratio of 5 as to 1. We have not included the simple DC resistance of the coil which must be added to the 0.0942 and 0.0188 numbers. A typical coil in one of these
> amplifiers uses a mean turn length of about 50mm (2”) per turn and may have between 70 to 100 turns of wire. #15 wire (whether made from a single strand or many strands if finer wire) has a DC resistance of 3.18 ohms per 307 metres (1000’). So we will have about 70 x 2” of wire = 140” = 11.66 feet call it 12 feet for round numbers. Well 12 feet have a DCR of 0.038 ohms and this does not include the second series coil used in everyone of these Far Eastern made amplifiers. So giving the benefit of the doubt to the second coil lets give it a DCR of only 0.002 ohms so our total DCR of wire in SERIES with the speaker is 0.04ohm.
> 
> Well now what do we have here?
> 
> *What we have is a big old amplifier with a 0.04 ohm “resistor” in series with the output.* The DCR of the wire on the inductors is absolutely equal to a resistor with regards to straight DCR. The output impedance of the amplifier is at best 0.04 ohms and this does not take into account the output stage’s resistance which typically is at least 0.01 to 0.02 ohms. Rounding off let’s go for 0.05 ohms and this is at 20Hz. At 100Hz the value is 0.134 ohms.
> 
> 
> Now I am not a big fan of the Damping Factor hoopla. What I object to is the claim of DF values for these “mega watt” and other class D offerings of 300, 500 and 1000w etc. At best the is 0.05 + 0.0188 (do not forget the AC impedance of the coil) = 0.0688 ohms. Divide 4 by 0.0688 and we have a DF of 58 with a 4 ohm load, 29 with a 2 ohm load and just 14.5 with a 1 ohm load. at 4 ohm is 4/0.134 =29.8, at 2 ohm it is 14.9 and at 1 ohm 7.46....mmm interesting is it not. As the saying goes, “make my day”. Please read the specifications of all of these
> amplifiers and I bet each and everyone will claim massive DF numbers and distortion in the “double 00’s”. The THD of an uncompensated output filter is quite high. *These Far Eastern class D amplifiers typically use a switching frequency of 100KHz or less*. OK for sub woofer application but useless for full range (20Hz-20KHz) operation.
> Unfortunately even at 100KHz one has to use a pretty aggressive filter to attenuate the carrier. The inductors range from 80 to 200 micro Henry and the capacitors from 22mfd to 220 mfd.
> Zed is not the first to use *post filter feedback* but it solves all of the above issues to a great degree. Here is what we incorporate. The distortion of the filter is reduced by the feedback factor and in our amplifiers is typically about 15 times. The DCR of our output inductors is an order of magnitude lower than the above, even with Draconia having the skinniest wire we use less turns as our inductors are in the 22-30uH range. We use *switching frequencies close to half a megahertz* (500KHz) and so our *filter parts are of lower values*. Now any DCR in the inductor is taken care of by the feedback network and so _*does not appear as a series resistive element*_. Our DF values are modest even with reflected inductor DCR of about 0.002 ohms.
> Finally we have low THD as the imperfections of the filter components are almost eliminated by the feedback being _*post filter*_.
> 
> *The frequency response of our class D amplifiers is flat from less than 10Hz to 25KHz within 0.1dB and less than 2dB down at 55KHz..*


----------



## Hanatsu

thehatedguy said:


> When you have 110 dB sensitive horns and listening at 85-90 dB...how much of a watt are you listening to? It is audible in those situations.
> 
> And just "increase the bias" might not be as easy as popping the back cover off and turning a trim pot- though it could be.


But at that low output the amp will operate in class A... ?


----------



## Hanatsu

cajunner said:


> it gets better, when higher end amp manufacturers are pitting each others' class D designs against each other, vying for market share.
> 
> I read something about the inductor that scrubs the square wave out of the signal, cutting into the effective damping factor, and I want to believe it.
> 
> but then I read something about transformers, or more specifically auto-formers, or output transformers used in highest end McIntosh designs, and figure that has to color the sound too, right?
> 
> just trying to draw a parallel between component use, having some definable quality in the build.
> 
> I mean, your high end amp designers used to rely on matched bi-polar transistors, film caps in the pre-amp, class A drive in the pre-amp, and the weight of the heat sink, the amount of cooling capability, etc. counted for something. Class D means none of that matters, it's all a little voodoo going on and even people who are at the top, say class AB is the superior circuit, and that it's superior in the bass!
> 
> now it's like a switched power supply vs. the transformer-based, there's no way anyone's going to lug around a mobile transformer anymore if they can get switched boxes that are 1/5 the weight and do the job. If you can't tell the difference, I don't know...
> 
> I'm glad you like the Leviathan in it's 3rd phase, it does look great on the inside and yet, I don't know if any of these other class D designs should go clear, or top-less, too...
> 
> because I don't know what to look for, or at in a class D design, I don't know what the amp designers have to choose from or what constitutes higher build costs, elevated bill of materials, that sort of thing.


There's an inductor in series with the output on a PWM amp, it does decrease damping factor as output impedance goes up. It doesn't matter though. Very low DF affects the resonance peak of a transducer, where the driver generate high amounts of EMF.


----------



## thehatedguy

I have found a lot of a/b amps are biased more towards b than a.



Hanatsu said:


> But at that low output the amp will operate in class A... ?


----------



## cajunner

captainobvious said:


> Here you are...a couple of snips from Zeds info on his approach to class D design. I highlighted some of the more important points but it's a great read.


but why does it have to be "500 Khz" as the magical number?

if an amp is using 1 megahertz, would that then shrink down the inductor millihenries, and would accuracy improve to -2db @ 100Khz?

I remember reading about the Alto Mobile design and how they touted super fast widgets.

so far, we've got super fast widgets, and smaller downstream components, and feedback post-inductor as the reason for higher cost structures?


see what I mean?

how much difference in price is the faster switching widgets, why isn't everyone using them, why is class D variable in quality among manufacturers, and is everyone using the same table of possible parts, in the catalog?

since everyone's getting their stuff, stuffed in China, what can I use to say "buy Zed, it's American design" as opposed to say, JBL and their MS series of class D amps? 

is it just feature set, is it audible, is it something not yet tallied?


----------



## cajunner

thehatedguy said:


> I have found a lot of a/b amps are biased more towards b than a.


if the idle current is under 1 amp draw, how much is the amp biased towards class A?

I'd have to guess, not that much.

and some amps have 5 amperes of idle draw, that's either an inefficient circuit or it's got quality written all over it!


----------



## subwoofery

strakele said:


> So with a simple 1dB bump at 35Hz with a Q of around .75 on your DSP, you too can have that high end Mosconi sound for a fraction of the price!
> 
> I think the point of all of this is that even if 2 amps don't sound the same out of the box due to variations in FR or other measurable quantities, they can be made to sound EXACTLY the same VERY easily.


I knew somebody would respond with that and you're right, frequency variations can be replicated with a nice DSP. 

But that is only 1 part of the equation, how do you replicate even and odd order distortion with a DSP? Some amps can produce higher order distortion than others (say a Steg Masterstroke Class A, a Sinfoni Prestigio or a Mosconi A Class), some can only reproduce odd order distortion, some topology just cancels odd order distortion (tube amps in particular), while some are just normal amps  

Here's a few distortion plots from good to high-end amps: 
























I did not know what those really where and how you could get those kind of graphs. Then I found a good read on decware.come stating that some tube amps just cancelled odd order distortion which was helping in having that particular tube sound that people loved. You have to play a 1kHz sine wave and look for even and odd order distortion over the whole bandwith. 

Most DSP can't replicate that 

Kelvin


----------



## jsketoe

subwoofery makes good points...
the response curve of the mosconi's aren't anything bad at all IMO. I ran old school RF for a long time and even made comments that it had a familiar curve but more open sound....preamp signature. i agree...we would all rather have a pre-amp that makes no difference what so ever. But how many of us like burr brown dacs? they have a signature. panny tube hu? it has a signature. sony c90? it has a signature. zapco...signature. alpine...signature. I can keep going. yes, there is equipment out there that has a small pre amp signature. is it a bad thing that would make me stay away from an amp? No. 
Take that one off custom Tru Billet SDirect I used to run on my front stage. no signature on preamp...but had no balls what so ever when it came to power output until protect circuits were lifted...then it was better...but not near the output of the mosconi I replaced it with.
I am in the 'good clean power' camp when it comes to amps. But i want something that makes real power and isn't a tuning obstacle and just as important is the warranty/dealer aspect.


----------



## FG79

strakele said:


> So with a simple 1dB bump at 35Hz with a Q of around .75 on your DSP, you too can have that high end Mosconi sound for a fraction of the price!
> 
> I think the point of all of this is that even if 2 amps don't sound the same out of the box due to variations in FR or other measurable quantities, they can be made to sound EXACTLY the same VERY easily.


So do you think you can make a JL slash amp sound like a Milbert amp if I gave you all the EQs you ever wanted?



captainobvious said:


> I'd still challenge people to actually properly level match and evaluate amplifiers blind to "hear" the difference. I'll bet people still couldn't pick the Mosconi out of a lineup if they were put to blind evaluations even knowing it has a built in "hump" in response.





thehatedguy said:


> Depending on the speakers used, there could be differences in amplifiers that could be audible that EQ could not fix. Crossover distortion can't be fixed with EQ but you would only be worried about that with high efficiency speakers.


I've mentioned it before that the performance of an amp is more than just tonal balance.

Good amps push the sound out of the speakers, and some amps have more air and immediacy to the sound than others. 

I think the entire topic of making amps sound similar to each other is a LOT easier said than done. And even if you can match the tonal balance, something will be sacrificed.

You can't get something for nothing in this life, and this is no exception.


----------



## Hanatsu

Why will something else be sacrifed because you're matching frequency response? In technical terms, please. 

I don't think any equipment matters as long as the acoustic measurements (sound from speakers) remain the same. A microphone picks up the same sound we hear. Any difference will show up in a normal acoustic measurement. Furthermore, the environment will color/distort the sound a thousand times more than any electronics ever will.

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## strakele

FG79 said:


> So do you think you can make a JL slash amp sound like a Milbert amp if I gave you all the EQs you ever wanted?


Yes, I think they could be matched close enough that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a blind test using whatever speakers you wanted.



FG79 said:


> Good amps push the sound out of the speakers, and some amps have more air and immediacy to the sound than others.


No, good amps supply A/C voltage to the voice coil of the speakers at the speed of light.



FG79 said:


> And even if you can match the tonal balance, something will be sacrificed.


So what exactly will be sacrificed by placing a 1dB boost at one frequency to make one amp match the response of another?


----------



## Hanatsu

strakele said:


> Yes, I think they could be matched close enough that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a blind test using whatever speakers you wanted.


In a car with processing applied, I completely agree with this. Even if there are audible tonality differences due to a different non-linear distortion profile, it will be a very minor issue compared to all the other stuff that makes a car sound like a car...


----------



## strakele

I'm sure that many of the RC tests involved a high end tube amp and a cheap class d or other amp, and we all know how those tests turned out once the amps were properly level and FR matched.

Even if distortion profiles aren't the same, look at their levels! The highest distortion peak the graphs posted above is like 70db down from the fundamental. So if you're listening to music at 90db which isn't really that loud, you think you can hear a difference in sound at one particular frequency at 20db (which is 128x quieter than the music)? Give me a freaking break. You'd need to be listening critically to some good speakers in a very quiet room to hear distortion 20db below the fundamental. But 70db? Not a chance. That's the same level of difference as saying that you can hear a person whispering while in the front row of a rock concert. Not possible by even the most golden of human ears.


----------



## porscheman

FG79 said:


> Good amps push the sound out of the speakers, and some amps have more air and immediacy to the sound than others.


where exactly on any piece of electronic test equipment are the settings to see air and immediancy?


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

^exactly, to both above posts


----------



## quality_sound

thehatedguy said:


> I have found a lot of a/b amps are biased more towards b than a.



Almost all of them, yes. But at less than a Watt? I'm pretty sure every A/B will still be in Class A at that level. Most switch at what? 5-ish Watts?


----------



## quality_sound

strakele said:


> I'm sure that many of the RC tests involved a high end tube amp and a cheap class d or other amp, and we all know how those tests turned out once the amps were properly level and *FR matched.*
> 
> Even if distortion profiles aren't the same, look at their levels! The highest distortion peak the graphs posted above is like 70db down from the fundamental. So if you're listening to music at 90db which isn't really that loud, you think you can hear a difference in sound at one particular frequency at 20db (which is 128x quieter than the music)? Give me a freaking break. You'd need to be listening critically to some good speakers in a very quiet room to hear distortion 20db below the fundamental. But 70db? Not a chance. That's the same level of difference as saying that you can hear a person whispering while in the front row of a rock concert. Not possible by even the most golden of human ears.


But therein lies the rub. Yes, AFTER EQ they sounded the same. Of course they would. The myth isn't that after EQ they sound the same. It's that amps sound different. And they do, until you make them NOT sound different.


----------



## t3sn4f2

porscheman said:


> where exactly on any piece of electronic test equipment are the settings to see air and immediancy?


On the optics sensor. 



t3sn4f2 said:


> Stereophile: Krell Full Power Balanced 350mc monoblock amplifier
> 
> "The Linns had slightly better microdynamics, the Krells slightly better macrodynamics. The Klimax sound a touch *"white"* and more transparent on top in comparison to the Krells, the 350Mc were slightly *darker* and seductively sweeter."
> 
> Linn Klimax (ie the *WHITE* ones):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Krell 350 Mc (ie the *DARKER* ones):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :laugh:


----------



## quality_sound

FG79 said:


> So do you think you can make a JL slash amp sound like a Milbert amp if I gave you all the EQs you ever wanted?


I promise you I could.


----------



## quality_sound

subwoofery said:


> It's a 1dB bump that goes up from 160Hz (0dB point) and back to 0dB around 18Hz with the highest point being around 35Hz
> 
> Kelvin
> 
> edit: everything set to flat, Xovers defeated


Are you ****ting me? You think that ONE dB bump is 1) going to be audible and 2) drive buyers away? It's ONE dB. Most people can't even hear a 1dB change in amplitude. They certainly won't hear it in the low bass where people add EQ anyway. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill, if you'll pardon the pun.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

quality_sound said:


> But therein lies the rub. Yes, AFTER EQ they sounded the same. Of course they would. The myth isn't that after EQ they sound the same. It's that amps sound different. And they do, until you make them NOT sound different.


I think the only reason this thread is still going is because some people (fg79) seem to think that nothing you do will make a cheap amp sound like the Milbert he loves soo much.


----------



## strakele

quality_sound said:


> But therein lies the rub. Yes, AFTER EQ they sounded the same. Of course they would. The myth isn't that after EQ they sound the same. It's that amps sound different. And they do, until you make them NOT sound different.


I don't think anyone is saying that out of the box, every amp sounds exactly the same regardless of anything (though I do think you'd be hard pressed to hear a difference even with ONLY level matching. The difference in response curves in these amps with 'signatures' is so small - like 1dB as noted above). The argument is that there is no immeasurable high end SQ magic that's happening in expensive amplifiers, and that, if you do in fact hear a difference between a between two amps, that they can be made to sound the same fairly quickly and easily. So if you think you really like the sound of a Brax or Milbert amp or something, you can make your JL HD's and PPI Phantoms sound the same, so there's no point in spending the money on the more expensive amp from a sound standpoint.


----------



## quality_sound

strakele said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that out of the box, every amp sounds exactly the same regardless of anything (though I do think you'd be hard pressed to hear a difference even with ONLY level matching. The difference in response curves in these amps with 'signatures' is so small - like 1dB as noted above). The argument is that there is no unmeasurable high end SQ magic that's happening in expensive amplifiers, and that, if you do in fact hear a difference between a between two amps, that they can be made to sound the same fairly quickly and easily. So if you think you really like the sound of a Brax amp or something, you can make you JL HD's sound the same, so there's no point in spending the money on the more expensive amp from a sound standpoint.


Sadly, I think some people DO think that. DS-21 is one of them. 

I do agree with your second point. Assuming we're not clipping. Then all bets are off and then you WILL hear differences. Some amps clip and sounds like absolute ass. Some don't.


----------



## strakele

Right, I think everyone's on the same page as to playing amps in their non-clipping range. Basically, power, required features, and reliability are the only performance aspects worth paying for. Not 'passion in engineering resulting in tighter bass, a warmer, purer midrange, and more airy highs.'


----------



## quality_sound

I'll pay more if something gets me closer to my desired outcome simply because time is money. 

And I'd pay even more if JL would fix those atrocious plugs on the HDs. 

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## thehatedguy

If you had two amps side by side and was listening to them in controlled listening, you would be able to pick them out from each other with a 1 dB bump in the FR. That isn't close enough matching for a blind or double blind test.

You are going to need more than an EQ when you are comparing an amp that has transformer coupled outputs like a Milbert or other all tube amp vs. one that doesn't.

Everyone go read the old Bob Carver challenge that was published in Stereophile. This will give you an idea on what it takes for someone who knows what they are doing to make a couple amps sound the same.

The Carver Challenge | Stereophile.com


----------



## subwoofery

quality_sound said:


> Are you ****ting me? You think that ONE dB bump is 1) going to be audible and 2) drive buyers away? It's ONE dB. Most people can't even hear a 1dB change in amplitude. They certainly won't hear it in the low bass where people add EQ anyway. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill, if you'll pardon the pun.


That 1 dB bump is not as useless as you make it sound to be like (<-- English? I guess not lol). 
I can play with my EQ centered around 35Hz and I can certainly hear when I add or substract 1dB when I'm tuning. Especially with a Q like the one in the Mosconi (I think Strakele stated that it was 0.75), it adds up to 160Hz so it's affecting adjacent frequencies. 

Jsketoe stated that some amps have more balls than others, Mosconi is one of those and I certainly experienced it when I did a direct swap (level matched of course) with my Audison Lrx on my friend's board. 

Kelvin


----------



## strakele

thehatedguy said:


> If you had two amps side by side and was listening to them in controlled listening, you would be able to pick them out from each other with a 1 dB bump in the FR. That isn't close enough matching for a blind or double blind test.
> 
> You are going to need more than an EQ when you are comparing an amp that has transformer coupled outputs like a Milbert or other all tube amp vs. one that doesn't.
> 
> Everyone go read the old Bob Carver challenge that was published in Stereophile. This will give you an idea on what it takes for someone who knows what they are doing to make a couple amps sound the same.
> 
> The Carver Challenge | Stereophile.com


But he did it in less than 48 hours. And the article doesn't say whether they were evaluating them blind, and does specifically say that they weren't A/B-ing them. So I'd bet that if they were doing their listening in a blind A/B fashion, he could have made them sound indistinguishable to these highly trained listeners in less than 48 minutes.


----------



## thehatedguy

I doubt it, not with the level of difference nullification he was going for. FR was only a part of the puzzle.


----------



## Victor_inox

What exactly Carver challenge has to do with argument of this thread?
That brilliant amplifier designer can imitate more expensive amp?
What`s the point? He obviously could and did but how is that applicable here?
Amps don`t sounds the same, they should in theory but life would be boring.


----------



## thehatedguy

Just trying to illustrate where it would take more than just an EQ adjustment here and there to make amps sound the same.


----------



## cleansoundz

strakele said:


> Right, I think everyone's on the same page as to playing amps in their non-clipping range. Basically, power, required features, and reliability are the only performance aspects worth paying for. Not 'passion in engineering resulting in tighter bass, a warmer, purer midrange, and more airy highs.'


I would agree with this statement 100%. I don't feel bad about using my colored Rockford Fosgate Power Series amps anymore. Once I used my SMD CC1 and DD1 to properly set the gains and crossovers, I don't hear the same sound that I did 5-6 years ago from those amps.


----------



## Victor_inox

thehatedguy said:


> Just trying to illustrate where it would take more than just an EQ adjustment here and there to make amps sound the same.


what about DSP, can DPS imitate expensive equipment so ****ty chinese designed amps sounds high end?


----------



## thehatedguy

I dunno about that...but I do know the converse is true- DSP can be used to make high end amps sound like ****ty Chinese amps.


----------



## Victor_inox

thehatedguy said:


> I dunno about that...but I do know the converse is true- DSP can be used to make high end amps sound like ****ty Chinese amps.


Isn`t that right...


----------



## thehatedguy

But honestly, I don't know much about the in depths of amp emulation and DSP. I know I have a guitar processor that has amplifier emulations in it, and they are sort of close to the real thing...but not exactly the same.


----------



## Victor_inox

thehatedguy said:


> But honestly, I don't know much about the in depths of amp emulation and DSP. I know I have a guitar processor that has amplifier emulations in it, and they are sort of close to the real thing...but not exactly the same.


I heard quite a few VST plugins that sounds better than real thing with more adjustability, stand alone guitar DSP lucking processing power. Any dual core CPU is light years faster.


----------



## captainobvious

strakele said:


> Right, I think everyone's on the same page as to playing amps in their non-clipping range. Basically, power, required features, and reliability are the only performance aspects worth paying for. Not 'passion in engineering resulting in tighter bass, a warmer, purer midrange, and more airy highs.'


Good posts.

Something I previously wrote in the thread linked in my sig:



Obnoxious self quote said:


> 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.


----------



## captainobvious

quality_sound said:


> I'll pay more if something gets me closer to my desired outcome simply because time is money.
> 
> And I'd pay even more if JL would fix those atrocious plugs on the HDs.
> 
> Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk



You mean stop using locktite on them? :laugh:

Yeah I would prefer a panel mounted termination point instead of the plugs too.


----------



## cajunner

thehatedguy said:


> Just trying to illustrate where it would take more than just an EQ adjustment here and there to make amps sound the same.


this is the crux of it, to me.

we don't have Bob Carver skill.

our new-fangled DSP products at the consumer level, aren't giving you that Bob Carver quality in matching components. He was in there with multiple distortion potentiometers, each harmonic accounted for.

I don't remember any consumer product that did that, except perhaps fixed as in the Aphex exciter or ModWaves, BassWaves, whatever they are called.

and we don't know how he matched phase response, he had a lot of wizardry going on there.

this remains true:

if you buy an amp and listen to it, you will develop a memory for what it is supposed to sound like, and when you put another amp in the same system, it's going to sound different.

whether or not you match gains, turn pre-amp screws, adjust all the user options, it's not going to sound like the other amp.

some of it's psychological, but much of it is based on the amplifiers, and doing measurements and tests, isn't changing that.

just because someone out there can adjust your amp using extra equipment to sound more like another amp doesn't mean you can too, even if you are in possession of the super duty DSP boxes.

Nor will you, let's not forget that as a rule nobody's buying amps to match a sound another amp makes; they are more validated in trying to match a reference that is analog and it's natural, and it's as simple as hearing someone speak.

I hope the board starts recognizing the differences in amps again, I liked that better because it more closely resembles my own preconceived notions, and actual experience. This thing where everybody wants to make amps sound the same, is tiring and it's not even true for the most part. Only electronic wizards can accomplish the feat, for the rest of us the amps do sound different and will be bought and sold based on what we think of the way they sound. If that means we keep getting more powerful amps, that to me is okay. I'd rather assign the differences I hear to varying power levels than some other focal point like distortion or phase, and especially noise since I can't do anything about that. I can always buy more powerful amps though.


----------



## bertholomey

My only input to this wonderful debate.....I really enjoyed reading this final summation by cajunner.......I agree.


----------



## subwoofery

cajunner said:


> this is the crux of it, to me.
> 
> we don't have Bob Carver skill.
> 
> our new-fangled DSP products at the consumer level, aren't giving you that Bob Carver quality in matching components. He was in there with multiple distortion potentiometers, each harmonic accounted for.
> 
> I don't remember any consumer product that did that, except perhaps fixed as in the Aphex exciter or ModWaves, BassWaves, whatever they are called.
> 
> and we don't know how he matched phase response, he had a lot of wizardry going on there.
> 
> this remains true:
> 
> if you buy an amp and listen to it, you will develop a memory for what it is supposed to sound like, and when you put another amp in the same system, it's going to sound different.
> 
> whether or not you match gains, turn pre-amp screws, adjust all the user options, it's not going to sound like the other amp.
> 
> some of it's psychological, but much of it is based on the amplifiers, and doing measurements and tests, isn't changing that.
> 
> just because someone out there can adjust your amp using extra equipment to sound more like another amp doesn't mean you can too, even if you are in possession of the super duty DSP boxes.
> 
> Nor will you, let's not forget that as a rule nobody's buying amps to match a sound another amp makes; they are more validated in trying to match a reference that is analog and it's natural, and it's as simple as hearing someone speak.
> 
> I hope the board starts recognizing the differences in amps again, I liked that better because it more closely resembles my own preconceived notions, and actual experience. This thing where everybody wants to make amps sound the same, is tiring and it's not even true for the most part. Only electronic wizards can accomplish the feat, for the rest of us the amps do sound different and will be bought and sold based on what we think of the way they sound. If that means we keep getting more powerful amps, that to me is okay. I'd rather assign the differences I hear to varying power levels than some other focal point like distortion or phase, and especially noise since I can't do anything about that. I can always buy more powerful amps though.


Sig worthy next to what Lycan already said (in my sig)  

Kelvin


----------



## Victor_inox

Most buying amps and everything else for that matter based on their personal beliefs, some of those believes complete crap but nonetheless.
Try selling something with no name recognition?
People want brand name, mistakenly thinking that it somehow correlates with good quality. 
If there no information on the net they usually skip in favor if inferior product with known to masses name. 
most buyers will prefer POlk audio to herz or HAT or scanspeak. 
I have two solid audio in classified I can`t sell for a few month now.
I know price is right and building quality simply outstanding. Sound better than Focal2.150 I A/B compared it with. That just prove my point, I sold JL XD amps I haven`t even try to sell but not solids.


----------



## FG79

OEM car stereos are EQ'd quite a bit to make them sound decent. Some are actually pretty nice, better than a number of "SQ" setups I've heard from a tonal balance point of view. Mostly because they understand the concept of not sucking out midrange and rolling off highs. 

And they often accomplish this with s*** drivers as well.

However, their limitation is and always will be a lack of real dynamic range, SPL, bass and a sound that is often not as present in the cabin. Part of that is the lack of real amplifications, and also drivers. 

But for the price and convenience it's not so bad.

That ELS system in the Acura TL is legit. 

So I bring this up because here is an example of "EQ" as the savior to a system. 

Grayson, I submit to you that you would be hard pressed to get a JL slash or Alpine PDX amp to mimic the sound of a Milbert. 1 dB of change....really??

Part of the problem is even if you can magically find an EQ setting that is close (after a lot of bands have been moved around), the sound of amplifiers is not linear throughout the "rev range". The sound of amplifiers as you push them changes. Over a variety of music played at different SPL levels, I really don't see it happening.

And then there are the other aspects that can't be simulated. 

I notice how many setups can sound pretty good at low SPL, but the louder you crank, the harder it sounds. This is where you tube amp particularly shines.

The sound of the Phoenix Gold MS series, Xtant X604 and Milbert amps were all awesome out of the box running a fully passive system, with no EQ. The MS was the most powerful, the Milbert the smoothest, and the Xtant was right in the middle. All had a rather recognizable difference immediately upon listening. And I wouldn't have ideas of trying to make one emulate the other. 

The Alpine PDX and JL slash amps couldn't hack it in any regard.....smoothness, bass output, midrange, dynamics, etc. 

For $500-600 more (if even that much), you get instant guaranteed results. Or you can save the money and pray you can match it (although buying an EQ and spending a ton of time tuning it, is not "free" either). 

Still will stick to my guns about high end amps, but the argument about $ and time is legit.


----------



## FG79

Victor_inox said:


> Amps don`t sounds the same, they should in theory but life would be boring.


LOLOLOL.

Now we are getting somewhere.


----------



## FG79

porscheman said:


> where exactly on any piece of electronic test equipment are the settings to see air and immediancy?


If you don't have the ears for this sorta stuff then gear will not help you.

There are people in this world who cannot appreciate the driving experience of an Italian exotic vs. a fast Japanese car. They say they have similar skidpad #s, slalom speeds, lap the race track at similar speeds, etc.

But one car inevitably is just more fun and ENGAGING to drive. 

And haven't you wondered why a Ferrari or Lamborghini just has a sound that most other exotics cannot match? They can be similar sounding, but never QUITE LIKE IT. 

You can't measure EVERYTHING in life. Sorry bro. 

Somethings you have to do by ear, trial and error.


----------



## Hanatsu

I know for a fact that amps sound different "when you push them". That is close to/at clipping. Heard cheap class-D amps with serious rail-sticking issues that sounded horrible once you pushed them too far, that degradation was NOT subtle. But in the range where the non-linear distortion is -60dB below fundamental or even further down, I find it very hard to believe that there's any difference related to anything else than frequency response. If an amp measure flat into resistive and reactive loads at any power level within its limits, it wont sound different from another amp that measures the same if non-linear distortion is below -60dB or so. It doesn't matter what brand, price, operating class or technology is used... 

I still think the amp discussion is ridiculous. Get powerful and efficient amp from a well known quality brand and be done with it. Even among those who believe there are differences call the difference "subtle". If you're not a "believer" and compete at the highest level with the car off in a quiet environment, what's the damn point of all this???
DSP (tuning), install and speakers are the components that everyone can agree on changes the sound in ways that cannot be debated. There is a reason WHY these threads keep on going like forever, know why? Because so many don't believe that amps and other stuff got a "character" that cannot be measured. If the difference was anything but "subtle" these discussions wouldn't occur in the first place.


----------



## Hanatsu

FG79 said:


> If you don't have the ears for this sorta stuff then gear will not help you.
> 
> There are people in this world who cannot appreciate the driving experience of an Italian exotic vs. a fast Japanese car. They say they have similar skidpad #s, slalom speeds, lap the race track at similar speeds, etc.
> 
> But one car inevitably is just more fun and ENGAGING to drive.
> 
> And haven't you wondered why a Ferrari or Lamborghini just has a sound that most other exotics cannot match? They can be similar sounding, but never QUITE LIKE IT.
> 
> You can't measure EVERYTHING in life. Sorry bro.
> 
> Somethings you have to do by ear, trial and error.


Lol. That was a really really bad analogy. Don't compare electronics with feelings. It's like you're admitting that what you hear is nothing but placebo.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

FG79 said:


> If you don't have the ears for this sorta stuff then gear will not help you.
> 
> There are people in this world who cannot appreciate the driving experience of an Italian exotic vs. a fast Japanese car. They say they have similar skidpad #s, slalom speeds, lap the race track at similar speeds, etc.
> 
> But one car inevitably is just more fun and ENGAGING to drive.
> 
> And haven't you wondered why a Ferrari or Lamborghini just has a sound that most other exotics cannot match? They can be similar sounding, but never QUITE LIKE IT.
> 
> You can't measure EVERYTHING in life. Sorry bro.
> 
> Somethings you have to do by ear, trial and error.


The signal coming out of an amp is an ELECTRICAL signal. Not magic. It can be measured. Period.


----------



## Sound Suggestions

Urg!!!!! Can't take it anymore people, unscribing from this thread! There will never be a compromise

New to Tapatalk! It's not bad


----------



## quality_sound

captainobvious said:


> You mean stop using locktite on them? :laugh:
> 
> Yeah I would prefer a panel mounted termination point instead of the plugs too.


I don't mind the plugs but they don't need to be SO tight that you need pliers to remove them. It defeats the purpose of a removable plug. Love the amps though. 

Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## thehatedguy

I agree with cajunner as well, and was exactly the point I was trying to illustrate as well.

The only thing you can say (and was proved by Bob Carver) is, all amps if they measure the same will sound the same. Measuring has more to do with just the FR of the amp.

Now in a car where we have such lovely listening environments, the degree of how much differences can be heard or not be heard is up in the air.


----------



## thehatedguy

Pliers were used on mine...so was a flat blade screw driver a time or two.

I feel your pain.



quality_sound said:


> I don't mind the plugs but they don't need to be SO tight that you need pliers to remove them. It defeats the purpose of a removable plug. Love the amps though.
> 
> Sent from my Moto X using Tapatalk


----------



## subwoofery

FG79 said:


> If you don't have the ears for this sorta stuff then gear will not help you.
> 
> There are people in this world who cannot appreciate the driving experience of an Italian exotic vs. a fast Japanese car. They say they have similar skidpad #s, slalom speeds, lap the race track at similar speeds, etc.
> 
> But one car inevitably is just more fun and ENGAGING to drive.
> 
> And haven't you wondered why a Ferrari or Lamborghini just has a sound that most other exotics cannot match? They can be similar sounding, but never QUITE LIKE IT.
> 
> You can't measure EVERYTHING in life. Sorry bro.
> 
> Somethings you have to do by ear, trial and error.


He won't understand your analogy, he's a Porsche guy  

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

strakele said:


> I'm sure that many of the RC tests involved a high end tube amp and a cheap class d or other amp, and we all know how those tests turned out once the amps were properly level and FR matched.
> 
> Even if distortion profiles aren't the same, look at their levels! The highest distortion peak the graphs posted above is like 70db down from the fundamental. So if you're listening to music at 90db which isn't really that loud, you think you can hear a difference in sound at one particular frequency at 20db (which is 128x quieter than the music)? Give me a freaking break. You'd need to be listening critically to some good speakers in a very quiet room to hear distortion 20db below the fundamental. But 70db? Not a chance. That's the same level of difference as saying that you can hear a person whispering while in the front row of a rock concert. Not possible by even the most golden of human ears.


Here's the link I wanted to post (the website wasn't available last time): 
The Decware Audiophile Tube Amplifier / Model ZEN TORII MKIII 
Just go down to "Here is a distortion graph of a typical push pull amplifier:" For folks that want to read up on harmonics. 

Kelvin


----------



## Golden Ear

FG79 said:


> If you don't have the ears for this sorta stuff then gear will not help you.
> 
> There are people in this world who cannot appreciate the driving experience of an Italian exotic vs. a fast Japanese car. They say they have similar skidpad #s, slalom speeds, lap the race track at similar speeds, etc.
> 
> But one car inevitably is just more fun and ENGAGING to drive.
> 
> And haven't you wondered why a Ferrari or Lamborghini just has a sound that most other exotics cannot match? They can be similar sounding, but never QUITE LIKE IT.
> 
> You can't measure EVERYTHING in life. Sorry bro.
> 
> Somethings you have to do by ear, trial and error.


This sounds like psychoacoustics


----------



## ChrisB

Golden Ear said:


> This sounds like psychoacoustics



Or psycho something, lol.


Sent from my iPhone 5S using Tapatalk


----------



## subwoofery

Golden Ear said:


> This sounds like psychoacoustics


Does he need to do a blind drive test to prove that he can enjoy one car over another and tell them apart? 

Kelvin


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Entirely different and not comparable in any way. 

And the decaware page still doesn't help the argument. All it shows is that while it has even order harmonics, they are 20db above the level of the odd order harmonics of the other amp. Again, id challenge anyone to hear harmonics that are 70db down, 2nd or 3rd order. Decaware seems to be implying that having a certain type of distortion in a reproduction system is a good thing, when really the goal in a reproduction system would be to have as little distortion as possible. Unless your not trying to faithfully reproduce the source.


----------



## thehatedguy

Bye bye 3" widebands and little midranges...they will never faithfully reproduce the dynamics of the live source of sound, say a piano or drum kit.

Neither will small midbasses or subwoofers.



TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Unless your not trying to faithfully reproduce the source.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

^absolutely agreed. Dont tell fg79. He'll tell you that with the right amp, a 6.5" midbass is all you need.


----------



## subwoofery

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Entirely different and not comparable in any way.
> 
> And the decaware page still doesn't help the argument. All it shows is that while it has even order harmonics, they are 20db above the level of the odd order harmonics of the other amp. Again, id challenge anyone to hear harmonics that are 70db down, 2nd or 3rd order. Decaware seems to be implying that having a certain type of distortion in a reproduction system is a good thing, when really the goal in a reproduction system would be to have as little distortion as possible. Unless your not trying to faithfully reproduce the source.


When you play a note with an instrument, it has Fundamentals+overtones+harmonics which equals to the natural timber of that note that your memory recognizes as natural. 
Now, if you record that same note and reproduce it via a system but you cancel harmonics via a DSP - will that still sound natural to you? 

FG79 had a good point that no one noticed, people are so hung up on no distortion this and no distortion that and faithful to the music. 


FG79 said:


> To those who are hung up on tube amps "adding" something, has it ever occured to anyone that maybe solid state amps and lesser amps are "subtracting" stuff?


Don't you think that a good amplifier should be able to reproduce faithFULLy fundamentals, overtones and harmonics harmonics even? Has it occured to anyone that some amps might not reproduce everything? Therefore, NOT being faithfull to the source? 
What we don't know is how high the level of those distortion profile should be, not how low it should be. 

In my opinion, the decware link is relevant to the discussion coz it is a measurable difference that contributes to the difference people hear from different amps. 
I've posted different distortion graphs from different amplifier brands and if Lycan is right, since it's not in any way similar, they sound different - and you don't need horns in your system to experience the difference . 

Kelvin


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Amps aren't removing the harmonics from the instruments. So of course it would sound un-natural if you did that. But that's not what's happening. Were talking about amps adding new harmonics that are not from the original instruments. That is not natural, no matter what order of harmonic it is.


----------



## thehatedguy

Natural no, but you could like it more.


----------



## subwoofery

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Amps aren't removing the harmonics from the instruments. So of course it would sound un-natural if you did that. But that's not what's happening. Were talking about amps adding new harmonics that are not from the original instruments. That is not natural, no matter what order of harmonic it is.


But what is the standard when you play a 1kHz tone and look at the distortion profile? 
- No harmonics @ all since you're shooting for a distortionless system? 
- Just a bit of harmonics for those that are scared that no harmonics from a 1kHz note is bad 
- Enough harmonics which means it is faithfully reproducing what enters 

People think that no distortion is the standard but is it really? I'm talking about the distortion profile over the whole bandwith here...

Kelvin


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

A pure 1khz tone generated for the purpse of testing should have no harmonics period. Of course, thats not perfectly possible, but it can be very close. So an amp that reproduces that 1khz tone with as little harmonic content as possible, is the most true to the original source, including recorded music. Of course, if it can do that at 1khz, but not at 2khz, that's not good either.


----------



## Hanatsu

The less non-linear distortion there is, the better it sounds. Pretty easy. The absolute best speakers I've tested and listened had very low levels of HD/IMD. Should be the same with amps. The harmonics in the music and the added harmonics of electronics/transducers are different. The distortion is not natural. Know that 2nd order HD doesn't sound good or something. It's just that it draws less attention than 3rd order HD or taller products. Everywhere harmonic distortion is induced, intermod distortion is also formed at differential frequencies. IMD is more audible than HD, especially on music with quiet portions and high dynamic range. IMD is very audible on tracks such as 'Dire Straights - private investigations' if the distortion ends up outside the "masking range" of the music.

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## Golden Ear

subwoofery said:


> Does he need to do a blind drive test to prove that he can enjoy one car over another and tell them apart?
> 
> Kelvin


Yes, exactly! :laugh:


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Hanatsu said:


> The less non-linear distortion there is, the better it sounds. Pretty easy. The absolute best speakers I've tested and listened had very low levels of HD/IMD. Should be the same with amps. The harmonics in the music and the added harmonics of electronics/transducers are different. The distortion is not natural. Know that 2nd order HD doesn't sound good or something. It's just that it draws less attention than 3rd order HD or taller products. Everywhere harmonic distortion is induced, intermod distortion is also formed at differential frequencies. IMD is more audible than HD, especially on music with quiet portions and high dynamic range. IMD is very audible on tracks such as 'Dire Straights - private investigations' if the distortion ends up outside the "masking range" of the music.
> 
> Tapaaatalk!!


Exactly. Any distortion in any form or order after the source material is un-natural, and is not supposed to be there. Its only there due to our engineering limitations, cost limitations, or to satisfy those who are not concerned with accurate reproduction.


----------



## bertholomey

thehatedguy said:


> Bye bye 3" widebands and little midranges...they will never faithfully reproduce the dynamics of the live source of sound, say a piano or drum kit.
> 
> Neither will small midbasses or subwoofers.





TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> ^absolutely agreed. Dont tell fg79. He'll tell you that with the right amp, a 6.5" midbass is all you need.




Oh Damn! 

I only have 3" mid range, 6.5" midbass drivers, and a single 12" sub.......if I bought into the group think, majority rules.......I'd be ripping that out of my car right now. 

While I'm at it, I might as well rip out those over-priced amps that have a stray hump in the frequency response.......well, on second thought, maybe I won't.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

I never knocked using small drivers. I just made the correct statement that small drivers will never be able to reproduce anything approaching the dynamics of live music. And that is absolutely true.


----------



## Victor_inox

thehatedguy said:


> Natural no, but you could like it more.


BOSE selling their **** for decades using that concept.


----------



## thehatedguy

Yeah...but Bose to give them some credit has done a lot of research on bass enclosures. They use, design and build some really complex enclosures for their products.


----------



## thehatedguy

I'm not knocking small drivers (in this thread), just trying to illustrate the absurdity in the argument that this and that is bad and you shouldn't want this or that because it isn't faithful to reproduce music. And small speakers can't do that...you can't make a 2 or 3" midrange pull off the dynamics of a live piano or drum kit.

But no one talks about that stuff like they do amplifiers.


----------



## ChrisB

thehatedguy said:


> I'm not knocking small drivers (in this thread), just trying to illustrate the absurdity in the argument that this and that is bad and you shouldn't want this or that because it isn't faithful to reproduce music. And small speakers can't do that...you can't make a 2 or 3" midrange pull off the dynamics of a live piano or drum kit.
> 
> But no one talks about that stuff like they do amplifiers.


That does it, I'm buying a bus so I can take the band with me everywhere I go!:laugh: If that's not true to the source, then I give up!


----------



## thehatedguy

What was those old tape ads where the guy was pinned back in his chair? Something like that?


----------



## Blu




----------



## Victor_inox

thehatedguy said:


> What was those old tape ads where the guy was pinned back in his chair? Something like that?


I made this commercial 20 something years ago.


----------



## 2DEEP2

Well if you buy amp A and compare it to amp B...
They may sound different.

And a EQ/DSP, 2 ohm resistor over the speaker terminal, whatever... 
may not get be able to get your BOSS amp to sound like a Milbert.

The Bob Carver project never explained everything he did to get a solid state amp to sound like a tube amp. They did explain that phase, group delay as well as Frequency Response needed to be addressed. Stage and Image as well as frequency response can be different.

But some amps have a sonic signature that is preferred over another.


----------



## FG79

subwoofery said:


> He won't understand your analogy, he's a Porsche guy
> 
> Kelvin


LOL, of course.



subwoofery said:


> Does he need to do a blind drive test to prove that he can enjoy one car over another and tell them apart?
> 
> Kelvin


LOL. 

We'll now need to do all test drives on salt flats where there is plenty of room to actually drive blind. 



TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> ^absolutely agreed. Dont tell fg79. He'll tell you that with the right amp, a 6.5" midbass is all you need.


Nice straw man argument.

I never said anything about the capabilities of what a driver can do, just that with the right amp, and speaker installed right you can cross a lot lower than people tend to think they can (why? because I've done it and seen a few others do it too). 

We are talking about two different things here. 



TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> The signal coming out of an amp is an ELECTRICAL signal. Not magic. It can be measured. Period.


You can measure whatever you want, but correlating what sounds better is something I do not think most people are capable of doing at this time. 

I've long proposed that a reverse engineering of sound be done where you start with the sound of gear, analyze its subjective properties with a few good ears, then have it measured. Take a bunch of amplifiers, and repeat.

At some point maybe you can start seeing patterns of data that will suggest how to predict some of these properties of sound reproduction.

I think where the big disconnect comes from is I highly doubt that good sound is ever really measured in absolute extremes (i.e. frequency response range peak, lowest distortion, maximum power delivered, etc). People take measurements and apply it blindly. I know for a fact that the good sounding amplifiers will not be without some flaws, just from looking at some graphs. 

I had a thought that the way power is ultimately delivered with electronics is quite similar (but measured differently) to the way power is delivered in AC power distribution (apparent (Volt-Amps), effective (Watts), and reactive power (VARS)). Measuring just VA from the input source tells you nothing about the efficiency of power delivered in watts/vars. Only with those three together do you get the big picture. 

I'd also be curious for any given watt, how much of that number is current and how much voltage. 100 watts that is 10 amps, 10 volts will surely sound different than 25 amps, 4 volts.


----------



## FG79

thehatedguy said:


> Yeah...but Bose to give them some credit has done a lot of research on bass enclosures. They use, design and build some really complex enclosures for their products.


Bose is the biggest enigma in the audio industry. They are not as good as their fans perceive and not as bad as the haters think.

What that company is, is a company who tries to eke out as much sound per dollar as possible using cheap components and eye pleasing designs. If it comes down to saving money/better sound, they always err on money.

Just about most audio companies are done with the goal of making something sound nice and just charging whatever it is to recoup that cost. Bose is more of hitting a benchmark sound and finding a way to produce that sound for as little as possible. 

They have good engineers and actually know a thing or two about voicing. Their abilities are wasted with a lousy, bottom line driven mission. 

Building super complex enclosures is a good example of this. Trying to get bass from very small drivers and possibly even smallish enclosures.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Nice straw man argument.

I never said anything about the capabilities of what a driver can do, just that with the right amp, and speaker installed right you can cross a lot lower than people tend to think they can (why? because I've done it and seen a few others do it too). 

We are talking about two different things here. 

No, but you have brought that up in other threads. In fact you constantly suggest that with the right amp, people can cross their midbass through resonance, despite the fact that resonance by definition is a point of extremely high distortion. That tells me your goal is not reproduction of the source, but creating something new that is pleasing to you.



You can measure whatever you want, but correlating what sounds better is something I do not think most people are capable of doing at this time. 

I've long proposed that a reverse engineering of sound be done where you start with the sound of gear, analyze its subjective properties with a few good ears, then have it measured. Take a bunch of amplifiers, and repeat.

At some point maybe you can start seeing patterns of data that will suggest how to predict some of these properties of sound reproduction.

I think where the big disconnect comes from is I highly doubt that good sound is ever really measured in absolute extremes (i.e. frequency response range peak, lowest distortion, maximum power delivered, etc). People take measurements and apply it blindly. I know for a fact that the good sounding amplifiers will not be without some flaws, just from looking at some graphs. 

I had a thought that the way power is ultimately delivered with electronics is quite similar (but measured differently) to the way power is delivered in AC power distribution (apparent (Volt-Amps), effective (Watts), and reactive power (VARS)). Measuring just VA from the input source tells you nothing about the efficiency of power delivered in watts/vars. Only with those three together do you get the big picture. 

I'd also be curious for any given watt, how much of that number is current and how much voltage. 100 watts that is 10 amps, 10 volts will surely sound different than 25 amps, 4 volts.[/QUOTE]

You say most people aren't capable of this. But there are those who are. And they have constantly come to the conclusion that amps just don't really matter that much. Andy Wehmeyer has said as much. He has far more experience at this than the majority of people on this board. And yet he has consistently said that measurements do a very good job of telling us how something will sound (and that's talking about speakers, something far more complex and hard to understand than amps).

I'll be the first to admit that on paper, and reality, a pure class A amp is better, period. And that's as far as I'll get into that. However, the question here is can you hear it? And I say no. Not reliably enough that under scientific test conditions, that you could pick them out at anything more than a borderline 50/50 rate, provided that they were level matched, and switching was instantaneous and blind. And any test other than that, introduces too many other variables that make the test flawed.


----------



## Victor_inox

FG79 said:


> Bose is the biggest enigma in the audio industry. They are not as good as their fans perceive and not as bad as the haters think.
> 
> What that company is, is a company who tries to eke out as much sound per dollar as possible using cheap components and eye pleasing designs. If it comes down to saving money/better sound, they always err on money.
> 
> Just about most audio companies are done with the goal of making something sound nice and just charging whatever it is to recoup that cost. Bose is more of hitting a benchmark sound and finding a way to produce that sound for as little as possible.
> 
> They have good engineers and actually know a thing or two about voicing. Their abilities are wasted with a lousy, bottom line driven mission.
> 
> Building super complex enclosures is a good example of this. Trying to get bass from very small drivers and possibly even smallish enclosures.


 Bose never build super complex enclosures unless bandpass is considered as such. 
Their success prove few things
1. advertisement can sell anything
2. WAF (wife approval factor) is very important. 
3. sound quality is not important, consumers will consume what they being told see#1. 
Sadly most audio innovations evolve that way, car audio included.


----------



## FG79

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Nice straw man argument.
> 
> I never said anything about the capabilities of what a driver can do, just that with the right amp, and speaker installed right you can cross a lot lower than people tend to think they can (why? because I've done it and seen a few others do it too).
> 
> We are talking about two different things here.
> 
> No, but you have brought that up in other threads. In fact you constantly suggest that with the right amp, people can cross their midbass through resonance, despite the fact that resonance by definition is a point of extremely high distortion. That tells me your goal is not reproduction of the source, but creating something new that is pleasing to you.
> 
> 
> 
> You can measure whatever you want, but correlating what sounds better is something I do not think most people are capable of doing at this time.
> 
> I've long proposed that a reverse engineering of sound be done where you start with the sound of gear, analyze its subjective properties with a few good ears, then have it measured. Take a bunch of amplifiers, and repeat.
> 
> At some point maybe you can start seeing patterns of data that will suggest how to predict some of these properties of sound reproduction.
> 
> I think where the big disconnect comes from is I highly doubt that good sound is ever really measured in absolute extremes (i.e. frequency response range peak, lowest distortion, maximum power delivered, etc). People take measurements and apply it blindly. I know for a fact that the good sounding amplifiers will not be without some flaws, just from looking at some graphs.
> 
> I had a thought that the way power is ultimately delivered with electronics is quite similar (but measured differently) to the way power is delivered in AC power distribution (apparent (Volt-Amps), effective (Watts), and reactive power (VARS)). Measuring just VA from the input source tells you nothing about the efficiency of power delivered in watts/vars. Only with those three together do you get the big picture.
> 
> I'd also be curious for any given watt, how much of that number is current and how much voltage. 100 watts that is 10 amps, 10 volts will surely sound different than 25 amps, 4 volts.


You say most people aren't capable of this. But there are those who are. And they have constantly come to the conclusion that amps just don't really matter that much. Andy Wehmeyer has said as much. He has far more experience at this than the majority of people on this board. And yet he has consistently said that measurements do a very good job of telling us how something will sound (and that's talking about speakers, something far more complex and hard to understand than amps).

I'll be the first to admit that on paper, and reality, a pure class A amp is better, period. And that's as far as I'll get into that. However, the question here is can you hear it? And I say no. Not reliably enough that under scientific test conditions, that you could pick them out at anything more than a borderline 50/50 rate, provided that they were level matched, and switching was instantaneous and blind. And any test other than that, introduces too many other variables that make the test flawed.[/QUOTE]

Ok, you keep on level matching and I'll just buy the good stuff. 

Just gonna throw this out there (and it might sting a little):

I've found that the two camps often have a correlation to income level or at least association to an income level.

Most of the subjective listening types tend to have money or friends with money, or work somewhere where this high end stuff is sold. 

Most of the pure science guys do not. 

Coincidence?

This might suggest an elitism from the guys with more resources, but it might also suggest an insecurity from those that do not. 

I see this all the time in the car world, so there's a lot of basis for this observation.

Then you get people who can keep it real and call it as it is. There's not a ton of those people out there who can balance both sides. 

I feel that I can do that, as my engineering background and career by the very nature of it always keeps me interested in the subjects.

I just choose not to let it override my senses. 

And as someone who took courses in analog and digital electronics as part of an EE education, as well as knowing people who work in this industry:

It's complicated as s***, especially analog. Seeing all of these lay people talk with authority is pretty laughable. Go take one of these courses for a semester and report back with your grades. 

And we don't know everything on a theoretical level like we would like to know. If we did, we wouldn't have so much variance in sound , and tuning wouldn't be so difficult. 

In regards to your comment about the crossover points for midbass:

If I've done it without damaging the drivers and adversely affecting their performance for YEARS, then what more evidence do I need to submit that it can be done?

In my humble opinion, these high crossover points are suggested from manufacturers for liability reasons more than actual performance. Too many idiots out there blasting systems and ruining them even with high crossover points, so naturally they err on the conservative side.

I'll stick to "playing through resonance" just like a good home audio speaker would.


----------



## FG79

Victor_inox said:


> Bose never build super complex enclosures unless bandpass is considered as such.
> Their success prove few things
> 1. advertisement can sell anything
> 2. WAF (wife approval factor) is very important.
> 3. sound quality is not important, consumers will consume what they being told see#1.
> Sadly most audio innovations evolve that way, car audio included.


I think some of their car systems and the original Wave Radio is decent stuff. Also hear their pro stuff is ok too.

Don't like the lifestyle systems, because too much #2 hurts performance.

I think they have good Engineers but are wasting them away with terrible design goals like you mention.

In my world I pratice as a fire protection engineer designing fire alarm and sprinkler systems for buildings.

The type of project I get involved in affects my happiness with the profession. If it's new construction, with few restrictions on budget/architectural aesthetic concessions, I'm very happy and love this work.

Stick me with a tiny renovation job where we are fighting tooth and nail for every device, and objections from everybody and I want to jump out of a window and quit.

Bose engineers are definitely closer to the latter than former. Maybe they are paid well, otherwise can't see the incentive unless they love the idea of making good sound with crap parts.


----------



## rton20s

FG79 said:


> Just gonna throw this out there (and it might sting a little):
> 
> I've found that the two camps often have a correlation to income level or at least association to an income level.
> 
> Most of the subjective listening types tend to have money or friends with money, or work somewhere where this high end stuff is sold.
> 
> Most of the pure science guys do not.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> This might suggest an elitism from the guys with more resources, but it might also suggest an insecurity from those that do not.




I probably shouldn't even post, but I'll go ahead and do so as someone who has mostly been a casual observer of these debates. You have been dancing around what you posted above for weeks. At least now you have finally just come out and said it. 

Apparently, money CAN buy you golden ears.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

FG79 said:


> You say most people aren't capable of this. But there are those who are. And they have constantly come to the conclusion that amps just don't really matter that much. Andy Wehmeyer has said as much. He has far more experience at this than the majority of people on this board. And yet he has consistently said that measurements do a very good job of telling us how something will sound (and that's talking about speakers, something far more complex and hard to understand than amps).
> 
> I'll be the first to admit that on paper, and reality, a pure class A amp is better, period. And that's as far as I'll get into that. However, the question here is can you hear it? And I say no. Not reliably enough that under scientific test conditions, that you could pick them out at anything more than a borderline 50/50 rate, provided that they were level matched, and switching was instantaneous and blind. And any test other than that, introduces too many other variables that make the test flawed.


Ok, you keep on level matching and I'll just buy the good stuff. 

Just gonna throw this out there (and it might sting a little):

I've found that the two camps often have a correlation to income level or at least association to an income level.

Most of the subjective listening types tend to have money or friends with money, or work somewhere where this high end stuff is sold. 

Most of the pure science guys do not. 

Coincidence?

This might suggest an elitism from the guys with more resources, but it might also suggest an insecurity from those that do not. 

I see this all the time in the car world, so there's a lot of basis for this observation.

Then you get people who can keep it real and call it as it is. There's not a ton of those people out there who can balance both sides. 

I feel that I can do that, as my engineering background and career by the very nature of it always keeps me interested in the subjects.

I just choose not to let it override my senses. 

And as someone who took courses in analog and digital electronics as part of an EE education, as well as knowing people who work in this industry:

It's complicated as s***, especially analog. Seeing all of these lay people talk with authority is pretty laughable. Go take one of these courses for a semester and report back with your grades. 

And we don't know everything on a theoretical level like we would like to know. If we did, we wouldn't have so much variance in sound , and tuning wouldn't be so difficult. 

In regards to your comment about the crossover points for midbass:

If I've done it without damaging the drivers and adversely affecting their performance for YEARS, then what more evidence do I need to submit that it can be done?

In my humble opinion, these high crossover points are suggested from manufacturers for liability reasons more than actual performance. Too many idiots out there blasting systems and ruining them even with high crossover points, so naturally they err on the conservative side.

I'll stick to "playing through resonance" just like a good home audio speaker would. [/QUOTE]

Sting a little? No, makes me laugh at your arrogance a little in assuming that I'm po folk who don't know any better, but I have no issues with my finances, and a wife who lets me spend on whatever I want to spend. Of course, just because you have money, doesn't mean you have to throw it away for a placebo because some con man convinced you that something sounds better, so naturally it has to, right? I mean, it does cost more, right?

If that were the case, I guess I should have gotten my wife the Mercedes, rather than the Optima, because the name Mercedes has to mean something right? Except that the Kia is a better car, in every factor, except for power and cornering ability. And even in those, its close. Since were not racing it, those compromises for comfort and convenience can be made.

That's too bad you let objectivity be overridden by your senses, which by nature are fickle and unreliable. By the way, tuning is not really that difficult. It takes time, but its not that difficult.

Honestly, no I'm not going to take some classes that I really have no interest in taking. I'd sooner take up aeronautical engineering. I have my dad to bounce ideas off of when it comes to electrical engineering. Since were bragging, he worked as an electrical engineer for 27 years designing power supplies for things like the navigation on the space shuttle, multiple military weapons systems, including the guidance system for the smart bomb (even got to watch the air force drop one down a chimney for that one), among many other things. He did that with a masters in physics, with an honorary doctorate for his gpa. He's currently working on his phd in electrical engineering, and working on the side on a program to accurately emulate human voice, using FEA to make a model of the human windpipe, lungs, and other organs related to producing sound. And he just aced his voice processing class, in his first semester back in school in 24 years, at UC Santa Barbara, one of the toughest engineering schools in the entire country.

So next time you want to talk about how your engineering degree keeps you more grounded and real than us "laypeople", keep in mind, I have my own sources to bounce things off of.


----------



## subwoofery

Victor_inox said:


> Bose never build super complex enclosures unless bandpass is considered as such.
> Their success prove few things
> 1. advertisement can sell anything
> 2. WAF (wife approval factor) is very important.
> 3. sound quality is not important, consumers will consume what they being told see#1.
> Sadly most audio innovations evolve that way, car audio included.


Thing is Bose is really trying to make things work and they mostly focus their sound on bass reproduction (just need to compare a Bose Bluetooth speaker to a JBL one to know what I'm talking about ) 

I'm not an engineer in anything but I really don't think Bose enclosures are that easy to create. Replicate, probably but their engineers really think out of the box IMO. 
They do have some nice bandpass enclosures but they also have some more complex designs 


























Kelvin


----------



## thehatedguy

I don't know if the enclosures ever made the marketplace or not, but the 4 years I've subscribed to Voice Coil magazine I've seen more enclosure patents from Bose than anyone else.


----------



## Victor_inox

subwoofery said:


> Thing is Bose is really trying to make things work and they mostly focus their sound on bass reproduction (just need to compare a Bose Bluetooth speaker to a JBL one to know what I'm talking about )
> 
> I'm not an engineer in anything but I really don't think Bose enclosures are that easy to create. Replicate, probably but their engineers really think out of the box IMO.
> They do have some nice bandpass enclosures but they also have some more complex designs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kelvin


First is bass reflex, second is bandpass. I`m sure bose received 15 patents for those two. It doesn`t matter that design existed before , whoever patent it considered inventor.


----------



## cerwinvega_fan

Been saying this for years


----------



## Hanatsu

FG79 said:


> I've found that the two camps often have a correlation to income level or at least association to an income level.
> 
> Most of the subjective listening types tend to have money or friends with money, or work somewhere where this high end stuff is sold.
> 
> Most of the pure science guys do not.
> 
> Coincidence?
> 
> This might suggest an elitism from the guys with more resources, but it might also suggest an insecurity from those that do not.
> 
> I see this all the time in the car world, so there's a lot of basis for this observation.
> 
> I feel that I can do that, as my engineering background and career by the very nature of it always keeps me interested in the subjects.
> 
> I just choose not to let it override my senses.
> 
> And as someone who took courses in analog and digital electronics as part of an EE education, as well as knowing people who work in this industry.


Seriously... when I began with audio I bought expensive stuff, cables, $3000 amps etc etc. It was not until I started to test stuff objectively that I came to realize all the BS in this industry. Lots of electrical engineers out there who seem to completely disregard their knowledge about how electronics work and just go with money and their so called 'golden ears'. Can you just stop equal performance with price. It's pure arrogance to believe in such a concept. I don't have any issues spending money on my interests, I've spent at least $25000-30000 since I begin messing with audio a few years back. I got a damn good idea what's worth pursuing and what makes little or no difference. I got two high-end class A amplifiers, among the cleanest loudspeakers available on the market (ScanSpeak Illuminators), active filtering, a treated room with Helmholtz resonators and a studio grade (digital streaming) computer soundcard as source. Tried different cables, DACs, changed amps and stuff. After all these equipment swaps I concluded that it practically made no difference at all, complete waste of money. I later ditched the $1000 passives and bought a MiniDSP with active crossovers and got a cheap Yamaha 7,1 surround amplifier (120w/ch) and it improved the system more than I could ever imagined. The speaker design, drivers, tuning and room treatments is what matters most. Not different from car audio in that aspect. Every time I make a change, I listen if it sounds better or not (or if there's any difference at all) and afterwards I perform an acoustic measurement and see what the change did. Everything audible WILL show up in the measurements, period. I have an advanced electronics education in low-powered technology and wireless systems and currently studying to become a studio technician/engineer. And since you mention it... both my uncles have PhD's in electronics and work with the development of new medical scanning equipment and radar technology. Been taught electronics since I was 10 years old, repaired and built amplifiers for quite some time now. I don't say something without proof to back it up. When you design a circuit, you don't connect it and listen if it sounds good - you measure it, see if it meets the predicted specifications, the full performance can be put into numbers and graphs and be placed in a datasheet. All that's coming out of an amplifier is an electrical signal, not pixie dust. I've said this a million times now, SENSES CAN'T BE TRUSTED. There's more senses than your ears involved while you evaluate audio equipment, there's no exceptions. The amount of money you just spent on a piece of new equipment definitively affect the senses in your subjective sighted test, it's called the the expectancy bias. Go ahead and take a look at the links below:


How good are your ears?

Listening Test

From Stereophile;



> I would think it obvious that those professionally involved in listening at this level of concentration get better at being able to discriminate very small differences between nominally identical components. Isn't it reasonable to expect that J. Gordon Holt or Harry Pearson, for example, who have been professionally listening to high-end components for three and two decades, respectively, should have developed a considerable degree of skill in this area?* The question then should be whether it is worth designing and manufacturing components that only a favored few will be able to distinguish.*


This is my question as well. Is it worth it? Even IF there's small subtle differences, WHY does it matter in a damn car???????

Various testing sites of audiophile claims;

Matrix HiFi --> Blind testing high end full equipments

Matrix-Hifi: Red Zone --> The "truth" about different speakers cables

Testing audiophile claims and myths






Finally, the best site of them all. This is the truth:

NwAvGuy: Subjective vs Objective Debate

NwAvGuy: What We Hear


----------



## porscheman

subwoofery said:


> He won't understand your analogy, he's a Porsche guy
> 
> Kelvin


i actually sold the Porsche years ago, bought a twin turbo z and have had it for almost 15 years now. not even close to slow anymore. and yes, i have driven your Italian sports cars, one of my uncles has more money than god. ill take my seriously worked z over most any of them. the ones that i might give it up for are newer and drive like a Porsche or a jap car, fast and predictable. the 458 does sound amazing, and so did that murcielago that couldnt get away from me on 101 last week. 
but i forget, isnt the point of a fast car to go fast? just like an amplifier is suppose to amplify what goes into it, not add its own flavor to the mix.


----------



## thehatedguy

The flavor is why you buy Ferrari and Lamborghini and why you don't buy German...


----------



## FG79

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Sting a little? No, makes me laugh at your arrogance a little in assuming that I'm po folk who don't know any better, but I have no issues with my finances, and a wife who lets me spend on whatever I want to spend. Of course, just because you have money, doesn't mean you have to throw it away for a placebo because some con man convinced you that something sounds better, so naturally it has to, right? I mean, it does cost more, right?
> 
> If that were the case, I guess I should have gotten my wife the Mercedes, rather than the Optima, because the name Mercedes has to mean something right? Except that the Kia is a better car, in every factor, except for power and cornering ability. And even in those, its close. Since were not racing it, those compromises for comfort and convenience can be made.
> 
> That's too bad you let objectivity be overridden by your senses, which by nature are fickle and unreliable. By the way, tuning is not really that difficult. It takes time, but its not that difficult.
> 
> Honestly, no I'm not going to take some classes that I really have no interest in taking. I'd sooner take up aeronautical engineering. I have my dad to bounce ideas off of when it comes to electrical engineering. Since were bragging, he worked as an electrical engineer for 27 years designing power supplies for things like the navigation on the space shuttle, multiple military weapons systems, including the guidance system for the smart bomb (even got to watch the air force drop one down a chimney for that one), among many other things. He did that with a masters in physics, with an honorary doctorate for his gpa. He's currently working on his phd in electrical engineering, and working on the side on a program to accurately emulate human voice, using FEA to make a model of the human windpipe, lungs, and other organs related to producing sound. And he just aced his voice processing class, in his first semester back in school in 24 years, at UC Santa Barbara, one of the toughest engineering schools in the entire country.
> 
> So next time you want to talk about how your engineering degree keeps you more grounded and real than us "laypeople", keep in mind, I have my own sources to bounce things off of.


Look, nobody said you were poor. But are you in a league to drop $30k on speakers, $30k on amps, $5-10k on DACs, $7k on a turntable, $8k on a phono amp, etc. etc?? 

More importantly have you spent much time around this type of gear?

I'm really in no better buying power than most when it comes to this gear (at least right now). The major difference is I have invested some, and I have been privy to listening a ton. 

And yes, I think this is extremely important if people want to make dismissive comments of what I say. At the very least show an open mind that maybe somebody who has some experience might know a thing or two about this stuff. Unless you figure me to be a troll, why the hell would I talk with so much authoritative tone on these topics?

Look at any other hobby/discipline, whatever you want. Anybody with just theoretical background and without a ton of experience -- how do you think their opinions are held compared to those that do have experience? 

Here's the kicker:

You don't have to be an EE or a physicist to know what SOUNDS GOOD. That is the fundamental ground for everything this conversation revolves around. If we cannot agree on this, then there'll never be any progress in our debate.

One has to build a "reference" in sound. An acquired education on what good sound is, what natural sound is. Attending acoustic concerts, symphonies, good amplified concerts and listening to home systems is a must. This process takes a few years typically. Skipping this process altogether and listening to car systems exclusively is not going to give you this reference. 

I'm arguing on the basis of listening experience not on being smarter than anybody else. I never proclaimed it, only mentioned my background to give a baseline to the conversation (and also my observation that it seems like most everyone on here graduated magna cum laude in EE while I struggled to get by). That part is just slightly annoying, IMHO and BTW that comment about take an EE class was aimed at everybody who is obsessed with the technical stuff, not just you.

It's nice that your dad can beat up my dad too (kidding ). 

In all seriousness, he's a very intelligent and accomplished man. That is an impressive background and interesting project he's working on. It would be interesting to keep track of how that goes. I could learn some things from him in EE, absolutely.

But does that resume make him *necessarily* an authority on what good sound actually sounds like? By itself I have to say it doesn't. 

Look at the mixing/mastering pro audio world if you want a neutral take on this topic. The top guys in this business are responsible for most of the commercial music you hear (and some legit audiophile stuff too). 

Ask those guys if they trust their ears or meters more. Guys who make a living manipulating sound mostly to make it more pleasing to the end user. 

A lot of them call themselves Engineers despite the vast majority not even being degreed engineers. That's not to say that most aren't educated on the fundamentals of EE and sound, but it's a bit misleading.

Most will say that it's mostly on the job training and hard work that leads to success. They are not knocking down the doors of MIT, Georgia Tech, Berkeley, etc looking for people. For the most part, a lot of regular lay people are involved.

It helps to have a technical background to understand the concepts much faster, know certain limitations on what can be done to the sound. These things are great. But if you hearing sucks you can't do this job. If these guys temporarily lost their hearing they wouldn't be able to work. 

As such, there are many parallels between the pro audio world and being able to critically listen to audition playback equipment. 

And finally, since when was it ever a crime that anything actually sounded good or was biased to sound better??

This whole "neutral sound", "flat response", "accurate to the recording" is probably the most misguided philosophy in all of audio. I guarantee you if I had Diana Krall listen to her music on our gear the last thing in the world out of her mouth is:

"It sounds nice, but it's colored....doesn't sound like me actually playing on the piano". 

What will most likely happen is she will say it sounds very nice and not even bother attempting to compare to her own voice or piano because she will know better not to expect that to happen with any recorded gear.


----------



## FG79

Hanatsu said:


> Seriously... when I began with audio I bought expensive stuff, cables, $3000 amps etc etc. It was not until I started to test stuff objectively that I came to realize all the BS in this industry. Lots of electrical engineers out there who seem to completely disregard their knowledge about how electronics work and just go with money and their so called 'golden ears'. Can you just stop equal performance with price. It's pure arrogance to believe in such a concept. I don't have any issues spending money on my interests, I've spent at least $25000-30000 since I begin messing with audio a few years back. I got a damn good idea what's worth pursuing and what makes little or no difference. I got two high-end class A amplifiers, among the cleanest loudspeakers available on the market (ScanSpeak Illuminators), active filtering, a treated room with Helmholtz resonators and a studio grade (digital streaming) computer soundcard as source. Tried different cables, DACs, changed amps and stuff. After all these equipment swaps I concluded that it practically made no difference at all, complete waste of money. I later ditched the $1000 passives and bought a MiniDSP with active crossovers and got a cheap Yamaha 7,1 surround amplifier (120w/ch) and it improved the system more than I could ever imagined. The speaker design, drivers, tuning and room treatments is what matters most. Not different from car audio in that aspect. Every time I make a change, I listen if it sounds better or not (or if there's any difference at all) and afterwards I perform an acoustic measurement and see what the change did. Everything audible WILL show up in the measurements, period. I have an advanced electronics education in low-powered technology and wireless systems and currently studying to become a studio technician/engineer. And since you mention it... both my uncles have PhD's in electronics and work with the development of new medical scanning equipment and radar technology. Been taught electronics since I was 10 years old, repaired and built amplifiers for quite some time now. I don't say something without proof to back it up. When you design a circuit, you don't connect it and listen if it sounds good - you measure it, see if it meets the predicted specifications, the full performance can be put into numbers and graphs and be placed in a datasheet. All that's coming out of an amplifier is an electrical signal, not pixie dust. I've said this a million times now, SENSES CAN'T BE TRUSTED. There's more senses than your ears involved while you evaluate audio equipment, there's no exceptions. The amount of money you just spent on a piece of new equipment definitively affect the senses in your subjective sighted test, it's called the the expectancy bias. Go ahead and take a look at the links below:
> 
> 
> How good are your ears?
> 
> Listening Test
> 
> From Stereophile;
> 
> 
> 
> This is my question as well. Is it worth it? Even IF there's small subtle differences, WHY does it matter in a damn car???????
> 
> Various testing sites of audiophile claims;
> 
> Matrix HiFi --> Blind testing high end full equipments
> 
> Matrix-Hifi: Red Zone --> The "truth" about different speakers cables
> 
> Testing audiophile claims and myths
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, the best site of them all. This is the truth:
> 
> NwAvGuy: Subjective vs Objective Debate
> 
> NwAvGuy: What We Hear


Two things my friend:

A) Money isn't an indicator of greatness. More $$$ does not necessarily mean better. It's not quite like cars or computers or TVs, etc. However, the right expensive gear will blow away your average cheap gear. 

And never having heard any DACs, cables, etc. that wowed you doesn't mean they don't exist in the universe. It just means you haven't found them yet. 

They exist, but the percentage that sound good versus avg is very low...maybe 10%. Most hi-fi does not stand out from its peers. It takes a full time job (or leveraging somebody who does/has) to find this stuff, along with some luck.

And like I mentioned already, go to a mastering studio and ask them if they think that stuff matters at all. 

These guys have a business to run, and gear is expensive. If they could master with cheap s*** they would. 

B) Speak for yourself about hearing abilities. 

Anybody who is so dismissive about everybody's hearing abilities cannot be too confident in his own. If you think I need an oscilloscope to make any of my buying decisions, you're crazy. And I know a ton of people who would also find tools unnecessary as well. They don't have DIY or audiogon accounts so you'll never hear about them online.

And then there's the issue of taste, which is never brought up but should be. 

You can be the smartest engineer of all time, but if you like that thin, bright harsh sound that's popular, then you just outed yourself as an amateur.


----------



## FG79

porscheman said:


> i actually sold the Porsche years ago, bought a twin turbo z and have had it for almost 15 years now. not even close to slow anymore. and yes, i have driven your Italian sports cars, one of my uncles has more money than god. ill take my seriously worked z over most any of them. the ones that i might give it up for are newer and drive like a Porsche or a jap car, fast and predictable. the 458 does sound amazing, and so did that murcielago that couldnt get away from me on 101 last week.
> but i forget, isnt the point of a fast car to go fast? just like an amplifier is suppose to amplify what goes into it, not add its own flavor to the mix.


And this is why Porsche guys get a bad rap for being the generic car brand. This is typical of German cars in general, which reflects heavily on the German culture.

You can make anything go fast. It's the nuance of chassis feel, steering, over/understeer characteristics, breakaway characteristics, transmission feel, etc. which separates the big boys from the rest. 

That the Porsche Carrera GT is a legitimate beast and machine with "feel" at the same time is one helluva achievement from Porsche, and makes you wonder if it was luck. 

Porsche makes an outstanding car in the 911. But it's more a tool for getting the job done than a passion piece. 

Let me guess.... Why keep those slow stickshifts around when we have dual clutch semi autos?

Right? 



thehatedguy said:


> The flavor is why you buy Ferrari and Lamborghini and why you don't buy German...


Exactly. 

And the flavor is also why one buys a Porsche and not just a fast Japanese car. It's all relatively really.

Naturally, we all buy our cars for the performance and track times only....forget feel, and also the way the car looks.....only poseurs care about looks!


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

FG79 said:


> Look, nobody said you were poor. But are you in a league to drop $30k on speakers, $30k on amps, $5-10k on DACs, $7k on a turntable, $8k on a phono amp, etc. etc??
> 
> 7k on a turntable? Check. Not a chance would I spend as much as you've listed for anything else on that list. Not because I haven't heard equipment that expensive, but because none of it impressed me that much.
> 
> More importantly have you spent much time around this type of gear?
> 
> I'm really in no better buying power than most when it comes to this gear (at least right now). The major difference is I have invested some, and I have been privy to listening a ton.
> 
> And yes, I think this is extremely important if people want to make dismissive comments of what I say. At the very least show an open mind that maybe somebody who has some experience might know a thing or two about this stuff. Unless you figure me to be a troll, why the hell would I talk with so much authoritative tone on these topics?
> 
> Look at any other hobby/discipline, whatever you want. Anybody with just theoretical background and without a ton of experience -- how do you think their opinions are held compared to those that do have experience?
> 
> Here's the kicker:
> 
> You don't have to be an EE or a physicist to know what SOUNDS GOOD. That is the fundamental ground for everything this conversation revolves around. If we cannot agree on this, then there'll never be any progress in our debate.
> 
> Very true. But then then again, if you want to reach the absolute limits, science is needed. Music PRODUCTION is an art. Music REPRODUCTION is science.
> 
> One has to build a "reference" in sound. An acquired education on what good sound is, what natural sound is. Attending acoustic concerts, symphonies, good amplified concerts and listening to home systems is a must. This process takes a few years typically. Skipping this process altogether and listening to car systems exclusively is not going to give you this reference.
> 
> No lack of experience here. My dad played the viola later in life. I played the violin for years, up until I just lost time for playing it. Even then I continued to attend acoustic concerts. My wife, sister in law, and mother in law all play acoustic guitar, all different genres as well. My wife has attended over 300 concerts in her life while employed at an events center while in college, many of them acoustic. And my mom, who probably has the best ears of anyone in my personal circle, played acoustic guitar. Not a single person in that group has ever been able to tell the difference between the amplifiers I've used, and I've subjected them all to listening tests. Not perfect scientific tests mind you, but ones more along the lines of what you have suggested is good enough.
> 
> I'm arguing on the basis of listening experience not on being smarter than anybody else. I never proclaimed it, only mentioned my background to give a baseline to the conversation (and also my observation that it seems like most everyone on here graduated magna cum laude in EE while I struggled to get by). That part is just slightly annoying, IMHO and BTW that comment about take an EE class was aimed at everybody who is obsessed with the technical stuff, not just you.
> 
> For the record, my comment was only to expose that I as well have plenty of people surrounding me to keep me grounded on the science end of things. And don't take it the wrong way. Yes, he graduated in high standings, but he didn't have it easy. The majority of people who had a childhood like his end up dead or in jail. So don't take it personal, just the background of what I've been around.
> 
> It's nice that your dad can beat up my dad too (kidding ).
> 
> In all seriousness, he's a very intelligent and accomplished man. That is an impressive background and interesting project he's working on. It would be interesting to keep track of how that goes. I could learn some things from him in EE, absolutely.
> 
> But does that resume make him *necessarily* an authority on what good sound actually sounds like? By itself I have to say it doesn't.
> 
> Look at the mixing/mastering pro audio world if you want a neutral take on this topic. The top guys in this business are responsible for most of the commercial music you hear (and some legit audiophile stuff too).
> 
> Ask those guys if they trust their ears or meters more. Guys who make a living manipulating sound mostly to make it more pleasing to the end user.
> 
> The problem with this again is your talking about music production, rather than reproduction. Music production has room for this kind of stuff, because you want the end signal to be something pleasing. In reproduction, you have to change that end signal as little as possible in order for it to remain pleasing as the artist/mastering engineer intended.
> 
> A lot of them call themselves Engineers despite the vast majority not even being degreed engineers. That's not to say that most aren't educated on the fundamentals of EE and sound, but it's a bit misleading.
> 
> Most will say that it's mostly on the job training and hard work that leads to success. They are not knocking down the doors of MIT, Georgia Tech, Berkeley, etc looking for people. For the most part, a lot of regular lay people are involved.
> 
> It helps to have a technical background to understand the concepts much faster, know certain limitations on what can be done to the sound. These things are great. But if you hearing sucks you can't do this job. If these guys temporarily lost their hearing they wouldn't be able to work.
> 
> As such, there are many parallels between the pro audio world and being able to critically listen to audition playback equipment.
> 
> And finally, since when was it ever a crime that anything actually sounded good or was biased to sound better??
> 
> This whole "neutral sound", "flat response", "accurate to the recording" is probably the most misguided philosophy in all of audio. I guarantee you if I had Diana Krall listen to her music on our gear the last thing in the world out of her mouth is:
> 
> "It sounds nice, but it's colored....doesn't sound like me actually playing on the piano".
> 
> No, she wouldn't. Likely because its something we all know that you'll never match the real thing, as you said below. I bet she would comment however, when a system is so good that it gets somewhat close.
> 
> What will most likely happen is she will say it sounds very nice and not even bother attempting to compare to her own voice or piano because she will know better not to expect that to happen with any recorded gear.


Since we are never going to agree on this, I propose that if your ever on this side of the country, come by and take a listen. And I will do the same. It could always give some perspective, considering I buy equipment based on measurements, and you do not. I will say however, I do tune based on a combination of both measurements and ears.


----------



## cajunner

FG79 said:


> Two things my friend:
> 
> A) Money isn't an indicator of greatness. More $$$ does not necessarily mean better. It's not quite like cars or computers or TVs, etc. However, the right expensive gear will blow away your average cheap gear.
> 
> And never having heard any DACs, cables, etc. that wowed you doesn't mean they don't exist in the universe. It just means you haven't found them yet.
> 
> They exist, but the percentage that sound good versus avg is very low...maybe 10%. Most hi-fi does not stand out from its peers. It takes a full time job (or leveraging somebody who does/has) to find this stuff, along with some luck.
> 
> And like I mentioned already, go to a mastering studio and ask them if they think that stuff matters at all.
> 
> These guys have a business to run, and gear is expensive. If they could master with cheap s*** they would.
> 
> B) Speak for yourself about hearing abilities.
> 
> Anybody who is so dismissive about everybody's hearing abilities cannot be too confident in his own.


you're all over the map in this debate, or debacle.

which is it? People don't need tools to tell what sounds good, they don't need education, they don't need top quality gear in mastering studios, and would go cheap if they could?

you're like a whirling dervish.

if you think mastering/production facilities can exist without having a top-notch playback scheme, you're out the box.

the reason people choose one facility over another is price, and reputation, and equipment quality, not necessarily in that order.

nobody is going into a studio and seeing middle-tier (from Musician's Friend) equipment, and saying "yeah, we're gonna do great things here"

so there is a place for brand snobbery, and the expectant biases.

but you saying that there's a magical 10% out there and the rest is bunk, while everybody's getting high, is the classic dealer/salesman foil, it's a ruse.

what you're trying to sell, and why people aren't buying, is snake juice quality, it's as if you're suddenly an arbiter of truth, when in fact by proposing that you are the gatekeeper, you outed yourself as a charlatan.

spewing credentials means you are the insecure one, throwing out how much experience you have with top-tier product, puts a lid on anything else you have in the jar.

there is no doubt good equipment sounds good, but there's a lot more needles in that haystack out there, and not a lot of them come with "country club airs" that ring hollow and tinny as the argument that measurement data isn't capable of discerning anything above one's own hearing.

it's the Kobe beef thing all over again.

you might be able to fatten up a hereford, give it a bath, massage it, work the feed trough with corn and molasses and beer, and after 2 years serve a tasty bit of turf, but it's not going to be Kobe beef. That I've never been to Japan and paid upwards of 300 dollars for a plate of the real thing, and might possibly spring for 100 bucks of the Wagyu domestic, doesn't mean I will be able to tell the difference....



hahaha..


ABX testing and all..


but wait, let's do a fat analysis, let's do some measurements, to explain why I don't know which is which...


----------



## thehatedguy

I always thought German made products were about the absence of flavor. It does this and this perfectly. That's it. But it's perfect. I never associated passion, feelings, etc with German products. Everything is so perfect that if it breaks, god help you because it wasn't supposed to break or ever come apart ever again...and you are going to dig deep into your pockets to fix it because it's going to take some special tool that was designed just for that one application that has to be flown in from Germany.

Now the Italian stuff...she'll run like hell, make you feel good, and break. And when it breaks it won't be cheap to fix it...but man you can tell the good stuff is made with passion. And the cheap stuff is total crap, I mean total crap. It's made with the same level of passion, but just going a different way with it.


----------



## cajunner

thehatedguy said:


> I always thought German made products were about the absence of flavor. It does this and this perfectly. That's it. But it's perfect. I never associated passion, feelings, etc with German products. Everything is so perfect that if it breaks, god help you because it wasn't supposed to break or ever come apart ever again...and you are going to dig deep into your pockets to fix it because it's going to take some special tool that was designed just for that one application that has to be flown in from Germany.
> 
> Now the Italian stuff...she'll run like hell, make you feel good, and break. And when it breaks it won't be cheap to fix it...but man you can tell the good stuff is made with passion. And the cheap stuff is total crap, I mean total crap. It's made with the same level of passion, but just going a different way with it.


and going further, the cold weather countries thrive on minutiae, on the meticulous perfectionism that comes from being cooped up inside for 7 months out of the year...

but you look at Alaskans, and there's not a lot of innovation being bred into the products generated there... 


haha...

or perhaps using political doctrines, where Fascism meets Totalitarianism, the Machiavelli, in all of us is fired up and wants to play...

what is it that courses through an Italian designer's curves and flowing grace, but the power of passion?

and a stoicism, from German stalwarts who would achieve a penultimate reaping of their belief, that they (were)are, the best race...

what causes that, what force produces the competitive spirit?

it may be even more fundamental than political, psychological, or genetic propositions, it may be pre-ordained... !


look, I merged two threads into a commonality, haha...


----------



## thehatedguy

I heard the Alaskans grow some serious pot though.


----------



## Hanatsu

> But then then again, if you want to reach the absolute limits, science is needed. Music PRODUCTION is an art. Music REPRODUCTION is science.


Agree fully with this.


----------



## cajunner

thehatedguy said:


> I heard the Alaskans grow some serious pot though.


since it's been decrim up there for so long, and the state government/city leaders aren't hell bent on getting the scourge of humanity out of their gated communities, I'd expect nothing less than advanced botanicals.

but that doesn't mean they have the environment solved, it's not like Russian nesting dolls.

they may have made progress on oil-related mechanics but it's too small a sample, the origin of peoples that populate the state is such a mash-up that you can't define the source quality of the goods there.

I don't care if Smilla can sense 23 kinds of snow, they have a tradition of sending off the old biddies by dumping them from the boat, now that's the Superman thing to the core.

what a tangent...

I wonder if Norsemen's gods were a match for the Inuit, made in heaven...

"here, sleep with my wife, it's how we do"

"hey, I'm taking your wife, it's how we do"

"no, no... we just give you our wives, you don't take them if we gave them to you.."


----------



## FG79

cajunner said:


> you're all over the map in this debate, or debacle.
> 
> which is it? People don't need tools to tell what sounds good, they don't need education, they don't need top quality gear in mastering studios, and would go cheap if they could?
> 
> People can use tools, but ears are the final call.
> Education is very helpful, but all education without experience is not good. All experience without education is not good, but the fundamentals that matter can be learnt by many as most tuners in the industry are not scientist/engineers.
> 
> And yes, it makes sense that if one really did not need certain gear in a studio or something more expensive that doesn't provide better results they would do without.
> 
> I was only stating the point since many on here feel these electronics are not that important.
> 
> 
> 
> you're like a whirling dervish.
> 
> if you think mastering/production facilities can exist without having a top-notch playback scheme, you're out the box.
> 
> I never felt that way, see above.
> 
> BTW, many of those guys care about cables/interconnects.
> 
> the reason people choose one facility over another is price, and reputation, and equipment quality, not necessarily in that order.
> 
> nobody is going into a studio and seeing middle-tier (from Musician's Friend) equipment, and saying "yeah, we're gonna do great things here"
> 
> Yeah, I hear ya. Most clients do not pick studios based on gear but on reputation/past performance. It's the studios that make the call based on their experience with gear.
> 
> so there is a place for brand snobbery, and the expectant biases.
> 
> but you saying that there's a magical 10% out there and the rest is bunk, while everybody's getting high, is the classic dealer/salesman foil, it's a ruse.
> 
> what you're trying to sell, and why people aren't buying, is snake juice quality, it's as if you're suddenly an arbiter of truth, when in fact by proposing that you are the gatekeeper, you outed yourself as a charlatan.
> 
> Well, there is no actual specific gear being pushed by me, so where's the sales aspect?
> 
> I'm talking generically: a good DAC, a good tube amp, a good XYZ. A lot of the stuff out there is not good enough to make an impact which is why a lot of people feel a good majority of the industry is snake oil. If you've never heard a good amplifier or DAC, then it's understandable to dismiss claims of their importance.
> 
> Speakers have a ton of variance with respect to sound more than other gear, which is why people obsess over them so much and feel they are the most important thing in the world. But they too also follow the curve that many are average, a few suck, and and a few are good to very good/great.
> 
> I can list what I feel is good/bad for each of these items, but I won't unless specifically asked.
> 
> The 10% number might be low....it might be as high as 20% and it sure as hell ain't 50% or 75%+. At least if you're hardcore about this stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> spewing credentials means you are the insecure one, throwing out how much experience you have with top-tier product, puts a lid on anything else you have in the jar.
> 
> No, spewing credentials means you're saying this is what I've done, what I've heard, and if you want to debate me, debate on this playing field.
> 
> When people want real world results in their life, they very much care about what somebody has done in that particular field as much or more than their college degree and licensure/certifications.
> 
> And as far as calling me a charlatan that's been exposed (and insecure), perhaps that's the pot calling the kettle black.
> 
> It's easy to "debate" when we can intellectualize on language, manipulate concepts to our liking, etc. Look at any real facebook debate and you can see how two sides can stick to their guns convincingly, and make sense to those who identify with one side.
> 
> It takes balls to call out popular ideas and go against the grain, and stick with it as the minority voice. Especially when in an online forum one cannot do a thing to make anybody hear the stuff I'm referring to and how it can sound good.
> 
> Tell me how that is insecure. Instead I'm seeing a lot of fancy college/professional resumes popping up with the subliminal message that it's superior to mine (which I'll be the first to admit probably are).
> 
> All I profess to have is a lot of listening experience, and some acquired taste. 7 years ago I'd have no business saying what I say now (and I never would have). You listen until you can finally contribute to the discussion.
> 
> Finally, I'm always willing to back up the claims in real life whenever possible. If that's insecurity to you, then I don't know what to tell you.
> 
> Sometimes I have to step back and play devil's advocate to see if I'm really living in an alternate reality.
> 
> Then I think back to the real joy this gear has given me, how it's inspired me to make more money to acquire it. How much can placebo effect do that to anybody on a real deep level? Especially long term. Can you salesman your way into a Honda Civic buyer's heart to believe he's buying a Ferrari? I don't think so.
> 
> Can you make people drop very real money on this stuff without them legitimately being into it?? It's astonishing that people think these buyers are complete suckers.
> 
> And on a more neutral level, I look at the shows we have done. You can say the store environment is biased, and that's fine, I'm ok with that. But at a show where we do very little talking/promoting of our gear (except answer technical questions about them) and people rave how it sounds and are constantly surprised how inexpensive it is -- that's all the proof I need to know, we know what's up.
> 
> "This speaker only costs $3,000??" (when everything else is five figures minimum)
> "This DAC is only $3500?" (when most DACs are five figures)
> "Where's the sub?" (asked of a floor standing speaker with dual 4" woofers)
> 
> All of this setup in a hotel room no better than the next guy, with only a few hours to refine. People come in, and we play our own music for them or whatever they provide. There is no pitch, speech, nothing. The gear sells itself.
> 
> It's not all about super expensive stuff. A lot of the joy is in the cheaper stuff that's very nice.
> 
> I speak of real life experiences. In home audio a ton, in car audio a lot but not as much as home.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no doubt good equipment sounds good, but there's a lot more needles in that haystack out there, and not a lot of them come with "country club airs" that ring hollow and tinny as the argument that measurement data isn't capable of discerning anything above one's own hearing.
> 
> it's the Kobe beef thing all over again.
> 
> you might be able to fatten up a hereford, give it a bath, massage it, work the feed trough with corn and molasses and beer, and after 2 years serve a tasty bit of turf, but it's not going to be Kobe beef. That I've never been to Japan and paid upwards of 300 dollars for a plate of the real thing, and might possibly spring for 100 bucks of the Wagyu domestic, doesn't mean I will be able to tell the difference....
> 
> 
> 
> hahaha..
> 
> 
> ABX testing and all..
> 
> 
> but wait, let's do a fat analysis, let's do some measurements, to explain why I don't know which is which...


There's a lot of overrated product out there, no question. I absolutely agree finding good stuff is like finding a needle in a haystack. I know what stuff I like for the most part but if you ask me to find something brand new that is good, that will be very challenging. 

Getting satisfaction in the audio world is one of the hardest things in the world to do. As far as consumer products are concerned, it is in my mind the hardest to achieve. 

A lot of the commercial high end is overrated mostly for two reasons:

a) Margins
b) Designing to popular taste (which often is off)

If a certain popular Stereophile flagship favorite is $10,000 in parts selling for $80k retail, how much do you think their lower end lines are worth in parts? 

And then you compare that to something more esoteric off the beaten path that is maybe $15,000 in parts and sells for $35k retail and you can see the difference.

Then on the issue of taste, if one is selling to please a common consumer taste (e.g. a brighter sound) versus one who is making their statement on what good sound is and just building that....that also plays a big factor.

The issue of taste is important. I'm an American but have to admit the Brits, Italians and Japanese have us beat per capita in this department. They are all small markets compared to the US, so they cannot sway taste strong enough on a commercial level.....but I'm a big fan of stuff coming out of those countries for the most part.

So it's for this reason that I often advocate that for certain brands of car and home audio, I tend to prefer their less expensive stuff over their more expensive stuff.


----------



## FG79

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Since we are never going to agree on this, I propose that if your ever on this side of the country, come by and take a listen. And I will do the same. It could always give some perspective, considering I buy equipment based on measurements, and you do not. I will say however, I do tune based on a combination of both measurements and ears.


Sounds good.

Where in CA? I'm up in NorCal a bit more than SoCal.


----------



## FG79

I'd like to step outside the debate for a second to discuss my "audio philosophy" a bit, to address what toostubborn2fail mentioned.

He talks about wanting to preserve the signal from the master tape, CD, etc. He is ok with modifying the sound in the studio to make it better, but wants the playback to have zero coloration and "stay true to the source". He's not alone, I see this said by tons of people. In theory I agree with this too.

However, the reality in many cases is that not all mixing and mastering is optimal. Outside the super audiophile world, most of it is a bit subpar or could be a little/a lot better. Those who follow the loudness wars will understand where I'm coming from.

Dynamic range manipulation will be equally good or crappy regardless of system. The tonal balance preferred by most mastering engineers is usually always different from what is preferred by the artist (this is mostly a pop music thing, but extends pretty heavily outside as well). You know why most pop music is so bright? Because the artists like it like that. 

And I have to say something bold:

It's a s*** sound. It is something that pleases the lower brow listening tastes (mostly young kids and people who do not have real experience listening to sound), but is not good sound. 

Inevitably someone will say that "it's what the artist wants!", or that "the intended listener prefers it!". Well guess, what they both have s*** taste and don't know what's good for them. 

You'd be amazed how much (unnecessary) top end boost there is on a lot of music. Even music you'd swear doesn't have much of it probably has a little too much. 

Gotta keep it real. You don't see anybody questioning a Bentley over a Corolla at a red carpet event, or a really nice Patek Philippe watch over a Timex. Or how about a sweet mansion over some junk home.

There's a very real bias in all of us. Taste that we are all too willing to share openly. However in audio, we must whisper our preferences so as not to offend. Even subliminal implications must be used cautiously.

It's hilarious, and don't know where it comes from, but it's a very real thing. Probably because of how abstract sound reproduction is, there's an intellectual pride that could be offended. Whereas if a full blooded male said he preferred a VW Beetle to a Lamborghini, guys around him would make fun of him no problem, lol. 

So where am I getting at with all of this?

That for a good amount of music, coloration makes the music closer to tolerable. And for the quality stuff, it's just adding more spice than was already there. 

The idea of perfect playback is a pipe dream in most cases. If you listened to a perfectly neutral/"uncolored" system (if it even existed) you wouldn't like the sound most of the time. 

And as mentioned before, everything colors. EVERYTHING.

The idea that only certain types of gear color, while others are "neutral", is BS. Digital colors just as much as analog......just in a different way.

Same for solid state amps vs. tubes. 

Everything in the chain affects sound, which is why you see people preach they want less items in the chain ideally. 

When you can begin to lose this need for "accuracy", the audio world becomes a lot more enjoyable.


----------



## porscheman

So that's a "I don't think the musicians/engineers have a clue what the music should sound like, so i think everyone should buy/tune to replicate what i think is better. and **** what the artist thinks?"

did i paraphrase that right? cause now i think i get it.


----------



## thehatedguy

I don't know if that's what he is saying, but I think it is true for the most part.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

And there's the main problem. What is the official definition of sound quality? Is it building a system that makes every recording sound pleasing to that systems owner, even if the recording wasn't recorded that way? If that's the case, then there really is no standard of sq, since EVERYONE'S tastes in what they like is different. 

I argue that if there is no standard definition to define sq, then there is no way to know whether high end amps equal more sq.

I for one, would rather make it sound as close to the recordings actual sound as possible. Even if that means some recordings suck. Keep in mind, I listen to a lot of classical, and a lot of metal. There are a lot of well done recordings in each genre, and a lot of crappy ones in each as well. Oh well, not all art is great either. And its entirely dependent on taste. For instance, I look at the Mona Lisa, and I dont see what's so special about it. I really dont. But others claim its one of the greatest masterpieces of all time.


----------



## subwoofery

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> And there's the main problem. What is the official definition of sound quality? Is it building a system that makes every recording sound pleasing to that systems owner, even if the recording wasn't recorded that way? If that's the case, then there really is no standard of sq, since EVERYONE'S tastes in what they like is different.
> 
> I argue that if there is no standard definition to define sq, then there is no way to know whether high end amps equal more sq.
> 
> I for one, would rather make it sound as close to the recordings actual sound as possible. Even if that means some recordings suck. Keep in mind, I listen to a lot of classical, and a lot of metal. There are a lot of well done recordings in each genre, and a lot of crappy ones in each as well. Oh well, not all art is great either. And its entirely dependent on taste. For instance, I look at the Mona Lisa, and I dont see what's so special about it. I really dont. But others claim its one of the greatest masterpieces of all time.


When you play a 20Hz-20kHz sweep on your stereo, every tone should overlap and come from the same point... Agree?  

Kelvin


----------



## rton20s

On the recording side of things, I have to say I definitely lean more toward the "true to the source" side than anything. Trying to achieve "favorable results" in terms of a personal preferred sound from one song to the next would mean nothing short of EQ gymnastics. At least, I would think. I don't have a magic tube amp that would take care of that for me. 

If an artist wants their music to sound like crap, that is their choice. And if I like a particular song and the CD release is a compressed pile of garbage, then I guess it is time I start the hunt for a better recording. 

On the issue of DACs, I was going to point you to a recent Tom's Hardware article, but it is pretty clear you would dismiss it entirely because the value of the DACs tested was no more than $2,000. Apparently, the magic doesn't happen until you're willing to drop 5 figures. Or, well, at least $3,500. For anyone else actually interested, the link to the article below. (I think it may have been posted here in DIYMA previously.) 

Audiophile PC Sound - The Real Cost of Hi-Fi - Tom


----------



## Hanatsu

rton20s said:


> On the recording side of things, I have to say I definitely lean more toward the "true to the source" side than anything. Trying to achieve "favorable results" in terms of a personal preferred sound from one song to the next would mean nothing short of EQ gymnastics. At least, I would think. I don't have a magic tube amp that would take care of that for me.
> 
> If an artist wants their music to sound like crap, that is their choice. And if I like a particular song and the CD release is a compressed pile of garbage, then I guess it is time I start the hunt for a better recording.
> 
> On the issue of DACs, I was going to point you to a recent Tom's Hardware article, but it is pretty clear you would dismiss it entirely because the value of the DACs tested was no more than $2,000. Apparently, the magic doesn't happen until you're willing to drop 5 figures. Or, well, at least $3,500. For anyone else actually interested, the link to the article below. (I think it may have been posted here in DIYMA previously.)
> 
> Audiophile PC Sound - The Real Cost of Hi-Fi - Tom


Haha, love this;

" A $2 Codec Sounds (to us) like a $2000 Device "


----------



## FG79

porscheman said:


> So that's a "I don't think the musicians/engineers have a clue what the music should sound like, so i think everyone should buy/tune to replicate what i think is better. and **** what the artist thinks?"
> 
> did i paraphrase that right? cause now i think i get it.


You will find out eventually that a self proclaimed flat sound/neutral from electronics or speakers is not ideal. 

They only sound good when the recording is excellent, and even then it can still be better. And what's wrong with better if it's more enjoyable? 

This obsession with "true to the source"....is a rookie goal. It's slightly better than hearing somebody comment on a nice system that it is "crystal clear....loud and clean!". 

Very idealistic goal, not realistic. 

Listening for the sole intent of a theoretically perfect reproduction (big emphasis on theoretically) is not as emotional/enjoyable as opposed to listening to something that sounds good....feels good.

The biggest irony in all this is when people compare sound they usually praise/criticize tonal preferences and visceral (or lack thereof) qualities like bass, dynamics, etc. 

Rarely do I ever hear "two nice systems, but A sounds more accurate than B." 

"A" might sound more natural than "B" (i.e. bass is not as boomy, midrange not as recessed, highs aren't as harsh, etc), but you won't hear "both sound great, but I feel like A sounds more like XYZ artist intended".


----------



## FG79

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> And there's the main problem. What is the official definition of sound quality? Is it building a system that makes every recording sound pleasing to that systems owner, even if the recording wasn't recorded that way? If that's the case, then there really is no standard of sq, since EVERYONE'S tastes in what they like is different.
> 
> I argue that if there is no standard definition to define sq, then there is no way to know whether high end amps equal more sq.
> 
> I for one, would rather make it sound as close to the recordings actual sound as possible. Even if that means some recordings suck. Keep in mind, I listen to a lot of classical, and a lot of metal. There are a lot of well done recordings in each genre, and a lot of crappy ones in each as well. Oh well, not all art is great either. And its entirely dependent on taste. For instance, I look at the Mona Lisa, and I dont see what's so special about it. I really dont. But others claim its one of the greatest masterpieces of all time.


There are different tiers of sound quality. 

At the highest tier you have sound that is reproduced with great detail, power, midrange presence, dynamics, etc.

It's just a matter of if you prefer more sweetness to more outright power, more weight in the midrange or perhaps a more open top end, detail, etc. 

I'm not suggesting there is a perfect speaker/amp, or a perfect sound. There is too much variance in music recordings to allow for that. You'll never have dominant EDM or Rap music in most high end home speakers without a sub, but running a sub is a big no no for coherence and unnecessary in a lot of music. 

But there is low end quality and high end for sure.

There absolutely is a standard what is a terrible sound tonally and one that is at least good.


----------



## FG79

rton20s said:


> On the recording side of things, I have to say I definitely lean more toward the "true to the source" side than anything. Trying to achieve "favorable results" in terms of a personal preferred sound from one song to the next would mean nothing short of EQ gymnastics. At least, I would think. I don't have a magic tube amp that would take care of that for me.
> 
> If an artist wants their music to sound like crap, that is their choice. And if I like a particular song and the CD release is a compressed pile of garbage, then I guess it is time I start the hunt for a better recording.
> 
> On the issue of DACs, I was going to point you to a recent Tom's Hardware article, but it is pretty clear you would dismiss it entirely because the value of the DACs tested was no more than $2,000. Apparently, the magic doesn't happen until you're willing to drop 5 figures. Or, well, at least $3,500. For anyone else actually interested, the link to the article below. (I think it may have been posted here in DIYMA previously.)
> 
> Audiophile PC Sound - The Real Cost of Hi-Fi - Tom


A $500 Cambridge Audio DAC Magic is better than all of those DACs. An '80s Madrigal Proceed DAC is also better than those DACs. It ain't necessary to have a $50,000 Audio Note DAC 5. 

Again, the intentions of "accurate reproduction" are good. The reality is not what you'll expect.

The funny thing is that the only recordings worthy of this devotion are the really, really good ones. Those are the only ones that with a nice system can come close to a legitimate "this feels real" experience. 

Listen to the Sheffield Drum Record (vinyl LP) on a good tube amp system with nice speakers. It is two drum solos, about 5 minutes each....one on each side, recorded direct to disc for maximum sound quality. The sound is extremely realistic, and the better the system, the more realistic and enjoyable at the same time.

That's a good benchmark recording to start making comparisons. You bring in some real drummers and let the games begin.

This recording is available on CD as well, but not quite as good as the LP.

If you had to compare gear based on this accuracy goal, then I think a simple (but very good recording) like this would be the way to go. It should translate to other music.


----------



## FG79

Hanatsu said:


> Haha, love this;
> 
> " A $2 Codec Sounds (to us) like a $2000 Device "


It's very possible.

What it is really saying is that the $2000 device is terrible. So terrible it cannot beat out a $2 piece. The $2 piece while not great, is still reasonable. 

The implication you're making here is that if $2 ~= $2000 then all DACs are equal, which is completely untrue.

It's all in the "voicing". You can make crap sound relatively good and good stuff sound like crap. Happens all the time in audio, and with every piece of gear imaginable. 

My favorite sub $700 headphones only costs $50. I like it more than particular popular phones costing $150, $350. And I heard some $1000+ stuff that sounds ok but not to my liking.

I'm curious what percentage breakdown you would place for the following in terms of importance for good sound:

Speakers
Everything else (amps/sources/DACs/cables/interconnects/etc)


----------



## Hanatsu

If there's enough power I'd say;

1. Speakers (98% importance)
2. The rest.

If there's not enough power, get another amp.

There not much difference between a $100 HU and an highend Alpine f1, p99 or something like that imo, it's the DSP that improves the sound. Don't care about DACs at all, all modern DACs are adequate for audio reproduction, even the $2 chips. Interconnects only matters in terms of noise rejection. Source MATERIAL is however very important, talking about the mastering. Compression doesn't matter that much... Mp3 lame is fine if the bitrate is above 256kBit/s, basically the same as CD quality. 24bit/96kHz - SACD - DVD-Audio etc is just ridiculous imo. 

I buy high-end stuff for features, longlivity, design, overall "feel". The speakers are the only component that are high distortion devices, focus should be directed to improve the weakest link first.

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## rton20s

FG79 said:


> I'm curious what percentage breakdown you would place for the following in terms of importance for good sound:
> 
> Speakers
> Everything else (amps/sources/DACs/cables/interconnects/etc)


Since this was in response to my post and we are on a car audio site, I will address it in regards to this environment. However, I will not post some arbitrary percentage on any one component. I will just rank them in terms of priority. 

1. Install (Locations, Quality, Deadening, etc.)
2. Speakers
3. DSP and Tuning
4. Source
5. Amplifiers
6. Interconnects/Cables/Everything Else


----------



## papasin

rton20s said:


> Since this was in response to my post and we are on a car audio site, I will address it in regards to this environment. However, I will not post some arbitrary percentage on any one component. I will just rank them in terms of priority.
> 
> 1. Install (Locations, Quality, Deadening, etc.)
> 2. Speakers
> 3. DSP and Tuning
> 4. Source
> 5. Amplifiers
> 6. Interconnects/Cables/Everything Else


I would put tuning above install, or at the very least equal. Even with a less than perfect install, with excellent tuning you can get a really good sounding car. But a good install can certainly make tuning easier. But I've also heard cars with solid installs not sound great...so the environment is what you're fighting the most in the car audio environment and even the most expensive/high-end gear is going to be 3-6 and would put tuning and install at 1&2. My $0.02 FWIW.


----------



## rton20s

Interesting take. As you know, my install would be what many would consider a compromise. I am using stock locations. Because of this, the install is something that I am having to battle. Currently, my DSP and tuning are not going to able to overcome some of the shortcomings of my install. Even with the best DSP in the world isn't going to be able to fix some of those shortcomings. 

If, like in my own current install, you are fighting buzzing or rattling interior panels all the DSP in the world isn't going to help that. Until you address and eliminate these "distractions" from the music, an excellent tune is only going to get you so far. 

And I had to think about whether I would place speakers or DSP/Tuning at number 2. I chose speakers because you could very easily make a very bad speaker selection that DSP just isn't going to be able to fix. All the DSP in the world isn't going to help one of these installed in your doors. Paper Plate Speaker 

I'm not really debating your opinion. Just offering up some reasoning behind my ranking. And I am sure others will disagree with me.


----------



## papasin

rton20s said:


> Interesting take. As you know, my install would be what many would consider a compromise. I am using stock locations. Because of this, the install is something that I am having to battle. Currently, my DSP and tuning are not going to able to overcome some of the shortcomings of my install. Even with the best DSP in the world isn't going to be able to fix some of those shortcomings.
> 
> If, like in my own current install, you are fighting buzzing or rattling interior panels all the DSP in the world isn't going to help that. Until you address and eliminate these "distractions" from the music, an excellent tune is only going to get you so far.
> 
> And I had to think about whether I would place speakers or DSP/Tuning at number 2. I chose speakers because you could very easily make a very bad speaker selection that DSP just isn't going to be able to fix. All the DSP in the world isn't going to help one of these installed in your doors. Paper Plate Speaker
> 
> I'm not really debating your opinion. Just offering up some reasoning behind my ranking. And I am sure others will disagree with me.


Then I would separate out tuning and DSP, i.e.

1. Tuning/Install
2. DSP
3. Speakers
...etc.

To put it simply, tuning is not the same as having a DSP.


----------



## papasin

rton20s said:


> Currently, my DSP and tuning are not going to able to overcome some of the shortcomings of my install. Even with the best DSP in the world isn't going to be able to fix some of those shortcomings.


Also, I would challenge this statement. I bet even with your current setup there is a lot that can be realized with tuning. 

Now back OT. I like my amps, so there.  :laugh:


----------



## rton20s

papasin said:


> Then I would separate out tuning and DSP, i.e.
> 
> 1. Tuning/Install
> 2. DSP
> 3. Speakers
> ...etc.
> 
> To put it simply, tuning is not the same as having a DSP.


I could agree to moving tuning into the install category. 

Though, DSP without the tuning is kind of pointless, isn't it?


----------



## rton20s

papasin said:


> Also, I would challenge this statement. I bet even with your current setup there is a lot that can be realized with tuning.
> 
> Now back OT. I like my amps, so there.  :laugh:


No doubt. My point was, you can stretch any DSP to its limits and still have a system that doesn't sound good. Even with the best tuner in the world at the helm. If you have panels that buzz and rattle, it will become a distraction and prevent you from being able to appreciate the quality of the music. At least, that is the way it is for me. 

Fix those rattles and buzzes, remove those distractions and then the efforts of all of that tuning become more apparent and worth while.


----------



## cajunner

oh wow this thread entertains.

it's great how suddenly, the musicians making the music have tin ears, they like it "bright" and it doesn't matter what their intentions were, what matters is that the equipment you buy changes that "brightness" to something more hi-fi.

that's funny.

if I were to do a particularly obnoxious analogy, I'd compare FG79's push as that of a preacher's, and his slant on audio being special due to his belief system being a part of that religion.


the religion of hi-fi, the cult of distinctive high brows gathering in basement listening rooms and sharing in the sacraments of hard cash transfers in the range of 30K on up.

look, I don't give a crap if you've been sold, and good, by a bunch of college dropouts who have a vested interest in pushing the $500 DAC, to someone like you. I don't care if Tom Hanks walks in and suddenly his DAC has to be $5K, just to get him in the ballpark.

I don't even care that someone out there thinks they put out a $50K DAC and finds that acceptable, what? The parts in it are somehow imbued with purposeful intent, the copper traces glow with their extra-terrestrial power? Is it T2, is there adaptive sound shaping that conforms to the listener's ear canal measurements, is it possible that you're stubbornly refusing to acknowledge you have been victimized...?

Victimization comes in many forms, and celebrities with money they don't feel is real, or that they somehow earned, get that peculiar mindset where they believe the person, and look past the objects being proffered, they want to like them and they later own their guilt, the buyer's remorse takes effect...

has anyone been sold on something, and realized later they were had?

I'm not so proud, to say I have. I recognize the signs, I examine the BS factor and I smell test everything I can, because the world is full of people who are either suckers, or the predators who prey on them. I choose to avoid both distinctions when addressing my "religion" of audio.

and the idea of accuracy being suspect, that we should aspire to some other unique quality of hi-fi, something subjective and not represented in measurement data, as if we don't have our own ears... 

I'll say something about that, and it goes to the artist's intent as well.


I've listened to music long enough to know that the parts of it that "hook" are usually points of conflict. Your mind doesn't fully comprehend some lyric, it's because the artist mumbles it, or does some weirdness that catches you off guard, and you think "wow, that's cool" and what you didn't figure on, is that they got that sound, and that distortion, from the artist, but also from the way it was recorded. That hook might not have happened to the same degree, if the mastering engineer didn't do a load of de-emphasis on the "esss" sounds, or auto-tune at the appropriate moment, or whatever other unique rendering that becomes the reference.

we're saying the reference, and what the music is supposed to do, may not coincide, and in that same way the attempt to reproduce that magic with accurate equipment, may not work as well as hi-fi sounding equipment that colors the sound.

so, in a way, I sort of agree that extremely expensive equipment must "do something" since people love it so much, but it's that black box quality that eludes a conventional explanation and causes the superlatives to flow, that is tied in to whatever subliminal suggestion the salesman can implant...

and from the artist, and the cover art on the album influencing our expectation? that also is the "push" away from the conventional and in music, influences the need to own that piece that 'moves' us.

it's not that I want to upset those "believers" in the snake juice huckster's cure for what ails ya, it's that I want people to understand that this debate is multi-faceted and just being interested enough to read this far down into my post/rant, is good enough!


good enough...


----------



## Hanatsu

Since when did we bring install into the picture? Thought we were talking about equipment here. Great install and tuning capabilities are paramount in any install and should be considered before anything else. You can even make crap sound half-decent with the right install and tuning. 

But seriously I've just come to the point where it's fun provoking this silly discussion, it's sure entertaining to argue just for the sake of arguing eh?


----------



## Hanatsu

The price people pay to feed their placebo, madness...


----------



## papasin

Hanatsu said:


> Great install and tuning capabilities are paramount in any install and should be considered before anything else. You can even make crap sound half-decent with the right install and tuning.


^ This. I didn't bring up install/tuning, but just wanted to chime in as soon as someone started making a list and putting tuning below speakers/gear, even if he is on my own team.


----------



## Hanatsu

I can't stop laughing at the audiophoolery. People actually BUY THIS CRAP OMG ROFL=?



> Nano Gold Silver Liquid
> Furutech | List of Dealers
> Illustration of the Nano Liquid Efficiency:
> 
> 1. Squalene Oil can remove oxide...etc, form the surface of metal, make the surface clean and free of pollution, activate metal surface.
> 
> 2. Apply the principle of atomic adsorption to make gold & silver super-micro particle can be adhered to metal surface averagely; Fill concave-convex section on surface, increase electric conduction area and debase impedance (O).
> 
> 3. Meanwhile, stable Squalene Oil can form a layer protective film on the surface of metal to prevent oxidation happen again. Utilize it’s excellent adsorbed effect to make gold & silver super-micro particle average and adhere to surface of metal stably.
> 
> 1.Audio aspect: An overall improvement in high, medium and low frequency sound. Volume, echo, extension, penetration, resolution and level feeling, Q degree and shape feeling are exceptionally good improvement.
> 
> 2.Video aspect: Upgrade the resolution, sharpness, color, brightness, background deepness and the graphical quality.
> 
> 3.Computer aspect: Upgrade conductivity, decrease impedance in each terminal, and inhibit CPU to be over heated and smooth and stabilize the operation. Reduce frequency of shut down times.
> 
> 4.High pulse, connective point of large current aspect: Inhibit over heat, save energy and reduce shut down times. (Breakdown)
> 
> 5.All kinds of plug, socket. Press connection aspect: Activate the metal surface, increase the conduction surface and upgrade conductivity.
> 
> 6.All kinds of sliding, rolling switch..... Dynamic connection aspect: Strengthen the cleanness, protection and lubrication effect of the contact surface and increase the conductivity. Eliminate the oxidization phenomenon and increase the product life.
> 
> 7.All kinds of motor's brush... current conduction aspect: Strengthen the cleanness, protection and lubrication effect of the contact surface and increase the conductivity. Eliminate the oxidization phenomenon, avoid any spark and wearing of the contact surface and increase the life of brush and horsepower.
> 
> 8.Measuring, communication and medication equipment: Improve the conductivity, lubrication and protection. Avoid any mal-function.


Click to view "TECHNICAL DATA":



> Usage:
> 1.A/V equipment: RCA PIN, Jacket, Cannon connector, speaker terminal, AC Power plug for Amp. CD/VCD/DVD/MD and TV.
> 2.Computer equipment: connecting terminal and terminal seat for Monitor, Key board, hard disk, modem and printer, AC power plug, sound card.
> 3.All types of electronic and electric products: battery connection point,
> AC power plug.
> 4.Can be used in power Tool, all kinds of motor brush, measurement, communication and medical equipment and instruments.


LOLz.

Sorry but buying a piece of electronics that's used for audio reproduction that costs $10000+ should include a ticket to a psychiatric. Audiophoolery is a disorder.


----------



## Hanatsu

I can't stop laughing at the audiophoolery. People actually BUY THIS CRAP OMG ROFL=?



> Nano Gold Silver Liquid
> Furutech | List of Dealers
> Illustration of the Nano Liquid Efficiency:
> 
> 1. Squalene Oil can remove oxide...etc, form the surface of metal, make the surface clean and free of pollution, activate metal surface.
> 
> 2. Apply the principle of atomic adsorption to make gold & silver super-micro particle can be adhered to metal surface averagely; Fill concave-convex section on surface, increase electric conduction area and debase impedance (O).
> 
> 3. Meanwhile, stable Squalene Oil can form a layer protective film on the surface of metal to prevent oxidation happen again. Utilize it’s excellent adsorbed effect to make gold & silver super-micro particle average and adhere to surface of metal stably.
> 
> 1.Audio aspect: An overall improvement in high, medium and low frequency sound. Volume, echo, extension, penetration, resolution and level feeling, Q degree and shape feeling are exceptionally good improvement.
> 
> 2.Video aspect: Upgrade the resolution, sharpness, color, brightness, background deepness and the graphical quality.
> 
> 3.Computer aspect: Upgrade conductivity, decrease impedance in each terminal, and inhibit CPU to be over heated and smooth and stabilize the operation. Reduce frequency of shut down times.
> 
> 4.High pulse, connective point of large current aspect: Inhibit over heat, save energy and reduce shut down times. (Breakdown)
> 
> 5.All kinds of plug, socket. Press connection aspect: Activate the metal surface, increase the conduction surface and upgrade conductivity.
> 
> 6.All kinds of sliding, rolling switch..... Dynamic connection aspect: Strengthen the cleanness, protection and lubrication effect of the contact surface and increase the conductivity. Eliminate the oxidization phenomenon and increase the product life.
> 
> 7.All kinds of motor's brush... current conduction aspect: Strengthen the cleanness, protection and lubrication effect of the contact surface and increase the conductivity. Eliminate the oxidization phenomenon, avoid any spark and wearing of the contact surface and increase the life of brush and horsepower.
> 
> 8.Measuring, communication and medication equipment: Improve the conductivity, lubrication and protection. Avoid any mal-function.


Click to view "TECHNICAL DATA":



> Usage:
> 1.A/V equipment: RCA PIN, Jacket, Cannon connector, speaker terminal, AC Power plug for Amp. CD/VCD/DVD/MD and TV.
> 2.Computer equipment: connecting terminal and terminal seat for Monitor, Key board, hard disk, modem and printer, AC power plug, sound card.
> 3.All types of electronic and electric products: battery connection point,
> AC power plug.
> 4.Can be used in power Tool, all kinds of motor brush, measurement, communication and medical equipment and instruments.


LOLz.

Sorry but buying a piece of electronics that's used for audio reproduction that costs $10000+ should include a ticket to a psychiatric. Audiophoolery is a disorder.


----------



## Hanatsu

Apply the principle of atomic adsorption to make gold & silver a super-micro particle and inhibit CPUs to be over heated with the dynamic connection aspect. Eliminate the oxidization phenomenon!!

xD xD xD xD

(ROFL IRL)


----------



## rton20s

papasin said:


> ^ This. I didn't bring up install/tuning, but just wanted to chime in as soon as someone started making a list and putting tuning below speakers/gear, even if he is on my own team.


I think that discussion has run it's course (then again, look at this thread). And I think we agree far more than we disagree. 

Besides, the way you keep talking about tuning, you'd think you were trying to sell me on something.


----------



## Hanatsu

A system with crappy install and good tuning or a system with good install and crappy tuning... Which sounds worst? Well, bad tuning does actually have the potential to be worse, if you screw up really bad or simply doing it on purpose. So I guess technically tuning should be before install in the importance list but it's kinda ridiculous. It won't sound good without having both done properly, sooner or later something will bottleneck the audio experience, does it matter what it is? Everything must be equally "good", it won't be better than it's weakest link, it's called system for a reason


----------



## papasin

Hanatsu said:


> A system with crappy install and good tuning or a system with good install and crappy tuning... Which sounds worst? Well, bad tuning does actually have the potential to be worse, if you screw up really bad or simply doing it on purpose. So I guess technically tuning should be before install in the importance list but it's kinda ridiculous. It won't sound good without having both done properly, sooner or later something will bottleneck the audio experience, does it matter what it is? Everything must be equally "good", it won't be better than it's weakest link, it's called system for a reason


^ Again, agree.

But how about comparing:

1. Mediocre install, mediocre gear, and world class tuning

vs.

2. Over the top/flashy install, uber expensive gear, and mediocre tuning

I know which one I would pick, even if my sig probably doesn't directly correlate, but I have my reasons.  

Speaking of screwing up on purpose, one of my favorite sigs on this site...

"I can easily make the most expensive car stereo system sound like junk in less than 30 seconds"


----------



## cajunner

Hanatsu said:


> A system with crappy install and good tuning or a system with good install and crappy tuning... Which sounds worst? Well, bad tuning does actually have the potential to be worse, if you screw up really bad or simply doing it on purpose. So I guess technically tuning should be before install in the importance list but it's kinda ridiculous. It won't sound good without having both done properly, sooner or later something will bottleneck the audio experience, does it matter what it is? Everything must be equally "good", it won't be better than it's weakest link, it's called system for a reason


what would you think, if someone's car you were excited to have a chance to listen to, sounded kinda drab?

then, not being one to insult the hospitality, you 'agree' that it sounded great to whomever allowed you into their show car, and you find out later that they were laughing with others at your naivete, repeating your saying the car was good, when all along the guy was giving you his "crap" tune preset?

would you think that was okay, would you like the deception?

probably not, huh...?

this debate is sort of tied into the same motivation/disguise, people have agendas and they aren't always on the surface. 

Some people adhere to the adage, "doing things the same a second time, and expecting different results is folly" but then isn't that what they are doing when they move from one indistinguishable component to the next, influenced by other people's bias and believing they hear significant differences, such that they should be able to produce better than 90% accuracy in a blind test?


no matter how many amps you've "had" in your life, what is the single most important factor in deciding for yourself that it's time to "upgrade," is it the expectation that the technology has somehow improved to that extent over a product's generational life-cycle, is it that Murphy's cousin says if it can be better, it will be better? Is it just wishful thinking? Is it based on advertising copy, or a particularly well-done sales pitch? Do you even know? Would you like to know? What would you do if you knew you weren't even making a lateral move and performance-wise, the more expensive and sexy amp model you just changed to, is inferior in measurements, and colors the sound so much that people later on describe the amp as unacceptable due to this "coloration" of the signal?

In a way, the most expensive stuff is actually coloring the signal and that is what we are paying for.


tube amps, MIT impedance boxes on interconnects, DAC's that do some super jitterbug action, speakers that have wave-bending properties...


but yet, none of it is accurate, and all of it is expensive!

but dare I say, much of it is fun to listen to good music on, because you've worn out the novelty of the song and now, must diddle with the sound.


----------



## Victor_inox

What I observe often is that people listen to components installed and not actual music.
I know I`m guilty of doing exactly that.


----------



## bertholomey

cajunner said:


> what would you think, if someone's car you were excited to have a chance to listen to, sounded kinda drab?
> 
> 
> 
> then, not being one to insult the hospitality, you 'agree' that it sounded great to whomever allowed you into their show car, and you find out later that they were laughing with others at your naivete, repeating your saying the car was good, when all along the guy was giving you his "crap" tune preset?
> 
> 
> 
> would you think that was okay, would you like the deception?
> 
> 
> 
> probably not, huh...?
> 
> 
> 
> this debate is sort of tied into the same motivation/disguise, people have agendas and they aren't always on the surface.
> 
> 
> 
> Some people adhere to the adage, "doing things the same a second time, and expecting different results is folly" but then isn't that what they are doing when they move from one indistinguishable component to the next, influenced by other people's bias and believing they hear significant differences, such that they should be able to produce better than 90% accuracy in a blind test?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no matter how many amps you've "had" in your life, what is the single most important factor in deciding for yourself that it's time to "upgrade," is it the expectation that the technology has somehow improved to that extent over a product's generational life-cycle, is it that Murphy's cousin says if it can be better, it will be better? Is it just wishful thinking? Is it based on advertising copy, or a particularly well-done sales pitch? Do you even know? Would you like to know? What would you do if you knew you weren't even making a lateral move and performance-wise, the more expensive and sexy amp model you just changed to, is inferior in measurements, and colors the sound so much that people later on describe the amp as unacceptable due to this "coloration" of the signal?
> 
> 
> 
> In a way, the most expensive stuff is actually coloring the signal and that is what we are paying for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tube amps, MIT impedance boxes on interconnects, DAC's that do some super jitterbug action, speakers that have wave-bending properties...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but yet, none of it is accurate, and all of it is expensive!
> 
> 
> 
> but dare I say, much of it is fun to listen to good music on, because you've worn out the novelty of the song and now, must diddle with the sound.



Once again cajunner, I find myself in agreement with this post - lots of truth IMHO.


----------



## FG79

Hanatsu said:


> If there's enough power I'd say;
> 
> 1. Speakers (98% importance)
> 2. The rest.
> 
> If there's not enough power, get another amp.
> 
> There not much difference between a $100 HU and an highend Alpine f1, p99 or something like that imo, it's the DSP that improves the sound. Don't care about DACs at all, all modern DACs are adequate for audio reproduction, even the $2 chips. Interconnects only matters in terms of noise rejection. Source MATERIAL is however very important, talking about the mastering. Compression doesn't matter that much... Mp3 lame is fine if the bitrate is above 256kBit/s, basically the same as CD quality. 24bit/96kHz - SACD - DVD-Audio etc is just ridiculous imo.
> 
> I buy high-end stuff for features, longlivity, design, overall "feel". The speakers are the only component that are high distortion devices, focus should be directed to improve the weakest link first.
> 
> Tapaaatalk!!


I figured you would go at least 90%, surprised you stopped short of 100. 



cajunner said:


> oh wow this thread entertains.
> 
> it's great how suddenly, the musicians making the music have tin ears, they like it "bright" and it doesn't matter what their intentions were, what matters is that the equipment you buy changes that "brightness" to something more hi-fi.
> 
> that's funny.
> 
> if I were to do a particularly obnoxious analogy, I'd compare FG79's push as that of a preacher's, and his slant on audio being special due to his belief system being a part of that religion.
> 
> 
> the religion of hi-fi, the cult of distinctive high brows gathering in basement listening rooms and sharing in the sacraments of hard cash transfers in the range of 30K on up.
> 
> *look, I don't give a crap if you've been sold, and good, by a bunch of college dropouts who have a vested interest in pushing the $500 DAC, to someone like you. I don't care if Tom Hanks walks in and suddenly his DAC has to be $5K, just to get him in the ballpark.*
> 
> You don't know anyone in my circle, but please continue to speculate.
> 
> And a $500 DAC is not something my friend is in business selling. It's something in the know for those that cannot afford nicer DACs. It is very much entry level as hard as it is for many to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even care that someone out there thinks they put out a $50K DAC and finds that acceptable, what? The parts in it are somehow imbued with purposeful intent, the copper traces glow with their extra-terrestrial power? Is it T2, is there adaptive sound shaping that conforms to the listener's ear canal measurements, is it possible that you're stubbornly refusing to acknowledge you have been victimized...?
> 
> A $50k DAC, or a $100k turntable is for the truly wealthy. The rate of return on those products is not high enough to justify their price to anybody who has to even question for a nanosecond their ability to afford it.
> 
> So they represent the best or close to the best of what's out there, but they are not 10 times the quality of that $3500 DAC or a good vintage table under $10k.
> 
> It's probably 30-35% better. But it's undoubtedly better.
> 
> If you can afford that much on that gear, then your speakers and amps have to be absolute top notch. Suddenly everything has to be top of the top in proportion.
> 
> I think it would be worthwhile to pinch for if you were in the mastering business, otherwise it's not worth it to most.
> 
> 
> 
> Victimization comes in many forms, and celebrities with money they don't feel is real, or that they somehow earned, get that peculiar mindset where they believe the person, and look past the objects being proffered, they want to like them and they later own their guilt, the buyer's remorse takes effect...
> 
> has anyone been sold on something, and realized later they were had?
> 
> What if you spent years and years enjoying without pulling the trigger on actually buying?
> 
> My ears have heard over a million $$ worth of stuff, but I've only dropped $10k. I'm a spectator way more than I'm a buyer. And with listening experience I can listen and not get wowed quite as easily as years ago. So a little jadedness keeps me grounded.
> 
> And the real stuff we love the most is vintage. Pushing vintage is not a good money making scheme. My favorite amps and speakers are all vintage, older than you and I both.
> 
> With all due respect, the picture your painting probably exists quite a bit in the audio world, but it doesn't exist where I'm at.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not so proud, to say I have. I recognize the signs, I examine the BS factor and I smell test everything I can, because the world is full of people who are either suckers, or the predators who prey on them. I choose to avoid both distinctions when addressing my "religion" of audio.
> 
> and the idea of accuracy being suspect, that we should aspire to some other unique quality of hi-fi, something subjective and not represented in measurement data, as if we don't have our own ears...
> 
> I'll say something about that, and it goes to the artist's intent as well.
> 
> 
> I've listened to music long enough to know that the parts of it that "hook" are usually points of conflict. Your mind doesn't fully comprehend some lyric, it's because the artist mumbles it, or does some weirdness that catches you off guard, and you think "wow, that's cool" and what you didn't figure on, is that they got that sound, and that distortion, from the artist, but also from the way it was recorded. That hook might not have happened to the same degree, if the mastering engineer didn't do a load of de-emphasis on the "esss" sounds, or auto-tune at the appropriate moment, or whatever other unique rendering that becomes the reference.
> 
> we're saying the reference, and what the music is supposed to do, may not coincide, and in that same way the attempt to reproduce that magic with accurate equipment, may not work as well as hi-fi sounding equipment that colors the sound.
> 
> so, in a way, I sort of agree that extremely expensive equipment must "do something" since people love it so much, but it's that black box quality that eludes a conventional explanation and causes the superlatives to flow, that is tied in to whatever subliminal suggestion the salesman can implant...
> 
> and from the artist, and the cover art on the album influencing our expectation? that also is the "push" away from the conventional and in music, influences the need to own that piece that 'moves' us.
> 
> it's not that I want to upset those "believers" in the snake juice huckster's cure for what ails ya, it's that I want people to understand that this debate is multi-faceted and just being interested enough to read this far down into my post/rant, is good enough!
> 
> 
> good enough...


At the end of the day, it's arguing for entertainment sake. The online forum unfortunately is too confrontational for its own good. Many of us know this going in, promise to not bother and still do it anyways. 

The very essence of this thread is what is perturbing. I'm ok with a random post in a thread debating the merit of high end amps, but a whole thread trying to dismiss it...it feels ethically wrong to allow it.


----------



## cajunner

FG79 said:


> At the end of the day, it's arguing for entertainment sake. The online forum unfortunately is too confrontational for its own good. Many of us know this going in, promise to not bother and still do it anyways.
> 
> The very essence of this thread is what is perturbing. I'm ok with a random post in a thread debating the merit of high end amps, but a whole thread trying to dismiss it...it feels ethically wrong to allow it.


The online forum is the bane of existence for a salesman, and you know it.

It's much harder to permeate the exterior, and break through the shell of people's inhibition regarding product than in (relatively)real life, where someone darkens a doorstep and you have your shot.

Cracking the shell, putting them in your pocket, making them see life from some high-brow perspective. What a game, stereo. Gaining their trust, using various grifter psychology, offering them something real life never will. You can be the star, if you sign the purchase agreement. You buy a set of this, and you will be happy, until the next time you come into the store, where I magically produce the newest line, the upgrade to your upgrade...

what does it take to change the mind of a man?

I wouldn't even know where to go if I wanted to audition some 100K set-ups.

I know it sounds incredible, just know it... and I believe YOU believe it's that good but is anything that good?

What exactly are we saying here, that the $3500 DAC is the middle ground, and if you really want to enjoy a song, spending $50K on one will let you visit audio nirvana, which you'll sadly never reach with $3500 in play?


come on man.

we're suckers, and I admit we're a little crazy but we're not insane.


----------



## FG79

cajunner said:


> The online forum is the bane of existence for a salesman, and you know it.
> 
> It's much harder to permeate the exterior, and break through the shell of people's inhibition regarding product than in (relatively)real life, where someone darkens a doorstep and you have your shot.
> 
> Cracking the shell, putting them in your pocket, making them see life from some high-brow perspective. What a game, stereo. Gaining their trust, using various grifter psychology, offering them something real life never will. You can be the star, if you sign the purchase agreement. You buy a set of this, and you will be happy, until the next time you come into the store, where I magically produce the newest line, the upgrade to your upgrade...
> 
> what does it take to change the mind of a man?
> 
> I wouldn't even know where to go if I wanted to audition some 100K set-ups.
> 
> I know it sounds incredible, just know it... and I believe YOU believe it's that good but is anything that good?
> 
> What exactly are we saying here, that the $3500 DAC is the middle ground, and if you really want to enjoy a song, spending $50K on one will let you visit audio nirvana, which you'll sadly never reach with $3500 in play?
> 
> 
> come on man.
> 
> we're suckers, and I admit we're a little crazy but we're not insane.


Ok, now we're getting somewhere, haha.

First, you can definitely have good sound for not a lot of money. It seems like I'm being misquoted/misunderstood a lot in this thread. Let me re-summarize:

a) You don't need five, six or seven figures to enjoy sound (but it's nice!)
b) But you will also need more than a few bucks too
c) Price is not necessarily indicative of quality

You also need good install and tuning, but that's a different conversation (and we all agree on that point anyways). 

I stand by those three points. Item c is the most important counterintuitive lesson because there is legit gear that's not a lot of money, and mediocre gear that is tons of money. Everybody just assumes something that is more expensive is better, and while that tends to apply in other consumer products, it isn't the case for audio. 

The cycle can be a little vicious though, and trust me the consumer is as much the devil as the salesman. I see audiophiledom as a legal, (physically but not financially) healthy drug addiction! Once you get addicted, you do the initating with your dealer, not the other way around. 

Case in point, a bunch of guys I know who are in various states of system upgrades. You're happy for a period of time, then get bored with what you have. Nobody is calling you up asking if you are bored yet, it just happens. Not just audio, but stuff like cars too. I got bored of the power of my 400 HP GTO only 2-3 months after buying it, but that 10 minute test drive at the dealer was so compelling, I knew I had to have the car ASAP. 

I have a friend who has just started out with the audio thing. Bought his first tube amp. A decent starter amp, what I would recommend to anybody as a minimum (about $900). For the first few months all I would see on his facebook feed are pics of the tubes, status updates talking about how much he loves them, etc. For somebody who is nowhere close to being obsessed with this stuff as I am, he clearly looks like he's more into it. Such is the joy of novelty. 

So that's where it stands this audio world. Even if I had the money, I still wouldn't go for the top of the top right away. The cliche "it's not about the destination but the journey" really applies here, as you can keep appreciating all of the subtle improvements along the way. 

With respect to "is anything that good?", it depends on what you are looking for. A lot of it will depend on recording, and some of the improvements are subtle, some very obvious. A lot of what you are paying for is the refinement, and may not be instantly obvious. May take some time to sink in. Another reason to do this stuff in stages.

Law of diminishing returns means the price difference would rarely be worth it to most people from a one shot deal, but makes sense to those who are "pot commited". 



In regards to your point about online forum and sales.....it might work for some but not us. Everything we do is word of mouth, walk ins, repeat business, audio show demonstrations. 

Despite what you think I'm trying to educate not sell. I or my friend will never become official sponsors on any forum (e.g. audiogon). We are not in a volume business. My participation on this forum and others is that of enthusiast not salesman. Do you really think I'm trying to sell products here? 

If you find yourself in the DC area, send me a PM and I'll give you the details to our spot. It'll be a good time for sure. 

In the meantime, do me a favor and try and think of a real POS speaker....you know, cheap stuff.....computer speakers, whatever. All I ask is that it has normal speaker terminations and won't need to have proprietary terminations removed/re-wired (it can be done, but a pain). Anybody is welcome to contribute to this. I demand it cost less than $100 and as little as possible, seriously. :laugh:

I might order it and have it sent over for our little demo of what $30 speakers sounds like with $40k of gear behind it. I think this little demonstration will add to our discussion. 

Or you can bring some speakers yourself if you're afraid of the test being rigged. 

I don't want you to think this is the (only) purpose for your visit should you choose to come. But if it's something you'd be interested in, it can be arranged!

Also if you're really serious about auditioning stuff long term, I'll see if I can get you a pass at CES/T.H.E. Show next year in Vegas.


----------



## radiospank

great info here


----------



## Victor_inox

FG79 said:


> Ok, now we're getting somewhere, haha.
> 
> First, you can definitely have good sound for not a lot of money. It seems like I'm being misquoted/misunderstood a lot in this thread. Let me re-summarize:
> 
> a) You don't need five, six or seven figures to enjoy sound (but it's nice!)
> b) But you will also need more than a few bucks too
> c) Price is not necessarily indicative of quality
> 
> You also need good install and tuning, but that's a different conversation (and we all agree on that point anyways).
> 
> I stand by those three points. Item c is the most important counterintuitive lesson because there is legit gear that's not a lot of money, and mediocre gear that is tons of money. Everybody just assumes something that is more expensive is better, and while that tends to apply in other consumer products, it isn't the case for audio.
> 
> The cycle can be a little vicious though, and trust me the consumer is as much the devil as the salesman. I see audiophiledom as a legal, (physically but not financially) healthy drug addiction! Once you get addicted, you do the initating with your dealer, not the other way around.
> 
> Case in point, a bunch of guys I know who are in various states of system upgrades. You're happy for a period of time, then get bored with what you have. Nobody is calling you up asking if you are bored yet, it just happens. Not just audio, but stuff like cars too. I got bored of the power of my 400 HP GTO only 2-3 months after buying it, but that 10 minute test drive at the dealer was so compelling, I knew I had to have the car ASAP.
> 
> I have a friend who has just started out with the audio thing. Bought his first tube amp. A decent starter amp, what I would recommend to anybody as a minimum (about $900). For the first few months all I would see on his facebook feed are pics of the tubes, status updates talking about how much he loves them, etc. For somebody who is nowhere close to being obsessed with this stuff as I am, he clearly looks like he's more into it. Such is the joy of novelty.
> 
> So that's where it stands this audio world. Even if I had the money, I still wouldn't go for the top of the top right away. The cliche "it's not about the destination but the journey" really applies here, as you can keep appreciating all of the subtle improvements along the way.
> 
> With respect to "is anything that good?", it depends on what you are looking for. A lot of it will depend on recording, and some of the improvements are subtle, some very obvious. A lot of what you are paying for is the refinement, and may not be instantly obvious. May take some time to sink in. Another reason to do this stuff in stages.
> 
> Law of diminishing returns means the price difference would rarely be worth it to most people from a one shot deal, but makes sense to those who are "pot commited".
> 
> 
> 
> In regards to your point about online forum and sales.....it might work for some but not us. Everything we do is word of mouth, walk ins, repeat business, audio show demonstrations.
> 
> Despite what you think I'm trying to educate not sell. I or my friend will never become official sponsors on any forum (e.g. audiogon). We are not in a volume business. My participation on this forum and others is that of enthusiast not salesman. Do you really think I'm trying to sell products here?
> 
> If you find yourself in the DC area, send me a PM and I'll give you the details to our spot. It'll be a good time for sure.
> 
> In the meantime, do me a favor and try and think of a real POS speaker....you know, cheap stuff.....computer speakers, whatever. All I ask is that it has normal speaker terminations and won't need to have proprietary terminations removed/re-wired (it can be done, but a pain). Anybody is welcome to contribute to this. I demand it cost less than $100 and as little as possible, seriously. :laugh:
> 
> I might order it and have it sent over for our little demo of what $30 speakers sounds like with $40k of gear behind it. I think this little demonstration will add to our discussion.
> 
> Or you can bring some speakers yourself if you're afraid of the test being rigged.
> 
> I don't want you to think this is the (only) purpose for your visit should you choose to come. But if it's something you'd be interested in, it can be arranged!
> 
> Also if you're really serious about auditioning stuff long term, I'll see if I can get you a pass at CES/T.H.E. Show next year in Vegas.


I have very good idea what and how music made in studious. studio monitors suppose to sound flat and uncolored. not always a case.
no stupidly expensive interconnects used very basic power conditioners, none of the stuff "high end" companies push. none of the $100000 speakers sounds like studio monitors, they made to sound pleasant playing recorded music. and recorded flat. l at 2014 CES I spent 3 days listening to all kinds of snake oil audio. they have awesome words explaining why their $2000 copper cable sounds better than $ 20 interconnect used in recording.
speaker importance is significant as it`s main source of distortions. but modern processing can mask that.
come in to rocky mountains audio fest in October, each year some interesting things presented here. Rocky Mountain Audio Fest | Colorado's Premiere Audio Fest along with another bunch of snake oil.


----------



## cajunner

nice post, FG79.

"pot committed" is a good connotation, of a person acting from a bias that they not only want to perceive a difference, (salesman's implanted device) but need too as well, as it justifies the inordinate expense.

I'm a little bit country, when it comes to the city-slicker gamble-speak, but I get it.

you feel like it's your duty to represent the hocus-pocus side of the affliction, your mystic prognostications are red flags to many who like to use this site for truth-seeking and verification purposes. You may assume you do a service to present the high-brow's approach to audio, but I am not duly impressed with the message, I have no problems with you, the messenger.

in the event that I would ever entertain the wager set up, with crappy transducers being put into an "audiophile spa" of uber components, and being told what to listen for, I imagine the spiel is refined enough, and the delivery palatable enough to possibly believe 40K of backside glam is going to turn a sow's ear into that silk purse of audio.


I have no problems with being courted and seduced by fancy knobs and the salesman's gambit, I am an easy lay and easily prompted by suggestion that is near and dear to my own fault pattern, something valid about being a mark, is that people invest in their deliveries when they sense a fish on the hook, it's almost primal in that way of predator, and their prey...


but all that is really saying, is that I like the sound of music playing and to be honest, I switch from critical listener to aural transportation to the happy place, way too easily. 

I'm also capable of using simple shelving of the bass and treble on old school components to "adjust to taste" and then getting on with it. If there's more adjustments available, I'll push a few sliders, or for my own edification I'll spend time with DSP menus but on the whole, I'm pretty happy with most consumer level product. What you are describing are people who are in perpetual irritation from some unknown quantity, who are no longer able to listen to music and get that ego dissolution. They are constantly finding fault with the playback equipment. 

Hardly better than the person who is constantly finding fault with the artist's choices, not much better as a psychological screw to turn.

Which is why resistance is futile with some people, they just slip into their enjoyment phase with the slightest brush with economics in play, mid grade gets them high, and when you're high, you're high!

no need for a built-up tolerance to anything under $40K doing the job, I can put together satisfaction for pennies on that audio dollar.


----------



## Hanatsu

DIY Audio Articles

Here's some great pages to read through if you guys are interested in the subject.



> If I happen to have omitted your favourite myth, please let me know. It needs to be able to be verified though - anything based on subjective tests (without the benefit of a double-blind test regime) can neither be verified or refuted, since it is almost certainly imaginary. The words used by the subjectivists are meaningless, because they don't describe any physical property or measurable phenomenon. Without these, it's anyone's guess as to what is actually meant, and in any dispute the subjectivist can argue that one simply 'misunderstood' what was said.


^^


----------



## BTA

cajunner said:


> I'm also capable of using simple shelving of the bass and treble on old school components to "adjust to taste" and then getting on with it. If there's more adjustments available, I'll push a few sliders, or for my own edification I'll spend time with DSP menus but on the whole, I'm pretty happy with most consumer level product. What you are describing are people who are in perpetual irritation from some unknown quantity, who are no longer able to listen to music and get that ego dissolution. They are constantly finding fault with the playback equipment.


This doesn't have much to do with the discussion but this part made me think of recently, I picked up an old 1960's Blaupunkt Arkansas stereo cabinet. The speakers are all still good, but the old radio/amp doesn't work. I have it pretty crappily rigged up with a T-amp outputting to the stock speakers, using the original crossovers. It's a goofy setup though as speakers are on the sides and front, and I wasn't able to wire it so everything plays properly. I don't even really know what "properly" is for this thing. I'm using an old original Squeezebox for streaming my music off my server. This was all to be temporary, with the intent of either repairing the old radio/amp, or replacing the stock speakers inside with something custom.

The point though, even in it's relatively pathetic setup. It's one of the best pieces of audio equipment I have in the house right now. There's certainly no proper stereo image or staging. But it fills the house with music. The super old stock speakers actually sound really excellent. It's not fatiguing. It's just pleasant. Sounds great at low volumes with company over. Looks neat. I really can't say I've been inclined to do anything more with it.

It's a totally different experience from the HT setup or the car install. But I enjoy it none the less.

And it certainly didn't cost me $10k.


----------



## Victor_inox

BTA said:


> This doesn't have much to do with the discussion but this part made me think of recently, I picked up an old 1960's Blaupunkt Arkansas stereo cabinet. The speakers are all still good, but the old radio/amp doesn't work. I have it pretty crappily rigged up with a T-amp outputting to the stock speakers, using the original crossovers. It's a goofy setup though as speakers are on the sides and front, and I wasn't able to wire it so everything plays properly. I don't even really know what "properly" is for this thing. I'm using an old original Squeezebox for streaming my music off my server. This was all to be temporary, with the intent of either repairing the old radio/amp, or replacing the stock speakers inside with something custom.
> 
> The point though, even in it's relatively pathetic setup. It's one of the best pieces of audio equipment I have in the house right now. There's certainly no proper stereo image or staging. But it fills the house with music. The super old stock speakers actually sound really excellent. It's not fatiguing. It's just pleasant. Sounds great at low volumes with company over. Looks neat. I really can't say I've been inclined to do anything more with it.
> 
> It's a totally different experience from the HT setup or the car install. But I enjoy it none the less.
> 
> And it certainly didn't cost me $10k.


You know that you have to post pictures of these speakers don`t you?


----------



## cajunner

BTA said:


> This doesn't have much to do with the discussion but this part made me think of recently, I picked up an old 1960's Blaupunkt Arkansas stereo cabinet. The speakers are all still good, but the old radio/amp doesn't work. I have it pretty crappily rigged up with a T-amp outputting to the stock speakers, using the original crossovers. It's a goofy setup though as speakers are on the sides and front, and I wasn't able to wire it so everything plays properly. I don't even really know what "properly" is for this thing. I'm using an old original Squeezebox for streaming my music off my server. This was all to be temporary, with the intent of either repairing the old radio/amp, or replacing the stock speakers inside with something custom.
> 
> The point though, even in it's relatively pathetic setup. It's one of the best pieces of audio equipment I have in the house right now. There's certainly no proper stereo image or staging. But it fills the house with music. The super old stock speakers actually sound really excellent. It's not fatiguing. It's just pleasant. Sounds great at low volumes with company over. Looks neat. I really can't say I've been inclined to do anything more with it.
> 
> It's a totally different experience from the HT setup or the car install. But I enjoy it none the less.
> 
> And it certainly didn't cost me $10k.


there you go.


it's the Bose thing, it's got no highs, no lows, but it works for you.


sometimes the audiophile-in-waiting, sort of like the serial killer that is latent in all of us, needs to remain in the subconscious.


and for general listening, overly detailed and involving playback equipment makes demands on your mind that soft, round, tube-like innocent systems from the days of alnico and field coils don't.

I found a pair of Visonik David 5202 plates in NIB condition on auction, it made me wistful for those first days of soft domes and felt cones, and an audio euphoria that didn't come from 40K response in the highs or anything so silly as full dynamat vehicle interiors...

but at $175, I have to watch them go instead of make them mine. My first set was the Alphasonik branded version, and I remember it being said that the Visonik David's were even better.


check them out, 
Visonik David 5202 Plate Car Speakers New Old Stock West Germany Vintage 70 80s | eBay


----------



## 2DEEP2

Hanatsu said:


> DIY Audio Articles
> 
> Here's some great pages to read through if you guys are interested in the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^


I like the one on "Amplifier Sound" Amplifier Sound - What Are The Influences? 

Good read!


----------



## FG79

cajunner said:


> and for general listening, overly detailed and involving playback equipment makes demands on your mind that_ soft, round, tube-like innocent systems from the days of alnico and field coils don't._



Oh really?

I didn't know there was room in the universe for us to agree on something.


----------



## cajunner

FG79 said:


> Oh really?
> 
> I didn't know there was room in the universe for us to agree on something.


nowadays, it costs you plenty to get to the same distortion profiles that used to be standard back in the day.

and by back in the day, I mean before my time.


and by before my time, I mean before I was born.



lol.


----------



## WinWiz

This weekend I throw out a working blaupunkt stereo radio from 1986. Maybe I should have sold it as vintage on eBay??


----------



## Golden Ear

WinWiz said:


> This weekend I throw out a working blaupunkt stereo radio from 1986. Maybe I should have sold it as vintage on eBay??


You should have listed it here in the classifieds as "RARE"! Lol


----------



## diy.phil

which blaupunkt city name?


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> and for general listening, overly detailed and involving playback equipment makes demands on your mind that soft, round, tube-like innocent systems from the days of alnico and field coils don't.



Are you saying that vintage equipment dull and not involving? or I misunderstood your post?


----------



## thehatedguy

Just like that Zapco Reference 750.2 on eBay listed as RARE...old school.



Golden Ear said:


> You should have listed it here in the classifieds as "RARE"! Lol


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Are you saying that vintage equipment dull and not involving? or I misunderstood your post?


it's the argument that pale green is the most calming background color, so they flood the asylum walls with it and keep the natives from growing restless...


in a day to day, vintage equipment is able to produce analog. Analog is simpatico with our highly refined, highly susceptible auditory system and rightfully so, with our needs defined by 50K of years of hunter-gatherer behind us...

and analog is represented as the organic, elusive quality of distortion, coming in harmonic waves.

the clean, sterile, artificial timbre of 192K of bit scrubber protocols, creates a less messy, more 'attention gathering' psychology and people will marvel at the invisible stage and the placement just so, of each percussive thwack Sheffield graces our playback systems.

there is a time and place for everything, and vintage background enjoyment, where your attention wanders to normal activities and when a familiar song bit is exposed, you bask in that temporary space of attention that the uber-clarity of focus requires until the moment fades, and you return to your day.

this natural ebb and flow is the goal, being able to simultaneously enter a realm of analog, er... analogues, yet when called upon for something more, the vinyl delivers it's hot footed boogie and you get to the analytical parts of your nature, you enable your 'suspension of disbelief' circuits, and you tune out of the ordinary for your moment arrived, and delivered.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> it's the argument that pale green is the most calming background color, so they flood the asylum walls with it and keep the natives from growing restless...
> 
> 
> in a day to day, vintage equipment is able to produce analog. Analog is simpatico with our highly refined, highly susceptible auditory system and rightfully so, with our needs defined by 50K of years of hunter-gatherer behind us...
> 
> and analog is represented as the organic, elusive quality of distortion, coming in harmonic waves.
> 
> the clean, sterile, artificial timbre of 192K of bit scrubber protocols, creates a less messy, more 'attention gathering' psychology and people will marvel at the invisible stage and the placement just so, of each percussive thwack Sheffield graces our playback systems.
> 
> there is a time and place for everything, and vintage background enjoyment, where your attention wanders to normal activities and when a familiar song bit is exposed, you bask in that temporary space of attention that the uber-clarity of focus requires until the moment fades, and you return to your day.
> 
> this natural ebb and flow is the goal, being able to simultaneously enter a realm of analog, er... analogues, yet when called upon for something more, the vinyl delivers it's hot footed boogie and you get to the analytical parts of your nature, you enable your 'suspension of disbelief' circuits, and you tune out of the ordinary for your moment arrived, and delivered.


huh?:laugh:


----------



## WestCo

Victor_inox said:


> huh?:laugh:


“The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten” – Benjamin Franklin

I really wish people would understand the message in your sig.
It is pretty accurate.


----------



## KENNEY

cleansoundz said:


> I have used several amps over the past 6 years ranging from RF, LP, McIntosh, MTX, PPI, ARC AUDIO, POLK AUDIO, JBL, ZED, LANZAR OPTI, JL AUDIO, KICKER, ECLIPSE, Etc, Etc. While some amps did have a sound that was pleasing to the ear, I noticed that amps with higher power ratings set to a decent pair of speakers whether they were separates or coaxials sounded just as good as the so called higher end amps. My point is an 100 watt x 4 channel of a good brand sounded just as clean, crisp and clear as the so called higher end brands such as Brax, McIntosh, etc. The same applied to bass as well. I swapped out several good brand of amps with higher end amps to notice very little difference in sound quality using a sealed enclosure. If this is the case, why spend so much money on the so-called higher end brands?


Talk to some sound engineers, I am sure they would be more than happy to debate that with you.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> huh?:laugh:


just having a little fun.

when you realize what people are paying for, distortion that sounds like analog, you get that light bulb going off that people aren't really listening for distortion, or loving distortion, it's the harmonics that they wanted all along. Distortion is the only way to arrive at analog sound, using bit streams. It's not there as much at lower levels, but it does lend a playback system a sonic signature, much as your tube pre-amps will. Not as much as ringing through the steel, or passing through the output transformers might add, in those distortion fuzz bomb approaching real life, sort of ways....


but it's there, if not in the ABX sort of way, at least in the "cables make a difference" way, and the silver speaker wires sort of way.

actually, it's more there, than those additions to the sound, as it is altering it at a basic level and not defined by the difference between silicon and metal grids in a vacuum, surrounded by glass.

the electron pump, matters.

if only to say, you're justified in inserting an artifice in an attempt to gain back the analog you lost.


----------



## Victor_inox

KENNEY said:


> Talk to some sound engineers, I am sure they would be more than happy to debate that with you.


Most people will agree with him, not many people knows how music suppose to sound. knowing what listen for gathered by years of experience and knowledgeable mentor. 
It`s killing me to hear how some people saying that this amp is 100 time better than other. how absolute terms can be applied to subjective matter is beyond me. Manufacturers driven by profit, they make way more making cheapo crap for average user. most users driven by marketing. 
expensive amps , engineered better, assembled better and use better parts to acomplish the same thing. Some manufacturers prefer to drop a line of less profitable products that to adjust to competition lower prices by moving production to cheaper places and use cheap parts. Some still adjust in hope to sell by their established reputation. Highest quality stuff from 30years before and now still cost a fortune. best 2" multitracker was 1/4 of a million dollars 30 years ago, they have on of the best digital system now and owned by Harman Studer [Homepage]


----------



## Hanatsu

Another good read:

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed


----------



## squeak9798

KENNEY said:


> Talk to some sound engineers, I am sure they would be more than happy to debate that with you.


And many electrical and acoustic engineers that agree with him. What's your point ?


----------



## WestCo

cleansoundz said:


> I have used several amps over the past 6 years ranging from RF, LP, McIntosh, MTX, PPI, ARC AUDIO, POLK AUDIO, JBL, ZED, LANZAR OPTI, JL AUDIO, KICKER, ECLIPSE, Etc, Etc. While some amps did have a sound that was pleasing to the ear, I noticed that amps with higher power ratings set to a decent pair of speakers whether they were separates or coaxials sounded just as good as the so called higher end amps. My point is an 100 watt x 4 channel of a good brand sounded just as clean, crisp and clear as the so called higher end brands such as Brax, McIntosh, etc. The same applied to bass as well. I swapped out several good brand of amps with higher end amps to notice very little difference in sound quality using a sealed enclosure. If this is the case, why spend so much money on the so-called higher end brands?


RF- Never ran
LP - Never ran
Mcintosh- MCC404m and 320- good amps but excessively warm sounding, but pleasant to the ear, with a top end roll off
Arc Audio (SE series) - very good, better than the Mac's a bit on the dry side but still very good
MTX- never ran
PPI - very good amps for the price, not in the same league as ARC Se's but still very good.
Polk - never ran
JBL - similar to Mac, too warm but good, no top end roll off
Lanzar Opti - probably the best bang for the buck you can get next to the ppi
balanced overall and a great mix of detail and warmth.
JL audio - way to dry sounding, but very detailed
Kicker - I wouldn't put that in my car maybe a warhorse
Eclipse - ran a budget eclipse it was ok
Stock Zapco - I didn't care for, too dry (Z400.2) the only zapco's I really like are modded by matt R, otherwise I wouldn't run them. Maybe OS Zapco, but even those are too warm sounding.

Hope this helps


----------



## WestCo

Zed leviathan V3 is also a winner overall. Clean and balanced but there is some symbalance.


----------



## Golden Ear

WestCo said:


> RF- Never ran
> LP - Never ran
> Mcintosh- MCC404m and 320- good amps but excessively warm sounding, but pleasant to the ear, with a top end roll off
> Arc Audio (SE series) - very good, better than the Mac's a bit on the dry side but still very good
> MTX- never ran
> PPI - very good amps for the price, not in the same league as ARC Se's but still very good.
> Polk - never ran
> JBL - similar to Mac, too warm but good, no top end roll off
> Lanzar Opti - probably the best bang for the buck you can get next to the ppi
> balanced overall and a great mix of detail and warmth.
> JL audio - way to dry sounding, but very detailed
> Kicker - I wouldn't put that in my car maybe a warhorse
> Eclipse - ran a budget eclipse it was ok
> Stock Zapco - I didn't care for, too dry (Z400.2) the only zapco's I really like are modded by matt R, otherwise I wouldn't run them. Maybe OS Zapco, but even those are too warm sounding.
> 
> Hope this helps


What does a "dry" amp sound like? I have the JL HDs and that description would never have crossed my mind. Actually, I can't tell the amps apart from the PDXs I have in another vehicle.


----------



## WestCo

Golden Ear said:


> What does a "dry" amp sound like? I have the JL HDs and that description would never have crossed my mind. Actually, I can't tell the amps apart from the PDXs I have in another vehicle.


Basically the sound from the amps doesn't sound analog. To my ears the music sounds a bit stifled.

I ran the pdx-5 amp from alpine it was ok for the money. It was not a night and day difference "upgrading" to the McIntosh amps, but there was a noticeable change in the mids and highs.

Was the Mac worth the 950$ I paid? Well it looked stunning and was enjoyable to listen to. But at the end of the day no, it was not worth the money.

I think the better deal for me was the Matt R modded class A biased C2k 4.0; I picked up from SoundJunkie on here. That thing smoked everything else I had ran in the past. The drivers do not sound stressed at high volumes, and the amp has the best mix of clarity and warmth I have found. The total cost was 1,100$ but it was significantly better than anything else I have ran in the past. The Lanzar Opti comes the closest, but even my Lanzar has about 200$ in mods.


----------



## SilkySlim

West co I'll be sending you a few more recommended mods for the Opti they really sound good!! I wish I could have known which ones to do on yours. They really open up the top and mid and tighten bass up. Not that it's bad to begin with but I just didn't want you to be a guinea pig. Yea wow impressive mods my wife just listened to the car tonight and said how much better it sounds. She said wow I haven't noticed that much detail on the strings in the cello and the plucking on the bass. (Former bad player in a band of course she would notice) I digress. It sounds incredible. Effortless. I love it when equipment disappears.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ultimateherts

WestCo said:


> Basically the sound from the amps doesn't sound analog. To my ears the music sounds a bit stifled.
> 
> I ran the pdx-5 amp from alpine it was ok for the money. It was not a night and day difference "upgrading" to the McIntosh amps, but there was a noticeable change in the mids and highs.



To me the Arc Audio XXD amps sounded like this...


----------



## cubdenno

KENNEY said:


> Talk to some sound engineers, I am sure they would be more than happy to debate that with you.


Live about 10 miles from one. His advice to me early steered me away from high dollar brands because there was zero measurable benefit except the lightening of my wallet. Since then, I have spoken with enough other experts and their advice has pretty much matched the early advice from the member here. 

Oh sure there are always going to be people who buy into marketing as gospel. People who want to believe that the money they just spent is justifiable. That is totally fine. No matter the evidence to the contrary, they won't believe it. It's their money. Theirs to spend. 

I recognize that no amount of threads from people on here will ever convince everybody that amps are basically indistinguishable in blind testing. We all want to believe that we can hear things between the designs. Truth of the matter is, the speaker you choose has exponentially greater chances of altering the sound than an amp.

I really miss the days this site dealt within the realm of science more than belief in marketing.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

^ same here. In talking to Gary Summers, someone asked him why he chose the pdx's. He said he couldn't here a difference between the pdx's and any other high end amp. He said he didn't know the engineering behind them, but audibly there wasn't anything there to pick them apart.


----------



## cajunner

so a valid question, is whether Gary Summers has tin ears, or you have an ability that 99.99% of the general public doesn't?

which is more true, haha...


----------



## papasin

cajunner said:


> so a valid question, is whether Gary Summers has tin ears, or you have an ability that 99.99% of the general public doesn't?
> 
> which is more true, haha...


Just for reference to those who may not know Gary... (pretty modest guy)

Gary Summers - IMDb


----------



## Victor_inox

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> ^ same here. In talking to Gary Summers, someone asked him why he chose the pdx's. He said he couldn't here a difference between the pdx's and any other high end amp. He said he didn't know the engineering behind them, but audibly there wasn't anything there to pick them apart.


Problem of today`s world, everyone reading too many online reviews instead of experiencing things themselves. 

Gary Summers said said PDX sounds the same as what? 
I bet in reality he listened to a couple amps with completely different setup and tuning. don`t present anyone experience as your own.
I have few dozens of amps in my shop right now, different models of the same brand sounds different. 
You know why some people jumping from one amp to another?
they remember their state of mind and compare it to present state of mind, they don`t remember what they heard 20 seconds ago, ONly their take at the moment of listening. one amp can sound better yesterday than today.
another sounds better today but was lifeless and dry 20 minutes ago.
Only small percentage of trained professionals knows what listen for differences.


----------



## cajunner

papasin said:


> Just for reference to those who may not know Gary... (pretty modest guy)
> 
> Gary Summers - IMDb


so, not a tin ear then...





I guess that just leaves the possibility that you have a hearing acuity like Babe Ruth had in visual acuity, that you can tell what song is playing when the actual level of the playback is 0 db going up to 5 db crest factor...


that amount of sound is probably hard to hear outside of your own body's digestive and circulatory ambient noise...

I don't believe I can even hear at 10 db, from all the industrial noise hazards I've subjected my body to in my many years of outside labor or shop environments.

In a severely quieted room, wearing very good full cup, closed-back headphones, if someone played me a song at a level amounting to 10 db, I probably wouldn't be able to make it out just from a background of mild tinnitus.

But that doesn't mean I can't do just as well as someone else, on ABX testing of say, 70 db baseline, when examining playback equipment!

I think an obviously challenged maxim of my own making, thus:

as you get older, your hearing becomes more acute, in the range that you can still hear


is probably not easily proved but it helps me believe I'm not handicapped when pitted against a golden ear type. I can easily hear differences in playback from various amplifiers, and it doesn't mean I didn't do a scientifically valid test, either. It means even if it was proved to me that buying anything more expensive than Walmart Dual branded amps is a lesson in vanity, I still wouldn't be running Dual amps because I have a vested interest in supporting my own biased opinions. I cannot accept that over my many years of listening to various amplifiers, the differences are either inaudible or not there at all.

I won't accept it, haha...


----------



## quickaudi07

I think at the end of the day people want what's hot out there and what's the best! In reality this car audio hobby isn't cheep as all of you know. When you start building a system you know ur budget will go over very few of us stick to one thing, and one thing only! As far as amps go, can we hear a difference I sure we can. Yes install and other stuff go along with it, but does an amp play a big factor??? He'll yea it does... tell Gary to install some of the cheep amps that we have on the market.... like boss lol says 100 w x4 ch... and than have him switch it to his pdx... I wonder if he could hear the difference. I don't know who Gary is, but I'm not only Gary will be able to tell the difference in sound quality but also the output and speaker control cheep amp vs sq or high end amp. End of story!

Why do we buy Mosconi, JL, Arc audio, PPI, and other great brands???? 
Simple we are going for quality, power, flexibility, so we could enjoy our music and be passionate about it.
Did I really need Mosconi amp???? Nope jl or alpine would have done the same. Would they do better??? I have no idea... have had any of them yet  
It's a lie i had JL slash amps and I really enjoyed the. Why did I switch to Mosconi?? Because I wanted something different! 



Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Problem of today`s world, everyone reading too many online reviews instead of experiencing things themselves.
> 
> Gary Summers said said PDX sounds the same as what?
> I bet in reality he listened to a couple amps with completely different setup and tuning. don`t present anyone experience as your own.
> I have few dozens of amps in my shop right now, different models of the same brand sounds different.
> You know why some people jumping from one amp to another?
> they remember their state of mind and compare it to present state of mind, they don`t remember what they heard 20 seconds ago, ONly their take at the moment of listening. one amp can sound better yesterday than today.
> another sounds better today but was lifeless and dry 20 minutes ago.
> Only small percentage of trained professionals knows what listen for differences.


back when I could hear, it was 1996 and I was a young, gullible person who walked into various shops and listened to many products on the boards there, and I heard many differences.


that's a historical fact.

whether or not those differences were able to pass a smell test, I don't know.


those people who sell product for a living, may have been part of the reason, or perhaps part of the blame.


we didn't have much in the way of measurements, and relied on manufacturer copy to sway us in whatever direction, we didn't have the internet. We had guys like Ken Pohlmann, or Gordon Holt, or Tom Nousaine, to read and what they did in their various test labs, was the best we were allowed.


you know how people griped when they never had a negative review of a product, that sort of thing?


maybe it's because there's not a lot of difference, haha... but no.

I can say that the guy running Pyle subs back in '90, didn't have the same capable system as the guy running Orion...

it was a lot of difference, too.

today, maybe the amps are so refined, it's only when you get a dud that you can single something out, but the history of car audio is that you used to have superlatives, you used to have everything else. Nowadays the industry is reversed, you have everything capable of greatness and the stand-out is the rare dud, it's a great time to be in audio but only if you don't need to prop up a psychological defense of spending too much time and money on a hobby that separates you from other parts of your life.


----------



## quickaudi07

^^^^^^^^^^^ I agree 110% some of us do it for living, some as a hobby like me. Life is to short! Enjoy till its fullest 

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Victor_inox

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> ^ same here. In talking to Gary Summers, someone asked him why he chose the pdx's. He said he couldn't here a difference between the pdx's and any other high end amp. He said he didn't know the engineering behind them, but audibly there wasn't anything there to pick them apart.


I`d like to see an evidence of this statement. Pro audio guy will never say anything like that unless he is joking. he can`t be deaf by definition.


----------



## Victor_inox

quickaudi07 said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^ I agree 110% some of us do it for living, some as a hobby like me. Life is to short! Enjoy till its fullest
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


Enjoy the music not equipment producing it. 

I have many friend playing music for living, classical, jazz, etc....
best musicians don`t care what equipment sound engineer use, they like the sound or they don`t.


----------



## jtaudioacc

I'm pretty sure Gary has said that the new PDX were a good improvement over the old. Both in his own system. I'm not sure that's saying much tho. Isn't a bit accepted that they weren't that great? lol

Oh and he's also said that Skywalker ranch studio B is better than A although they are identical in setup. 

I was originally an Orion nutthugger back when I started in the 80's. Orion definitely owned Pyle. LOL

In my current car, I've had Zapco C2K-Tru Billet highly modified-Genesis Series III-now my new Focal/ORCA class Deez Nuts amps. I'm happier than ever with my current amp choice SQ and Performance.

Oh, and my early 90's Jensen amp filled in great as my Tru and Genesis amps were being repaired.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

jtaudioacc said:


> I'm pretty sure Gary has said that the new PDX were a good improvement over the old. Both in his own system. I'm not sure that's saying much tho. Isn't a bit accepted that they weren't that great? lol
> 
> Oh and he's also said that Skywalker ranch studio B is better than A although they are identical in setup.
> 
> I was originally an Orion nutthugger back when I started in the 80's. Orion definitely owned Pyle. LOL
> 
> In my current car, I've had Zapco C2K-Tru Billet highly modified-Genesis Series III-now my new Focal/ORCA class Deez Nuts amps. I'm happier than ever with my current amp choice SQ and Performance.
> 
> Oh, and my early 90's Jensen amp filled in great as my Tru and Genesis amps were being repaired.


JT, his comments were directed to someone who asked why he didn't use something with a high class a bias, Jon's modified Genesis amps were pointed out as an example. It was at my first gtg. Gary's response was that he had listened to other amps like that before deciding on the PDX's, and he said he couldn't hear a difference between the PDX's and the others he had listed to. His comments on his upgrade to the newer PDX's made it seem like noise floor was what the improvement between the first PDX's and second PDX's was, which is a well known problem for the first gens.

This was in the same conversation that he recommended finding a good set of speakers to get a reference, and was telling use specifically to look for B&W speakers, even if you could find them used, especially if you could find some Diamonds.


----------



## ErinH

I'll be honest and this may possibly come off rude but so be it...

I find threads like this, where people are arguing subjective evaluations with no factual proof or discussion in to their evaluation, funny because I see people posting about hearing the differences in this or that. And how component X made their system soooo much better. I'd think they have golden ears. 

Then I hear their system. Then I quit paying attention to anything they say. 

My advice: research. If you can afford it and it appeals to you then buy it. But don't lose sleep over you possibly not benefiting from an amp because some dude on the internet who you don't know and who no one can provide feedback on told you sounds better than what you have. Your install and tune are more important by and large than sonic differences from modern amps of the same power. At least up front. If you feel you've reached the pinnacle of audio then by all means look in to an amp to help you along the way. I just wouldn't make it my priority starting out.

Of course, I'm just some dude on the net, too. So feel free to ignore me as well.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

^ still think this forum needs a like button.


----------



## FG79

bikinpunk said:


> I'll be honest and this may possibly come off rude but so be it...
> 
> I find threads like this, where people are arguing subjective evaluations with no factual proof or discussion in to their evaluation, funny because I see people posting about hearing the differences in this or that. And how component X made their system soooo much better. I'd think they have golden ears.
> 
> Then I hear their system. Then I quit paying attention to anything they say.
> 
> Of course, I'm just some dude on the net, too. So feel free to ignore me as well.


I think the very best advice I can give anyone is to find someone whose taste most resembles yours, and just follow their advice. 

I have my crew so I never have to worry about anything. It's a great feeling. 

If I had to rely on all the white papers, forum threads in the world I'd be completely lost. 

One thing I've found very perplexing is hearing two different people assign opposite objective observations on the same gear. For example back in the day hearing somebody compare a Morel to a Focal. The general gist is/was that Morel was warmer than Focal. Whether you preferred that was irrelevant....the issue should be the actual sound. 

Anyways, I'd hear somebody say the exact opposite in a totally different thread and it was very head scratching. I have seen numerous versions of this over the years.

We may never agree on taste, but we should agree on tonal balance observations. Either that or somebody is completely misusing subjective terms.


----------



## ErinH

FG79 said:


> Either that or somebody is completely misusing subjective terms.


Well, that's what subjective is, really. The problem is no one has quantified the term(s). So, people using the term may not think it means the same thing. That's just the nature of assigning a subjective term to something. And that's really my problem with subjective discussions where people want to ignore objective information. You're ignoring something defined in lieu of using something that's not.


----------



## cubdenno

bikinpunk said:


> I'll be honest and this may possibly come off rude but so be it...
> 
> I find threads like this, where people are arguing subjective evaluations with no factual proof or discussion in to their evaluation, funny because I see people posting about hearing the differences in this or that. And how component X made their system soooo much better. I'd think they have golden ears.
> 
> Then I hear their system. Then I quit paying attention to anything they say.
> 
> My advice: research. If you can afford it and it appeals to you then buy it. But don't lose sleep over you possibly not benefiting from an amp because some dude on the internet who you don't know and who no one can provide feedback on told you sounds better than what you have. Your install and tune are more important by and large than sonic differences from modern amps of the same power. At least up front. If you feel you've reached the pinnacle of audio then by all means look in to an amp to help you along the way. I just wouldn't make it my priority starting out.
> 
> Of course, I'm just some dude on the net, too. So feel free to ignore me as well.


This is magic. Perfectly said...

Where is that "LIKE" button???


----------



## cajunner

if you're one of those proof seekers, try this on for size:

go back into your listening history, your knowledge base and try to pick out 5 examples from the near hundred possible, (if you're like me, and have heard a lot of equipment over the years) and select from that pool, those that either by personal observation or by reputation, the ones that stand out as an example of a commercially available product that you're sure were duds.

And I mean go into Radio Shack non-Optimus territory, go into the Pyle, the Boss, the Legacy.

If it came with an apples to apples rating, or at least made half of that rating, like Zed-built Boss amps, and you remember back, please post your findings.

Put it out here!

Let's have them, let us take the list of universally despised product that come up in several poster's entries, and put those to the test.

Then we'll taste test those examples, we'll Pepsi Challenge the latest boners, the Focal, the Mosconi, and whatever else you want to throw in.

I'll list a couple... wait, I'm having trouble here, help me out guys.


----------



## CIGARGUY

I've been out of the business since 1999 and quite a bit has changed since then. At that point, there were distinct differences in sound reproduction in amps. Now, probably not as much, provided we're dealing with reputable companies. 

That being said, what is the standard for SQ? An RTA curve, or sonic satisfaction to the listener? None of us can ever be the judge for what sounds good to someone else. That's nothing but subjective to the individual listener. An RTA curve is the only quantifiable standard we can actually judge by, and anyone trained in SQ knows that a flat curve usually doesn't meet the vast majority or people's definition of good sound, including mine. 

Point being, everyone likes different sounds, accenuations, and tonal balances. Some people think 4 15's and a pair 6X9s on the back deck is good sound, yet others can only appreciate an ultra-high end system that has processing out the wazoo. It's all in the ear of the listener.


----------



## cubdenno

Just like the saying "Pics or it didn't happen." , there should be "Measurements or shut the heck up!"


----------



## ErinH

CIGARGUY said:


> anyone trained in SQ knows that a flat curve usually doesn't meet the vast majority or people's definition of good sound, including mine.


I'd tend to agree, *but *that's not the RTA's fault. that's the user and tuner's fault for not understanding how to use the RTA. this is a discussion in and of itself.


----------



## Victor_inox

CIGARGUY said:


> That being said, what is the standard for SQ? An RTA curve, or sonic satisfaction to the listener? None of us can ever be the judge for what sounds good to someone else. That's nothing but subjective to the individual listener. An RTA curve is the only quantifiable standard we can actually judge by, and anyone trained in SQ knows that a flat curve usually doesn't meet the vast majority or people's definition of good sound, including mine.
> 
> Point being, everyone likes different sounds, accenuations, and tonal balances. Some people think 4 15's and a pair 6X9s on the back deck is good sound, yet others can only appreciate an ultra-high end system that has processing out the wazoo. It's all in the ear of the listener.


 standard for sound quality? there is none. Just like your point in second paragraph of your post. one dude likes big boobs, you might like perky boobs. majority likes BOSE. 
Ultra high-end systems does not using processin out the wazoo, unless it`s yours self proclaimed high-end.


----------



## cajunner

CIGARGUY said:


> I've been out of the business since 1999 and quite a bit has changed since then. At that point, there were distinct differences in sound reproduction in amps. Now, probably not as much, provided we're dealing with reputable companies.
> 
> That being said, what is the standard for SQ? An RTA curve, or sonic satisfaction to the listener? None of us can ever be the judge for what sounds good to someone else. That's nothing but subjective to the individual listener. An RTA curve is the only quantifiable standard we can actually judge by, and anyone trained in SQ knows that a flat curve usually doesn't meet the vast majority or people's definition of good sound, including mine.
> r.


let's limit this discussion to amplifiers only, and those without processing of a digital or proprietary nature that includes IC's that change the sound with timing or harmonic wave inclusions.

so, amplifiers.

you've got that 1999 base, one that remembers the dogs in audio?

let's have them!

what do you remember as being objectionable, was it the Targa, was it Sentrek, Fultron or Jensen?

I want your dogs! We'll set the record straight once and for all.


----------



## ErinH

standard of sound quality?... start here:
Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms: Floyd Toole: 9780240520094: Amazon.com: Books


Where do you guys think factors such as smooth response, sound power, etc came from? Subjective studies correlated to objective measurements.


----------



## Victor_inox

bikinpunk said:


> standard of sound quality?... start here:
> Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms: Floyd Toole: 9780240520094: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> 
> Where do you guys think factors such as smooth response, sound power, etc came from? Subjective studies correlated to objective measurements.


very good book, i recommend it as well. 
I listened to $5000 speakers that sounded better than $20000 speakers.
both has $200000 amplification behind them. similar rooms with similar treatment. To me $5000 speakers sounded better, $20000 measured better. Question is why?


----------



## ErinH

Victor_inox said:


> very good book, i recommend it as well.
> I listened to $5000 speakers that sounded better than $20000 speakers.
> both has $200000 amplification behind them. similar rooms with similar treatment. To me $5000 speakers sounded better, $20000 measured better. Question is why?


who knows for sure. could be the position and location of the speakers in the room (even a few inches can make a difference), could be the speaker itself. And in that regard, I don't know what "measured better" means, either. Seriously. Measured better on what? What parameter? On axis, off axis, power response, woofer sweep, near field measurement, RTA measurement (averaged or no?), etc, etc. When you say "measured better" that doesn't really tell me anything without specifics on how it was measured.


----------



## Victor_inox

bikinpunk said:


> who knows for sure. could be the position and location of the speakers in the room (even a few inches can make a difference), could be the speaker itself. And in that regard, I don't know what "measured better" means, either. Seriously. Measured better on what? What parameter? On axis, off axis, power response, woofer sweep, near field measurement, RTA measurement (averaged or no?), etc, etc. When you say "measured better" that doesn't really tell me anything without specifics on how it was measured.


measured on standard set of parameters and advertised as such. 
You right, no one knows for sure. There is no universal measurable parameters to distinguish what speaker sounds the best, only guidelines.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> measured on standard set of parameters and advertised as such.
> You right, no one knows for sure. There is no universal measurable parameters to distinguish what speaker sounds the best, only guidelines.



things like Klippel's distortion analyzer help for speakers, unfortunately there isn't an amplifier quality assessment tool out there that can make short work of the subjective differentials.


----------



## thehatedguy

Audio Precision makes such equipment.


----------



## cajunner

thehatedguy said:


> Audio Precision makes such equipment.



haha.. I said 'subjective' differentials, haha...

I know we can measure amps out the wazoo, but getting that measurement data to define sound quality at the ears, is a hard sell.

so many years of judging amps by THD figures, and S/N figures, and other manufacturer provided data that is simply inaccurate or blunt instruments in the quest for better sound.

today, I see the reverse in the bias towards class D designs, it does come full circle, and using older equipment with the inefficient class AB circuits using those wonderful bi-polar transistors, is now frowned upon because today's equipment is so fast, according to the people who push these products. And it gets absorbed into the culture.

people put in old school Sony with the big Sanken outputs, and optimized boards separating the power supply from the output sections, and there's no expectation of quality.

Or even Linear Power's use of metal can transistors, (though more stable, not exactly proven to be more accurate) and how sweet the ultrawide bandwidth and high instantaneous current design built into Harmon Kardon's old CA260, is now synonymous with high noise, since they came rated with only 90 db of S/N ratio...

what is high end, nowadays, exactly? And how does an Audio Precision analyzer define it, in comparison to the conventional definition?


----------



## thehatedguy

I think you would have to start to compare the amps and see what the difference are and where they are at...then compare the measurements to how you think the amps sound.

Or maybe you could pick Bob Carver's brain...


----------



## cajunner

thehatedguy said:


> I think you would have to start to compare the amps and see what the difference are and where they are at...then compare the measurements to how you think the amps sound.
> 
> Or maybe you could pick Bob Carver's brain...


I think Bob would fail the amp challenge.

and, Bob would say so as well, but if you asked Bob to produce an amp that sounds like a Mosconi, or a Sinfoni, or even a JL, he'd have a way to do it.

and I don't mean taking any other top tier amp off the shelf and just optimizing the gains.

He'd get in there with his distortion analysis and first through fifth harmonic potentiometer circuits, he'd fiddle with phase angles and what not, output impedance boxes, whatever it took, he'd have some way of objectively changing a known good amplifier's response/measurements, so that they matched with the Mosconi.

And that's not to say we as consumers can't determine what exists outside of "gain, noise, THD and FR" that is the envelope of lycan's proposition, as we are using some of the most sophisticated test instruments out there...

our ears?


Bob Carver may be able to do this thread some good, but why isn't Bob Carver quality now ubiquitous in the scene?


----------



## Victor_inox

simple change in speaker wires capacitance changes sound. BOb carver never disclosed what exactly he did to his amp to make it sound like reference amp they used in his challenge. some resistors and some caps most likely. I bet output stage went untouched. He just proved a point that price has little to do with sound character of an amp.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> simple change in speaker wires capacitance changes sound. BOb carver never disclosed what exactly he did to his amp to make it sound like reference amp they used in his challenge. some resistors and some caps most likely. I bet output stage went untouched. He just proved a point that price has little to do with sound character of an amp.


they point at several things he adjusted or ran the amp through in the article where he had 48 hours to do it.

one thing in particular, was he found out what the distortion profile from the reference amp looked like, and he produced a circuit that adjusted each harmonic, I think that had a lot to do with it.

when you walk in with several boxes of test equipment and tools, and end up with 3 conference tables covered with stuff, so you can make one amp sound like another amp, well...

that's not consumer grade, right there.


----------



## ErinH

Victor_inox said:


> measured on standard set of parameters and advertised as such.
> You right, no one knows for sure. There is no universal measurable parameters to distinguish what speaker sounds the best, only guidelines.


Define "standard". Or, tell me what speakers and I can look in to it myself. Of course, I won't know the room, but I can at least see what information is available for the speakers. To date, the best information I've seen relating to speaker performance is what Harman has provided on AVSforum for their Revel F206 speaker which I can't seem to find right now. 
Edit: Looks like the OP removed it and wayback isn't helping. This is the best I can do, if it even works: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...IQcMBg&iact=rc&dur=350&page=1&start=0&ndsp=28

as far as measurable parameters that dictate what sounds the best, I'll disagree. Not entirely, but there are plenty of research documents that discuss subjectivity vs objective data. that said, if you're talking about a reference system it's simple: Whatever is on the source media should be what is spit out. A=A. Input=Output. No added distortion, no shifts in frequency response. (Modern) Electronics do this well. Speakers/drivers are another story.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> they point at several things he adjusted or ran the amp through in the article where he had 48 hours to do it.
> 
> one thing in particular, was he found out what the distortion profile from the reference amp looked like, and he produced a circuit that adjusted each harmonic, I think that had a lot to do with it.
> 
> when you walk in with several boxes of test equipment and tools, and end up with 3 conference tables covered with stuff, so you can make one amp sound like another amp, well...
> 
> that's not consumer grade, right there.


 when limitation of consumer grade came on the table? 
we were hypothetically arguing presenting opinions as factual knowledge.
carver never disclosed publicly what circuit he did to accomplish that. 
Bob showed that harmonics is major contributor to sound character. 
That was long known fact started with Stradivarius long before sound recording was stolen and patented by Thomas Edison.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> when limitation of consumer grade came on the table?
> we were hypothetically arguing presenting opinions as factual knowledge.
> carver never disclosed publicly what circuit he did to accomplish that.
> Bob showed that harmonics is major contributor to sound character.
> That was long known fact started with Stradivarius long before sound recording was stolen and patented by Thomas Edison.



Bob Carver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd like to try the Lightstar, just because...


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> Bob Carver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I'd like to try the Lightstar, just because...


ready to shell out 1/4 of a million? what`s the point if they all sound the same?
Carvers patents expired, i studied Phase Linear 1000, and the Model 4000 preamplifiers circuitry.
It`s work of the genius to achieve Conrad Johnson sound character with cheaper design.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> ready to shell out 1/4 of a million? what`s the point if they all sound the same?
> Carvers patents expired, i studied Phase Linear 1000, and the Model 4000 preamplifiers circuitry.
> It`s work of the genius to achieve Conrad Johnson sound character with cheaper design.


but does it sound good, I ask...




like that M 4.0T that copied his Silver Seven, does it sound good...

I might not be able to acquire a Silver Seven, but I could probably find the scratch to do the M 4.0T.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> but does it sound good, I ask...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> like that M 4.0T that copied his Silver Seven, does it sound good...
> 
> I might not be able to acquire a Silver Seven, but I could probably find the scratch to do the M 4.0T.


You can bet you ass it is. What is good and here we running circles again.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk


----------



## Victor_inox

Can sound quality be measured? - CNET


----------



## cajunner

talk about a shill, haha...


Steve Guttenberg, read the bio at the end of the short article.

A former high end salesman, now a review writer for stereo e-mags.

can there be a more biased background?


thanks for providing an example of how to smell test, Victor.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> talk about a shill, haha...
> 
> 
> Steve Guttenberg, read the bio at the end of the short article.
> 
> A former high end salesman, now a review writer for stereo e-mags.
> 
> can there be a more biased background?
> 
> 
> thanks for providing an example of how to smell test, Victor.


 It can, read any modern product advertisement. all about how well their amps. measured. How background can be biases? he is not seeking to gain anything, he just stated his qualified opinion.
Close friend of mine design analog circuits for a good chunk of his life.
he bragging how good his amp on paper and such. sounded mediocre to me.
I changed his design and to me and him it sounded better but he still arguing that without modification it`s measured better. 
Measurements can be helpful on 1st design stage, then when numbers within design goal changes can be made to improve sound at the price of absolutely perfect measurements. 
OK maybe Guttenberg biased, how about Butterworth? how he biased?
Brent Butterworth, who believes measurements are useful tools, said that measurements that reveal flaws in the sound of a speaker might go unnoticed by the ear, and that some speakers that don't measure well, can still sound subjectively good. if you know better then Butterworth my hat is off for you.


----------



## Hanatsu

I'm astounded by people keep saying that "audio equipment is too complex to evaluate with measurements".

The human hearing mechanism and how the brain works are the two things that are too complex and non-measurable... not the electronics.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> It can, read any modern product advertisement. all about how well their amps. measured. How background can be biases? he is not seeking to gain anything, he just stated his qualified opinion.
> Close friend of mine design analog circuits for a good chunk of his life.
> he bragging how good his amp on paper and such. sounded mediocre to me.
> I changed his design and to me and him it sounded better but he still arguing that without modification it`s measured better.
> Measurements can be helpful on 1st design stage, then when numbers within design goal changes can be made to improve sound at the price of absolutely perfect measurements.
> OK maybe Guttenberg biased, how about Butterworth? how he biased?
> Brent Butterworth, who believes measurements are useful tools, said that measurements that reveal flaws in the sound of a speaker might go unnoticed by the ear, and that some speakers that don't measure well, can still sound subjectively good. if you know better then Butterworth my hat is off for you.


speakers, and amps.

let's make sure we stay in our respective lanes, because amplifiers that have too much feedback, can lose their dynamics, in the course of ever lower levels of distortion being chased, so the amp "appears" to be better, or measure better than others.

I agree with that, I think too much emphasis has been placed on measurements in amplifiers, and some better sounding products don't sell as well because they don't measure as well.

But speakers, have historically been subjected to measurements and nobody can decipher those measurements! That's what the article is saying, not that speakers that measure better should sound better, but that measuring speakers is a waste of time, because nobody understands how measurements correlate to the better sounding or worse sounding properties.

And that's potentially right as well. Somebody like bikinpunk, can read a graph of polar plots and have a reasonable explanation for what that graph should sound like, because he's had the prerequisite course of testing speakers using graphs to determine their qualities. The average stereo guy does not have that prerequisite knowledge.

When Andy Wehmeyer says something like "this speaker can play to 30 degrees off-axis, whereas we designed the former generation to play to 35 degrees off-axis" he is speaking to something he understands, and it's not your or my fault if we sort of phase out on him...

because even something as simple as that, is hard to apply to the rest of the speakers in the world. How many speaker companies publish their off-axis measurements, and how many explain them?

As for amplifiers, I am still stuck in my formative years of Nakamichi and .0004% distortion, being better than the .04% of the Technics I could afford back then.

It's a hard habit to break, to re-define convention and say a poorly measuring amplifier is audibly superior to another. I am not so set in my ways that I can't make exceptions, of course... which was my point about the Harmon Kardon CA260, I think many people will look at those distortion and S/N figures and think it's about the same as a Dual amp from Walmart, but that is not the case.


----------



## Hanatsu

Victor_inox said:


> who believes measurements are useful tools, said that measurements that reveal flaws in the sound of a speaker might go unnoticed by the ear, and that some speakers that don't measure well, can still sound subjectively good. if you know better then Butterworth my hat is off for you.


Precisely... measurements can detect issues that go unnoticed by ear. A speaker might sound as good as another speaker even if one of them measure worse IF the distortion is below the audible threshold. 

Pick the one that measures best for the least money and be done with it lol.


----------



## Victor_inox

Hanatsu said:


> Pick the one that measures best for the least money and be done with it lol.


 Precisely, who need stupid hobby... let`s buy what we told on internet forum, blindly believe what other keyboard warriors saying they read about somewhere.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Precisely, who need stupid hobby... let`s buy what we told on internet forum, blindly believe what other keyboard warriors saying they read about somewhere.


or we can defer to FG79's suggestion, and find someone to tell us what we are hearing.

like a magazine writer that used to sell high-end product for a living.

:laugh:

every time I see someone try to debunk the measurements with a bias towards an illusive and poorly defined set of adjectives, I look for the profit motivation.

it's a pretty solid guideline for sifting through bias, when you find a money stream tied to the spiel.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> or we can defer to FG79's suggestion, and find someone to tell us what we are hearing.
> 
> like a magazine writer that used to sell high-end product for a living.
> 
> :laugh:
> 
> every time I see someone try to debunk the measurements with a bias towards an illusive and poorly defined set of adjectives, I look for the profit motivation.
> 
> it's a pretty solid guideline for sifting through bias, when you find a money stream tied to the spiel.


It works backward as well, usually people pushing high numbers is biased and pushing their highly measured things like some kind of panacea to sound bliss. 
I don`t see anything wrong Guttenberg wrote in this article, in fact I agree with him. I don`t see vested interest in his opinions. You can disagree, just don`t feel upset when your great on the paper system sounds worth then mine.


----------



## Woosey

Victor_inox said:


> Can sound quality be measured? - CNET


That's an interesting article.. 

But is he talking about a single unit ( driver ) or a cabinet with drivers?

I think a single driver's measurements compared to a systems ( cabinet with 2 or more drivers ) measurements are two whole different things and are not the main topic of the article..

You can make a home tower ( or car ) measure beautifully flat, but with wrong crossovers/slopes/whatever they can and will sound like crap...


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> It works backward as well, usually people pushing high numbers is biased and pushing their highly measured things like some kind of panacea to sound bliss.
> I don`t see anything wrong Guttenberg wrote in this article, in fact I agree with him. I don`t see vested interest in his opinions. You can disagree, just don`t feel upset when your great on the paper system sounds worth then mine.


since you're so keen on Guttenberg's value in this discussion, let's examine why Guttenberg might be biased.

first, he's a salesman. He made money by believing in the product, in order to sell it. So he's already coming from a perspective that differences are not only audible but depending on the panache of the designer, superlative inducing.

naturally, a salesman's job is to illustrate for you, in quick order, why you should buy one product over others. This is their mindset, they not only HAVE to believe in the differences that the manufacturers put in their copy, they have to make you believe it too.

now he's a magazine article writer, who reviews the high end products. 

this is how he does it:

if he does one bad review of a product, no manufacturer will feel comfortable sending in stuff for review, that's the nature of the review business. Reviews are supposed to sell product, not take sales away. His interest is to insure he gets product so he can write reviews. It's not in his interest to say "I couldn't hear a difference" because that doesn't sell product. 

Let's take your new venture in tube pre-amps for the car.

I've been reading a lot of your comments over a while now and this kind of approach, the capitalist angle, where you shill for your product is new. I haven't really seen it before, except in small amounts about computers you put for sale. Now that there's a reason for you to want people to believe in tube pre-amp sound, you've become a spokesman for the guru sales guy, and turn away from measurements-oriented comparing.

I can understand that, and I really don't mind. I didn't really mind when WestCo started giving the superlatives to his cables, except when it was factually exaggerated. When you have the need, or feeling to put these qualifier adjectives on your pre-amps to distinguish them, please keep it in mind that measurements are a staple for many of us, who don't want to listen to a Pied Piper's song, and fall off a cliff.

We want to tie some performance claims to the things we already assume, matter in sound.

If your pre-amps deliver 3% THD @ 2 volts, and people think that's too much then instead of saying "don't measure my pre-amp" you could explain perhaps, that 3% is barely audible in even extremely controlled tests, and without trying the product, you should keep from making a judgment about them based on their measurements.

that's what I like, the way Zuki went about it, making people agree not to publish gut shots, was just gimmick city, all the way. I can understand wanting to stand out but that wasn't it, not for me anyways.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Here's a question...

Whether you're blessed with golden ears or you rely on graphs, plots, etc...is there any possible way to systematically determine if we really have "insert favorite adjective" ears?

Time and again I've heard people swear they hear things others don't. Not knowing what to do with that, friends and family call them audiophiles. I hate that term. It's free reign to make any claim you want. I've run into many who just happen to be more pretentious than most.

When people swear to see things others don't...we call them crazy. Hrmmm.

When I hear something in a movie or song and others don't I can typically play it back and everybody says..."yeah you're right!". What I heard isn't exclusive to my ears. I just happen to pay more attention. Why do audiophiles get to hear things nobody else can? I'd like to see some hearing tests.

I wonder what would happen if we did a blind comparison with blind individuals? I mean...real handicapped/seeing eye dog types.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Fyi...my position is that everything will sound different prior to tuning. But that's the point of tuning!


----------



## cajunner

this thread winds and weaves, but doesn't change the flow for the most part.

you have a divide between people who believe in others, and who support the salesman/customer approach, and you have people who want proof before they spend money on anything.

this site is geared for anything, you have the people who own this site intimately involved in the sales gig, and you have the site's traffic flow tied to measurements and figuring out what sounds better using stricter methods than whatever line happens to be on the truck this week at the brick and mortar.


so in a way, we're all represented here, and I don't condemn anyone for taking advice from someone they trust so they can go about their day without having to do the work of figuring it all out on their own.

I know, I gave some flack to the guys who were doing subjective tests on speakers, since they were tied to a retail business selling the products that ended up on the winning half of the results sheet, but that's the nature of the sales pitch. You either go with it or your opinion is attacked for not going along. My nature as a left-handed individual is not to go along and always has been, I've been saying "no!" since I was a toddler, lol...

anyways, when it comes to being told what sounds good by a person and being able to figure out what sounds good from measurements provided by independent tests, I think the problem for me exists in the in-between. Those tests can only dictate performance to a standard, which hasn't been defined. 

If a speaker has perfect Klippel measurements, it won't sound like ass. I'm sorry, but that's just the truth.

I know, it sucks to have to look at those graphs and believe in them instead of what someone who's selling a product has to say, but the science is winning.


----------



## WinWiz

I800C0LLECT said:


> Fyi...my position is that everything will sound different prior to tuning. But that's the point of tuning!


This statement makes me think you believe the end goal when tuning is to make all systems sound alike. So Im guessing you tune for a "perfect" flat response curve.
Well personally I prefer a little boost in the low end and know my left ear has trouble hearing some of the high frequencies. So I tune for my personal preference and not for a flat response. Please don't tell me you think this is wrong.


----------



## cajunner

WinWiz said:


> This statement makes me think you believe the end goal when tuning is to make all systems sound alike. So Im guessing you tune for a "perfect" flat response curve.
> Well personally I prefer a little boost in the low end and know my left ears has trouble hearing some of the high frequencies. So I tune for my personal preference and for a flat response. Please don't tell me you think this is wrong.


IMHO, it's wrong if you tune your left side to have a different response from the right side.

the image will be affected by the amount of difference between left and right, the goal is to present the stage as if it was being played right there in front of you.

the image is defined by an evenly matched soundfield across the stage, I don't understand how you can tune for one hearing impaired side, without compromising the stereo image.


Unless you listen in mono?


----------



## WinWiz

cajunner said:


> IMHO, it's wrong if you tune your left side to have a different response from the right side.
> 
> the image will be affected by the amount of difference between left and right, the goal is to present the stage as if it was being played right there in front of you.
> 
> the image is defined by an evenly matched soundfield across the stage, I don't understand how you can tune for one hearing impaired side, without compromising the stereo image.
> 
> 
> Unless you listen in mono?


Sorry I meant to write that I tune for my personal pref. and NOT for a flat response. In my earlier post above I forgot to type the "not", but it's corrected now. You have a point its very difficult to tune when my left ear doesn't hear exactly like the right ear. But then again I think its normal that your left and right ears doesn't function 100% equally, at least when you get above a certain age. Simple logic would suggest that if you know your left ear is down -2db in a certain frequency range then you should compensate by boosting +2db in that frequency range but its not that simple because our brains try to compensate for a faulty hearing. So im used to hearing high freq. better with my right ear and therefore normally does not notice this. But to say its wrong to boost the frequencies I don't hear so well because it will affect the measured response doesn't seem very intelligent. Because I have trouble hearing some of the higher frequencies I need those frequencies to be a little boosted to optimize the image i hear, thats the whole point. If you was inside my car the image would probably seem screwed for you, but its my car therefore I tune for my ears and my preference. Do you really want me to tune it so that it sound screwed in my ears just because thats how people with perfect ears would perceive it as perfect? 
To me most of the competition minded SQ folks seem to think SQ is like science where everything is either right or wrong. But in my mind sound is like art, its more about personal preference. You might think the art i prefer is bad and I might think your prefered art is bad, that is just the way it is, there is no right or wrong in art.

Honestly I will be surprised if you agree with this because it seems like you wanna keep this thread going on forever.


----------



## Hanatsu

The response in a car should certainly not be flat. 20-20kHz is tilted downwards 20dB or so in my car.

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## Victor_inox

WinWiz said:


> Sorry I meant to write that I tune for my personal pref. and NOT for a flat response. In my earlier post above I forgot to type the "not", but it's corrected now. You have a point its very difficult to tune when my left ear doesn't hear exactly like the right ear. But then again I think its normal that your left and right ears doesn't function 100% equally, at least when you get above a certain age. Simple logic would suggest that if you know your left ear is down -2db in a certain frequency range then you should compensate by boosting +2db in that frequency range but its not that simple because our brains try to compensate for a faulty hearing. So im used to hearing high freq. better with my right ear and therefore normally does not notice this. But to say its wrong to boost the frequencies I don't hear so well because it will affect the measured response doesn't seem very intelligent. Because I have trouble hearing some of the higher frequencies I need those frequencies to be a little boosted to optimize the image i hear, thats the whole point. If you was inside my car the image would probably seem screwed for you, but its my car therefore I tune for my ears and my preference. Do you really want me to tune it so that it sound screwed in my ears just because thats how people with perfect ears would perceive it as perfect?
> To me most of the competition minded SQ folks seem to think SQ is like science where everything is either right or wrong. But in my mind sound is like art, its more about personal preference. You might think the art i prefer is bad and I might think your prefered art is bad, that is just the way it is, there is no right or wrong in art.
> 
> Honestly I will be surprised if you agree with this because it seems like you wanna keep this thread going on forever.


 correcting for your hearing is like correcting your vision.Nothing wrong with it. **** measurements,Music is a form of art, enjoy it!


----------



## Hanatsu

Creating music is an art... not reproducing it. ^.^

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## Velozity

Hanatsu said:


> Creating music is an art... not reproducing it. ^.^
> 
> Tapaaatalk!!





Wholeheartedly disagree with this! You mean all of us who spend blood, sweat, and tears in the pursuit of our perfect car audio install are not artists? Car audio is most definitely an art and a science my friend, IMHO. Think of the most elaborate car audio install you've ever seen. Would you say there's no art in it?


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

^ the mona lisa is art. A reproduction is science. 

Audio is no different. If your going for REFERENCE, then your trying to reproduce that performance exactly as it was. Thats not done with art, its done with science. If your not going for reference, then your inherently creating something new. Thats fine, nothing wrong with it if that's what you want, but dont sit there and say this is how it should sound, if your not going for reference.


----------



## Victor_inox

Hanatsu said:


> Creating music is an art... not reproducing it. ^.^
> 
> Tapaaatalk!!


 Potato/potato.... same **** different approach. 
reproduction is a path from creator to listener, every step is an art by itself.


----------



## Victor_inox

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> ^ the mona lisa is art. A reproduction is science.
> 
> Audio is no different. If your going for REFERENCE, then your trying to reproduce that performance exactly as it was. Thats not done with art, its done with science. If your not going for reference, then your inherently creating something new. Thats fine, nothing wrong with it if that's what you want, but dont sit there and say this is how it should sound, if your not going for reference.


Mona Lisa is an art because you`ve being said so. many people don`t even like it. they looking at it because it was a work of a genius. Easily copied in today technology, music is different. 
I never heard any car sound like reference system. all lucking in one way or another. Ultra linear systems is worst offenders. keep measuring your system or go to concert and learn how life music sounds. THen try to record it that way . Nothing linear in that process. Science to please listener.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Its not that different at all. And there are cars that get damn close to good home systems. You just have to search them out. They'll never be as good, but they can be a lot better than most people realize. But you dont get there without knowing the science behind music reproduction. 

The reproduction of recorded music is not art, in any way. You may consider an install artistic, but that also doesn't mean it wasn't done with science.


----------



## Victor_inox

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Its not that different at all. And there are cars that get damn close to good home systems. You just have to search them out. They'll never be as good, but they can be a lot better than most people realize. But you dont get there without knowing the science behind music reproduction.
> 
> The reproduction of recorded music is not art, in any way. You may consider an install artistic, but that also doesn't mean it wasn't done with science.


No one dismissed a science all together. music is science as well, read theory of music, or none of the music will be composed and played with synthesisers. if you think for a moment that there is no art in science then you mistaken. it`s that science by itself can`t make a good violin or guitar, etc. many tried and failed. maybe science behind it was/is not perfect. 
any instrument with a lot of harmonics still unexplainable by scientific approach. not at this time.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

I can absolutely agree that at present we cant replicate an instrument with science. We can use science to find out what and why and instrument is doing some things. For instance like with my dads voice replication project. In order to get away from the mechanical sound of voice programs, he's been using FEA programs attempt to build a digital, realistic model od the entire group of systems that affect the way human voice sounds.

But those harmonics your talking about, get recorded when you record the instrument. The goal then should be to build the reproduction system to not change those harmonics by adding more.


----------



## Victor_inox

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> I can absolutely agree that at present we cant replicate an instrument with science. We can use science to find out what and why and instrument is doing some things. For instance like with my dads voice replication project. In order to get away from the mechanical sound of voice programs, he's been using FEA programs attempt to build a digital, realistic model od the entire group of systems that affect the way human voice sounds.
> 
> But those harmonics your talking about, get recorded when you record the instrument. The goal then should be to build the reproduction system to not change those harmonics by adding more.


That was just an example , good luck to your dad, synthesizing human voice is a task by itself. Ask your dad what digital compression doing to the recordings. making it more life like by adding missing information back or at least making it sounds like it`s still there is the pass to more enjoyable listening experience. Scientifically it`s far from true reproduction, sonically it`s more emotionally involving. whatever makes people enjoy music is good in my books.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

WinWiz said:


> *This statement makes me think you believe the end goal when tuning is to make all systems sound alike. So Im guessing you tune for a "perfect" flat response curve.*
> Well personally I prefer a little boost in the low end and know my left ear has trouble hearing some of the high frequencies. So I tune for my personal preference and not for a flat response. Please don't tell me you think this is wrong.



I believe it's in the best interest of an individual to understand what they prefer. Their build and tune can match that.

If you don't attempt to understand what it is you prefer you end up on a never ending path of gear swap.

I don't need anybody to use a broad vocabulary to describe what they hear. Their head abd ears are different than my own. What I need is to understand what characteristics lend themselves to my preferences.

I think that's the secret quest amongst those who disagree with million word essays describing an experience. Semantics degenerate between individuals. What you think is "butter" might be more like a "tub of lard"to myself.

What I don't buy into is the thought that there's something different about one set of ears over another that allows them to determine speakers, wire, amplifier, or power cord used a scenario if they've been tuned properly.

If people assume there's a special quality that changes something why can't I negate or add to that by using eq, moving the speaker etc.

Why is it supposed to be perfect out of a box? Why do we build a house around a speaker? If you're going that far why not figure out how to tune to your preference?

That's the beauty of car audio. We're learning to manipulate the sound in the worst environment imaginable.

Also, why is it only a select few who seem to understand the idea that there is an immeasurable quality to equipment and the rest will never understand? Is it a birth right?


----------



## Victor_inox

I800C0LLECT said:


> Also, why is it only a select few who seem to understand the idea that there is an immeasurable quality to equipment and the rest will never understand? Is it a birth right?


 You might notice that usually people with most experience and education on a subject understand that idea, the rest prefer naked numbers without desire to understand complex processes. It`s a paradox, the more you learn the less you know. ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

I suppose you're right. But after seeing forums and reviews, even witnessing somebody hand bread cabling...I'm just shocked.

We have a wealth of knowledge before us but people refuse to search or acknowledge ideas that don't support their position.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

The absolute worst offense in my mind are the individuals purchasing $5k power chords. I even came across a review of at least 5 different power cables by an op. Not here of course...and it was home audio.


----------



## Victor_inox

I800C0LLECT said:


> The absolute worst offense in my mind are the individuals purchasing $5k power chords. I even came across a review of at least 5 different power cables by an op. Not here of course...and it was home audio.


I`ve seen a lot of exotic power cables salesman pushing at every electronics show to high end manufacturers so they can tell that "audio research" use their cables at the show. they do, because it`s free, Difference is unmeasurable and inaudible. I make my own cables using gold or silver plated RCA. 
Most exotic cabling exist for home audio only I guess this crowd is smarter. 
I have nothing to complain about great looking cable but price.
Until I have more money than experience I`d use WestCO cables and enjoy the music.


----------



## Victor_inox

I800C0LLECT said:


> I suppose you're right. But after seeing forums and reviews, even witnessing somebody hand bread cabling...I'm just shocked.
> 
> We have a wealth of knowledge before us but people refuse to search or acknowledge ideas that don't support their position.


amen brother!


----------



## cajunner

WinWiz said:


> Sorry I meant to write that I tune for my personal pref. and NOT for a flat response. In my earlier post above I forgot to type the "not", but it's corrected now. You have a point its very difficult to tune when my left ear doesn't hear exactly like the right ear. But then again I think its normal that your left and right ears doesn't function 100% equally, at least when you get above a certain age. Simple logic would suggest that if you know your left ear is down -2db in a certain frequency range then you should compensate by boosting +2db in that frequency range but its not that simple because our brains try to compensate for a faulty hearing. So im used to hearing high freq. better with my right ear and therefore normally does not notice this. But to say its wrong to boost the frequencies I don't hear so well because it will affect the measured response doesn't seem very intelligent. Because I have trouble hearing some of the higher frequencies I need those frequencies to be a little boosted to optimize the image i hear, thats the whole point. If you was inside my car the image would probably seem screwed for you, but its my car therefore I tune for my ears and my preference. Do you really want me to tune it so that it sound screwed in my ears just because thats how people with perfect ears would perceive it as perfect?
> To me most of the competition minded SQ folks seem to think SQ is like science where everything is either right or wrong. But in my mind sound is like art, its more about personal preference. You might think the art i prefer is bad and I might think your prefered art is bad, that is just the way it is, there is no right or wrong in art.
> 
> Honestly I will be surprised if you agree with this because it seems like you wanna keep this thread going on forever.


I want to keep this thread going? Why? What is it about my posts that aggravate you? Is it the idea that changing the frequency response of one side of your car to suit your hearing is not going to work? Is that what you have a problem about?

If you say it works for you, that's fine. For you to say that's how we should tune our cars, that's not fine. We don't have headphones on when we listen in a car or at home, we have a believable stage presented by equal sides, we have left and right artistically produced by the artist and we should try and produce exactly that, the fact that your hearing is compromised to a side, doesn't mean your brain is not capable of reconstructing that auditory scene without compromising the scene by boosting a hole in your hearing.

I think you are saying "shut up" when you tell me I want this thread to go on forever, but in a nice way. That's your sign, I believe you don't want to admit that adjusting the left/right ratio of sound to match a hearing deficiency is going to screw up the image, and hey, don't worry about it. Saying it is *the* answer to your problem, may be suitable for you, but it's not how I would approach that problem.

You're right, everyone has holes and peaks in their particular auditory system. 

But that's got nothing to do with reproduction of an auditory scene, even people with 15% hearing in one side, and 85% hearing on the other, have their brains make up that deficiency, it's innate.

The goal for a stereo reproduction, is to recreate the auditory scene. That scene is the key, the mastering engineer at the recording/finishing studio knows exactly what he's going for, and that's art. He's creating something from the raw tracks and response by the musicians, that winds up on the record we buy. The musicians are artists as well, but the scene that is created by placement, the stereo image of guitars in the mix, the drums centered, the vocals not moving away from center unless they are background, the various other things going on, that's all art. 

When we put the record on, or push play, our system should attempt to recreate the art of the engineer who finished the tracks, we should get what he gets, in his studio. 

And conversely, live audio should sound like live audio. Nobody that I have ever read, or heard, has ever said you should compromise one side because you have a hearing problem and need to fix it by boosting or cutting to suit.

Fixing your auditory issue with headphones, that makes sense because you're not trying to create an auditory scene in physical space, and boosting or cutting a side works because you're fixing the mis-match in response, but in a sonic field where cross-talk is part of the design, you can't compromise the field and have that field be more believable as a result.

IMHO, of course.


----------



## Hanatsu

Velozity said:


> Wholeheartedly disagree with this! You mean all of us who spend blood, sweat, and tears in the pursuit of our perfect car audio install are not artists? Car audio is most definitely an art and a science my friend, IMHO. Think of the most elaborate car audio install you've ever seen. Would you say there's no art in it?


Knowledge, craftmanship and the science behind it is enough. No I don't think "we're artists".

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## Victor_inox

Hanatsu said:


> Knowledge, craftmanship and the science behind it is enough. No I don't think "we're artists".
> 
> Tapaaatalk!!


craftsmanship is a form of art, isn`t it?


----------



## cajunner

in the pursuit of an aesthetic, I would say car audio has an art component. But in the auditory sense, speakers present an image with "dark" or "bright" tones, and that's just lighting. The music that comes forth is the artwork, the reproduction system is the frame that holds it.

Being able to present that artwork is the design of science. There may be some *art* to how a circuit designer creates a PCB's particulars, but electricity isn't able to distinguish a designer's intent. You may choose components that have a symbiotic nature, putting 'like with like' or something like that, but that's not really art, is it?

Some people would say "this speaker is warm sounding, we should play it back on a system that is more clinical, sterile, this achieves a neutral balance" and I say what?

If you find the speaker is warm, it's not neutral. Fix that speaker! Unless you're going for warm. I like WARM! I love felt cones and soft domes. I also love titanium, carbon fiber and aluminum, that's the beauty of this hobby, you don't have to settle. You can change your mind. You can have that mistress, waiting patiently in the box for your audio amusement.


----------



## WinWiz

I am not advocating that anyone should tune their system like me. I'm defending my right to tune my system the way I prefer. 
I think your statement that: Even people with 15% hearing in one side, and 85% hearing on the other, have their brains make up that deficiency, is only partial true. Such people will likely adjust their hearing aids to booste the side missing 85% compared to the side missing only 15%. 
Reproduced audio is newer 100% like live audio. When some one talks in front of me it sound like its in front of me. But something changes when I listen to a stereo reproduction of a voice in center, im guessing its because its coming from two speakers, so if I don't boost the high left freq. it will sound like some of the voice is located right side of center. I don't know exactly why its like that for me it just is. So when I tune my setup I try to make center sound like center and for me this involves a little boost in the high leftside frequencies. This might sound like a flaw in my system but I have also noticed this pattern on my home stereo so Im pretty sure its somehow caused by my bad left ear. I have also noticed that if I turn my head so that my left ear is 100% on axis I can hear those troublesome high frequencies a lot better. Its strange and I cant really explain it but thats just the way it is for me.


----------



## thehatedguy

The install is the art.

The sound is the science.


----------



## Hanatsu

Victor_inox said:


> craftsmanship is a form of art, isn`t it?


Well yeah, you're right... As far as the install goes, I guess crafting "new" stuff is a form of art. When I think about it, there are great artists out there for sure, seen some really nice stuff here on the forum. Speaking for myself, I for sure don't have the skill to be called an "artist" lol.


----------



## cajunner

WinWiz said:


> I am not advocating that anyone should tune their system like me. I'm defending my right to tune my system the way I prefer.
> I think your statement that: Even people with 15% hearing in one side, and 85% hearing on the other, have their brains make up that deficiency, is only partial true. Such people will likely adjust their hearing aids to booste the side missing 85% compared to the side missing only 15%.
> Reproduced audio is newer 100% like live audio. When some one talks in front of me it sound like its in front of me. But something changes when I listen to a stereo reproduction of a voice in center, im guessing its because its coming from two speakers, so if I don't boost the high left freq. it will sound like some of the voice is located right side of center. I don't know exactly why its like that for me it just is. So when I tune my setup I try to make center sound like center and for me this involves a little boost in the high leftside frequencies. This might sound like a flaw in my system but I have also noticed this pattern on my home stereo so Im pretty sure its somehow caused by my bad left ear. I have also noticed that if I turn my head so that my left ear is 100% on axis I can hear those troublesome high frequencies a lot better. Its strange and I cant really explain it but thats just the way it is for me.


So what you are saying, is that when you sit in someone else's car, you have a left side bias where the stage is off to the right?

This is the thing, your brain should be able to reconstruct the stereo image unless you suffer from a medical condition, that causes your auditory system not to respond normally.

this could be a reason for why tuning the way you do, works for you.

my girlfriend has 85/15 hearing, and if I tune my car to have a shifted l/r frequency response, she says it doesn't sound right. Even if I boost her weak side, her brain still manages to create the auditory illusion using the cross talk, and making changes in her car's system response causes that image to collapse even with her compromised hearing.

this is perhaps, something that is not understood on a large scale, there is a percentage of the population that can't smell some things, maybe it's a genetic anomaly?


----------



## Victor_inox

Hanatsu said:


> Well yeah, you're right... As far as the install goes, I guess crafting "new" stuff is a form of art. When I think about it, there are great artists out there for sure, seen some really nice stuff here on the forum. Speaking for myself, I for sure don't have the skill to be called an "artist" lol.


 Live and learn then one day maybe you`ll reconsider. 
I was a musician, sound engineer, physicist, mechanical engineer, IT manager with another few things in between, and now I design and build tube amps circuits among other things, all in all I consider myself an artist. many things I do bring joy to people.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> So what you are saying, is that when you sit in someone else's car, you have a left side bias where the stage is off to the right?
> 
> This is the thing, your brain should be able to reconstruct the stereo image unless you suffer from a medical condition, that causes your auditory system not to respond normally.
> 
> this could be a reason for why tuning the way you do, works for you.
> 
> my girlfriend has 85/15 hearing, and if I tune my car to have a shifted l/r frequency response, she says it doesn't sound right. Even if I boost her weak side, her brain still manages to create the auditory illusion using the cross talk, and making changes in her car's system response causes that image to collapse even with her compromised hearing.
> 
> this is perhaps, something that is not understood on a large scale, there is a percentage of the population that can't smell some things, maybe it's a genetic anomaly?


You right, we don`t hear sound waves just representation of what ear drum delivers to the nerve. rest reconstructed by brain. that reconstruction is so complicated sometimes we hear things that not even there.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> You right, we don`t hear sound waves just representation of what ear drum delivers to the nerve. rest reconstructed by brain. that reconstruction is so complicated sometimes we hear things that not even there.


It would explain how distorting the image by correcting for a hearing deficiency works for some people.

The whole stereo phenomenon is very complex, and our attempts to use 2 microphones to create 2 channels of audio separated by space, is not true to life anyways.

sound originates from an instrument in one place, and having two microphones give a spatially informative recording of that one place, does not mean you'll get a spatially accurate sound from two sides of stereo playback.

we can get close, we can do things with it that seem impossible, like having a violinist behind one curtain, and having a pair of speakers behind another curtain, and not being able to tell which curtain contains the live event...

but the stereo representation, is usually a tweaked and manipulated thing, anyways. What we do to it by putting it in a car, is already a suspension of disbelief, expecting an auditory scene to manifest above the dash is almost magical. But it happens!


----------



## WinWiz

cajunner said:


> So what you are saying, is that when you sit in someone else's car, you have a left side bias where the stage is off to the right?
> Yes this is what im saying.
> 
> This is the thing, your brain should be able to reconstruct the stereo image unless you suffer from a medical condition, that causes your auditory system not to respond normally.
> 
> this could be a reason for why tuning the way you do, works for you.


Yes I have a left side bias where the stage is off to the right. The last 5 years I have had a loud bell more or less constantly ringing mounted on my left side 8 hours a day. This was irritating so I imagine this is why my brain hasn't tried to compensate. I noticed that I gradually had to turn the balance more and more toward left to keep center in center. 
Recently I quitted this ear destroying job, so maybe my brain will adapt now that hearing high frequencies on my bad left ear is useful. Time will tell...



cajunner said:


> this is perhaps, something that is not understood on a large scale, there is a percentage of the population that can't smell some things, maybe it's a genetic anomaly?


Actually I cant smell anything, docs can't say if I was born that way or it came when I jumped out from 2. floor as a baby!


----------



## WinWiz

Regarding how to tune a car hifi I think prefered type of music also means something. If you only listen to techno created on computer there is a chance the artist was high and don't even remember how the stage was meant to be...


----------



## WinWiz

Victor_inox said:


> Live and learn then one day maybe you`ll reconsider.
> I was a musician, sound engineer, physicist, mechanical engineer, IT manager with another few things in between, and now I design and build tube amps circuits among other things, all in all I consider myself an artist. many things I do bring joy to people.


Funny you mention tube amps. Someone from dynaudio once told me that a speaker that measures perfect can sound boring while a tube amp that measures quite badly can sound fantastic...
Personally I think that a speaker should not color the sound, because you can always tune a reference speaker to your preference but tuning a warm or bright speaker to your preference can be almost impossible.


----------



## Victor_inox

WinWiz said:


> Funny you mention tube amps. Someone from dynaudio once told me that a speaker that measures perfect can sound boring while a tube amp that measures quite badly can sound fantastic...
> Personally I think that a speaker should not color the sound, because you can always tune a reference speaker to your preference but tuning a warm or bright speaker to your preference can be almost impossible.


Always start with speakers, everything else can be tuned.


----------



## Victor_inox

WinWiz said:


> Regarding how to tune a car hifi I think prefered type of music also means something. If you only listen to techno created on computer there is a chance the artist was high and don't even remember how the stage was meant to be...


Speaking from experience?


----------



## 2DEEP2

Well I remember the artistic days of sound reproduction.

When cars had mid and tweeters mounted in the floor firing straight up in the windshield and they actually wanted a beaming speaker to make it work. 

Or a 2 way with midbass in the floor and A-pillar tweeters and win IASCA World Finals with over 100 competitor in your class at Finals. And they were not all from the US either.

Or a car from Japan that won IASCA World Final Pro 601+ class with a 3 way in the kick with 8” firing cross car and 4” and tweeter on axis.

Or Horns under the dash and 10" midbass behind you in the rear quarter panels.

Or 5.25” mounted in the dash firing straight up into the glass from about 5” below the dash. This was well before Werewolf post on combing the window affects.

And even a car that ran an 8" from 30 Hz to 8k Hz without a tweeter and still sounded better than some of the stuff in the competition lanes today. With the tweeters on it won 3 world championships. 

All imaged at eye level, even and consistent images across the stage and tonal bliss. 

All these Cars/SUVs took an unorthodox approach to making beautiful music in their respective environments, which is art to me.


----------



## WinWiz

Victor_inox said:


> Speaking from experience?


No i dont do drugs. But I do like techno and think that techno also sounds better and more entertaining with decent stage. It just doesnt mean quite as much as when I listen to recordings like pink floyd...


----------



## Victor_inox

WinWiz said:


> No i dont do drugs. But I do like techno and think that techno also sounds better and more entertaining with decent stage. It just doesnt mean quite as much as when I listen to recordings like pink floyd...


 Pink floyd is a true art of audio recording. keep in mind they didn`t have 96KHz 192 bit recording equipment, pure analog 2" tape multitracker and no non linear production equipment. 
I like techno as well but techno can be done on home desktop with couple thousand dollars investment. 
If you want to hear truly amazing recording search for 1957 Pierre Fournier recording. It`s amazing what truly talented sound engineers accomplished using primitive by today's standards equipment.


----------



## WinWiz

Victor_inox said:


> Pink floyd is a true art of audio recording. keep in mind they didn`t have 96KHz 192 bit recording equipment, pure analog 2" tape multitracker and no non linear production equipment.
> I like techno as well but techno can be done on home desktop with couple thousand dollars investment.
> If you want to hear truly amazing recording search for 1957 Pierre Fournier recording. It`s amazing what truly talented sound engineers accomplished using primitive by today's standards equipment.


Yeah I have often thought about how they managed to accomplish such amazing SQ on old school equipment. 
Last year I went to a Roger Waters concert and was very disappointed by the bad SQ. The concert was at Parken in Copenhagen (a big stadium with high concrete tribunes all around) Parken is kind of known for bad SQ but the tweeters almost made my ears bleed. I prefer soft tweeters so Im guessing they used metallic tweets. It was really awful


----------



## SouthSyde

bikinpunk said:


> I'll be honest and this may possibly come off rude but so be it...
> 
> I find threads like this, where people are arguing subjective evaluations with no factual proof or discussion in to their evaluation, funny because I see people posting about hearing the differences in this or that. And how component X made their system soooo much better. I'd think they have golden ears.
> 
> *Then I hear their system. Then I quit paying attention to anything they say.
> *


Yup he said that! lol :laugh:


----------



## FG79

cajunner said:


> this thread winds and weaves, but doesn't change the flow for the most part.
> 
> you have a divide between people who believe in others, and who support the salesman/customer approach, and you have people who want proof before they spend money on anything.
> 
> this site is geared for anything, you have the people who own this site intimately involved in the sales gig, and you have the site's traffic flow tied to measurements and figuring out what sounds better using stricter methods than whatever line happens to be on the truck this week at the brick and mortar.
> 
> 
> so in a way, we're all represented here, and I don't condemn anyone for taking advice from someone they trust so they can go about their day without having to do the work of figuring it all out on their own.
> 
> I know, I gave some flack to the guys who were doing subjective tests on speakers, since they were tied to a retail business selling the products that ended up on the winning half of the results sheet, but that's the nature of the sales pitch. You either go with it or your opinion is attacked for not going along. My nature as a left-handed individual is not to go along and always has been, I've been saying "no!" since I was a toddler, lol...
> 
> anyways, when it comes to being told what sounds good by a person and being able to figure out what sounds good from measurements provided by independent tests, I think the problem for me exists in the in-between. Those tests can only dictate performance to a standard, which hasn't been defined.
> 
> If a speaker has perfect Klippel measurements, it won't sound like ass. I'm sorry, but that's just the truth.
> 
> I know, it sucks to have to look at those graphs and believe in them instead of what someone who's selling a product has to say, *but the science is winning.*


LOL.

Let me ask you something:

If you are at an audio show and walk into a few rooms where the salesmen are all busy, but the gear is playing music.....and say one of them sounds really nice and "slaps you around" (my term) all by itself without any human intervention.....what do you do then?

Do you dismiss it because the Klippel specs weren't released? Do you dismiss it because it was heard in a "sales environment" as opposed to some kind of laboratory? 

Should a neutral scientific agency like NASA be commissioned to build audio gear that will once and for all live up to technical "perfection"?

I'm sure there's a speaker, amplifier, etc. out there for you. Are you proposing this soul mate gear of yours cannot connect with you unless there's a simultaneous listening/spec sheet reading session? (ideally for you, read the specs first, and confirm what you're listening after). 

These are some really silly questions I'm asking, but I'm being half serious because you've been extremely dismissive of anything subjective or anybody standing behind their product (or shall I say a "range" of products, because some of us actually do NOT work in this industry officially selling stuff. that would include yours truly btw). 

The idea you're proposing that there's biased and unbiased parties in this debate is also pretty humorous. Even those manufacturers who put a ton of stock into objective measurements still attempt to put a subjective message as well. The idea that the subjective crowd is for profit and objective is not for profit wouldn't be too far fetched from what your viewpoint. 

Just like every audio gear in the world COLORS the sound, so is there BIAS in every consumer audio brand. I guess by that theory, there must not be any good sounding gear in the galaxy since there's always an agenda. 

And Klippel....is that company in need of some extra sales? Yes, it's a tool but it seems to get a lot of mention around here as if without it nobody can evaluate speakers. 

You can play it both ways. The overwhelming message I'm getting is that there's this nirvana somewhere were products invent themselves in a lab, and park themselves on people's door steps with 50 pages of engineering data. No sales copy, no sales force ,etc. 

Such idealists we have in this world. Everything in life "should be like this" and "should be like that". But it ain't, lol. 

Good people should always do better in life than bad people. Girls should go for the nice guy more than the bad boy. Engineers who kill themselves in school and work should make millions of dollars, while wall street guys who play with other people's money shouldn't make big bucks. And so on and so forth.

That's what the "objective" camp philosophy sounds like to me. It probably SHOULD be better, but often times it isn't. That's life. 

All this obsession with measurements makes me wonder if the objective camp would love to show up to a gathering of klippel measurement printouts. Read them for an hour then go home as opposed to listening to anything. 

Nobody wants to listen to anything. LOL. 

One day, let's play a game.....we'll take 20 women we think are sexy and see if they REALLY ARE sexy and our eyes CAN BE TRUSTED:

Facial Beauty and the “New” Golden Ratio (or is it just 1.618 in disguise?)

And we will marvel at how Shania Twain and Jessica Alba are the most beautiful women in the world. I don't want to hear it any debate. Your little head cannot be trusted my friend.

The most beautiful faces are average, according to study of facial proportions - NY Daily News


----------



## FG79

Victor_inox said:


> Pink floyd is a true art of audio recording. keep in mind they didn`t have 96KHz 192 bit recording equipment, pure analog 2" tape multitracker and no non linear production equipment.
> I like techno as well but techno can be done on home desktop with couple thousand dollars investment.
> If you want to hear truly amazing recording search for 1957 Pierre Fournier recording. It`s amazing what truly talented sound engineers accomplished using primitive by today's standards equipment.


Actually, analog 2" was/is better than PCM digital at any sampling/bit rate. 

And most vintage gear is better than new gear. You give me $1 million USD, and the only thing I'm buying brand new is a turntable, D/A converter, some speaker wire and interconnects, power conditioners. 

Speakers, pre/power amplifiers, tape decks, all vintage. Probably older than most people on this thread. 

And since I'll probably never be that rich, move turntable and D/A converter to the vintage side as well. 

That's what I would do. And there won't even be a gun pointed to my head either. 

I'll go collect my commission now, per cajunner.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

FG79...

Do you buy random gear and return/sell after you've auditioned? Do you audition prior to purchase?

The "objective" camp is really just doing their best to learn in an effort to keep from throwing money into the wind hoping that their purchase is what they wanted.

I haven't seen any evidence that all amps sound the same. I haven't seen any evidence that they can't sound the same either.

I also haven't seen any evidence that proves without a doubt that equipment will always sound dissimilar.

I don't think this is about income level although that may be the precursor to asking why? I think it just means we're attempting to better understand our wants in order to keep some sanity. Why? Because auditioning what we want isn't typically available.

If people are excited about looks and craftsmanship...that's their bag. If somebody else is only concerned about graphs...that's cool too.

We don't have to justify what we do. Honestly,I don't know what to justify in this hobby since none of it is practical.

Anyways, I think this debate toes the line between what we know and don't know. All I know is that I have a much better understanding of what I needed to purchase to satisfy my wants.

And because I've never seen any evidence that says I can't achieve my preference with certain brands or equipment I'll presume i can meet those personal objectives without pandering to comic book theories about power chords and exotic materials.

I won't lie...I do appreciate great looking equipment, especially when it meets my wife's requirements.

And I won't try to tear down a six figure investment that another might make in this hobby. I just know that it isn't required for my taste.

Where this all crosses lines for myself is when science is thrown out the window while certain cabling is based on unproven theories. Why? Because that's not fair. Justify thousands for rca's, exotic materials, etc and attempt to explain why it matters using a scientific theory...then when there's absolutely no evidence to back that theory...even through real world testing...I either don't have the right ears, I don't get it, or I'm put down for relying on white papers.

That's not fair. We don't call out these manufacturers to stroke our own intellect. If their marketing makes scientific claims based on theories...back them up!

If they want to charge an arm and leg for being eccentric just say so! Don't lie to me. Don't make pretty pictures explaining why i need $50k in cables and power cord. Don't put me down for trying to understand the scientific rhetoric used to push the crazy ideas.

Nobody ever said these companies couldn't sound good. We just want straight shooters.


----------



## cajunner

FG79 said:


> LOL.
> 
> Let me ask you something:
> 
> If you are at an audio show and walk into a few rooms where the salesmen are all busy, but the gear is playing music.....and say one of them sounds really nice and "slaps you around" (my term) all by itself without any human intervention.....what do you do then?
> 
> Do you dismiss it because the Klippel specs weren't released? Do you dismiss it because it was heard in a "sales environment" as opposed to some kind of laboratory?
> 
> Should a neutral scientific agency like NASA be commissioned to build audio gear that will once and for all live up to technical "perfection"?
> 
> I'm sure there's a speaker, amplifier, etc. out there for you. Are you proposing this soul mate gear of yours cannot connect with you unless there's a simultaneous listening/spec sheet reading session? (ideally for you, read the specs first, and confirm what you're listening after).
> 
> These are some really silly questions I'm asking, but I'm being half serious because you've been extremely dismissive of anything subjective or anybody standing behind their product (or shall I say a "range" of products, because some of us actually do NOT work in this industry officially selling stuff. that would include yours truly btw).
> 
> The idea you're proposing that there's biased and unbiased parties in this debate is also pretty humorous. Even those manufacturers who put a ton of stock into objective measurements still attempt to put a subjective message as well. The idea that the subjective crowd is for profit and objective is not for profit wouldn't be too far fetched from what your viewpoint.
> 
> Just like every audio gear in the world COLORS the sound, so is there BIAS in every consumer audio brand. I guess by that theory, there must not be any good sounding gear in the galaxy since there's always an agenda.
> 
> And Klippel....is that company in need of some extra sales? Yes, it's a tool but it seems to get a lot of mention around here as if without it nobody can evaluate speakers.
> 
> You can play it both ways. The overwhelming message I'm getting is that there's this nirvana somewhere were products invent themselves in a lab, and park themselves on people's door steps with 50 pages of engineering data. No sales copy, no sales force ,etc.
> 
> Such idealists we have in this world. Everything in life "should be like this" and "should be like that". But it ain't, lol.
> 
> Good people should always do better in life than bad people. Girls should go for the nice guy more than the bad boy. Engineers who kill themselves in school and work should make millions of dollars, while wall street guys who play with other people's money shouldn't make big bucks. And so on and so forth.
> 
> That's what the "objective" camp philosophy sounds like to me. It probably SHOULD be better, but often times it isn't. That's life.
> 
> All this obsession with measurements makes me wonder if the objective camp would love to show up to a gathering of klippel measurement printouts. Read them for an hour then go home as opposed to listening to anything.
> 
> Nobody wants to listen to anything. LOL.
> 
> One day, let's play a game.....we'll take 20 women we think are sexy and see if they REALLY ARE sexy and our eyes CAN BE TRUSTED:
> 
> Facial Beauty and the “New” Golden Ratio (or is it just 1.618 in disguise?)
> 
> And we will marvel at how Shania Twain and Jessica Alba are the most beautiful women in the world. I don't want to hear it any debate. Your little head cannot be trusted my friend.
> 
> The most beautiful faces are average, according to study of facial proportions - NY Daily News


now your turn:

people visiting a website for answers to audio questions, are relying on people's recommendations more often than not.


subjective evaluations rule, the forum boner gets that way through the tipping point phenomenon, it rises above the fray because of just a few posts, and people believe.

you like being able to tell people what to look for, and so far it's been high-dollar entry fees all over the place. What exactly is that going to accomplish? Most of the people here aren't in this site for $5K in power cords, or pure silver speaker wiring. You're bringing this high cost approach that means you write a check, someone delivers your car or listening room to you, turn-key mindset.

I'm saying, people here don't have the luxury most of the time, to go out and audition the same product you can order online.

that's a simple fact, unless you do a lot of gtg's in California or Texas or Pennsylvania/NY etc. or happen to have a starving high-end studio store in your po-dunk town that lets you get access, you have two things to go by when deciding on better than Best Buy gear:

you can go with a recommendation, or you can look at objective measurements.

one requires you trust someone else knows what's best for you, the other allows you to make a choice of paying more for better equipment.

you might say, a poorly testing speaker can sound good, but you can't say a great testing speaker will sound bad.

that's the difference, the testing allows people on the internet with no access, a way to separate the speakers they want to spend money on, from the ones that were maybe pushed by salesmen on a commission. I understand you know people who make their living telling people what to buy and why, but I also understand that I don't have to take a subjective opinion as fact.

and it's not perfect, I admit there are times when I don't trust the objective testing, some people make honest mistakes and some manufacturers may pad their numbers or stray far off from their prototypes, it happens.

but I've seen enough worthless products being bought with good money, to know that if something's glittering in a salesman's hand, it's not always gold.

this other stuff about how far in the other direction you can go, I don't know why you'd feel so defensive about your guru worship, I mean just because you take what those high-dollar equipment salesmen say to heart, doesn't mean I am duty bound to walk in lockstep with you.

If you want to sing the praises of equipment maybe .1% of the members here can afford, legitimately, hey. Feel free, it's just another way of looking at things and I'm right there, pointing and laughing at the gimmick feed, bring on the funny.

You feel like the sales guy is beyond reproach, your man "on the inside" vantage point is supposed to lend credibility to your suggestions. You look at measurements as false indicators of quality, you point at systems in the +$40K range as something we should aspire towards, and when these systems are shown to test poorly in comparison to their cost, you fall back on your assumption that tests don't reveal the true ability, nature, or worth of your uber nosh. That they are endowed with pixie dust, and the snake oil that oozes from the sockets, makes them magical and superior to mid-grade components. So much so, that you'd never even stoop to attempt to ABX compare such pedigreed product against the best a big box store can get for you, for 1/30th the price.

Because you know, deep down that you don't want to know the outcome of such a comparison. It's like you're in the Matrix, and finding out you've been had for so long, makes the red pill the only one you're going to choose.


----------



## cajunner

oops, I mean blue pill, hahahaha..



//////////\\\\\\\\\\\


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

FG79 said:


> Actually, analog 2" was/is better than PCM digital at any sampling/bit rate.
> 
> And most vintage gear is better than new gear. You give me $1 million USD, and the only thing I'm buying brand new is a turntable, D/A converter, some speaker wire and interconnects, power conditioners.
> 
> Speakers, pre/power amplifiers, tape decks, all vintage. Probably older than most people on this thread.
> 
> And since I'll probably never be that rich, move turntable and D/A converter to the vintage side as well.
> 
> That's what I would do. And there won't even be a gun pointed to my head either.
> 
> I'll go collect my commission now, per cajunner.



You give me $1 million USD, and im gonna have a hell of a record collection after spending $100,000 on the system AND room remodel. Anything more than that is mostly pissing money away in terms of audible improvements. Hell with that, I could get Hell Freezes Over and Tool Aenima on vinyl.


----------



## Hanatsu

I think all this talk about super expensive equipment is a slap-in-the-face to all DIYers and the original spirit of this site. Want to prove something, do it either with blind ABX or with measured data. Subjective sighted tests will always be questioned.

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

^ exactly.


----------



## ChrisB

Hanatsu said:


> I think all this talk about super expensive equipment is a slap-in-the-face to all DIYers and the original spirit of this site. Want to prove something, do it either with blind ABX or with measured data. Subjective sighted tests will always be questioned.
> 
> Tapaaatalk!!


Why is it all these members of the golden ear crew brag about how they could take Richard Clark's money or tell a difference in a blind test with statistical significance greater than guessing (90% or higher), YET, no one ever does?

Until one of the golden ear crew with their millions of dollars in gear passes the most basic of the blind listening tests with some form of statistical significance, reading their evaluations and opinions of gear is nothing more than words on a computer screen to me! Now to apply this to a car where musical reproduction is secondary to things like driving and paying attention... :laugh:

The one thing that many audiophiles that I knew with the hundreds of thousands invested in gear had one thing in common. Know what that was? NONE of them did car audio and they ALL deemed it to be a waste of time, money, and effort! 

I'm starting to see a conflict of interest with the golden ear crew in this very thread.


----------



## BuickGN

WinWiz said:


> I am not advocating that anyone should tune their system like me. I'm defending my right to tune my system the way I prefer.
> I think your statement that: Even people with 15% hearing in one side, and 85% hearing on the other, have their brains make up that deficiency, is only partial true. Such people will likely adjust their hearing aids to booste the side missing 85% compared to the side missing only 15%.
> Reproduced audio is newer 100% like live audio. When some one talks in front of me it sound like its in front of me. But something changes when I listen to a stereo reproduction of a voice in center, im guessing its because its coming from two speakers, so if I don't boost the high left freq. it will sound like some of the voice is located right side of center. I don't know exactly why its like that for me it just is. So when I tune my setup I try to make center sound like center and for me this involves a little boost in the high leftside frequencies. This might sound like a flaw in my system but I have also noticed this pattern on my home stereo so Im pretty sure its somehow caused by my bad left ear. I have also noticed that if I turn my head so that my left ear is 100% on axis I can hear those troublesome high frequencies a lot better. Its strange and I cant really explain it but thats just the way it is for me.


I agree with this. I've had my fiancée take a listen when the stage is particularly good (for me) and with a pretty bad hearing loss in one ear she heard nothing special, just the right side way over the left side.


----------



## thehatedguy

I had heard through the grapevine that Chris Owen of Clarity Cable had scored better than average (much better) during a double blind a/b/x amp test.


----------



## ChrisB

thehatedguy said:


> I had heard through the grapevine that Chris Owen of Clarity Cable had scored better than average (much better) during a double blind a/b/x amp test.


Depending on the test, I would expect him to! Unfortunately, I have my doubts about most of the self-professed golden ear crew posting in this very thread. That goes double once the car is in motion!


----------



## cajunner

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> You give me $1 million USD, and im gonna have a hell of a record collection after spending $100,000 on the system AND room remodel. Anything more than that is mostly pissing money away in terms of audible improvements. Hell with that, I could get Hell Freezes Over and Tool Aenima on vinyl.


you give me 1 million USD, and my $10K system is going to be more than enough, for one room...





but then I'd want at least 3 rooms worth, a garage system, a bigger house, a workshop, a couple of nice horses, a ranch, a houseboat, and a fishing boat!

then I could invest the rest, and dabble in day trading as a hobby.

1 million, for stereo?

maybe if I had 50 million backed up like yesterday's meat and rice.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Agreed completely, but if you were given 1mil and HAD to spend it on audio, the actual music is probably the best investment for the leftover.


----------



## ChrisB

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Agreed completely, but if you were given 1mil and HAD to spend it on audio, the actual music is probably the best investment for the leftover.



Totally agree. 180 gram vinyl, MFSL, and other rare pressings would be a must. What is the point of having all that nice gear without music to listen to?



Sent from my iPhone 5S using Tapatalk


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Exactly. Theres sooo much music out there.


----------



## Hanatsu

I wonder how much distortion you people can hear. I've posted this a few times now but do the klippel test, the majority of people can't hear non-linear distortion -12dB / -18dB down. There are a few who managed to hear distortion -45dB, which is below 1%. Still, I find it funny when you talk about non-linear distortion in amps, which normally is -70dB or more down during normal operation. Do the test and see how hard it is to detect distortion, add the noise floor of a car to that, good luck ^^

I managed to hear -36dB. I've managed to hear -39dB with a different pair of headphones some time back. That's slightly above 1% THD & TIM. I certainly don't have any "golden ears", don't even care for lossless, hear no difference between mp3 and CD with bitrates above 256kbit/s. The recording / dynamic range is far more important than the digital compression imo. 



*http://www.klippel.de/listeningtest/lt/*


----------



## FG79

The $1 million USD was just to illustrate a point my friends about how good vintage gear is. It was basically saying for my tastes, most vintage is better than most modern. 

A top top system can be had easily in the $50-100k range. You spend a lot more money past that point for relatively low gains in SQ. 

I'm starting to notice a diversion in arguments here, and it's popping up particularly in these last few pages:

1) If you can't pick out the difference in 5 or 10 seconds in a double blind test, "there is no difference"
2) Objective guys need to know how to pick out gear because they don't have the ability/desire/resources to go out and audition gear

These two points are actually fair points, but still fail to address two things:

1) Real life gear swapping is not a 30 second change....it is a week/month/year+ proposition. In that time, if you cannot discern the difference in gear then we'll have to question whether your ears are up to the task in this hobby. 

So maybe you can "fool" some golden ears in this little test. But let them have real exposure to products and over any reasonable amount of time, the difference will show.

You can speed up the process dramatically by letting them listen to their own source material. 

2) I see your conundrum. However, the title of this thread is "high end amp sq myth", not "How does somebody pick out amps when buying/reselling is not a worthwhile proposition, and I can't audition easily?".

So we're slowly twisting the debate to have to show that objective is more accurate simply because it fits the agenda of having to prove there's gotta be a way of evaluating gear without doing the real hard work.

That IMHO cannot be the basis to nullify the arguments that high end amps can sound better ("because I cannot afford to hear them"). That sounds like entitlement talk to me.

It's like saying the Bugatti Veyron can't be that great of a car because none of us will ever be able to afford to own one. So we'll stick to our VWs, and those will be "just as good". LOL! 

I completely understand the predicament, and used to be there myself at one time. I still see new gear pop up in the car audio world that I'd love to know how good it is (Phass for instance). I can get gut feelings by going through the specs and the materials, but I will never say anything definitive until I've heard them. Amps in particular IME are harder to judge from #s than speakers. 

And I also see a legitimate counter argument to the one I've been proposing because I have seen some subjective writeups on DIY and often see a conflict not in taste but what certain terms used really mean, and the reality of the sound. 

However, just because there is some conflict between subjective camps doesn't mean they are all wrong or worthless.


----------



## FG79

ChrisB said:


> Why is it all these members of the golden ear crew brag about how they could take Richard Clark's money or tell a difference in a blind test with statistical significance greater than guessing (90% or higher), YET, no one ever does?
> 
> Until one of the golden ear crew with their millions of dollars in gear passes the most basic of the blind listening tests with some form of statistical significance, reading their evaluations and opinions of gear is nothing more than words on a computer screen to me! Now to apply this to a car where musical reproduction is secondary to things like driving and paying attention... :laugh:
> 
> The one thing that many audiophiles that I knew with the hundreds of thousands invested in gear had one thing in common. Know what that was? NONE of them did car audio and they ALL deemed it to be a waste of time, money, and effort!
> 
> I'm starting to see a conflict of interest with the golden ear crew in this very thread.


I've heard that the Richard Clark test is done with test tones. Is that correct?

Many home audio guys never did car audio. But that's actually a good thing instead of not. That's closer to the true reference sound to begin with. 

Now the one thing that's interesting is that the nature of car audio listening is quite basshead like. You will almost never get that in a home system. 

There are some that play home and car.


----------



## quality_sound

ChrisB said:


> Why is it all these members of the golden ear crew brag about how they could take Richard Clark's money or tell a difference in a blind test with statistical significance greater than guessing (90% or higher), YET, no one ever does?
> 
> Until one of the golden ear crew with their millions of dollars in gear passes the most basic of the blind listening tests with some form of statistical significance, reading their evaluations and opinions of gear is nothing more than words on a computer screen to me! Now to apply this to a car where musical reproduction is secondary to things like driving and paying attention... :laugh:
> 
> The one thing that many audiophiles that I knew with the hundreds of thousands invested in gear had one thing in common. Know what that was? NONE of them did car audio and they ALL deemed it to be a waste of time, money, and effort!
> 
> I'm starting to see a conflict of interest with the golden ear crew in this very thread.



Probably because that even if they COULD do it consistently, to reach "statistically significance" they're be there forever and they'd still have people saying it was rigged or that they were guessing.


----------



## 2DEEP2

thehatedguy said:


> I had heard through the grapevine that Chris Owen of Clarity Cable had scored better than average (much better) during a double blind a/b/x amp test.


well you know the two guys I know that passed the RC challenge.

After I met RC and learned first hand about the challenge, I realized it has nothing to do with how most consumers will use an amp.

So the challenge is a waist of time.

If you can't hear, you can't and if you can you can.

I can hear the difference between the Celestra and JL on my laptop riding in a car or not.


----------



## FG79

cajunner said:


> now your turn:
> 
> people visiting a website for answers to audio questions, are relying on people's recommendations more often than not.
> 
> 
> subjective evaluations rule, the forum boner gets that way through the tipping point phenomenon, it rises above the fray because of just a few posts, and people believe.
> 
> you like being able to tell people what to look for, and so far it's been high-dollar entry fees all over the place. What exactly is that going to accomplish? Most of the people here aren't in this site for $5K in power cords, or pure silver speaker wiring. You're bringing this high cost approach that means you write a check, someone delivers your car or listening room to you, turn-key mindset.
> 
> I'm saying, people here don't have the luxury most of the time, to go out and audition the same product you can order online.
> 
> that's a simple fact, unless you do a lot of gtg's in California or Texas or Pennsylvania/NY etc. or happen to have a starving high-end studio store in your po-dunk town that lets you get access, you have two things to go by when deciding on better than Best Buy gear:
> 
> you can go with a recommendation, or you can look at objective measurements.
> 
> one requires you trust someone else knows what's best for you, the other allows you to make a choice of paying more for better equipment.
> 
> you might say, a poorly testing speaker can sound good, but you can't say a great testing speaker will sound bad.
> 
> that's the difference, the testing allows people on the internet with no access, a way to separate the speakers they want to spend money on, from the ones that were maybe pushed by salesmen on a commission. I understand you know people who make their living telling people what to buy and why, but I also understand that I don't have to take a subjective opinion as fact.
> 
> and it's not perfect, I admit there are times when I don't trust the objective testing, some people make honest mistakes and some manufacturers may pad their numbers or stray far off from their prototypes, it happens.
> 
> but I've seen enough worthless products being bought with good money, to know that if something's glittering in a salesman's hand, it's not always gold.
> 
> this other stuff about how far in the other direction you can go, I don't know why you'd feel so defensive about your guru worship, I mean just because you take what those high-dollar equipment salesmen say to heart, doesn't mean I am duty bound to walk in lockstep with you.
> 
> If you want to sing the praises of equipment maybe .1% of the members here can afford, legitimately, hey. Feel free, it's just another way of looking at things and I'm right there, pointing and laughing at the gimmick feed, bring on the funny.
> 
> You feel like the sales guy is beyond reproach, your man "on the inside" vantage point is supposed to lend credibility to your suggestions. You look at measurements as false indicators of quality, you point at systems in the +$40K range as something we should aspire towards, and when these systems are shown to test poorly in comparison to their cost, you fall back on your assumption that tests don't reveal the true ability, nature, or worth of your uber nosh. That they are endowed with pixie dust, and the snake oil that oozes from the sockets, makes them magical and superior to mid-grade components.* So much so, that you'd never even stoop to attempt to ABX compare such pedigreed product against the best a big box store can get for you, for 1/30th the price.*
> 
> Because you know, deep down that you don't want to know the outcome of such a comparison. It's like you're in the Matrix, and finding out you've been had for so long, makes the red pill the only one you're going to choose.


I haven't done it personally but my friend does. Funny accusation though.....I'm the one here constantly saying "come on down", "PM me", "we can do these tests". And now suddenly I refuse.

Maybe others in the industry do, but not us. You want to bring something from best buy or whatever, feel free. 

I've mentioned expensive and inexpensive systems can (and do) rock. You keep harping on certain #s I throw out just to throw the conversation out of whack. 

You sound like you had a bad experience with the high end industry, and now everybody is the same and sucks. 

I like to stick to the premise of the thread that "higher end amp sq is a myth"....I feel that it's false. 

Not all amps that claim to be high end are actually good. But the ones that are, are worth every penny.


----------



## cajunner

FG79 said:


> I haven't done it personally but my friend does. Funny accusation though.....I'm the one here constantly saying "come on down", "PM me", "we can do these tests". And now suddenly I refuse.
> 
> Maybe others in the industry do, but not us. You want to bring something from best buy or whatever, feel free.
> 
> I've mentioned expensive and inexpensive systems can (and do) rock. You keep harping on certain #s I throw out just to throw the conversation out of whack.
> 
> You sound like you had a bad experience with the high end industry, and now everybody is the same and sucks.
> 
> I like to stick to the premise of the thread that "higher end amp sq is a myth"....I feel that it's false.
> 
> Not all amps that claim to be high end are actually good. But the ones that are, are worth every penny.


I'm the one throwing the conversation out of whack?

this is DIYMA, not FYGMA. (follow your guru mobile audio)

it's a figment of whose imagination, when testing proves most of us can't tell the difference between many good amps that don't color the sound, and if the amp is doing something drastic, we may notice it? And the amps that do more of the drastic, are the higher cost options?

what exactly is "higher end amps" in a nutshell?

it's higher cost amps.


that, is the reason you get blowback, that is the reason this thread has legs.

people don't like being told their vehicle to audio transportation is pedestrian and the difference between a limo and Greyhound is scenery you can't afford.


Never mind the seats feel the same, the time to get one place to the next is the same, if you blindfolded people and asked them after their ride which method of transport was better, they'd say "the cheaper one" since they both did their job at transport?


You like a Bugatti, and hey I'd put one in my garage if I was filthy stinking rich. Do you have a Bugatti?

that's a key point, you're a lover of the Bugatti, and you'll defend Bugatti superiority against all comers but you only aspire to the Bugatti, or your friend lets you ride his Bugatti, you will likely not be able to come by a Bugatti in your lifetime unless a true Bugatti owner takes it upon themselves to grant you an accommodation.

well, I could really care less about the Bugatti-lovers, they don't speak for me. When they tell me about their uber-dense self-love cloaked in machiavellian undertones, they are displaying not what is the best in human nature, but perhaps quite a bit further down the scale.

Should we be envoked to an envious result, or a sympathetic response? I don't know if you even realize how compromised your argument continues to be.


The fact is that amplifiers contribute little to a system's sound, and creating a drama or mystique about their sonic contribution may set a manufacturer's advertisement upon the unaware, and unassuming to forgo rational, scientific comparison in favor of some spiel developed with the sole purpose, but people who spend enough time in a hobby can and do learn the truth.

and the truth, is that you get what you pay for in terms of fit and finish, ingredient costs, general circuit quality and performance, for 90% of the brands and the competition is fierce, since there are very few ways, and some would say inaudible ways, to create a better performing amplifier.

the other 10% that exist on an "elevated standard" due to a manufacturer either going above and beyond the 90% in terms of amp build, aren't creating amps that are demonstrably superior in audible terms, or tests. They are building amps that suit an aesthetic, and if your aesthetic is to have exclusivity or sound that has coloration, you'll find plenty of companies to take your money.

It'll be a little more work for them to take mine.


----------



## ChrisB

quality_sound said:


> Probably because that even if they COULD do it consistently, to reach "statistically significance" they're be there forever and they'd still have people saying it was rigged or that they were guessing.


I'm not going to mention names, but I do know someone who built two amplifiers for a customer of his, stating that one had better components than the other and was "audiophile grade," when in reality both were identical and measured very close on the audio precision. The person receiving both amplifiers praised the "audiophile grade" amplifier and said how the regular amplifier just made the music sound dull and lifeless compared to the "audiophile" one.

Some of my friends in the industry crack me up.:laugh:


----------



## squeak9798

FG79 said:


> I've heard that the Richard Clark test is done with test tones. Is that correct?


No. In fact test tones were strictly forbidden. Only commercially available music was allowed to be used. I don't know why there are so many "myths" about the amp challenge out there. Listen to music, the two amps must measure within defined tolerances for the key indicators of amplifier performance, listener controls the switcher, make 24 correct guesses and win $10K. It really isn't as difficult as people make it out to be. In fact it's so simple and basic in construct that it blows my mind people don't get it.

Richard Clark Challenge FAQ

Has links to rules and his comments at the bottom of the article.


----------



## thehatedguy

I want to think that Chris scored better than 90% when he did the RC amp challenge. Is/was that accurate?

I heard someone else did very well, but I can't remember who it was.




2DEEP2 said:


> well you know the two guys I know that passed the RC challenge.
> 
> After I met RC and learned first hand about the challenge, I realized it has nothing to do with how most consumers will use an amp.
> 
> So the challenge is a waist of time.
> 
> If you can't hear, you can't and if you can you can.
> 
> I can hear the difference between the Celestra and JL on my laptop riding in a car or not.


----------



## squeak9798

2DEEP2 said:


> well you know the two guys I know that passed the RC challenge.
> 
> After I met RC and learned first hand about the challenge, I realized it has nothing to do with how most consumers will use an amp.
> 
> So the challenge is a waist of time.
> 
> If you can't hear, you can't and if you can you can.
> 
> I can hear the difference between the Celestra and JL on my laptop riding in a car or not.


It's not a waste of time IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE TEST WAS DESIGNED TO DEMONSTRATE. It was designed to demonstrate that things like the brand of cap, opamp, silver solder, etc don't affect the sound unless it audibly affects one of the known factors of amplifier performance (power, noise, distortion, FR). If the amps measure the same, they will sound the same. If they sound different, they will measure different. 

If Celestra and JL sound different, it's because of gain, noise, power, distortion or FR. If they measure the same (within inaudible tolerances), then they don't really sound different and it's just in your head. If they do sound different, we can easily figure out why with some simple measurements and no audio voodoo. Or if people claim they sound different but they measure the same we can call BS. If they do measure and sound different, we can see where that difference is and if we can duplicate the sound with, for example, an EQ that we may already have in our car to adjust the FR to match.

I know it sounds like common sense, but in the audiophile world this is blasphemy.


----------



## thehatedguy

Yeap, that's all said and all it's ever said.

Never has anyone ever said or should have said correctly that "All amps sound the same."

Now in these days with how good electronics have gotten, you have to ask yourself just how much of a difference is there that you can hear? Just like speakers, there is a threshold in which improvements have to become inaudible but are easily measured.

When is "good enough" really good enough?



squeak9798 said:


> If the amps measure the same, they will sound the same. If they sound different, they will measure different.


----------



## cajunner

thehatedguy said:


> Yeap, that's all said and all it's ever said.
> 
> Never has anyone ever said or should have said correctly that "All amps sound the same."
> 
> Now in these days with how good electronics have gotten, you have to ask yourself just how much of a difference is there that you can hear? Just like speakers, there is a threshold in which improvements have to become inaudible but are easily measured.
> 
> When is "good enough" really good enough?


good enough to me, is when six months of spending time with an amplifier, learning it's peculiar power envelope, where it clips, how it clips, what it sounds like with the battery off, what it sounds like with 14.4V of steady alternator charging behind it, etc....

good enough, is when you know all of this, and you buy a better amplifier according to specs and reputation and everything else, and after spending six months with that amplifier, find yourself not able to define a difference between the two, and you cannot claim a winner. 

It's a purely lateral move, for more money.


that would be good enough. The only problem with that "test parameter" is there are as many lateral moves as possible upward ones, and you can't go by manufacturer specs, or word of mouth appraisals, or third party testing laboratories. You have to do the work, and the work never ends.


I saw this CSI episode, there was a serial killer family that built miniatures, what was it, the miniature killer? 


what was that quote... "you can kill all day long and it won't be enough" or something like that...


----------



## 2DEEP2

thehatedguy said:


> I want to think that Chris scored better than 90% when he did the RC amp challenge. Is/was that accurate?
> 
> I heard someone else did very well, but I can't remember who it was.



You know him, Team ID Matt B.

I spoke with a few people and Chris said he missed 1 out of 72.
The others said it was 2 of 72 (3 different test).
RC noted that something that was measurable was not properly matched, so it was not a proper test, so Chris NEVER GOT Paid.




squeak9798 said:


> It's not a waste of time IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE TEST WAS DESIGNED TO DEMONSTRATE. It was designed to demonstrate that things like the brand of cap, opamp, silver solder, etc don't affect the sound unless it audibly affects one of the known factors of amplifier performance (power, noise, distortion, FR). If the amps measure the same, they will sound the same. If they sound different, they will measure different.
> 
> If Celestra and JL sound different, it's because of gain, noise, power, distortion or FR.
> 
> I know it sounds like common sense, but in the audiophile world this is blasphemy.


The challenge initially used two channels. Chris exploited channel separation effects. As a result only one channel is used per my conversation with RC. 

Basically the better amp would be made to match the worse amp.

The challenge is what measures the same is the same but some EE's are not Bob Carver and can't transform A into B. Intuitively Obvious, thus a waste of time. Same should sound the same.

However people conclude all amps sound the same when the nothing can be farther from the truth. As has been stated, THD level, type; FR; etc. (see ESP Amplifier Sound - What Are The Influences?).

Amps can sound different. It’s not easy to correct all the difference for some extremes.

So is Higher End Amps SQ is a Myth… NO! 

High End does NOT equal Expensive.

High End perform better for what the user wants out of an amp. SO on this forum, JL is High End.

Identifying better performing but low cost was what I thought this forum was about. Inexpensive stuff that performs very well, like TB. What I hear is all electronics perform just as well, the only difference is features. Only speakers are different.

I remember purchasing TARGA amps. 

After buying all the materiel, doing the install and firing up those TARGA amps resulted in the first time I wanted to go and just clean house of all in the shop.

On paper the TARGA amps were great, great specifications and I could buy 2 amps for the price of one of the ORION Cobalt amps that replaced them. In reality a 30 watt Alpine amp drove two 12's better than a 1000 watt TARGA.

Sure most amps are better today, especially class D. 

Still many are made to be cheap resulting in power supplies that sag under full load, which results in audible differences that do not occur with other amps.

Also, please note that when a commodity gets popular the demand for the item can go up.

In a Supply and Demand market a high demand SHOULD result in HIGHER PRICE.

So better equipment or more popular equipment can and should cost more if there is a high demand for the equipment. 

For example, my snake oil salesman with the $50,000.00 Amps and $17,000.00 speakers introduced me to ARCAM when I could have purchased an ARCAM amp for a few hundred dollars. That was like 15 years ago. 

Today I don’t know of an ARCAM amp that’s under $800. Nothing about the amp has changed other than popularity. Now it’s known as good equipment. The same can be said for Cambridge, etc.

I purchased my OPPO that currently cost $1200 for $800 several years ago because someone I trust told me it was great equipment. Same hardware with updated software (which I have in my $800 unit) and popularity added $400.00. 

OPPO is considered Higher End by The Absolute Sound, Sound and Vision and Stereophile but it has not reached the several thousand dollar price range normally associated with Home Audio Higher End. It's much more than the $80 Sony it replaced. However the Sony Sounded like A$$ with my Maggie 1.7 and the OPPO does not.


----------



## Hanatsu

The key point here is that something doesn't have to cost unreasonable amounts to perform well. I use XTZ class-A amps to my home audio setup. Those amps are really great, I consider them "high end" and they cost below $1000 each. If those were a brand name they would cost 10 times that, AT LEAST. 

Seriously, I've found some speakers that cost like $15 to perform better than $200 drivers. Price is not a good indicator of performance. 

In my experience it's like this (at least with speakers):

*If you looking at expensive gear, there's a large chance to get good stuff and a moderate chance to get "decent" equipment.
*If you looking at cheap gear, there's a moderate chance you'll get good stuff and there's a large chance you get "decent enough" gear.


----------



## thehatedguy

Matt did that? Wow.

Here is your multithousand dollar Oppo:
Oppo on the Inside, Lexicon on the Outside | Audioholics


----------



## squeak9798

2DEEP2 said:


> RC noted that something that was measurable was not properly matched, so it was not a proper test, so Chris NEVER GOT Paid.


So, the tests were invalid because the amps were not properly matched. I fail to see the issue with this as that is clearly explained as one of the requirements to pass the challenge.





> The challenge initially used two channels. Chris exploited channel separation effects. As a result only one channel is used per my conversation with RC.


Channel separation is stated in the link I provided earlier. Not sure if that change occurred before or after this Chris's test. However based on channel separation being a stated value I'd conclude that as of the date of those rules 2 channels were still used.



> Basically the better amp would be made to match the worse amp.


Myth. 

Power is limited to the least powerful of the two amps by necessity since neither is allowed to clip. However if there is an FR irregularity an EQ is to be placed in the signal chain of whichever amp the LISTENER chooses. Otherwise it's basic level matching and making sure the amps meet the thresholds of the challenge (THD %, channel separation, etc).



> The challenge is what measures the same is the same but some EE's are not Bob Carver and can't transform A into B.


There's no transforming anything, so not an issue. Read and understand the rules and goals of the challenge. It's basically level matching, Eq'ing the amp the listeners chooses if it's necessary, and meeting the necessary thresholds for distortion, channel separation, etc. 



> Amps can sound different.


Sure, they can. But it's important to understand what can make them sound different and what can not. If they sound different, they will measure different in one or more of 5 key areas; noise, power, gain, distortion and FR. It's about removing much of the voodoo and snake oil that many people then and many still today tout about what makes one amp sound better than another. 



> So is Higher End Amps SQ is a Myth… NO!


When I read the question I read it more as the "audiophile" version of amplifier sonics where the silver solder and special caps create a more airy top end and better midrange depth....that's all ********. It's not a myth that amps can sound different....it's just highly unlikely when used under normal conditions (other than power and features), which I think what most people mean who don't lend much credence to amplifier sonics.


----------



## FG79

cajunner said:


> I'm the one throwing the conversation out of whack?
> 
> this is DIYMA, not FYGMA. (follow your guru mobile audio)
> 
> So, the truth on amplifier importance is based on the* mission of this forum?*
> 
> That's the point I keep harping on.
> 
> The discussion isn't about a strict DIY sense. It's about whether high end amplifiers matter. The only way I see DIY playing a role is whether you wanted to distinguish between commercial and custom built amplifiers.
> 
> 
> 
> it's a figment of whose imagination, when testing proves most of us can't tell the difference between many good amps that don't color the sound, and if the amp is doing something drastic, we may notice it? And the amps that do more of the drastic, are the higher cost options?
> 
> what exactly is "higher end amps" in a nutshell?
> 
> it's higher cost amps.
> 
> So if a $4,000 home amp sounds better than 80% of amps costing significantly more than it, what then?
> 
> As someone who lives in the world of high end, the truly high end is stuff most people don't want to fathom paying for. The world of decent hi-fi is not so bad. A nice system can be put together for a few thousand dollars.
> 
> I'd say in car audio high end amps are mostly new amps in the > $1k range (not all of them), and good vintage which can be cheap. The fact that I've often preached for vintage 2 channel amps that can be had on ebay for $250-300 over most of the newer stuff tells me it ain't all about price.
> 
> 
> 
> that, is the reason you get blowback, that is the reason this thread has legs.
> 
> people don't like being told their vehicle to audio transportation is pedestrian and the difference between a limo and Greyhound is scenery you can't afford.
> 
> Who cares what people like or don't like? LOL.
> 
> You want to live in a world of reality or a world where everybody has a false sense of feeling good?
> 
> Nobody is saying your system is garbage if you don't have the top of the top stuff. I never did.
> 
> But if you want to sit around and claim certain things don't matter so we can all live in "fairer society" or whatever, then you'll be doing a disservice to people who actually take that advice seriously.
> 
> Nobody questions how great "high end" things in many areas are (e.g. cars, homes, boats, watches, etc). So why should audio be exempt from this?
> 
> Because it's not so obvious? Come on.
> 
> It's tough discussing this with you because you keep twisting things I say over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind the seats feel the same, the time to get one place to the next is the same, if you blindfolded people and asked them after their ride which method of transport was better, they'd say "the cheaper one" since they both did their job at transport?
> 
> When would any car person ever compare a Bugatti or whatever other high end car to a normal one based on that metric?
> 
> You like a Bugatti, and hey I'd put one in my garage if I was filthy stinking rich. Do you have a Bugatti?
> 
> No.
> 
> that's a key point, you're a lover of the Bugatti, and you'll defend Bugatti superiority against all comers but you only aspire to the Bugatti, or your friend lets you ride his Bugatti, you will likely not be able to come by a Bugatti in your lifetime unless a true Bugatti owner takes it upon themselves to grant you an accommodation.
> 
> That's fine with me. BTW, maybe I threw out Bugatti....only did that out of price to make a point.
> 
> I'm more of an Ferrari/Lamborghini guy. And while I can enjoy cars without ever owning them, they still represent my dream cars. And having had a few "tastes", I have no doubts they'll live up to the hype if I owned them.
> 
> Sometimes they don't live up to the hype. But the interesting thing is, until you drive/own them you'll never know.
> 
> Which is exactly what I say with audio gear. You'll NEVER know.
> 
> Yet somehow through the power of some nice graphs and measurements from a Klippel tool, we are supposed to magically know everything.
> 
> Right.
> 
> 
> 
> well, I could really care less about the Bugatti-lovers, they don't speak for me. When they tell me about their uber-dense self-love cloaked in machiavellian undertones, they are displaying not what is the best in human nature, but perhaps quite a bit further down the scale.
> 
> Should we be envoked to an envious result, or a sympathetic response? I don't know if you even realize how compromised your argument continues to be.
> 
> Personally, I'm lost with what you're trying to say. It always seems to boil down to being elitist based on price. It ain't about elite because of price, it's elite because it's damn good. It just so happens to cost money (and since when was that unusual in life....great things costing some money?)
> 
> I can almost sense some underlying political tones in this discussion.
> 
> There's always that faction of people who will never give proper credit to certain things just because they are expensive.
> 
> This discussion will never work if there's an innate desire to knock anything that people of "means" own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that amplifiers contribute little to a system's sound, and creating a drama or mystique about their sonic contribution may set a manufacturer's advertisement upon the unaware, and unassuming to forgo rational, scientific comparison in favor of some spiel developed with the sole purpose, but people who spend enough time in a hobby can and do learn the truth.
> 
> and the truth, is that you get what you pay for in terms of fit and finish, ingredient costs, general circuit quality and performance, for 90% of the brands and the competition is fierce, since there are very few ways, and some would say inaudible ways, to create a better performing amplifier.
> 
> the other 10% that exist on an "elevated standard" due to a manufacturer either going above and beyond the 90% in terms of amp build, aren't creating amps that are demonstrably superior in audible terms, or tests. They are building amps that suit an aesthetic, and if your aesthetic is to have exclusivity or *sound that has coloration*, you'll find plenty of companies to take your money.
> 
> It'll be a little more work for them to take mine.


You think only those 10% color sound? LOL.

When a high end amp that "colors" sound sounds more natural than this "neutral/flat sounding" amp, you might reconsider things.

My biggest issue with sound reproduction IN GENERAL, is the difficulty in achieving the proper "natural" sound. Natural sound in real life has lots of midrange (or shall I say, midrange that's not dialed back), and highs that are almost never harsh. For the sake of discussion I'm talking mostly unamplified instruments, but even amplified instruments and vocals count too.

So when I hear playback systems that are "thin" (lack of midrange presence) or "bright" (too much treble), I don't care what the #s say.....the system is coloring in a bad way. 

It could be the speakers and/or electronics. But I've seen how switching the amps alone contributes to a better sound. 

Everything colors. Just a matter of finding what colors in the most pleasing/accurate way. 

BTW, it's not just about tonal balance. Dynamics, presence, weight....these are all things you cannot EQ.


----------



## FG79

Hanatsu said:


> The key point here is that something doesn't have to cost unreasonable amounts to perform well. I use XTZ class-A amps to my home audio setup. Those amps are really great, I consider them "high end" and they cost below $1000 each. If those were a brand name they would cost 10 times that, AT LEAST.
> 
> Seriously, I've found some speakers that cost like $15 to perform better than $200 drivers. Price is not *necessarily*a good indicator of performance.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> See the red text I highlighted at the top -- is that the title of the thread?
> 
> And I edited your last sentence for you to show what I feel to be the truth. We essentially agree, with the difference being you feel there's an artificial limit and I don't.
> 
> I agree that there's some high end that has a lot of margins built in, but not all of them are that way. And some actually deliver.


----------



## WinWiz

Ferrari is so bad build quality I personally would be ashamed to pay that kind of money for it.
You can pay to much even for a fast car with dynaudio like the bugatti. Its cheaper to fly a bugatti than to drive it, because things like tires are stupidly expensive. Thats why even the mega rich oil sheiks are trying to get rid of their Bugattis.


----------



## cajunner

FG79 said:


> You think only those 10% color sound? LOL.
> 
> When a high end amp that "colors" sound sounds more natural than this "neutral/flat sounding" amp, you might reconsider things.
> 
> My biggest issue with sound reproduction IN GENERAL, is the difficulty in achieving the proper "natural" sound. Natural sound in real life has lots of midrange (or shall I say, midrange that's not dialed back), and highs that are almost never harsh. For the sake of discussion I'm talking mostly unamplified instruments, but even amplified instruments and vocals count too.
> 
> So when I hear playback systems that are "thin" (lack of midrange presence) or "bright" (too much treble), I don't care what the #s say.....the system is coloring in a bad way.
> 
> It could be the speakers and/or electronics. But I've seen how switching the amps alone contributes to a better sound.
> 
> Everything colors. Just a matter of finding what colors in the most pleasing/accurate way.
> 
> BTW, it's not just about tonal balance. Dynamics, presence, weight....these are all things you cannot EQ.


I do get that the best performing things in life, are naturally limited by supply and I do understand that to acquire those things, there is a percentage of cost not based on materials or common margins, but based on value placed on those things by people who wish to own them, since they are 

understood

to be the best life has to offer.


now, that said, audio being this graduated scale, this bell curve where the very best product is somehow only reserved for the select few who can attain the very highest points in life, and in so doing, pitch themselves onto the summit of audio, buying the "spare no expense" philosophy, because what else do they have to spend their money on?

A lot of audio is that justification, that excuse that allows vain people to be vain in something other than themselves, it fosters their assumed posture, their "airs" like very little in life can, it gives them an ever higher bracketing until you're in fairy tale land, and 200K on a left/right speaker pair, makes sense. A 150K amplifier, is indicative of the commitment to purpose, as if there was something more than electrons coursing through, as if copper cannot be responsible for the elocution, of the soul which those highest echelon products will deliver, so sayeth the salesman.

At some point you have to grapple with the PT Barnum in all of this, unless you're truly committed, or commit-worthy, to the institution of higher end.


and I just happened to grapple with it well before you, perhaps. When you and 99.999% of your elite colleagues who maintain differences in equipment, being congruent with the costs you take something simple, and you obfuscate it to further a philosophical maw, you aspire.


makes no difference whether or not anyone can prove the superior nature of these things, or that they can flesh them out of a crowded field of nearly winners and also-rans, such is the science of differentials. You find the .001% of anything, and somehow cannot excuse that it's still JUST .001%, and the ultimate reality that .01% is good enough to beat anyone who has a bout with ABX boxes, and a curtain.


no, you have to justify, you have to provide for the ones who established the maxim, "a sucker is born every minute" and nurture their kids' college educations, based on a complicated ruse that bilks the "truly deserving" of their disposable funds, as it should be. But that leaves you, neither the bilked nor the bilker, at their mercy. 

You got so caught up in the high end sales guy's practice speeches on you, that you never realized you were a sparring partner, once they have you convinced it solidifies the notion of honesty, of integrity. Your value to the high end sales guy isn't your potential profit future, it's in lending believability to the ruse, it's in playing the straight man. If they can push you into their made-up world of "weight, impact, warm soft, smooth, but not so unexciting that you'd want to add a treble knob" with it's itinerary of distinction, you who literally have no skin in the game other than a vicarious longing, then they have little work ahead, skinning the sheep with really woolly hides.

You won't get that, though. You're not going to let someone on the internet open your willfully closed eyes to the truth, that there are components of sleight of hand involved with your favorite, "vintage" pieces, that someone else was had a long time before and building on that deception you achieve transcendence from the ordinary and the ad copy prophetically enough, illuminates a rarity which very few can afford, but all must acknowledge.


There's a lot of grift, in the highest end. I think it's partially because we all want to be the one who gets over on, instead of being the one gotten over on. Audio hustlers are like politicians in a way, the very best are the ones who can convince the most people of their value, and any contrary arguments filled with science and repeatable results, takes second place to the cult of personality.

and as you might well have noticed, I stay away from the religious connotations of that maxim, it's not a place I wish to lift others from the fog, like the audio, and their "higher end" natures.

but if you want, you can put your word substitutions in, and see it for what it is.

as a psychological explanation, the science of the mind, and the very base instinct of predator, prey, victim and perpetrator, is behind it all.

If you want to spread your "good news" of higher end products and their pull they have over you, if you want to deliver that message that though the road is narrow and unyielding, you are committed to the belief that perfectionism is a framework and anyone who is not committed deserves their fate, haha....

whatever, man.

You can't beat an amplifier blind test, in that you can pick out your favorite amplifier if I just set a half dozen examples from the market in the queue, and time and again it can be proven that you can't beat it. But let no one take away your idols, for the truth.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

FG79 said:


> You think only those 10% color sound? LOL.
> 
> When a high end amp that "colors" sound sounds more natural than this "neutral/flat sounding" amp, you might reconsider things.
> 
> So they use passive eq or other tricks to change response? Why don't you measure the response and buy an active eq to save money?
> 
> Edit: sometimes I check for random socks or toys the kids may have hid inside the speaker. Might want to look there before swapping an amp.
> 
> My biggest issue with sound reproduction IN GENERAL, is the difficulty in achieving the proper "natural" sound. Natural sound in real life has lots of midrange (or shall I say, midrange that's not dialed back), and highs that are almost never harsh. For the sake of discussion I'm talking mostly unamplified instruments, but even amplified instruments and vocals count too.
> 
> Do you have a thought process that helps you achieve your goal? Or swap gear every 6 months hoping for the best?
> 
> So when I hear playback systems that are "thin" (lack of midrange presence) or "bright" (too much treble), I don't care what the #s say.....the system is coloring in a bad way.
> 
> How do you resolve those issues?
> 
> It could be the speakers and/or electronics. But I've seen how switching the amps alone contributes to a better sound.
> 
> Was the offending amp measured before the hero was brought in? Were the conditions matched?
> 
> One time I swapped an amp where the gain was set to 8V with another amp that was set at .2V. It put pubes on my two year old. It was lovely and wonderful. Even my neighbor took her pants off to celebrate the new-found dynamics. We frolicked for what seemed hours in the driveway...his pubes, her pants, and my Lepai.
> 
> Everything colors. Just a matter of finding what colors in the most pleasing/accurate way.
> 
> BTW, it's not just about tonal balance. Dynamics, presence, weight....these are all things you cannot EQ.
> 
> Of course. My life has all new meaning for me after the above. I sure wish I knew what those Chinese motorcycle eBay amps had inside that made such a magical difference.


----------



## FG79

cajunner said:


> *You can't beat an amplifier blind test, in that you can pick out your favorite amplifier if I just set a half dozen examples from the market in the queue, and time and again it can be proven that you can't beat it.* But let no one take away your idols, for the truth.


I don't know....it depends on the amplifiers being tested. And I might not do much better than the norm in this scenario. Doesn't prove anything. 

Given the ability to A/B over an extended period of time, I can always hear the difference. Always. 

And that's far from a golden ear ability too, which is why I find this whole debate silly. 

It's also ridiculous to think that without any biases around, one couldn't make that determination on their own.

I get it, you like to cite the placebo effect. It probably is very legitimate in the scenarios you propose, but very little to no effect in a long term comparison where it's just you at home with your gear. 

So while this may not be as of much help to a potential consumer, it does little to change the fact about certain amps being better than others.

You like to cling to these scenarios of blind tests as if they are the end all/be all. It's funny, allegedly Pepsi used to beat Coke in many blind tests. But when faced with what to buy, Coke wins out by a nice margin.

Tell me what prestige there is by buying Coke over Pepsi. To me, there's none. I tend to prefer Coke 80% of the time over Pepsi, and can easily tell which is which in a blind test.

Let me ask you something:

If I gave you an amp to try out for a few months, do you think you would be unable to hear the difference in your car? 

Because, that's the gist of what I'm hearing here.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

FG79 said:


> I don't know....it depends on the amplifiers being tested. And I might not do much better than the norm in this scenario. Doesn't prove anything.
> 
> Given the ability to A/B over an extended period of time, I can always hear the difference. Always.
> 
> And that's far from a golden ear ability too, which is why I find this whole debate silly.
> 
> How in the world do companies consistently make similar sounding gear across product lines? That must be purely accident. How did RC learn how to make two amps sound so similar?
> 
> Let me ask you something:
> 
> If I gave you an amp to try out for a few months, do you think you would be unable to hear the difference in your car?
> 
> Because, that's the gist of what I'm hearing here.
> 
> you're making up your own argument. What has been said time and time again is that amps sound different, especially out of the box without tuning. But they have the potential to sound very similar if you know what buttons push.
> 
> That's the objective part. Know what you want, how to get what you want, execute.


Here's my question...are you telling us there's an immeasurable quality to these circuits? Why hasn't something other than what's considered a statistical anomaly been able to pass a/b tests?


----------



## FG79

I800C0LLECT;2081336
So they use passive eq or other tricks to change response? Why don't you measure the response and buy an active eq to save money?
Edit: sometimes I check for random socks or toys the kids may have hid inside the speaker. Might want to look there before swapping an amp.
I don't think these amps are actively EQing their sound in that manner. And if they were said:


> I know I'm very content with my decisions. Never any regrets once I got taught the way.
> 
> Money and logistics are the only things holding me back. Not everyone can say that.
> 
> Can you?


----------



## FG79

I800C0LLECT said:


> Here's my question...are you telling us there's an immeasurable quality to these circuits? Why hasn't something other than what's considered a statistical anomaly been able to pass a/b tests?


I can only go by my experience. It's the parts that makes the difference. Even the manufacturer of one particular high end company told me his later version of the same amp wasn't as good as the older one because the newer parts weren't as good. You'd imagine he'd find a way if he could. 

My friend is in the custom amplifier making business. If you, RC, or anybody can make amps sound similar in EVERY WAY to what he makes now (and do it cheap as you're implying), you can be in business making some good money. If you can emulate some of this stuff costing low to mid five figures for $1000-2000, just think of the potential. 

An already PROVEN market, with prices regulated by supply/demand. You build it, they will come. 

If I had the money to spare, I'd love to challenge RC to emulate a few amps I know that have a very distinctive signature. And since he's so talented, I bet he thinks he can emulate tube with solid state.

As much as I don't believe it's true....IF I happened to be WRONG, then a big business opportunity would immediately present itself. 

I know lots of people personally who value great amps who have spent a good amount of money on them, and know plenty more that would if they had the money. 

I think the tonal balance *maybe* can be emulated but the amp wouldn't be as good in other aspects. And btw, how do we know if two amps would perform the same on a linear scale at high SPLs?

I personally think it's a bunch of BS. It sounds yummy in theory (key word, "theory") but having been to a bunch of hi-fi shows I've yet to see these copies pop up. 

Anyways, you guys are completely convinced of your way, and I am of mine.

Continue to believe amps make no difference. I need to remind myself it keeps the prices down. 

After all my favorite car audio tweeter is rarely more than $100-150/pair on ebay. If DIY loved it too, it'd be at least a few times the price!


----------



## cajunner

it has nothing to do with the placebo effect, although it may be related in that theoretical way.

it proves, that for most people their personal favorite, or supposedly superior amp cannot be located in an informal test of it's peers. Not that you have to do equalization or Bob Carver - level adjustments, or even Richard Clark lite, amp challenge fix-it-ups.

this is huge. I know I hear differences in amps, and I know people say I shouldn't be able to because I didn't follow a standard, or rigid protocol by putting all pre-amp circuits to flat and gain matching to within .01 mV or db, but in my informal "disconnect power wire, here, re-connect power wire, now, hmmm.... yes, that sounds different" kind of approach, I know I hear a difference. 

You'll have trouble proving to me that within a common power envelope, (say, 20W output, all of my amps are considerably stronger than this at clipping) I can't hear differences.

But put all the amps I am familiar with, in a room and ask me to ABX them so that I can corroborate the amp I like best, the amp I am sure is the best sounding of the bunch, and I won't be able to consistently identify it.

And if that means I'm lacking, or that my amps are all too similar, (they aren't) or that I haven't figured out what will make one amp distinguish itself against the others, so much so that other people can come in and identify each amp upon testing, I can see how someone would allow themselves to believe that it's not the amps that are the problem, but me...

and yet, I feel like my ability to distinguish between 256K and 320K mp3's, is hardly even a challenge. Using planar magnetic computer desk speakers I paid all of 65 bucks for, I can fish out all kinds of spatial artifacts and cymbal crash error, not a problem. This is not higher end, it's almost laughable how much difference I can hear using such a blunt instrument.

and you're right, I don't have many hours logged into hearing really expensive equipment, and I do suffer from a condition of perennial 'can't afford-itis' when it comes to those brands and builds that are just mid-level market, and not even close to what is high end in the true sense of the audio art.

you have that over me, you have countless hours perhaps, of auditioning some of the finest gear man has ever graced the earth with and yet, I can still line up 6 amps of my choosing (after you select your favorite, or heck, bring in your amp maker's commercially successful version, let me hear it, and then I'll choose) and put them behind a curtain, and the odds are overwhelmingly in my favor that you can't find Waldo.

doesn't that matter, doesn't that mean something to you?

I can understand that there are audible differences, and I can understand that those differences are able to qualified by measurements, and I understand that there are amp designers out there who can do the impossible by using specialized circuits and black boxes to null out amp differences, but what about the most simple of tests, using the most simple of adjustments, and it's just a seven selections possible, find your winner?

Would you bet your car on it, would you bet your next week's paycheck on your ability to locate your special amplifier out of the crowd?

because, I humbly present, that is exactly what you are doing when you hand over to those guru salesmen the kind of money they appreciate, the kind of money that puts you into the running and gives them the reason to spend time with you going over their sales pitches and not moving on to a more convenient mark in their high end trap of a salon.


----------



## ErinH

I read a great article recently; one about how audiophiles often find themselves spending money on top of money on new gear. Then they realize they're listening to components rather than the music. This thread seems to be the epitome of that.


----------



## cajunner

FG79 said:


> I can only go by my experience. It's the parts that makes the difference. Even the manufacturer of one particular high end company told me his later version of the same amp wasn't as good as the older one because the newer parts weren't as good. You'd imagine he'd find a way if he could.
> 
> My friend is in the custom amplifier making business. If you, RC, or anybody can make amps sound similar in EVERY WAY to what he makes now (and do it cheap as you're implying), you can be in business making some good money. If you can emulate some of this stuff costing low to mid five figures for $1000-2000, just think of the potential.
> 
> An already PROVEN market, with prices regulated by supply/demand. You build it, they will come.
> 
> If I had the money to spare, I'd love to challenge RC to emulate a few amps I know that have a very distinctive signature. And since he's so talented, I bet he thinks he can emulate tube with solid state.
> 
> As much as I don't believe it's true....IF I happened to be WRONG, then a big business opportunity would immediately present itself.
> 
> I know lots of people personally who value great amps who have spent a good amount of money on them, and know plenty more that would if they had the money.
> 
> I think the tonal balance *maybe* can be emulated but the amp wouldn't be as good in other aspects. And btw, how do we know if two amps would perform the same on a linear scale at high SPLs?
> 
> I personally think it's a bunch of BS. It sounds yummy in theory (key word, "theory") but having been to a bunch of hi-fi shows I've yet to see these copies pop up.
> 
> Anyways, you guys are completely convinced of your way, and I am of mine.
> 
> Continue to believe amps make no difference. I need to remind myself it keeps the prices down.
> 
> After all my favorite car audio tweeter is rarely more than $100-150/pair on ebay. If DIY loved it too, it'd be at least a few times the price!



didn't you read the Bob Carver wikipedia?

He already did this. After he proved to high end magazine editors they couldn't hear a difference, he took his circuit design that copied the sound of a 12K Conrad Johnson tube amplifier, and turned it into the first of a line of amp copies, The TFM .5 or 1.0T, I think it was.

then he built the Silver Seven, a hugely expensive tube amplifier, (which enjoys a collector value today) and copied it with the 4.0T, another solid state "transfer function modified" version that was a fraction of the price.


He did build it, and they still come, as the TFM series is still trading in second hand pricing above the market norm, and 30 years later on people still seek out these designs.

Maybe it's time another designer of note, took the amp challenge premise, and copied the latest designs of the highest end so the masses could enjoy solid state costs with the bespoke valve temperament?


----------



## FG79

cajunner said:


> *Would you bet your car on it, would you bet your next week's paycheck on your ability to locate your special amplifier out of the crowd?
> *
> because, I humbly present, that is exactly what you are doing when you hand over to those guru salesmen the kind of money they appreciate, the kind of money that puts you into the running and gives them the reason to spend time with you going over their sales pitches and not moving on to a more convenient mark in their high end trap of a salon.


So tell me again how this test works.

Give me a step by step.

I'm very curious, because it can be very challenging by the very nature of it. 

Having to memorize 7 amplifiers at once, and spit them all back. That can be tough. 

I want to know all the details. Every last one.


----------



## FG79

bikinpunk said:


> I read a great article recently; one about how audiophiles often find themselves spending money on top of money on new gear. Then they realize they're listening to components rather than the music. This thread seems to be the epitome of that.


There's some merit to that statement.

However:

As much as I love this stuff, listening to a great new song on any system still brings joy. I'll catch a song I hadn't heard in forever, or maybe something new and it doesn't matter the playback.

The gear though is to keep reinventing the joy of familiar music. 

And while there's something to be said about "never being happy", that argument applies to a lot more than just amps.


----------



## FG79

cajunner said:


> didn't you read the Bob Carver wikipedia?
> 
> He already did this. After he proved to high end magazine editors they couldn't hear a difference, he took his circuit design that copied the sound of a 12K Conrad Johnson tube amplifier, and turned it into the first of a line of amp copies, The TFM .5 or 1.0T, I think it was.
> 
> then he built the Silver Seven, a hugely expensive tube amplifier, (which enjoys a collector value today) and copied it with the 4.0T, another solid state "transfer function modified" version that was a fraction of the price.
> 
> 
> He did build it, and they still come, as the TFM series is still trading in second hand pricing above the market norm, and 30 years later on people still seek out these designs.
> 
> Maybe it's time another designer of note, took the amp challenge premise, and copied the latest designs of the highest end so the masses could enjoy solid state costs with the bespoke valve temperament?


I read it. 

It's very interesting.

And since I like Carver's gear, it carries some weight.

Wonder what it would take to get Carver to do this again, with some of our gear.


----------



## cajunner

FG79 said:


> So tell me again how this test works.
> 
> Give me a step by step.
> 
> I'm very curious, because it can be very challenging by the very nature of it.
> 
> Having to memorize 7 amplifiers at once, and spit them all back. That can be tough.
> 
> I want to know all the details. Every last one.


I'm no Richard Clark.

I have no equipment for sale, or odd notions of disproving the audiophile claims by high-brow manufacturers.

You don't have to memorize 7 amplifiers. I'll plug in a Random number generator, and you'll listen to random sections of music, coming from one of 7 amplifiers at a time, and at the end of each section/cycle you will mark whether or not the amp just playing, was your favorite, identifying it from a random grouping.

This will go on for hours, or just 10 minutes. It doesn't matter if you extend each listening section/cycle from 10 seconds in duration, to 10 minutes in duration.

You will have every chance conceivable, it is not set up as a trick or illusion, it's so you have the very best possible chance at identifying your amp when music is playing, against a field of similar designed product that I choose the selection. 

And yes, I'll do all the normal stuff like matching gains and checking for obvious circuit manipulations leading to a defect placed there for the purpose of being able to identify your amp.

I don't believe the state of the amp market is such, that the term "commodity" is ill-used, when regarding amplifiers and so far all indications by way of tests have shown that if an amp is commercially successful it's similar enough in design and performance to make it disappear into the crowd of competitive examples available.

or, whatever those amp guru salesmen do to make the amps sound different in their listening room "SET UP" that gives you an impression, a distinct impression...

is not reality.

That's where you get your blinders taken off, literally and see the world for what it is and not what you've been taught it to be.


----------



## FG79

cajunner said:


> I'm no Richard Clark.
> 
> I have no equipment for sale, or odd notions of disproving the audiophile claims by high-brow manufacturers.
> 
> You don't have to memorize 7 amplifiers. I'll plug in a Random number generator, and you'll listen to random sections of music, coming from one of 7 amplifiers at a time, and at the end of each section/cycle you will mark whether or not the amp just playing, was your favorite, identifying it from a random grouping.
> 
> This will go on for hours, or just 10 minutes. It doesn't matter if you extend each listening section/cycle from 10 seconds in duration, to 10 minutes in duration.
> 
> You will have every chance conceivable, it is not set up as a trick or illusion, it's so you have the very best possible chance at identifying your amp when music is playing, against a field of similar designed product that I choose the selection.
> 
> And yes, I'll do all the normal stuff like matching gains and checking for obvious circuit manipulations leading to a defect placed there for the purpose of being able to identify your amp.
> 
> I don't believe the state of the amp market is such, that the term "commodity" is ill-used, when regarding amplifiers and so far all indications by way of tests have shown that if an amp is commercially successful it's similar enough in design and performance to make it disappear into the crowd of competitive examples available.
> 
> or, whatever those amp guru salesmen do to make the amps sound different in their listening room "SET UP" that gives you an impression, a distinct impression...
> 
> is not reality.
> 
> That's where you get your blinders taken off, literally and see the world for what it is and not what you've been taught it to be.


So what amps are you planning on using again?


----------



## cajunner

FG79 said:


> So what amps are you planning on using again?


the ones that aren't the same as yours.

no tricks.

you put in a tube amp, and I get to put in a tube amp. 

keeps it simple, and honest.

you put in a harsh fuzz bomb of a solid state example, I'll do the same.

I'm going to have 6 amps, and maybe they are all the same, and maybe I try and cover the gamut to provide as wide an array as possible of sonic signatures, 


(in that I'm acknowledging that amps do, have sonic signatures)


so that your amp is well camouflaged in the group.

you're going to have to know your amp pretty well, to prove it is 'all that, and a bag of chips'


and you can bring in that big 50K example too, just don't let me leave without making sure you're still in possession of it. I may not be able to tell what makes an amp sound better than another but I can damn sure let the guy down at BJ's Pawn Shop give me his impression in dollars...




see, the problem is that you say it proves nothing if you can't tell your amp from the run-of-the-mill, that the guru salesmen you have been getting your information from, outside of their own listening abode where they have had a chance at the wiring behind the panel, so to speak, and yet, I say it proves everything.

If you can't pick out your uber-mensch, from the dreck I can reasonably acquire for the test, what grounds do you have to say that the higher end is not really higher cost, what would you do to disprove that?


would you enter an amp that comes in at 4K, when you're putting 50K or so on the line?

probably not, I think you'd run for your guru friends to select one out for you, one that they would back you with, haha...

this could be fun.


----------



## BuickGN

FG79 said:


> I know I'm very content with my decisions. Never any regrets once I got taught the way.
> 
> Money and logistics are the only things holding me back. Not everyone can say that.
> 
> Can you?


You've probably mentioned it already but I'm curious what kind of speakers someone such as yourself are using. I chose the Dyn Esotars because I believe they're the most neutral and life-like of the bunch. What are you running and why?

Just to throw it out there, I disagree with just about everything you've said lol. But I have seen the vicious attacks by some because I run high end speakers. There are those that say things like "more money than brains" without knowing me or why I chose what I chose and without ever hearing the speakers in question. There are those that genuinely like finding great speakers that perform well that are cheap which I would like to think make up the majority but there are those that I can only assume have jealousy issues because it's as if they take it personally, the way I choose to spend my money. With that out of the way...

Money isn't holding me back in car audio. Home audio, yes, but not car audio. I just couldn't justify throwing my money away on something that made no difference. On the amplification side, I spent it on something that matters, additional power. I'm about to spend one more time, buying one more JL HD750/1 for a 750 on each midbass, 600/4 bridged to the midrange, 600/4 bridged to the tweeters (just because I don't want to waste channels, and a 1200/1 to the subs. It still came in considerably under some of the "high end" amps with 1/4 the power and power is the only thing I've heard that makes an audible difference. 

Seriously though, what speakers are you currently running and what have you tried in the past, in the car? Every tried any lower end amps back to back against high end?


----------



## thehatedguy

Dear god that's a lot of power.



BuickGN said:


> I'm about to spend one more time, buying one more JL HD750/1 for a 750 on each midbass, 600/4 bridged to the midrange, 600/4 bridged to the tweeters (just because I don't want to waste channels, and a 1200/1 to the subs.


----------



## tjswarbrick

thehatedguy said:


> Dear god that's a lot of power.


Finally, something we can all agree on!


----------



## Victor_inox

bikinpunk said:


> I read a great article recently; one about how audiophiles often find themselves spending money on top of money on new gear. Then they realize they're listening to components rather than the music. This thread seems to be the epitome of that.


100% agreed.


----------



## ErinH

thehatedguy said:


> Dear god that's a lot of power.


yea. even 300w bridged on my mids was plenty sufficient. I've stepped back down to 150w on the HD900/5 and that's perfectly adequate. not to say I wouldn't do the same if I had the space (being part of Team JL makes the money less of an issue) but it is a point where I think it may be completely unnecessary.


----------



## rton20s

BuickGN said:


> I just couldn't justify throwing my money away on something that made no difference. On the amplification side, I spent it on something that matters, additional power.


This, I agree with. I don't have nearly the headroom you do, but I do run significantly more rated power to my drivers than manufacturer's spec. And my amps are decent for car audio, but nothing I would consider "high end." I've actually considered an amp "downgrade" to achieve more power in a smaller, more efficient footprint. 



thehatedguy said:


> Dear god that's a lot of power.





tjswarbrick said:


> Finally, something we can all agree on!


Yep. And none of us ever get to hear it because he doesn't bother showing up for the GTGs anymore. 

Buick, if you can't make it to the SoCal GTG/comp on May 10th, I will be stopping in Bakersfield on the way back. If you're around, I would like to hear the car.


----------



## thehatedguy

I've never came to a point where I thought it was unnecessary 



bikinpunk said:


> but it is a point where I think it may be completely unnecessary.


----------



## Hanatsu

BuickGN said:


> You've probably mentioned it already but I'm curious what kind of speakers someone such as yourself are using. I chose the Dyn Esotars because I believe they're the most neutral and life-like of the bunch. What are you running and why?
> 
> Just to throw it out there, I disagree with just about everything you've said lol. But I have seen the vicious attacks by some because I run high end speakers. There are those that say things like "more money than brains" without knowing me or why I chose what I chose and without ever hearing the speakers in question. There are those that genuinely like finding great speakers that perform well that are cheap which I would like to think make up the majority but there are those that I can only assume have jealousy issues because it's as if they take it personally, the way I choose to spend my money. With that out of the way...
> 
> Money isn't holding me back in car audio. Home audio, yes, but not car audio. I just couldn't justify throwing my money away on something that made no difference. On the amplification side, I spent it on something that matters, additional power. I'm about to spend one more time, buying one more JL HD750/1 for a 750 on each midbass, 600/4 bridged to the midrange, 600/4 bridged to the tweeters (just because I don't want to waste channels, and a 1200/1 to the subs. It still came in considerably under some of the "high end" amps with 1/4 the power and power is the only thing I've heard that makes an audible difference.
> 
> Seriously though, what speakers are you currently running and what have you tried in the past, in the car? Every tried any lower end amps back to back against high end?


Those Dyn's are high performing drivers. Measurable qualities which are clearly audible. I do feel that Esotar2 series are pricy but I guess you get what you pay for...

I rather spend money on higher end speakers than "higher end" amps.


----------



## FG79

cajunner said:


> the ones that aren't the same as yours.
> 
> no tricks.
> 
> you put in a tube amp, and I get to put in a tube amp.
> 
> keeps it simple, and honest.
> 
> you put in a harsh fuzz bomb of a solid state example, I'll do the same.
> 
> I'm going to have 6 amps, and maybe they are all the same, and maybe I try and cover the gamut to provide as wide an array as possible of sonic signatures,
> 
> 
> (in that I'm acknowledging that amps do, have sonic signatures)
> 
> 
> so that your amp is well camouflaged in the group.
> 
> you're going to have to know your amp pretty well, to prove it is 'all that, and a bag of chips'
> 
> 
> and you can bring in that big 50K example too, just don't let me leave without making sure you're still in possession of it. I may not be able to tell what makes an amp sound better than another but I can damn sure let the guy down at BJ's Pawn Shop give me his impression in dollars...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> see, the problem is that you say it proves nothing if you can't tell your amp from the run-of-the-mill, that the guru salesmen you have been getting your information from, outside of their own listening abode where they have had a chance at the wiring behind the panel, so to speak, and yet, I say it proves everything.
> 
> If you can't pick out your uber-mensch, from the dreck I can reasonably acquire for the test, what grounds do you have to say that the higher end is not really higher cost, what would you do to disprove that?
> 
> 
> would you enter an amp that comes in at 4K, when you're putting 50K or so on the line?
> 
> probably not, I think you'd run for your guru friends to select one out for you, one that they would back you with, haha...
> 
> this could be fun.


Hey, before you get too excited, car audio was my concern. I still feel good about it, but haven't heard all the other amps that are out there to know the differences. 

Home audio, I say bring it on. Under $10k, I'm very, very confident, and at $25k, you'll be slapped around silly. 

You think you got me cornered and defeated. Funny stuff.


----------



## FG79

BuickGN said:


> You've probably mentioned it already but I'm curious what kind of speakers someone such as yourself are using. I chose the Dyn Esotars because I believe they're the most neutral and life-like of the bunch. What are you running and why?
> 
> Just to throw it out there, I disagree with just about everything you've said lol. But I have seen the vicious attacks by some because I run high end speakers. There are those that say things like "more money than brains" without knowing me or why I chose what I chose and without ever hearing the speakers in question. There are those that genuinely like finding great speakers that perform well that are cheap which I would like to think make up the majority but there are those that I can only assume have jealousy issues because it's as if they take it personally, the way I choose to spend my money. With that out of the way...
> 
> Money isn't holding me back in car audio. Home audio, yes, but not car audio. I just couldn't justify throwing my money away on something that made no difference. On the amplification side, I spent it on something that matters, additional power. I'm about to spend one more time, buying one more JL HD750/1 for a 750 on each midbass, 600/4 bridged to the midrange, 600/4 bridged to the tweeters (just because I don't want to waste channels, and a 1200/1 to the subs. It still came in considerably under some of the "high end" amps with 1/4 the power and power is the only thing I've heard that makes an audible difference.
> 
> Seriously though, what speakers are you currently running and what have you tried in the past, in the car? Every tried any lower end amps back to back against high end?


I run Nakamichi SP-10 tweeters, and Hybrid L6 woofers (first gen), passive through a Nakamichi passive crossover (3khz @ 12 dB). I also run KEF S-250 subs. 

Very, very content driver wise. Those Naks kill the Morel MT-23 tweeters I had previously. Probably the first driver I ever owned in a car where every several months I'll stop and remind myself "damn, these are really good". 

For a self professed amp guy who isn't a speaker whore, that's saying a lot. 

And the SP-15 dome midranges......probably even better. Eventually I'll get them in a car. They are 1.5" driver but on a big 4" plate. 

The biggest concern is that amps can have a longer lifespan than speakers, plus can handle abuse better. I worry about the day I can no longer source those Naks because they will be too old at some point. 

Throwing it out here on DIY poses no risk. 

EDIT: Forgot to answer your question in full:

I used to run Morel Elate 6 3 way set, passive (circa 2007). Then migrated to the 2 way setup I have now. 

At the shop I was at, it was either the Morel Elate or the Dynaudio 360. I went with my gut on the Morel having never heard them because I trusted the shop owner's opinion and made an educated guess based on forum reviews. The t/s specs I don't believe played a role in the decision. 

Way back in the day, I used to run some Rockford Fosgates.

I haven't run low end vs. high end back to back in my current setup. No need....the difference was pretty obvious.


----------



## cajunner

FG79 said:


> Hey, before you get too excited, car audio was my concern. I still feel good about it, but haven't heard all the other amps that are out there to know the differences.
> 
> Home audio, I say bring it on. Under $10k, I'm very, very confident, and at $25k, you'll be slapped around silly.
> 
> You think you got me cornered and defeated. Funny stuff.


You do realize you've lost, though?

You don't believe that if you tell me the amp you choose, I can't go to a high-end salon and ask them what mid-grade amp sounds like the one you chose?

and then do it again, for 5 more possibles, in the mix?

I am pitting your ability to hear your amp, using your familiarity with the sonic signature, against my ability to locate similar sounding amps from the marketplace.

some may even be more expensive than the amp you chose, who knows what I have up my sleeve?

so before you attempt to squirm out from under the gauntlet, let me make you aware once again, of your premise:


you believe higher end amps are distinguishable from the common, you give a select few extreme favor and feel as though you're able to hear the difference between those examples of the highest state of audio art, from the rest of the market's entries.


I'm just allowing you the opportunity to prove that assertion. You made it, I didn't. I am not the one who has to prove anything, all I'm doing is disproving your notion of either superior hearing or superior discernment.


----------



## BuickGN

rton20s said:


> This, I agree with. I don't have nearly the headroom you do, but I do run significantly more rated power to my drivers than manufacturer's spec. And my amps are decent for car audio, but nothing I would consider "high end." I've actually considered an amp "downgrade" to achieve more power in a smaller, more efficient footprint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. And none of us ever get to hear it because he doesn't bother showing up for the GTGs anymore.
> 
> Buick, if you can't make it to the SoCal GTG/comp on May 10th, I will be stopping in Bakersfield on the way back. If you're around, I would like to hear the car.


I would LOVE to make it to a GTG but it's literally been impossible the past few meets. I feel so bad about the last one, literally 2 days before we had a near death in the family. Before that I had to go to work at the last minute. It seems like the one I made it to was the one I didn't care so much if I made it or not. 

I want to hear more systems and I need criticism of mine because I haven't heard a decent system in a long time and I know mine does not sound as good as I think it does. 

It would be awesome if I could come down a day early and pay one of the experts to help out on the tune. I feel like a lot of people want to hear the equipment and I want to give it a fair shot or at least not hold it back because of a bad tune. 

You're always welcome to hear it anytime.


----------



## BuickGN

thehatedguy said:


> Dear god that's a lot of power.


It's pretty retarded I admit. My goal is to add power until I can no longer hear an improvement in dynamics or until I just can't hear at all lol. Unfortunately my only measuring device is my ears. Going from 150w to 300w on the midbass with a 50hz HP was an easy to hear change. Since then I just don't feel the need to run them below 70hz because the 15s play that range so much easier and efficiently and I have no problems with up front bass. I'm prepared to hear no difference. Maybe I'll get some sense before then and leave it as is.


----------



## thehatedguy

RC used to say something about 10x the amount....I would go have to dig it up.

Buick, look at the diagram in your sig carefully...there is a typo there.


----------



## BuickGN

Hanatsu said:


> Those Dyn's are high performing drivers. Measurable qualities which are clearly audible. I do feel that Esotar2 series are pricy but I guess you get what you pay for...
> 
> I rather spend money on higher end speakers than "higher end" amps.


I remember them as kind of average but with a pretty flat FR. Maybe it's time to go back and read the klippel results again. I feel like I know a little more now than I did then. Back then I was pretty focused on xmax. For what it's worth I'm going to have my 182s klippel tested, I don't think I've seen any of the lower line Esotec stuff Klippeled.


----------



## FG79

cajunner said:


> You do realize you've lost, though?
> 
> You don't believe that if you tell me the amp you choose, I can't go to a high-end salon and ask them what mid-grade amp sounds like the one you chose?
> 
> and then do it again, for 5 more possibles, in the mix?
> 
> I am pitting your ability to hear your amp, using your familiarity with the sonic signature, against my ability to locate similar sounding amps from the marketplace.
> 
> some may even be more expensive than the amp you chose, who knows what I have up my sleeve?
> 
> so before you attempt to squirm out from under the gauntlet, let me make you aware once again, of your premise:
> 
> 
> you believe higher end amps are distinguishable from the common, you give a select few extreme favor and feel as though you're able to hear the difference between those examples of the highest state of audio art, from the rest of the market's entries.
> 
> 
> I'm just allowing you the opportunity to prove that assertion. You made it, I didn't. I am not the one who has to prove anything, all I'm doing is disproving your notion of either superior hearing or superior discernment.


Whatever, bring it on. Home/car, it's all good.

It will be awhile before this can actually take place because of where I live, probably until mid 2016 unless you live somewhere in the Northeast.

BTW, I'm just curious who will be the 3rd party to verify that you will indeed be truthful on the results. Without one, I'm guaranteed to fail. 

ps - For someone with no "skin in the game", you sure talk tough. Your unwillingness to come to my domain without any "challenge" on the table speaks volumes, whereas you're already about to call me a loser before walking into yours. LOL.


----------



## cajunner

FG79 said:


> Whatever, bring it on. Home/car, it's all good.
> 
> It will be awhile before this can actually take place because of where I live, probably until mid 2016 unless you live somewhere in the Northeast.
> 
> BTW, I'm just curious who will be the 3rd party to verify that you will indeed be truthful on the results. Without one, I'm guaranteed to fail.



this is just a thought experiment.

I have no intention on gathering a bunch of amps to disprove what is already certain, that there is no amp on the market with so singular a response that someone can't find another to sound so similar that you can identify your amp with certainty.

and I'm not talking about amps that are designed with special circuits built in, like spatial width enhancement or sonic holography, etc.


I'm saying if it's just an amp, I can find two of the kind out there.

Yes, I know, that's a little different from how this began, but the premise is for the most part, intact.

at first, it was "I can make my amp sound like a super reference tube amp in 48 hours"

then there was the "I can make any two amps sound so similar you can't tell which from which"

all I'm saying is "I can find an amp with a sonic signature so similar to one you choose, you won't be able to pick yours out of a field of seven"

and I guess that's really all that matters.


that right there, makes it null and void to say higher end amp sound quality is a valid reason for spending more on amplification, because nobody can definitively distinguish between their amp and other ones commonly available.


no need for fancy distortion circuits, matching frequency response, phase angle, difference nulls, measure the same, sound the same, etc.


the hypothesis that you've bought something so special that it's unlikely no other manufacturer comes close, is disproved.

there is nothing so new under the sun, so "must-have" in amplification, that it obscures the field and leaves no one with doubt as to the difference.

this surely has to sink in, I mean I've been very thorough with it. You can't leave your head in the sand and poke it up when you hear only what you want to hear, and stick it back down when someone says something you find not so agreeable.


----------



## cajunner

FG79 said:


> Whatever, bring it on. Home/car, it's all good.
> 
> It will be awhile before this can actually take place because of where I live, probably until mid 2016 unless you live somewhere in the Northeast.
> 
> BTW, I'm just curious who will be the 3rd party to verify that you will indeed be truthful on the results. Without one, I'm guaranteed to fail.
> 
> ps - For someone with no "skin in the game", you sure talk tough. Your unwillingness to come to my domain without any "challenge" on the table speaks volumes, whereas you're already about to call me a loser before walking into yours. LOL.


PS, to your ps.

I don't have the disposable cash to accommodate your invitation. I would certainly launch myself onto the nearest jet, and advance into your rarity-filled world with it's many splendorous things, I have no objections to your person or your hospitality.

as far as my austere and low-impact life suggests, I cannot exist in your reality without a sea-change, where my accounts move from the thimble to the bucket.

and as long as we're getting this out of the way, I enjoy your little runs on the audio "body electric" as it is entertaining, I find ad copy that is similarly titillating and subject to base emotion, fun to read and find the weak points.

look at your posts from the vantage point of a truth detection algorithm, and see how many stand up to the machine.

you might surprise yourself, at just how informative an exercise like that can be.


----------



## FG79

cajunner said:


> this is just a thought experiment.
> 
> I have no intention on gathering a bunch of amps to disprove what is already certain, that there is no amp on the market with so singular a response that someone can't find another to sound so similar that you can identify your amp with certainty.
> 
> and I'm not talking about amps that are designed with special circuits built in, like spatial width enhancement or sonic holography, etc.
> 
> 
> I'm saying if it's just an amp, I can find two of the kind out there.
> 
> Yes, I know, that's a little different from how this began, but the premise is for the most part, intact.
> 
> at first, it was "I can make my amp sound like a super reference tube amp in 48 hours"
> 
> then there was the "I can make any two amps sound so similar you can't tell which from which"
> 
> all I'm saying is "I can find an amp with a sonic signature so similar to one you choose, you won't be able to pick yours out of a field of seven"
> 
> and I guess that's really all that matters.
> 
> 
> that right there, makes it null and void to say higher end amp sound quality is a valid reason for spending more on amplification, because nobody can definitively distinguish between their amp and other ones commonly available.
> 
> 
> no need for fancy distortion circuits, matching frequency response, phase angle, difference nulls, measure the same, sound the same, etc.
> 
> 
> the hypothesis that you've bought something so special that it's unlikely no other manufacturer comes close, is disproved.
> 
> there is nothing so new under the sun, so "must-have" in amplification, that it obscures the field and leaves no one with doubt as to the difference.
> 
> this surely has to sink in, I mean I've been very thorough with it. You can't leave your head in the sand and poke it up when you hear only what you want to hear, and stick it back down when someone says something you find not so agreeable.


I'm suggesting the vast majority of good car audio amps are no longer sold. 

Everything I would propose testing as my reference amp is to my knowledge at least 5-10 years old, if not older. 

Now what?


----------



## Hanatsu

I'm suggesting it doesn't matter xD

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## FG79

cajunner said:


> PS, to your ps.
> 
> I don't have the disposable cash to accommodate your invitation. I would certainly launch myself onto the nearest jet, and advance into your rarity-filled world with it's many splendorous things, I have no objections to your person or your hospitality.
> 
> as far as my austere and low-impact life suggests, I cannot exist in your reality without a sea-change, where my accounts move from the thimble to the bucket.
> 
> Somehow, I get the vibe that this is an excuse. And if I was crazy enough to pick up the tab on airfare and two nights hotel, what then?
> 
> and as long as we're getting this out of the way, I enjoy your little runs on the audio "body electric" as it is entertaining, I find ad copy that is similarly titillating and subject to base emotion, fun to read and find the weak points.
> 
> You had me at titillating.
> 
> look at your posts from the vantage point of a truth detection algorithm, and see how many stand up to the machine.
> 
> you might surprise yourself, at just how informative an exercise like that can be.


I might surprise myself, just like you might surprise yourself if you heard ____ amp from _____, or _____ amp from ______. 

I'll tell you what. I'd much rather have a bunch of DIY guys hear the stuff I'm talking about and disagree than never hear it and listen to the arguments I hear on here.

At least something legitimately constructive was done. 

I'm basically winding down on this argument as I can see I've said everything that needs to be said on the topic. You may not agree, but me saying more at this point will not do anything. 

I will say this as a final point on how I truly feel about all of this:

Where I am now, with what I know, my bad learning experiences, what I've bought, what I can afford in the future, I wouldn't change a thing. I'm perfectly happy with my reality of good amps, sources, nice turntable, reel to reel tape deck etc. My one stop shop for everything home audio, my ability to listen to things years before I'll be able to afford it, my possible future in this industry to make money, etc.

I'm also excited about the next car/truck system, and what it can be like. 

I'm incredibly fortunate. It's all positive. This hobby at its very infancy started with a gift of $50 Sony MDR-V200 headphones to plug into my walkman back in 1995 as a junior in high school. It then morphed into my first car system in 2001, and meeting my good friend in 2004, and the rest has been one helluva ride.

I would not trade what I know and my experience with 99% of the audio world. 

I've either been the real deal or the biggest troll in this thread (and other threads). 

There's no in between. 

Up to you to decide what's what.


----------



## Hanatsu

Still assuming "we others" have no experience with higher end gear? Or heard expensive systems? I've owned Genesis Dual mono, Sinfoni, Brax, DLS Ultimate, ETON, Soundquest, Helix, Crunch, Audiotek, JBL, Alpine PDX amps. In the end I went with the smallest efficient powerful amp I could find. Found that with DSP, different install and different speakers I could get the sound I wanted every time. I have zero money issues, but I don't wanna spend money on "upgrades" that doesn't matter in my opinion. 

This thread is like those religion debates. They always end up this way too.

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## I800C0LLECT

FG79 said:


> I know I'm very content with my decisions. Never any regrets once I got taught the way.
> 
> Money and logistics are the only things holding me back. Not everyone can say that.
> 
> Can you?


I'm not sure what you're implying but it seems pompous.

Anyways, you said measurements were done when you swapped two amps. Measurements on what? Was the difference you heard measurable in system response? Were gains matched? Was R/L matched? Did the amps have any circuitry that added to the stage?

You haven't added any to your side of the discussion. You haven't provided any thought process as to how or why an amp might fit your requirements other than sales pitch.

The problem I'm seeing here isn't that I suggest you swap gear an awful lot. It's that I don't understand how you identify the goals of a system build if you throw in the idea that there's certain characteristics to amps that are immeasurable. *If you're looking for those characteristics how do you find them? Blindly swapping amps?*

I can see swapping speakers due to install since there's no way you could ever project a speaker's response + reflections.

But ending this conversation with, there's a difference in amps and always will be no matter that blind comparisons have prove otherwise seems a little arrogant.

I've never run across an individual who is able to to define what they want to achieve by swapping their gear. I've also never run across mindsets like yours that tune systems in a similar fashion or process to the "objective" mindsets you see here. The only people I've ever heard utter your sentiments typically brag about the brands. They don't typically do the install either. They also seem regurgitate a lot of marketing literature that includes a lot of "comic book theories".

So what I'm trying to understand is...how do you go about reaching your goals/preference? Throw it in, hope for the best? Swap it when you get a chance if you don't like it?

That's what I did when I was a teenager. Now that I know much more about how to reproduce my likes...it isn't about being a pauper...it's about following a few inherent ideas that help reproduce my likes. It's using hindsight to realize/understand why the $1500 I spent on one item led to complete disappointment. It's realizing the $10k install I had sounded like crap. It's knowing that the $25k install I heard at a show was nothing but flash and sounded terrible. It's understanding that my wallet wasn't what derived sound quality.

I don't live off of catsup sammiches or jars of PB so I can hope to afford the newest gear walmart has to offer and then do everything I can to squeeze out performance.

I'm not stealing lamp cord from the local dump because Autozone is too much for my McD's paycheck.

It's really insulting when you take that attitude to a sight like this.

How many of these guys are at the top of their game?...whether it's audio industry, car competitions, engineering, etc? Do you realize who these members are that surround you?

*I'll take Andy's advice over yours any day. I'll listen to werewolf before I ever give your salesman time of day. They're not perfect. But they explain their advice vs. "you just need to hear it for yourself".* That's not advice. It's not even close to being helpful. The other two guys have had companies build international business on their ideas. Your mentality hasn't brought anything close to that to the table.

I've listened to $100k installs. I've been to a house with a room that spared no cost. I was impressed. I was even baffled to hear the enormous cost. It was a $10 million dollar home and $500k was spent on a single room + audio. You know what? I've heard the same achieved for a fraction of what he paid or even what you're willing to pay. Majority of the expense was overpaid labor and eccentric designs.

I've worked with studio designers that even admitted majority of the expenditure is providing some sort of personalization to the room so that owners feel a certain status with their investment.

If you can provide some sort of linear thought process that backs up your assertion I'll humor your thoughts. All you've provided thus far is "I can hear a difference". Really? There's no data that has ever backed up that assertion. So why should we take your word?

And stop mangling the issue. It isn't that all amps sound the same. You're marginalizing the responses and cherry picking so you can maintain leverage. The idea presented is that there is potential for them to sound very similar. So similar that nobody has ever won a challenge in fact.

I honestly believe that those who lack experience hang their hats on unproven opinions that are backed by meticulous marketing departments. Hence, my exaggeration about the lepai and the ignorance of proper setup.

I can't even imagine how places like speaker works have survived so long with their ridiculous "objective" mindset.

Stupid is as stupid does.


----------



## WRX/Z28

I firmly believe there is no magical sq amp, and that if there were any minute differences they could easily be accounted for and tuned out. At the end of the day, there are a million better places to invest your time and money than choosing an amplifier. Placement, time alignment/phase, reflections, interior surfaces, airspace, crossover, EQ and level matching, all are more worthwhile places to find sound quality nirvana than in the differences between amplifiers. Until you have mastered accounting for all of these other variables, there is no point in exploring differences that are so minor that we can't even agree whether they exist or not.


----------



## captainobvious

Arguments pertaining to amps sounding different are essentially moot unless you've partaken in a legitimate blind comparison study. Until that happens, everyone will continue to believe what they want to believe, because you're not going to exponge yourself of all of the years of absorbed marketing nonsense, even if you want to. The blind comparison is the only way to prove whether you CAN or CAN'T hear the difference.
And trying to base arguments and make comparisons on amps demo'd in a non-controlled environment is an exercise in total foolishness.


----------



## ErinH

^ which is why this thread continues to go around and around.


----------



## minbari

also why the Richard clark $10,000 challenge has never been claimed.


----------



## WRX/Z28

But they sound different, because I listened to my friends car, and then my car, and even with the same speakers they sound different!

^Sarcasm


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

You guys keep forgetting, blind tests are invalid. You need to spend months with the amps to be able to tell the differences.

Lol


----------



## Hanatsu

This thread... :lurk:


----------



## cajunner

I would like to tailspin on this one, and say a few things now, from the other side.

:evil grin:

the truth is, when all is said and done, I won't be able to break stride and commit to my folly.

I am too entrenched, I am a believer in through-hole, in 1% metal film and mil-spec tolerances, I am a lover of the gold band and the blue resistor, I enjoy seeing WIMA in the pre-amp path, I expect quality when I make that choice to run amps. I have the fly in the ointment too, that being Rockford amps and their SMD boards, I cannot soothe the OCD component with a perusal of that board but then, I believe in Power Cube, I believe in the many amp tests, and the circuits from Hafler on down, Trans-Ana, Trans-Nova, etc.

Hafler was a very good sounding set of car amps, wish I would have kept them...


anyways, I like the old school, and it's not because I have to be able to solder the damn thing myself, it's because I think that the possibility of a finer circuit execution is possible with the big discrete components, I don't care if it catches a few db of RFI or can't get the S/N down like some of the newer stuff, there's a continuity in design that makes me satisfied. So much so, that I run big ol' class AB current bombs. I would attempt a pass at the new, but I'm already all in, I won't be upgrading to class D unless stars align...

and that's where it's at. I take full responsibility for the apparent lack of conviction, I accept my fail points at not running straight "commodity" amps, even though I've got a closet full of them...

If that makes anyone want to consider me a flake, a wishy-washy flip-flopper, what the hell, I'm guilty, I'M GUILTY!

and now, back to the regularly scheduled "amps don't matter" discussion...


----------



## BuickGN

cajunner said:


> I would like to tailspin on this one, and say a few things now, from the other side.
> 
> :evil grin:
> 
> the truth is, when all is said and done, I won't be able to break stride and commit to my folly.
> 
> I am too entrenched, I am a believer in through-hole, in 1% metal film and mil-spec tolerances, I am a lover of the gold band and the blue resistor, I enjoy seeing WIMA in the pre-amp path, I expect quality when I make that choice to run amps. I have the fly in the ointment too, that being Rockford amps and their SMD boards, I cannot soothe the OCD component with a perusal of that board but then, I believe in Power Cube, I believe in the many amp tests, and the circuits from Hafler on down, Trans-Ana, Trans-Nova, etc.
> 
> Hafler was a very good sounding set of car amps, wish I would have kept them...
> 
> 
> anyways, I like the old school, and it's not because I have to be able to solder the damn thing myself, it's because I think that the possibility of a finer circuit execution is possible with the big discrete components, I don't care if it catches a few db of RFI or can't get the S/N down like some of the newer stuff, there's a continuity in design that makes me satisfied. So much so, that I run big ol' class AB current bombs. I would attempt a pass at the new, but I'm already all in, I won't be upgrading to class D unless stars align...
> 
> and that's where it's at. I take full responsibility for the apparent lack of conviction, I accept my fail points at not running straight "commodity" amps, even though I've got a closet full of them...
> 
> If that makes anyone want to consider me a flake, a wishy-washy flip-flopper, what the hell, I'm guilty, I'M GUILTY!
> 
> and now, back to the regularly scheduled "amps don't matter" discussion...


So would you try a class D for a while like a JL HD if it were loaned to you?


----------



## subwoofery

cajunner said:


> I would like to tailspin on this one, and say a few things now, from the other side.
> 
> :evil grin:
> 
> the truth is, when all is said and done, I won't be able to break stride and commit to my folly.
> 
> I am too entrenched, I am a believer in through-hole, in 1% metal film and mil-spec tolerances, I am a lover of the gold band and the blue resistor, I enjoy seeing WIMA in the pre-amp path, I expect quality when I make that choice to run amps. I have the fly in the ointment too, that being Rockford amps and their SMD boards, I cannot soothe the OCD component with a perusal of that board but then, I believe in Power Cube, I believe in the many amp tests, and the circuits from Hafler on down, Trans-Ana, Trans-Nova, etc.
> 
> Hafler was a very good sounding set of car amps, wish I would have kept them...
> 
> 
> anyways, I like the old school, and it's not because I have to be able to solder the damn thing myself, it's because I think that the possibility of a finer circuit execution is possible with the big discrete components, I don't care if it catches a few db of RFI or can't get the S/N down like some of the newer stuff, there's a continuity in design that makes me satisfied. So much so, that I run big ol' class AB current bombs. I would attempt a pass at the new, but I'm already all in, I won't be upgrading to class D unless stars align...
> 
> and that's where it's at. I take full responsibility for the apparent lack of conviction, I accept my fail points at not running straight "commodity" amps, even though I've got a closet full of them...
> 
> If that makes anyone want to consider me a flake, a wishy-washy flip-flopper, what the hell, I'm guilty, I'M GUILTY!
> 
> and now, back to the regularly scheduled "amps don't matter" discussion...


Welcome back Caj 

Kelvin


----------



## cajunner

BuickGN said:


> So would you try a class D for a while like a JL HD if it were loaned to you?


Of course I would, but it's not what I've worked towards in getting better quality equipment, or upgrading from regular quality.

I don't have an aversion to the class D, or G/H, or even class A, because the amp class doesn't have a lot of audible differences to detect.

If it were simply to complete an assumption, and have me acknowledge that I am damn happy no matter what amp is in the car as long as it's functioning properly, it wouldn't be that interesting, would it?

because that's how it is, I am damn happy with my old Aura Mobile Reference braxials, my Pioneer PRS midranges, some stupid vr3 ribbons, and Clarion 785USB deck, how could anyone expect a change from SoundStream Van Gogh to JL HD amps, would disappoint? I would be proud to say I run the HD amps, but it would be like me buying a Prius. I drive a Dodge dually and an old Lincoln Town Car, lol. And I'd like to have a Shelby Cobra, or a '68 Vette.

Many of you get so caught up in having to have the absolute best, I'm enjoying the music out of 7 year old head units, 10 year old, inefficient AB amps, 15 year old speakers and the like. And I don't feel like I need to change anything, I just like the hobby of it, and the horns... I like the 2118's and horns...

anyways, don't feel like I need to be convinced, I am already quite sure that any of JL's newer product like the HD's are as good as anything I've ever owned, at least in terms of being able to identify them in a blind comparison, haha...


----------



## cajunner

subwoofery said:


> Welcome back Caj
> 
> Kelvin


if you can't have fun in THIS thread, then where can ya?!

you can only row the boat from one side for so long, before you realized you've come full circle.


----------



## subwoofery

cajunner said:


> if you can't have fun in THIS thread, then where can ya?!
> 
> you can only row the boat from one side for so long, before you realized you've come full circle.


These kind of threads are why I'm still around. I don't spend as much time as I used to... But it's still great to see both sides providing arguments yet no one gets it and won't budge. 

Higher end amp SQ is a myth... if you want to believe so... 

Kelvin


----------



## BuickGN

cajunner said:


> Of course I would, but it's not what I've worked towards in getting better quality equipment, or upgrading from regular quality.
> 
> I don't have an aversion to the class D, or G/H, or even class A, because the amp class doesn't have a lot of audible differences to detect.
> 
> If it were simply to complete an assumption, and have me acknowledge that I am damn happy no matter what amp is in the car as long as it's functioning properly, it wouldn't be that interesting, would it?
> 
> because that's how it is, I am damn happy with my old Aura Mobile Reference braxials, my Pioneer PRS midranges, some stupid vr3 ribbons, and Clarion 785USB deck, how could anyone expect a change from SoundStream Van Gogh to JL HD amps, would disappoint? I would be proud to say I run the HD amps, but it would be like me buying a Prius. I drive a Dodge dually and an old Lincoln Town Car, lol. And I'd like to have a Shelby Cobra, or a '68 Vette.
> 
> Many of you get so caught up in having to have the absolute best, I'm enjoying the music out of 7 year old head units, 10 year old, inefficient AB amps, 15 year old speakers and the like. And I don't feel like I need to change anything, I just like the hobby of it, and the horns... I like the 2118's and horns...
> 
> anyways, don't feel like I need to be convinced, I am already quite sure that any of JL's newer product like the HD's are as good as anything I've ever owned, at least in terms of being able to identify them in a blind comparison, haha...


If I were worried about having "the best" I would not have bought the JL amps or the cheap line driver I'm using or the stock headunit I'm still using which happens to be nearly 8yrs old. As I've stated in this thread I don't believe there's a difference between quality amps of the same power. I believe in using great speakers with amps that have the features I need which the HDs fit perfectly. 

With that out of the way I was simply asking if you wanted to try one of my spare HDs for yourself. My guess is you would not have heard a difference but I couldn't care less what the outcome is. You read WAY too much into my offer and wrote a novel around it.


----------



## cajunner

BuickGN said:


> If I were worried about having "the best" I would not have bought the JL amps or the cheap line driver I'm using or the stock headunit I'm still using which happens to be nearly 8yrs old. As I've stated in this thread I don't believe there's a difference between quality amps of the same power. I believe in using great speakers with amps that have the features I need which the HDs fit perfectly.
> 
> With that out of the way I was simply asking if you wanted to try one of my spare HDs for yourself. My guess is you would not have heard a difference but I couldn't care less what the outcome is. You read WAY too much into my offer and wrote a novel around it.


I'm sorry, I wasn't really trying to point in your direction, I just think I see a lot of perfectionist attitude in the mindset of many here who happen to run the good gear, the stuff you also run.

I'm a little humbled by my system, I wouldn't put it in a signature because it lacks the notable parts, and it's a mish-mash of things... maybe it would be interesting, but when I see people with signature diagrams that would resemble mine, I have an automatic bias that has developed where the perceptual quality doesn't mesh with my expectation...

that sounds terrible, but overcoming that bias is hard to do.

anyways, sorry I didn't just jump on your offer, but I don't do generosity very well and if my handling of it, was clumsy that's pretty normal.


----------



## WinWiz

cajunner said:


> Of course I would, but it's not what I've worked towards in getting better quality equipment, or upgrading from regular quality.
> 
> I don't have an aversion to the class D, or G/H, or even class A, because the amp class doesn't have a lot of audible differences to detect.
> 
> If it were simply to complete an assumption, and have me acknowledge that I am damn happy no matter what amp is in the car as long as it's functioning properly, it wouldn't be that interesting, would it?
> 
> because that's how it is, I am damn happy with my old Aura Mobile Reference braxials, my Pioneer PRS midranges, some stupid vr3 ribbons, and Clarion 785USB deck, how could anyone expect a change from SoundStream Van Gogh to JL HD amps, would disappoint? I would be proud to say I run the HD amps, but it would be like me buying a Prius. I drive a Dodge dually and an old Lincoln Town Car, lol. And I'd like to have a Shelby Cobra, or a '68 Vette.
> 
> Many of you get so caught up in having to have the absolute best, I'm enjoying the music out of 7 year old head units, 10 year old, inefficient AB amps, 15 year old speakers and the like. And I don't feel like I need to change anything, I just like the hobby of it, and the horns... I like the 2118's and horns...
> 
> anyways, don't feel like I need to be convinced, I am already quite sure that any of JL's newer product like the HD's are as good as anything I've ever owned, at least in terms of being able to identify them in a blind comparison, haha...


For once I'm with you on this cajunner


----------



## cajunner

WinWiz said:


> For once I'm with you on this cajunner


it's part of why I took FG79's assumptions as worthy of a response.

I KNOW I can find better gear, but it's the culture of materialism that permeates the high end's philosophical premise that I find unacceptable. I think people would be a lot happier if they weren't pulled into a direction of consumerism, and instead found that what they have, the goods they were just last week completely happy with, didn't need an upgrade.

Would it make sense to not acknowledge there is ever higher realms, or rooms to occupy in our audio house?

the view that one gets in those rooms, aren't exactly that different from the ones immediately below.

one might say but for the slightest angle, there is no difference.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

subwoofery said:


> These kind of threads are why I'm still around. I don't spend as much time as I used to... But it's still great to see both sides providing arguments yet no one gets it and won't budge.
> 
> Higher end amp SQ is a myth... if you want to believe so...
> 
> Kelvin


I don't think it's a myth. I just don't understand why people don't exhaust all other options first. That's my argument. I use to read a lot of your posts back when I was lingering without an account. I've always appreciated your input and that's also why I mentioned that I valued werewolf/lycan's too.

I've known people that will swap an amp before they think twice about their speaker placement or other compromises. That's bat crazy to me.

I guess what I'm trying to understand is what's the premise behind swapping an amp prior to making any other changes to the car audio installation? FG79 dances around that.

I can certainly see why some would be quick to the trigger when involved with home audio...but there's so many more variables in the vehicle.

I just hate to push newcomer's towards the idea that they should swap their gear before understanding the caveats of hardware choice and installation ideas.


----------



## CIGARGUY

CIGARGUY said:


> I've been out of the business since 1999 and quite a bit has changed since then. At that point, there were distinct differences in sound reproduction in amps. Now, probably not as much, provided we're dealing with reputable companies.
> 
> That being said, what is the standard for SQ? An RTA curve, or sonic satisfaction to the listener? None of us can ever be the judge for what sounds good to someone else. That's nothing but subjective to the individual listener. An RTA curve is the only quantifiable standard we can actually judge by, and anyone trained in SQ knows that a flat curve usually doesn't meet the vast majority or people's definition of good sound, including mine.
> 
> Point being, everyone likes different sounds, accenuations, and tonal balances. Some people think 4 15's and a pair 6X9s on the back deck is good sound, yet others can only appreciate an ultra-high end system that has processing out the wazoo. It's all in the ear of the listener.


I've been off the site for a while due to work demands, but I want to clarify a few things. 

None of my statement above was intended to debate sound of processors. I'm simply using those examples to illustrate that "sound quality" is a subjective thing. There is no quantifiable absolute. 

Also, someone commented that a flat RTA curve not sounding good is the fault of the person who tuned the system or the inept abilities of the person using the RTA. Again, none of this was meant to bring tuning or RTA curves into the amplifier discussion. It's just another example of subjectivity when it comes to "good sound". The RTA is the ONLY quantifiable measurement for our systems. There is nothing else to truly measure. We have to either agree that a flat curve is the standard by which good sound is measured (which I don't think sounds good) or we have to agree that each person is her or her own judge (subjectivity). There aren't any other options. 

So, to sum up these examples, I firmly believe that sound quality differences in amps are completely subjective. Some say yes, some say no. Some say toe-may-toe, some say toe-mah-toe.


----------



## thehatedguy

Some people are still really missing what RC's test says...it says if the amps measure the same then they will sound the same. IF they measure the same. Which they don't out of the box. So out of the box amps do not sound the same...they have to be made/matched in a way to sound the same.


----------



## cajunner

and that's fine, but my premise is that people who are on a tear about how they've found the dream amp, and the sonics are out of this world compared to some other high end amp they just replaced with the now rainmaker, these people are deluding themselves if they think they've discovered bliss by an amp change.

I believe there are amp signatures that are audible, you could probably take a Mosconi and put it alongside the old school Rockford, and see tone shaping in both that is "not flat" but within the +/- 1 db, 20-20K specs.

maybe these amps would sound similar, due to that peculiarity, maybe the tone shaping is not exactly duplicated but you would have 6 amplifiers where a Rockford and a Mosconi are in the mix, and then you have 4 others with true +/- .05 db, 20-20K spec, and you'd pick the Rockford and the Mosconi in listening tests.

why? Because you would equate loudness, or the mild acoustic shaping of those two amplifiers as better, since that's a proven fact.

and maybe there is an amp out there with specs that are so far from a baseline that it would stand out of the crowd, not by a slim, or slight advantage, but then you'd be talking about that amp that is defective or not operating within stated performance means.

that's why I feel like anyone who continues to believe they not only have arrived at their special amp based on it's sound, but that they can say with conviction they would absolutely be able to tell it from a panel of 7, I feel that they are being willfully disobedient to the reality.


----------



## CIGARGUY

cajunner said:


> and that's fine, but my premise is that people who are on a tear about how they've found the dream amp, and the sonics are out of this world compared to some other high end amp they just replaced with the now rainmaker, these people are deluding themselves if they think they've discovered bliss by an amp change...
> 
> 
> that's why I feel like anyone who continues to believe they not only have arrived at their special amp based on it's sound, but that they can say with conviction they would absolutely be able to tell it from a panel of 7, I feel that they are being willfully disobedient to the reality.


I don't disagree in the least on this.


----------



## gstokes

In a hobby such as SQ our ears cannot discern all of the subtle differences from one amp to another but the specs tell their own story like damping factor, sensitivity, signal to noise ratio, minimum impedance, class design circuitry, components used and manufacturing processes and while these differences can be seen with measurement apparatus we as humans are challenged to notice but the thing is: We know what sounds good and we use that as a baseline to tell what sounds bad, some of us have a more discerning ear than others and can easily the difference in sound from one amp to another no matter how subtle the change is.
While component placement such as midbass and tweeters is big part of any install the driving source such as the amp also plays a big part in the quality of the sound reproduced. IMHO there is huge differences in amp design, manufacturing processes and components used from one company to another and there are amplifiers that are better for SQ than others, on that note not all amplifiers are worthy enough to be used in an SQ setup and some are better than others at SQ while some are better at SPL but a select few are good at both


----------



## Gary S

Do amps have sound quality? Go look at an amp distortion curve, unclipped, and then look at a speaker distortion curve. You tell me?

If I whisper at a rock concert when they are jamming, 3-rows behind you, can you hear it?

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around... oh, never mind!

Some of this stuff is just common sense, reality. Reality is what it is, despite our wants and wishes.


----------



## diy.phil

^if a tree falls in a forest it will sound really good if we have many huge subwoofers!  j/k


----------



## Gary S

Quote from Basic Car Audio Electronics



> The levels of harmonic distortion in a high quality amplifiers are sooooo far below audibility that they are basically of no concern. When someone tells you that one amplifier is definitely going to sound better because its THD is rated at .002% vs an amp with .05%, you can be pretty sure that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Many people believe that THD below 1% is not audible and I believe they're probably correct. The fact is, especially in an automobile, the amplifier is the least of your worries. Speakers used for mids and highs commonly produce between 1% an 5% THD and for subwoofers the numbers can easily reach 10%. This doesn't even take into account all of the resonances of all of the plastic and metal panels in the vehicle."


----------



## BuickGN

Even though I put this amp issue to rest, at least in my mind, I'm going to buy an Arc SE amp and put it on the mids and tweeters. I've had the JLHDs for a few years now so I'm very familiar with them. 

This will not be a scientific or even blind "test". Just going to live with the Arc for a couple months and see if there's an audible difference on my favorite music and either sell it or buy a second one to bridge to my midbass depending on the outcome. After all, all that counts to me is if I can hear an audible difference while the car is in motion and while it's idling. To be honest, I hope I notice a difference because I think I'm at the limits of my tuning ability so I'll be happy with any improvement. In reality I don't expect a change.


----------



## cubdenno

BuickGN said:


> Even though I put this amp issue to rest, at least in my mind, I'm going to buy an Arc SE amp and put it on the mids and tweeters. I've had the JLHDs for a few years now so I'm very familiar with them.
> 
> This will not be a scientific or even blind "test". Just going to live with the Arc for a couple months and see if there's an audible difference on my favorite music and either sell it or buy a second one to bridge to my midbass depending on the outcome. After all, all that counts to me is if I can hear an audible difference while the car is in motion and while it's idling. To be honest, I hope I notice a difference because I think I'm at the limits of my tuning ability so I'll be happy with any improvement. In reality I don't expect a change.


Please. Please. PLEASE find a way to take some measurements before the change. So you have a baseline on what you are familiar with that you can go back to and compare against.


----------



## diy.phil

Be sure to toy with the Arc amp before buying it  It surprised me at a shop the other day. Some have thin stamped steel cover that feels like we need to add dynamat under the cover. Some of their more expensive ones feel better. They probably all sound about the same good... just if we can get pass the initial unboxing part if that's important (ie. not all Arc amps have cast alloy or thick alloy exterior).


----------



## captainobvious

BuickGN said:


> Even though I put this amp issue to rest, at least in my mind, I'm going to buy an Arc SE amp and put it on the mids and tweeters. I've had the JLHDs for a few years now so I'm very familiar with them.
> 
> This will not be a scientific or even blind "test". Just going to live with the Arc for a couple months and see if there's an audible difference on my favorite music and either sell it or buy a second one to bridge to my midbass depending on the outcome. After all, all that counts to me is if I can hear an audible difference while the car is in motion and while it's idling. To be honest, I hope I notice a difference because I think I'm at the limits of my tuning ability so I'll be happy with any improvement. In reality I don't expect a change.



Of course you already know this...but trying to determine if you're hearing any actual audible differences without proper level matching and blind comparison is a lesson in futility. 

Now if you could put both amps in the back of the car attached to a switcher that you could have up front and have someone else connect them up so you don't knwo which is which...you'll have a good comparison on your hands.


----------



## captainobvious

diy.phil said:


> Be sure to toy with the Arc amp before buying it  It surprised me at a shop the other day. Some have thin stamped steel cover that feels like we need to add dynamat under the cover. Some of their more expensive ones feel better. They probably all sound about the same good... just if we can get pass the initial unboxing part if that's important (ie. not all Arc amps have cast alloy or thick alloy exterior).


The XDi v1's come to mind. The back panel feels like it was made from old lunch boxes. In fact, the whole construction of those v1's is just cheap across the board. They sound and perform fine out of the box, but the quality of materials/manufacture is low.


----------



## cajunner

captainobvious said:


> Of course you already know this...but trying to determine if you're hearing any actual audible differences without proper level matching and blind comparison is a lesson in futility.
> 
> Now if you could put both amps in the back of the car attached to a switcher that you could have up front and have someone else connect them up so you don't knwo which is which...you'll have a good comparison on your hands.


I think you missed the point of his process.

He's not trying to get a scientific result based on good technique, he's trying to find out if over time, the sound he hears from one amp gives him a reason to choose it over another.

that he's doing it to find out if one amp's class is different from another, is also part of it, but it's not supposed to be objective.

it's the subjective nature of it, the feeling an amp gives over another, knowing that you're wasting energy but you prefer the sound from say, a class A amp over an AB, or an AB over a D.

like buying, and using incandescent bulbs in your home.

incandescent bulbs have none of the harsh blue spectrums that the compact fluorescent bulbs do, and although you can make a compact fluorescent deliver an overall warm color temperature, you still have artifacts of harsh glare inducing lighting in the mix. You can't take it all out, and an incandescent is pure, it's warm like mamma used to make, it's old school and it's the standard bearer for comfortable living in lighting.


but we have to accept the new, we have to make adjustments. We can't waste our resources anymore, we can't light our homes with the inefficient technologies of the past. We must adapt, and use heavy metals and circuit boards, so when the EMP hits, we all go dark, haha...


no, I don't believe it's necessary to be completely objective when we discuss the "higher end" myths and mantras.


----------



## jtaudioacc

diy.phil said:


> Be sure to toy with the Arc amp before buying it  It surprised me at a shop the other day. Some have thin stamped steel cover that feels like we need to add dynamat under the cover. Some of their more expensive ones feel better. They probably all sound about the same good... just if we can get pass the initial unboxing part if that's important (ie. not all Arc amps have cast alloy or thick alloy exterior).


the arc se amp is what buick says he's getting. it is their top of the line and has the top as you described.


----------



## 2010hummerguy

I didn't think amps sounded different til I installed my APA4300HX. Holy smoooooooooooth...now shopping for a Mac home amp for my line arrays lol.


----------



## PPI_GUY

This debate will never end. Why? Because no two human ears are the same. For that reason we will never be able to point at a lump of circuits, capacitors and assorted devices all tucked into a heatsink and say "this is THE SQ amplifier standard by which all others will be tested!" Quality of sound is about as subjective as anything could ever get. It's akin to trying to determine which shade of the color blue is the best. I can promise you my favorite shade will not be everyone's favorite. The same holds true for SQ. 

So, do higher end amps produce better sound quality? My simple answer is...they do if you think they do. Because, as we've seen, the perception of color, smell and yes, sound is ultimately the very definition of subjective.


----------



## Hanatsu

PPI_GUY said:


> So, do higher end amps produce better sound quality? My simple answer is...*they do if you think they do.*


I think both camps can agree with that... for different reasons


----------



## BuickGN

Probably going to be purchasing the SE amp Friday, looking forward to spending a few months with it.


----------



## Hanatsu

I'm about to change amps as well now. I don't expect any audible improvement, except being able to go louder. 955W on the mids lol.

Tapaaatalk!!


----------



## mikelycka

I find this post very good
I know some brand rate 50x2 but your getting 85 or more so with out setting the amps the 100% same one might sound a little better than the other
with my focal fp amp I heard more detail than other amp in background sound..


----------



## T3mpest

Hanatsu said:


> I'm about to change amps as well now. I don't expect any audible improvement, except being able to go louder. 955W on the mids lol.
> 
> Tapaaatalk!!


what amp is that?


----------



## BuickGN

I'm about to go with a cheaper amp for the first time since I got the HDs years ago. I can get 2,200w of quality Alpine Class D power for about the same price as 1,200w of HD power. I would love to stick with the HDs but I can't justify the difference when they're just powering subs. Plus, I have one foot in and one foot out of this hobby and I don't feel the need for the "best" anymore. On top of that I don't expect any degredation in sound quality at all. I expect the subs (sub stage lol) to sound better with the cheaper amps since I'm tripling the power (on the amp stage).


----------



## 14642

I wish Richard Clark had never done that stupid challenge. Amps do not sound the same.


----------



## 2010hummerguy

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I wish Richard Clark had never done that stupid challenge. Amps do not sound the same.


Amen...the fine print is that he says he can make all amps sound the same...huge difference but lord have mercy if you mention it on avsforum.com :surprised:


----------



## T3mpest

BuickGN said:


> Even though I put this amp issue to rest, at least in my mind, I'm going to buy an Arc SE amp and put it on the mids and tweeters. I've had the JLHDs for a few years now so I'm very familiar with them.
> 
> This will not be a scientific or even blind "test". Just going to live with the Arc for a couple months and see if there's an audible difference on my favorite music and either sell it or buy a second one to bridge to my midbass depending on the outcome. After all, all that counts to me is if I can hear an audible difference while the car is in motion and while it's idling. To be honest, I hope I notice a difference because I think I'm at the limits of my tuning ability so I'll be happy with any improvement. In reality I don't expect a change.


Make sure to set your gains with a dmm. If it's not perfectly level matched you'll very likely like the louder one more..


----------



## BuickGN

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I wish Richard Clark had never done that stupid challenge. Amps do not sound the same.


So while we have you here do you believe there's a difference based on topology alone; does a Class D have an inherent disadvantage when running midrange and high frequencies (or even subs for that matter)? I've always wanted to hear your input on this subject that's been beat to death. 

If all amps sound different, are there certain negative characteristics of Class D that stand out? A while back I noticed something that has made me want to switch to good AB amps just to see if what I'm experiencing is from the type of amp Im running but I guess I'll never know if it's the class of amp or if it's just the fact that it's a different amp regardless of class. 

I have a feeling I'm going to regret asking lol.


----------



## Jesus Christ

I feel stupider every time I read one of these threads. Do all amps sound the same? No. Can we measure every aspect of an amps sound? Absolutely. If they measure the same they will sound the same. If they sound different the difference can be measured.


----------



## squeak9798

Architect7 said:


> Amen...the fine print is that he says he can make all amps sound the same...huge difference but lord have mercy if you mention it on avsforum.com :surprised:


That's not what he says. And that is the problem. People don't understand the point of the challenge and make ridiculous, inaccurate comments like this. 

What the challenge says is the the only 5 parameters of an amplifier that affect sound are power, gain, noise, distortion and frequency response. For two amps to sound different, there must be a difference in one or more of those 5 parameters that is above the audible threshold. To demonstrate this, he conducts a proper experiment that isolates variables and tests a listeners ability to hear differences in amps OTHER than the 5 identified parameters. 

Caps don't magically add more "airiness". Opamps don't add more "depth". Amplifier class doesn't matter. If you heard a difference between two amplifiers, then it was due to one or more of the 5 variables listed above. 

Now, a related topic could be how many amplifiers have measurable AND audible differences due to things like distortion and FR, meaning few amplifiers of the same power, set with the same gain structure and both with inaudible noise will sound different. However, that is really a different issue than the "amp sonics" debate.


----------



## 2010hummerguy

squeak9798 said:


> That's not what he says. And that is the problem. People don't understand the point of the challenge and make ridiculous, inaccurate comments like this.
> 
> What the challenge says is the the only 5 parameters of an amplifier that affect sound are power, gain, noise, distortion and frequency response. For two amps to sound different, there must be a difference in one or more of those 5 parameters that is above the audible threshold. To demonstrate this, he conducts a proper experiment that isolates variables and tests a listeners ability to hear differences in amps OTHER than the 5 identified parameters.
> 
> Caps don't magically add more "airiness". Opamps don't add more "depth". Amplifier class doesn't matter. If you heard a difference between two amplifiers, then it was due to one or more of the 5 variables listed above.
> 
> Now, a related topic could be how many amplifiers have measurable AND audible differences due to things like distortion and FR, meaning few amplifiers of the same power, set with the same gain structure and both with inaudible noise will sound different. However, that is really a different issue than the "amp sonics" debate.


You confirmed what I said though...people think because he makes them sound the same to isolate other things, then all amps sound the same. They ignore the fact that the combination of 5 variables that do affect amp sound have infinite variables in the real world.

Furthermore, no one can easily control those 5 variables which is why it is ridiculous for people to say "you can make them sound the same so why buy a different amp". In practicality, no one can make two amps sound the same without serious modification, equipment and with each, technical expertise.


----------



## Jesus Christ

The vast majority of amps available need nothing more than simple level matching to be indistinguishable from one another. Amps that are audibly different are few and far between.


----------



## ChrisB

Jesus Christ said:


> The vast majority of amps available need nothing more than simple level matching to be indistinguishable from one another. Amps that are audibly different are few and far between.


And if they are audibly different, something is WRONG. That goes double if you can notice an audible difference in the car! Most of the amplifiers that I owned that indeed sounded different either did it through distortion, a built-in EQ, or a combination of the two!


----------



## iyamwutiam

Actually the answer is even simpler. What Richard Clarke did in addition to exaggerating the premise - well if its THAT better should be able to tell every single time; is play the statistical odds in a very clever fashion that makes it impossible for anyone to win the challenge.

Allow me to explain:

Since it is A or B we can liken this to a coin flip - and ask the individual to say if it falls heads or tails with accuracy - this would be in essence the null hypothesis. That is to say that if the aggregate data on a population shows around 50 percent - the effect of being able to tell one amp from another is merely due to chance. 

Also remember - tones are taken out - so musicians would have to switch back and forth between not tones but a medly of tones -which would be switched back and forth. 
Getting to the point - there are 2 - 12 round challenges that must be completed.

Round 1 - if the 'person' correctly 'guesses' 12 times in a row the odds are (.5)^12 being extremely simplistic (but as with everything its more complicated). This would be the same as (1/2)^12 = 1/2^12)= 1/4096 . However if we do for all 24 chances required to win the challenge that would be (1/2) ^ 24 = 1/16,777,216!!!

Richard Clarke has NEVER shared his data with a true statistician because of his flawed premise that because audiophiles 'claim' the differences are staggering and HE is putting up money - the search for truth can be subverted and purported enrich his name in the mediasphere.

However - if one did have a look at his data - I am SURE one would find that in IASCA judges, reviewers etc - they were able to pick out the higher quality amp at statistically significant at say an alpha level of .05. Which means for these indivduals to consistently do this there is only a 5% chance that it could occur by randomness.


----------



## Victor_inox

iyamwutiam said:


> Actually the answer is even simpler. What Richard Clarke did in addition to exaggerating the premise - well if its THAT better should be able to tell every single time; is play the statistical odds in a very clever fashion that makes it impossible for anyone to win the challenge.
> 
> Allow me to explain:
> 
> Since it is A or B we can liken this to a coin flip - and ask the individual to say if it falls heads or tails with accuracy - this would be in essence the null hypothesis. That is to say that if the aggregate data on a population shows around 50 percent - the effect of being able to tell one amp from another is merely due to chance.
> 
> Also remember - tones are taken out - so musicians would have to switch back and forth between not tones but a medly of tones -which would be switched back and forth.
> Getting to the point - there are 2 - 12 round challenges that must be completed.
> 
> Round 1 - if the 'person' correctly 'guesses' 12 times in a row the odds are (.5)^12 being extremely simplistic (but as with everything its more complicated). This would be the same as (1/2)^12 = 1/2^12)= 1/4096 . However if we do for all 24 chances required to win the challenge that would be (1/2) ^ 24 = 1/16,777,216!!!
> 
> Richard Clarke has NEVER shared his data with a true statistician because of his flawed premise that because audiophiles 'claim' the differences are staggering and HE is putting up money - the search for truth can be subverted and purported enrich his name in the mediasphere.
> 
> However - if one did have a look at his data - I am SURE one would find that in IASCA judges, reviewers etc - they were able to pick out the higher quality amp at statistically significant at say an alpha level of .05. Which means for these indivduals to consistently do this there is only a 5% chance that it could occur by randomness.


Allow me to simplify this for average user, amps do sounds different.


----------



## Victor_inox

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> I wish Richard Clark had never done that stupid challenge. Amps do not sound the same.


I agree, If he is ****ing deaf doesn`t mean everybody else too.
sometimes it`s hard to decide which amp sounds better as that relative term but they all sounds different for sure.


----------



## WRX/Z28

ChrisB said:


> And if they are audibly different, something is WRONG. That goes double if you can notice an audible difference in the car! Most of the amplifiers that I owned that indeed sounded different either did it through distortion, a built-in EQ, or a combination of the two!


^^^^This. Amps that measure the same perform the same. Good amps all measure nearly identically. 



iyamwutiam said:


> Actually the answer is even simpler. What Richard Clarke did in addition to exaggerating the premise - well if its THAT better should be able to tell every single time; is play the statistical odds in a very clever fashion that makes it impossible for anyone to win the challenge.
> 
> Allow me to explain:
> 
> Since it is A or B we can liken this to a coin flip - and ask the individual to say if it falls heads or tails with accuracy - this would be in essence the null hypothesis. That is to say that if the aggregate data on a population shows around 50 percent - the effect of being able to tell one amp from another is merely due to chance.
> 
> Also remember - tones are taken out - so musicians would have to switch back and forth between not tones but a medly of tones -which would be switched back and forth.
> Getting to the point - there are 2 - 12 round challenges that must be completed.
> 
> Round 1 - if the 'person' correctly 'guesses' 12 times in a row the odds are (.5)^12 being extremely simplistic (but as with everything its more complicated). This would be the same as (1/2)^12 = 1/2^12)= 1/4096 . However if we do for all 24 chances required to win the challenge that would be (1/2) ^ 24 = 1/16,777,216!!!
> 
> Richard Clarke has NEVER shared his data with a true statistician because of his flawed premise that because audiophiles 'claim' the differences are staggering and HE is putting up money - the search for truth can be subverted and purported enrich his name in the mediasphere.
> 
> However - if one did have a look at his data - I am SURE one would find that in IASCA judges, reviewers etc - they were able to pick out the higher quality amp at statistically significant at say an alpha level of .05. Which means for these indivduals to consistently do this there is only a 5% chance that it could occur by randomness.


If it was all due to odd's eventually someone would defeat the challenge, no one ever has. 



Victor_inox said:


> Allow me to simplify this for average user, amps do sounds different.


Let me simplify this, amps adjusted differently sound different. When level matched before the onset of clipping, amps sound indistinguishable from each other. Anyone that has every actually tried to do this can see for themselves. I used to be in the other camp, but when using a set of monitors and adjusting amps to the same exact output, I could not tell a difference between any of the 100 + old school and new school amps I owned. Adjusted differently, the difference was immediately apparent. Try it for yourself, or continue to be blind believing that amps make large differences in "Ess Que"



Victor_inox said:


> I agree, If he is ****ing deaf doesn`t mean everybody else too.
> sometimes it`s hard to decide which amp sounds better as that relative term but they all sounds different for sure.


It's not about him being deaf, he didn't have to take the challenge. Everyone else did and no one could pass...



The summary for this is: Even if I'm 100% wrong, and amps sound different, it's such a minor difference that it's not repeatable, and not quantifiable. If it were, there wouldn't be arguments about it. The reality is that just about every other part of your sound system has a higher importance. Tuning, drivers, placement, environment, power level, time alignment, and so on are all more important. 

Those that think they've heard a difference in amps have likely heard a difference in setups, cars, speakers, or even content. I can reliably hear the difference between a lossless track and a higher quality MP3 or WAV file, so my hearing is not suspect. It is doubtful that anyone has ever been able to A/B in a car in a short enough time to not "lose memory" regarding the overall sound, whether they want to admit it or not. 

Time for everyone on the amp debate kick to really examine themselves and their motives for insisting amps make large differences. It's simply not true, to the point that they likely make no difference at all... only the last part is debatable, and IMO not debatable for anyone that has bothered to truly test for themselves...


----------



## Victor_inox

Different, maybe minor but it`s there. maybe subtle just like lambo a little faster than porsche. just a tiny bit of .01 of a second. indistinguishable for everyone but it`s there.
Obviously most difference in the speakers. ****ty speakers will never sounds good with whatever amplifier, great speakers could sounds great with cheap amp.
For most people most important is the price, so they use ****ty speakers with ****ty amps and 64K MP3. And first thing they do is saying that all amps sounds the same.
I`m not implying that posters of this thread like that as I don`t know but I met plenty of these people over the years.


----------



## subwoofery

WRX/Z28 said:


> If it was all due to odd's eventually someone would defeat the challenge, no one ever has.



I remember reading a thread on an old forum stating that 1 person did pass the test but Richard found some ****ty excuse like something was not calibrated right or something - whatever happenned, he did not pay the dude. 

Have the best tune ever @ a competition's final, forget a pair of sunglasses in the door side pocket while the judge hears your system, then explain him why he should listen one more time because this or that... Guess what's going to be the answer? 

And if I'm not mistaken, apparently there are 2 people that did pass the test. (think Jason knows about them) 

Kelvin


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> indistinguishable for everyone but it`s there.


If it's indistinguishable then who cares? Sure, no two amps are going to measure exactly the same, even amps of the same model but if the differences are inaudible then it doesn't matter.


----------



## BuickGN

Victor_inox said:


> Different, maybe minor but it`s there. maybe subtle just like lambo a little faster than porsche. just a tiny bit of .01 of a second. indistinguishable for everyone but it`s there.
> Obviously most difference in the speakers. ****ty speakers will never sounds good with whatever amplifier, great speakers could sounds great with cheap amp.
> For most people most important is the price, so they use ****ty speakers with ****ty amps and 64K MP3. And first thing they do is saying that all amps sounds the same.
> I`m not implying that posters of this thread like that as I don`t know but I met plenty of these people over the years.


Off topic but now that's it mentioned I would go with cheap amps and expensive speakers any day all day if I were forced to make the choice. In my experience it's difficult if not impossible to hear the difference in an expensive vs cheap amp. With speakers it's easy to hear differences even between cheap to cheap and expensive to expensive.


----------



## Victor_inox

Yet you running HD amps.


----------



## BuickGN

I don't know how to take that. They're not cheap or expensive. I chose them for their features (small, efficient, low noise floor, wide range, a remote you can daisy chain, reliable, and would accept low, low level inputs). They were just about the cheapest that met all of my needs at the time. 

Regardless, I didn't have to choose between expensive speakers or expensive amps. In my post I said if I were forced to make the choice and fortunately I didn't have to choose. I owned McIntosh amps for this build before the HDs and I used the much cheaper HDs because they sounded just as good and had the features I wanted.


----------



## Victor_inox

Your choice of speakers is good, pretty much as good as it gets.
they sounds great and they pretty. I`d leave your system as it is.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Yet you running HD amps.


I'd run HD amps too, but not for any imaginary SQ difference. I like the no-shutdown tightly regulated power supply, the multiple input ranges, the 12/24db selectable crossovers, and the small size/high efficiency.


----------



## WRX/Z28

subwoofery said:


> I remember reading a thread on an old forum stating that 1 person did pass the test but Richard found some ****ty excuse like something was not calibrated right or something - whatever happenned, he did not pay the dude.
> 
> Have the best tune ever @ a competition's final, forget a pair of sunglasses in the door side pocket while the judge hears your system, then explain him why he should listen one more time because this or that... Guess what's going to be the answer?
> 
> And if I'm not mistaken, apparently there are 2 people that did pass the test. (think Jason knows about them)
> 
> Kelvin


Can you change your signature quote? I find it to be a bit misleading considering the original quote now shown in my sig...


----------



## ChrisB

I'd use another HD900/5 if there was nothing else on the market to compete against it. The main reason I went with a MMATS HIFI-6150D is because I wanted to run something different and it happens to be more powerful. Life is too short to use the same thing over, and over, and over again...


----------



## subwoofery

WRX/Z28 said:


> Can you change your signature quote? I find it to be a bit misleading considering the original quote now shown in my sig...


Your signature is only part of the reason I use mine... 

My quote is misleading for a reason, so that people click on the provided links that lead to *unedited* Lycan's posts. 
He DOES state that all amps DOESN'T sound the same <-- and I agree 
If you compare 2 amps that sounds different, then it can be measured <-- I also agree 
What makes 2 amps sound different is due to either gain, power, frequency response, noise or distortion <-- again, everything is true 

Why don't you use this instead: 
Of course amplifiers sound different! But we know the short list of reasons why. (taken from the second link in my sig)  

Kelvin


----------



## WRX/Z28

subwoofery said:


> Your signature is only part of the reason I use mine...
> 
> My quote is misleading for a reason, so that people click on the provided links that lead to *unedited* Lycan's posts.
> He DOES state that all amps DOESN'T sound the same <-- and I agree
> If you compare 2 amps that sounds different, then it can be measured <-- I also agree
> What makes 2 amps sound different is due to either gain, power, frequency response, noise or distortion <-- again, everything is true
> 
> Why don't you use this instead:
> Of course amplifiers sound different! But we know the short list of reasons why. (taken from the second link in my sig)
> 
> Kelvin



Competently designed amps measure nearly identically when talking about factors other than power. Every competently designed amp I've ever tested for myself performed identically to my ears, this includes hybrid tube amps and a ton of old school amplifiers and new school amps. 

Your signature is still misquoting since information has been removed relevant to the statement. It insinuates a mistruth, and gives people the impression that they need to chose an expensive amp for it to sound good.


----------



## Victor_inox

I love conditions of your post, competently designed? WTF that means?
As far as I concerned no one said that inexpensive amps sounds ****ty.
All we say that amps sounds different because they are. why? because I can hear it.
Usually more expensive amps designed with less cut corners. every design cut corners with a very few exceptions. 
price is relative term. I`ve seen few thousand dollars amp sound mediocre but inexpensive amps sing.


----------



## Jesus Christ

How about some examples of car amps that are audibly different from one another then?


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> How about some examples of car amps that are audibly different from one another then?



JL xd vs HD series. same power supply topology, same switching frequency same assembly line yet sounds different.


----------



## Jesus Christ

What were the conditions the comparison was performed under?


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> What were the conditions the comparison was performed under?


Identical, Oscilloscope matched gains, same speakers, same source same wiring, same music. 
In fact they sound similar but not exactly the same. To summarise that I`d say I`d rather buy XD amps even though HD sounded a bit easier, not as stranded at the very top of the power curve. Unless you listening at the very top volume you would not hear anything different. BUt impractical difference still a difference.


----------



## subwoofery

Jesus Christ said:


> How about some examples of car amps that are audibly different from one another then?


Milbert BaM-235ab (tube) VS Sinfoni Prestigio (A) VS DLS A2 (A/B) VS Genesis DMX (G/H)

Own those and tested them powering ES horns in my girlfriend's car with gains set so that the output was the same as the amp that's permanently mounted in (the DLS A2) - very DISTINCT sound signature. Easy to tell really. 
Test was changing the amp without my wife knowing yet she asked me what I've done to the sound  

Kelvin


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I love conditions of your post, competently designed? WTF that means?
> As far as I concerned no one said that inexpensive amps sounds ****ty.
> All we say that amps sounds different because they are. why? because I can hear it.
> Usually more expensive amps designed with less cut corners. every design cut corners with a very few exceptions.
> price is relative term. I`ve seen few thousand dollars amp sound mediocre but inexpensive amps sing.


What conditions? That it's not broken, or has some inherent flaw? Tough conditions I know. 

What is it in/about the amp that you think causes it to sound different? I'm dying to hear this one...

any competently designed amp should add/subtract nothing from the input signal, and simply make it bigger. So if it sound different than the reference, it's flawed and you should ask for your money back.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> JL xd vs HD series. same power supply topology, same switching frequency same assembly line yet sounds different.


Strange because they all sounded identical to me, even when I believed I would hear a difference. 




subwoofery said:


> Milbert BaM-235ab (tube) VS Sinfoni Prestigio (A) VS DLS A2 (A/B) VS Genesis DMX (G/H)
> 
> Own those and tested them powering ES horns in my girlfriend's car with gains set so that the output was the same as the amp that's permanently mounted in (the DLS A2) - very DISTINCT sound signature. Easy to tell really.
> Test was changing the amp without my wife knowing yet she asked me what I've done to the sound
> 
> Kelvin


So which amp(s) had the flaw? and what did you measure as the difference?


----------



## Victor_inox

Different schematics/ components. transistors, transformers, capacitors, resistors.
Every component in sound path affect sound, you like it or not.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Strange because they all sounded identical to me, even when I believed I would hear a difference.
> Assuming that switching took you 15 seconds or less and you somehow matched gains precisely in that time frame. No person can remember exactly what difference were if switching took longer than 20 seconds, that is a proven fact.
> everyone hearing is different, you can`t hear the difference is that hard to see it that way?
> life should be much easier for you when you don`t have spend all that money on different equipment.
> 
> So which amp(s) had the flaw? and what did you measure as the difference?


 why is alway amp, most often it`s inability of untrained ear.


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> Identical, Oscilloscope matched gains, same speakers, same source same wiring, same music.
> In fact they sound similar but not exactly the same. To summarise that I`d say I`d rather buy XD amps even though HD sounded a bit easier, not as stranded at the very top of the power curve. Unless you listening at the very top volume you would not hear anything different. BUt impractical difference still a difference.


Tested in a car or on the bench? How much time between switching the amps? Any measurements?


----------



## Jesus Christ

subwoofery said:


> Sinfoni Prestigio (A)


Those aren't Class A.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> Tested in a car or on the bench? How much time between switching the amps? Any measurements?


 You trying to find a fault at my testing, you won`t find one I do that all my life but unlike dudes selling their amps I have no vested interest in the test.


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> You trying to find a fault at my testing, you won`t find one I do that all my life but unlike dudes selling their amps I have no vested interest in the test.


Your unwillingness to answer seems to indicate that there is a flaw in your methods.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> Your unwillingness to answer seems to indicate that there is a flaw in your methods.


I answered many times you keep looking for a flaw in methods, so whatever.
NO amount of reasons will swing you to another camp. 
You saying that every amp is perfectly linear and that is theoretically impossible. if they not perfectly linear they sounds different but not everyone can distinguish these differences. For my wife her iphone sounds fine through build in speaker. she can`t care less about super duper stereo setup. as far as she can hear it it`s fine.
many car audio users don`t care as soon as they get adequate volume out of their amps without spending for more expensive one.


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> I answered many times you keep looking for a flaw in methods, so whatever.


Actually you didn't, so whatever.



> NO amount of reasons will swing you to another camp.


What camp is that? I don't remember choosing any sides here.




> You saying that every amp is perfectly linear and that is theoretically impossible.


Show me where I said that.


----------



## turbo5upra

WRX/Z28 said:


> What conditions? That it's not broken, or has some inherent flaw? Tough conditions I know.
> 
> What is it in/about the amp that you think causes it to sound different? I'm dying to hear this one...
> 
> any competently designed amp should add/subtract nothing from the input signal, and simply make it bigger. So if it sound different than the reference, it's flawed and you should ask for your money back.


We did amp testing for fun this weekend. No it wasn't blind. It was 20 mins between each amp- they weren't level match precisely... But the odd thing is each of us came back with very similar reviews- 6 people agreeing on just about every aspect. 

Just saying- I was in the a watts more or less a watt camp previously.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> Actually you didn't, so whatever.
> 
> 
> What camp is that? I don't remember choosing any sides here.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where I said that.


 all amps soundsthe same camp.


----------



## Victor_inox

turbo5upra said:


> We did amp testing for fun this weekend. No it wasn't blind. It was 20 mins between each amp- they weren't level match precisely... But the odd thing is each of us came back with very similar reviews- 6 people agreeing on just about every aspect.
> 
> Just saying- I was in the a watts more or less a watt camp previously.


Here is major flaw in experiment. 20 minutes switch. 
Your brain simply forget what you hear. You can have 6 people or 6000 people result would be yhe same.


----------



## CrossFired

What's it matter? Whatever answer he gives you, you'll just dismiss.

Victor has proven his knowledge, wisdom, and integrity on this site.

If he states his findings, they're likely true.






Jesus Christ said:


> Actually you didn't, so whatever.
> 
> 
> What camp is that? I don't remember choosing any sides here.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where I said that.


----------



## Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ said:


> Do all amps sound the same? No.





Victor_inox said:


> all amps soundsthe same camp.


Try again.


----------



## Jesus Christ

CrossFired said:


> What's it matter? Whatever answer he gives you, you'll just dismiss.
> 
> Victor has proven his knowledge, wisdom, and integrity on this site.
> 
> If he states his findings, they're likely true.


All I want is proof.


----------



## turbo5upra

Victor_inox said:


> Here is major flaw in experiment. 20 minutes switch.
> Your brain simply forget what you hear. You can have 6 people or 6000 people result would be yhe same.



while I understand exact tonal characteristics will be lost- I'm not sure how a fluid circle on one amp- think of an oval track above your head sounds smooth and natural on one amp.... the next amps it shudders and isn't smooth... sizes of instruments can also be remembered... wow that drum seems fat.... or... wow those such and such seem to stand out more than I recall on the last amp.

Don't get me wrong I'm hungry to revisit in a more technical approach...


----------



## CrossFired

Jesus Christ said:


> All I want is proof.


Just open your ears and get your own proof.

I know different amps sound different, as I've heard it many times in car audio, but even more in home audio.


I owned a Classe DR-9 power amp. I went on a trip, when I returned, a room mate had told me he had come home to thieves robbing the place. They only got the DR-9 power amp out of my system. 

I went down to Audio Excellence to buy another DR-9, and was told, Sorry, there no longer made. I asked for the replacement model(DR-10), and bought it.

Got home and found it to sound like nails on glass. Both amps were A/B types, with To-3 outputs, and should have sounded the same, but Classe cut corners somewhere, and it was very audible. The DR-9 was $4000. and the DR-10 was $2500. But compared to the DR-9, the 10 should have been $400. IMO.

I ended up with a Aragon 4004, as it had a beautiful sound, much like the DR-9.


----------



## Jesus Christ

CrossFired said:


> Just open your ears and get your own proof.


How many different amps would you say I need to listen to to get my own proof?


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> All I want is proof.


 See and I don`t as I proved it to myself many times. Last thing I want to do is to indoctrinate anyone. I just explain my opinion based on experimental science. I encourage everyone to do their own experiment and maybe admit that they need audio training before comparing audio equipment if they hear no difference. 
Like I said before there is difference but not everyone can hear it,if you don`t you lucky one, you don`t have to spend money on different amps.
Buy it once, crunk it up and enjoy. Its all about enjoying music and nothing else. 
Funny thing I noticed during the years in recording studio- good musicians don`t care about wires used connecting his guitar to the stomper or amount of post production it takes to make that recording or monitors we use, somehow they able to hear what important and drop unnecessary information in the sound. CHeap amp is not necessarily a bad sounding one.
Do you know how much music was mastered on Yamaha NS10 monitors?
mediocre at best but reference point for many sound engineers.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> How many different amps would you say I need to listen to to get my own proof?


2 and way of switching them over with momentary button. 
They can`t be same model amps. could be same manufacturer.
if there different schematics they sound different.


----------



## CrossFired

Jesus Christ said:


> How many different amps would you say I need to listen to to get my own proof?


Two


----------



## Jesus Christ

CrossFired said:


> Two


Then one would think with the >100 amps I own it would have been proven by now. Sure, there are obviously differences in power and some have a bit higher noise floor but with levels matched playing music and below clipping I still haven't found one that is so obviously different as you describe.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> Then one would think with the >100 amps I own it would have been proven by now. Sure, there are obviously differences in power and some have a bit higher noise floor but with levels matched playing music and below clipping I still haven't found one that is so obviously different as you describe.


 Problem is that you don1t know what listen to.
NOw you backing out on semantics saying obviously different.
difference can be subtle but it`s there.
Let me stress it once more, momentary switching would be the only way to hear the difference. I doubt you ever performed that test.


----------



## subwoofery

Jesus Christ said:


> Those aren't Class A.


Then that means that amps of the same topology can sound different - thanks for your help  

Kelvin


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> Problem is that you don1t know what listen to.


Right, obviously if I can't hear a difference that's the only possible conclusion.


> NOw you backing out on semantics saying obviously different.


He said 


CrossFired said:


> Got home and found it to sound like nails on glass.


Seems like a pretty obvious difference to me but hell, I'd be happy with a subtle difference.


> Let me stress it once more, momentary switching would be the only way to hear the difference. I doubt you ever performed that test.


Wrong again


subwoofery said:


> Then that means that amps of the same topology can sound different - thanks for your help
> 
> Kelvin


Right, your unscientific test obviously proves that. Anyways I've never said amps can't sound different.


----------



## Victor_inox

You are stubborn as they get.
well I`m stubborn too.
you didn`t say if you switched amps by momentary switch or unplugged everything and plugged back to another amp?
And you will be surprised how many people think that can hear when in fact they can`t.
in some cases that`s the only logical explanation.


----------



## subwoofery

WRX/Z28 said:


> *Competently designed amps measure nearly identically when talking about factors other than power*. Every competently designed amp I've ever tested for myself performed identically to my ears, this includes hybrid tube amps and a ton of old school amplifiers and new school amps.
> 
> Your signature is still misquoting since information has been removed relevant to the statement. It insinuates a mistruth, and gives people the impression that they need to chose an expensive amp for it to sound good.


Then you should re-read posts I've made that shows distortion profile being different for a lot of mid-to-high end amps: 
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/1361402-post74.html 
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/1358739-post31.html 
(there's more but I don't remember everything I've posted...) 

I've posted freq response of Mosconi amps that everyone loves yet they aren't flat... 

Competently designed amps measure differently whether you like it or not. 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

Jesus Christ said:


> Right, your unscientific test obviously proves that. Anyways I've never said amps can't sound different.


No... Actually it's your keyboard commando comment that did that. 
You're stating this and that and dismissing a lot of comments but that's what you do, right? 
You're trying to prove to others in the community that you know what you're talking about yet have proven or provided nothing that is asking for respect. 

You're asking for proof and you're entitled to do so - but not receiving any and then stating that the test was unscientific when we have said nothing about the way we test is just childish. Instead of asking, why don't you do an amplifier comparison for yourself and post something useful for a change AND be prepared to have your test dismissed because we all know, no test can be perfect  

Kelvin


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> you didn`t say if you switched amps by momentary switch or unplugged everything and plugged back to another amp?


A/B switch.


> And you will be surprised how many people think that can hear when in fact they can`t.
> in some cases that`s the only logical explanation.


The logical explanation couldn't possibly be that the difference is inaudible in the large majority of amps out there.


----------



## Jesus Christ

subwoofery said:


> No... Actually it's your keyboard commando comment that did that.
> You're stating this and that and dismissing a lot of comments but that's what you do, right?
> You're trying to prove to others in the community that you know what you're talking about yet have proven or provided nothing that is asking for respect.
> 
> You're asking for proof and you're entitled to do so - but not receiving any and then stating that the test was unscientific when we have said nothing about the way we test is just childish. Instead of asking, why don't you do an amplifier comparison for yourself and post something useful for a change AND be prepared to have your test dismissed because we all know, no test can be perfect
> 
> Kelvin


So what did they do wrong here?
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/technical-advanced-car-audio-discussion/158209-b-blind-tests-amplifiers-time-hear-myself.html


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> A/B switch.
> 
> 
> The logical explanation couldn't possibly be that the difference is inaudible in the large majority of amps out there.


 Well if others people can hear it then no you can`t hear the difference would be most logical. who was pushing AB buttons? yourself?


----------



## subwoofery

Jesus Christ said:


> So what did they do wrong here?
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/technical-advanced-car-audio-discussion/158209-b-blind-tests-amplifiers-time-hear-myself.html


If you want me to just challenge that test for no reason, try again. Why contribute negatively at something this community needed? 

Why don't you try to read the thread and come out with a conclusion for a change? 
All amps sound the same or not? 

Kelvin


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> Well if others people can hear it then no you can`t hear the difference would be most logical.


That might be true if I were the only one who couldn't hear a difference but that's not the case here.


> who was pushing AB buttons? yourself?


Myself. I see no need for a blind test if no difference is heard.


----------



## Jesus Christ

subwoofery said:


> If you want me to just challenge that test for no reason, try again. Why contribute negatively at something this community needed?
> 
> Why don't you try to read the thread and come out with a conclusion for a change?
> All amps sound the same or not?
> 
> Kelvin


I have read the thread. Seemed like everyone heard differences when they could see the amps, yet nobody was able to reliably pick them out during the blind portion of the test. Again, show me one instance where I've said all amps sound the same.


----------



## Victor_inox

you heard what you want to hear.


----------



## Victor_inox

subwoofery said:


> If you want me to just challenge that test for no reason, try again. Why contribute negatively at something this community needed?
> 
> Why don't you try to read the thread and come out with a conclusion for a change?
> All amps sound the same or not?
> 
> Kelvin


I second this motion, make a statement so we would know how to deal with you in future.


----------



## subwoofery

Jesus Christ said:


> I have read the thread. Seemed like everyone heard differences when they could see the amps, yet nobody was able to reliably pick them out during the blind portion of the test. Again, show me one instance where I've said all amps sound the same.


I'm done here... We're going round in circles. 

You sound like a certain poster that got banned. 

You win, I'm out. 

Kelvin


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> So what did they do wrong here?
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/technical-advanced-car-audio-discussion/158209-b-blind-tests-amplifiers-time-hear-myself.html


See that`s the thing, you havent tested it yourself you read the article.


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> See that`s the thing, you havent tested it yourself you read the article.


I fail to see how providing a link to that thread somehow indicates I haven't performed the test for myself.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> I fail to see how providing a link to that thread somehow indicates I haven't performed the test for myself.


You make up your mind before you asked these questions because otherwise you wouldn't be in this thread asking questions you not interested in listening to answers.


----------



## legend94

I have been an amp whore over the years and have owned half as many as jax. In my early days I thought every amp sounded different until I realized I was not matching levels. After that I realized once compared correctly I was not able to tell much if any difference in most amps while driving around in the car.

The difference would only come if the car was parked so then I cut back on my amp budget.

The biggest thing I have learned is pay more for speakers and install them correctly. The next big thing is try and get as much power as you can.

Would rather have an alpine 150x4 class d than an old school McIntosh 50x4. Never thought I would say that.

In fact I just punched myself in the balls.


----------



## legend94

subwoofery said:


> I'm done here... We're going round in circles.
> 
> You sound like a certain poster that got banned.
> 
> You win, I'm out.
> 
> Kelvin


Before you go....which one? There have been so many.


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> You make up your mind before you asked these questions


So you haven't already made up your mind? My beliefs aren't set in stone, I'm willing to listen to any rational argument.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> So you haven't already made up your mind? My beliefs aren't set in stone, I'm willing to listen to any rational argument.


I have make up my mind and you know my take on it- amps sounds different. 
i would rather have 150x4 whatever in my car then 50Wx4 macintosh.
they are will sound different at 50W ch but more power is preferable. 
Even though I often seat in my car for much longer then drive it and 50W would be enough. nowhere I said that more expensive amp sound better than inexpensive amp of comparable specs. only different.
One guy likes blonds another brunettes , I like all of them equally.


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> I have make up my mind and you know my take on it- amps sounds different.


We're getting closer to agreeing. Amps can absolutely sound different, I just don't believe every amp sounds different. 


> i would rather have 150x4 whatever in my car then 50Wx4 macintosh.


I can agree with that.



> they are will sound different at 50W ch but more power is preferable.


They can sound different but I wouldn't say they absolutely will either.


> One guy likes blonds another brunettes , I like all of them equally.


I like redheads.


----------



## legend94

Victor_inox said:


> One guy likes blonds another brunettes , I like all of them equally.


Assuming compable specs, yes?


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> Assuming compable specs, yes?


absolutely but my sexual history shows that smart women **** the best.
is that a coincidence that pretty speakers sound the best?
or nicely engineered amps sounds better to me than slapped together one.


----------



## legend94

Victor_inox said:


> absolutely but my sexual history shows that smart women **** the best.
> is that a coincidence that pretty speakers sound the best?
> or nicely engineered amps sounds better to me than slapped together one.



Edit. Probably not appropriate. Lol.


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> Edit. Probably not appropriate. Lol.


 You forgot i receive first version of your post in notification email. 

I never have sex when I`m drunk, it makes me not to feel anything.
I never take critical listening when I`m drunk for same reason.
but a little weed can make a difference to critical listening.


----------



## sqnut

Victor_inox said:


> I never have sex when I`m drunk, it makes me not to feel anything.
> I never take critical listening when I`m drunk for same reason.
> but a little weed can make a difference to critical listening.


LMAO that is so true.


----------



## legend94

Victor_inox said:


> You forgot i receive first version of your post in notification email.
> 
> I never have sex when I`m drunk, it makes me not to feel anything.
> I never take critical listening when I`m drunk for same reason.
> but a little weed can make a difference to critical listening.



 new signature for me!

Should have remembered the notification...I turned mine off because I was getting so many.

Where you live you can legally have weed and do critical listening but in my area they would rather you be a loud drunk legally.


----------



## captainobvious

turbo5upra said:


> while I understand exact tonal characteristics will be lost- I'm not sure how a fluid circle on one amp- think of an oval track above your head sounds smooth and natural on one amp.... the next amps it shudders and isn't smooth... sizes of instruments can also be remembered... wow that drum seems fat.... or... wow those such and such seem to stand out more than I recall on the last amp.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I'm hungry to revisit in a more technical approach...



We really need to have a go sometime with my method and see how it pans out. I think you guys would be really intrigued by it and have a lot of fun in the process


----------



## Victor_inox

Do it!


----------



## captainobvious

Jesus Christ said:


> Then one would think with the >100 amps I own it would have been proven by now. Sure, there are obviously differences in power and some have a bit higher noise floor but with levels matched playing music and below clipping I still haven't found one that is so obviously different as you describe.



I'd be happy to put on another test when all of you fellas want to coordinate coming out to my area to settle it


----------



## captainobvious

Things that can make a difference:

-Amplifier designed for a certain frequency response profile instead of FLAT which is what we look for
-Amplifiers with high noise floor. I'd consider that a "defect" of sorts as it's never desirable. Obviously if you have a dynamic passage that gets very quiet and you have a properly functioning amplifier and one with a high noise floor, you'll hear the noise. 
-Amplifiers not properly level matched. Pretty much goes without explaining, yes?
-Amplifiers driven into high distortion/clipping. 
-Amplifiers with tone controls/filters engaged or other alterations to the applied signal.


So basically, amplifiers designed to do just that- amplify the input signal unmolested and not defective, and not being over driven. You level match those up in a controlled environment using a quick switcher and do the blind tests and THAT'S when you realize one way or the other. Sure, it's fun to swap gear around and try this vs that, but psycho-acoustics are real. Until you remove these variables, testing doesn't truly provide you with any "significant" information.


Just my opinion.


----------



## HighQman1974

Id like to weigh in on this. Newbie to site but in car audio for 20+ years. First let me say I am an "Old School" fan so Im a little biased, but I can hear.. Ive always tried to give new products a chance as they come out to see what new owners do with the names Ive loved since getting into this. My 2 cents is going to be more on the the "amps sound different" point that expensive vs. new. Very recently I purchased two of the Soundstream "REF" amps. The REF 2.370 and the REF 1.500. Fantastic amps, for the money (about 1/3 of what their ancestors cost). They sounded great! Good power. Im using an Alpine 149BT HU, a ERA-G320 processor and an Audio Control 6xs running Boston Rally 5 1/4 comps and a JL 12w3-4. Just for ****s and giggles I decided to throw an old PPI4200AM I had to see the difference. OH what a difference... Soundstreams are back in the boxes and for sale. Just sayin, there is a difference amp to amp, and I went down in power so more cant be the reason. BETTER QUALITY AMPLIFIER...


----------



## turbo5upra

captainobvious said:


> We really need to have a go sometime with my method and see how it pans out. I think you guys would be really intrigued by it and have a lot of fun in the process


Let's talk it out- only 3 amps maybe? Budget amp- middle of the road and a high end?


----------



## WRX/Z28

captainobvious said:


> Things that can make a difference:
> 
> -Amplifier designed for a certain frequency response profile instead of FLAT which is what we look for
> -Amplifiers with high noise floor. I'd consider that a "defect" of sorts as it's never desirable. Obviously if you have a dynamic passage that gets very quiet and you have a properly functioning amplifier and one with a high noise floor, you'll hear the noise.
> -Amplifiers not properly level matched. Pretty much goes without explaining, yes?
> -Amplifiers driven into high distortion/clipping.
> -Amplifiers with tone controls/filters engaged or other alterations to the applied signal.
> 
> 
> So basically, amplifiers designed to do just that- amplify the input signal unmolested and not defective, and not being over driven. You level match those up in a controlled environment using a quick switcher and do the blind tests and THAT'S when you realize one way or the other. Sure, it's fun to swap gear around and try this vs that, but psycho-acoustics are real. Until you remove these variables, testing doesn't truly provide you with any "significant" information.
> 
> 
> Just my opinion.


This. 

Victoinox/subwoofery, Too much of your argument relies on flawed hearing capabilities. This is simply not the case. Admittedly when testing, ive not tested any amps that are know to introduce their own eq curve into the mix, nor any flawed amps that create noise. 

When you tested with 6 people, did they all wrote down their findings first and compare second? Likely not, more than likely the dominant member of your group suggested to everyone else what they heard, and the others did not want to disagree. 

Captainobvious, im game to prove it to myself again, and were within driving distance.


----------



## turbo5upra

WRX/Z28 said:


> This.
> 
> Victoinox/subwoofery, Too much of your argument relies on flawed hearing capabilities. This is simply not the case. Admittedly when testing, ive not tested any amps that are know to introduce their own eq curve into the mix, nor any flawed amps that create noise.
> 
> When you tested with 6 people, did they all wrote down their findings first and compare second? Likely not, more than likely the dominant member of your group suggested to everyone else what they heard, and the others did not want to disagree.
> 
> Captainobvious, im game to prove it to myself again, and were within driving distance.


That make- captain O- turbo5upra- z28- good stuff- rustbucketgirl... Who else?

Z28... It's wasn't written down- it was nothing more than fun... I wanted more fact based but that's not the way it went down.


----------



## sqnut

I went from Polk amps to Genesis expecting sonic nirvana. But the sound still sucked. It was just louder cause now I had 50% more power on everything. Seven years down the line, the sound is decent and more like a 2ch than a typical car audio. This shift is 100% down to the dsp and thousands of tuning hours as I learn't. 

A few weeks ago I took out the Genesis to get them cleaned and serviced and I popped the Polks back in. Only difference was that I had to turn the volume knob higher for similar output. The sound quality did not change an iota. Amps contribute nothing to sound quality. It's a myth perpetuated by both industry and the hordes of 'beliebers'.


----------



## Victor_inox

If hearing capability flawed we have no topic to discuss.


----------



## sqnut

Victor_inox said:


> If hearing capability flawed we have no topic to discuss.


If hearing capability were flawed, I would not have spent 7 years tweaking, no point doing it if you can't hear a difference. I stuck it out cause I could hear the difference in cutting boosting by +/- 0.2 db or TA difference at 0.02ms etc. It took me that time to get it right. I certainly didn't measure my way there so I guess the hearing works, but thanks for the concern. Take a chill pill.


----------



## turbo5upra

Alright later on I'm going to start a new thread- chefhow is also game. We will hash out a date.


----------



## cajunner

I don't know if this has been discussed in this never-ending thread but what about perception bias skewing people towards the higher end stuff, because part of the experience of car audio is outside of the listening and into the owning, display, and bling quotient of high end?

What if the difference people claim to hear with the better made, more expensive parts, higher quality circuit path, amps, is based on the psychology of having something special, or unique? And in that way, any claims to be able to hear the difference is not a flawed understanding of amps but an acceptance of the part that appearance plays, as being higher up than those who say what an amp looks like doesn't mean anything to the way it sounds?

I say this because I believe if you actually swapped guts with expensive amplifiers and cheap ones, the person listening for a difference is actively filtering what they hear through a psychological lens first, before their hearing apparatus is able to decipher what they think they can hear.

This psychological lens, is just as important and probably more so than the differences in the amplifier circuits themselves, if the 4 metrics of noise, gain, distortion, and whatever the last one was...

were in tolerance, then it's solely on the mind, and sighted testing contains this psychological lens, or filter whereas blind ABX testing would not.


I don't disagree that amps sound different, since they do, and I also don't believe I want to run amps that are purely functional with no aesthetic at all, either.

It shouldn't make a difference if the sound is the same but if the amp is ugly I don't want it in my car, I think part of the car audio experience is the actual sell. Like, it shouldn't make a difference who sells me an amplifier but if it's a sexy sales girl doing the honors I'll associate the amp purchase with a positive experience, and if it's the hideous, poor attitude loser that is filling out the invoice, I might believe that amp is somehow not worthy of install...

haha...


----------



## Victor_inox

sqnut said:


> If hearing capability were flawed, I would not have spent 7 years tweaking, no point doing it if you can't hear a difference. I stuck it out cause I could hear the difference in cutting boosting by +/- 0.2 db or TA difference at 0.02ms etc. It took me that time to get it right. I certainly didn't measure my way there so I guess the hearing works, but thanks for the concern. Take a chill pill.


and my statement contradict your point of view how exactly?


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> I don't know if this has been discussed in this never-ending thread but what about perception bias skewing people towards the higher end stuff, because part of the experience of car audio is outside of the listening and into the owning, display, and bling quotient of high end?
> 
> What if the difference people claim to hear with the better made, more expensive parts, higher quality circuit path, amps, is based on the psychology of having something special, or unique? And in that way, any claims to be able to hear the difference is not a flawed understanding of amps but an acceptance of the part that appearance plays, as being higher up than those who say what an amp looks like doesn't mean anything to the way it sounds?
> 
> I say this because I believe if you actually swapped guts with expensive amplifiers and cheap ones, the person listening for a difference is actively filtering what they hear through a psychological lens first, before their hearing apparatus is able to decipher what they think they can hear.
> 
> This psychological lens, is just as important and probably more so than the differences in the amplifier circuits themselves, if the 4 metrics of noise, gain, distortion, and whatever the last one was...
> 
> were in tolerance, then it's solely on the mind, and sighted testing contains this psychological lens, or filter whereas blind ABX testing would not.
> 
> 
> I don't disagree that amps sound different, since they do, and I also don't believe I want to run amps that are purely functional with no aesthetic at all, either.
> 
> It shouldn't make a difference if the sound is the same but if the amp is ugly I don't want it in my car, I think part of the car audio experience is the actual sell. Like, it shouldn't make a difference who sells me an amplifier but if it's a sexy sales girl doing the honors I'll associate the amp purchase with a positive experience, and if it's the hideous, poor attitude loser that is filling out the invoice, I might believe that amp is somehow not worthy of install...
> 
> haha...


 valid point as well but components used is very important in sound signature of every amp, now when chinese counterfeit everything including capacitors, resistors, etc etc it might doesnt look that way but it certainly is.
I stopped buying supposedly alps pots, mullard and nichicon caps because at my quality check 70% of them ended up in the trash.
how reliable rest of the 30% only time will tell.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> valid point as well but components used is very important in sound signature of every amp, now when chinese counterfeit everything including capacitors, resistors, etc etc it might doesnt look that way but it certainly is.
> I stopped buying supposedly alps pots, mullard and nichicon caps because at my quality check 70% of them ended up in the trash.
> how reliable rest of the 30% only time will tell.


what's available in "niche" ebay sales, contradicts what is available from real suppliers like Digikey.

you are being sold on a name, when that name meant something.

Alps was a high end pot maker, back when they had proprietary processes that made their product superior to the rest of the market.

today, Alps is probably made alongside every other pot, churned out using what is now, normal industrial techniques that Alps pioneered 30 years ago.

that's part of why the name brand parts buy is a sucker bet, the trickle down has happened just about everywhere.


now, I read about Black Gate capacitors, and they had an actual assembly process that used proprietary parts, that are considered too expensive to continue manufacture because, you'd see someone take up the slack if that were not the case.

There was something lost when the cap factory shut down, that nobody stepped in and filled that space.

but the products, are they wanting? Are they somehow less capable, because Black Gate caps aren't available anymore?

I don't know, but my rational brain says that whatever they added to the sound, was not significant enough, it didn't tip the scale to make manufacturers pay higher to keep those in production.

and that's how I think a lot of things start their eventual slide into the "me too" mentality, and amps use the same circuit board across 5 different brand lines.

the product being built today is the result of marketing and consumer demand dictating what to keep in the build process, and what to throw away.


I'd just as soon pay less for custom anodized aluminum heat sinks, if they put that 3 dollars of bling into a better parts bill of materials.


but the market says no, the market says buy the pretty amp and so we do.


----------



## captainobvious

turbo5upra said:


> Alright later on I'm going to start a new thread- chefhow is also game. We will hash out a date.


Sounds good !


----------



## captainobvious

cajunner said:


> I don't know if this has been discussed in this never-ending thread but what about perception bias skewing people towards the higher end stuff, because part of the experience of car audio is outside of the listening and into the owning, display, and bling quotient of high end?





captainobvious said:


> Things that can make a difference:
> 
> -Amplifier designed for a certain frequency response profile instead of FLAT which is what we look for
> -Amplifiers with high noise floor. I'd consider that a "defect" of sorts as it's never desirable. Obviously if you have a dynamic passage that gets very quiet and you have a properly functioning amplifier and one with a high noise floor, you'll hear the noise.
> -Amplifiers not properly level matched. Pretty much goes without explaining, yes?
> -Amplifiers driven into high distortion/clipping.
> -Amplifiers with tone controls/filters engaged or other alterations to the applied signal.
> 
> 
> So basically, amplifiers designed to do just that- amplify the input signal unmolested and not defective, and not being over driven. You level match those up in a controlled environment using a quick switcher and do the blind tests and THAT'S when you realize one way or the other. Sure, it's fun to swap gear around and try this vs that,* but psycho-acoustics are real. Until you remove these variables, testing doesn't truly provide you with any "significant" information.*
> 
> 
> Just my opinion.


Yup !


----------



## cajunner

captainobvious said:


> Yup !


I don't know if we can call it psycho-acoustics, as I'm not sure what that is...

but a psychological filter that operates in much the same way our brains process things in real time, like how we self-center everything to include us in most of our day to day operations..


how to put this into a context....

say our expectation is raised from advertising, from salespeople, and from settings on a board that skew the performance in favor of the fancy, higher profit margin object.

since this is a contrived scenario by parties who gain monetary compensation, we can't really use it as a great example but the expectation that is built up by external factors is the key.

it's like when an illusionist does his mentalist trick on a crowd, where by the end, all are reciting about green elephants eating apples, we are guided by the same basic processes, and manipulation of those processes is not always an easy thing to assess or suss out.

if someone says to you, McIntosh is gritty, compared to Sinfoni, that is going to mean very little if you own Pioneer.

But if you have a chance to audition McIntosh, and it sounds super clean compared to your Pioneer, (never mind you auditioned the Mac in a world class competition car, and your Pioneer is pushing factory mids with Pyle add-on tweeters) then you'd already be biased to believe the Sinfoni is spectacular.

I think that means the psychology of Higher End Amps, is already in place for most people before they even enter into a scenario where they are asked to pick a favorite.


----------



## Dspencer

I lean on the side of it doesn't matter how much the amp costs (if it's supposedly "high end" or not) as long as the specs (for real, not made up inflated specs) are within the limits of human sensory detection.

In other words, if the amp's signal to noise is already beyond what human ears can distinguish in a car audio environment, paying for an amp simply because it has +10db signal to noise is a waste.

The same goes for all stats. If the damping factor is such that speaker control is past the difference human ears can hear, an amp with >5000k damping factor will make no difference. 

HOWEVER, *some* cheapo brands do report false specs that don't actually happen in the real world. Typically, higher end brands will not do such things.

Also, higher quality parts may be used in high end amps vs. cheap ones, for longer life span of the amp. 

Those quality of manufacture and testing factors can lead to more customers having a good experience with high end products, whereas more customers have had bad experience with low end products - such as early amp death, amps not performing up to paper specs, etc. 

That being said, if one can find a reliable amp manufacturer with true specs above what is needed for human hearing to know the difference, at lower prices, the only remaining reason to buy high priced amps is psychological. 

If it makes the user feel better using a high end amp they overpaid for, to that user it is worth it. Maybe it looks better too - bonus! 

For me, I find brands like Soundstream to have great quality amps at incredible prices. I can't hear the difference between the Reference amps and another brand price 4x as high, because the Soundstream specs are legitimately already beyond human hearing differentiation. Plus, the Reference amps look sweet!


----------



## Earzbleed

Recent episode of Perception, he was talking about how the sales pitch, marketing and packaging makes people appreciate expensive wines more, even when it's cheap wine poured into an expensive bottle. I thought of this thread immediately.


----------



## Victor_inox

Earzbleed said:


> Recent episode of Perception, he was talking about how the sales pitch, marketing and packaging makes people appreciate expensive wines more, even when it's cheap wine poured into an expensive bottle. I thought of this thread immediately.


 why do you think they selected wine as an example?
I`ll tell you why. no more then 0.1% of population knows anything about fine wine. 
pour them boxed shably and say it`s 50 years old chateau for $400 a bottle and they will think it is. 
It`s much harder to distinguish fake in wine then about anything else faked.
I feel sorry for people who never experienced fine things, like swiss watch, nice car, brax amplifier, etc. when you see no imperfection on 10x magnification of Rolex watch, impeccable craftsmanship of rolls royce, brilliant engineering of Brax amp, that is quality. and like it or not there always will be people going for it.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> why do you think they selected wine as an example?
> I`ll tell you why. no more then 0.1% of population knows anything about fine wine.
> pour them boxed shably and say it`s 50 years old chateau for $400 a bottle and they will think it is.
> It`s much harder to distinguish fake in wine then about anything else faked.
> I feel sorry for people who never experienced fine things, like swiss watch, nice car, brax amplifier, etc. when you see no imperfection on 10x magnification of Rolex watch, impeccable craftsmanship of rolls royce, brilliant engineering of Brax amp, that is quality. and like it or not there always will be people going for it.


a fine sentiment.

does the wine taste pleasant enough?

does the watch tell time accurately?

does the car arrive safely and dependably, with similar comfort?

does the amp play cleanly and without audible distortion or noise?

there will always be people who look at anything more than the fundamental as an excess and a gratuity. Utilitarian products in a capitalism-derivative economy, are a choice much as the higher end stuff is a choice.

In a communist country, the disparity between utilitarian product and the high end is heightened, I think there is a logical parallel that exists even at the national level that shows how human nature is to covet, and to covet is to create or take possession of special things.

If you spend 20 years (or an entire lifetime) without access to the good stuff, how would you know what that really is like, why would it be necessary to find out?

Maybe a lot of people's desires in this hobby are about this divide, between the haves, of high end and the have nots.


----------



## sqnut

Victor_inox said:


> and my statement contradict your point of view how exactly?


Because your post stated that those who claim no difference can't hear it. Thereby implying a certain lack / loss of hearing ability. Don't shoot and scoot


----------



## bobc04

i believe in quality in amps. my tru tech amps have a lot of control and for the low power it puts out it sounds awesome


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> If hearing capability flawed we have no topic to discuss.


I don't believe my hearing is flawed, nor the hearing of most of the veterans here. I think the testing methods are flawed, and i'm right. Each and every time, the testing method is flawed in a way that makes the results nothing more than good fun. 

The only fix is for your golden ears to submit for RC's amp challenge and defeat it...  You'll make a cool $10,000 at the same time!


----------



## Victor_inox

sqnut said:


> Because your post stated that those who claim no difference can't hear it. Thereby implying a certain lack / loss of hearing ability. Don't shoot and scoot


 NO, those who can`t hear difference not trained to hear, I`m 48 and i bet I can hear difference in just about any 2 amps. it has nothing to do with hearing loss with ageing. 
Why is violin player can easily distinguish mass produces el cheapo from Stradivarius? 
Most people can`t hear that so is with amps. Convincing enough?


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> I don't believe my hearing is flawed, nor the hearing of most of the veterans here. I think the testing methods are flawed, and i'm right. Each and every time, the testing method is flawed in a way that makes the results nothing more than good fun.
> 
> The only fix is for your golden ears to submit for RC's amp challenge and defeat it...  You'll make a cool $10,000 at the same time!


If you think you right, stick to it. i`m not interested in amp challenge because I know my truth, I did similar challenges many times in controlled by me environment. I formed my opinion based on that.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> a fine sentiment.
> 
> does the wine taste pleasant enough?
> 
> does the watch tell time accurately?
> 
> does the car arrive safely and dependably, with similar comfort?
> 
> does the amp play cleanly and without audible distortion or noise?
> 
> there will always be people who look at anything more than the fundamental as an excess and a gratuity. Utilitarian products in a capitalism-derivative economy, are a choice much as the higher end stuff is a choice.
> 
> In a communist country, the disparity between utilitarian product and the high end is heightened, I think there is a logical parallel that exists even at the national level that shows how human nature is to covet, and to covet is to create or take possession of special things.
> 
> If you spend 20 years (or an entire lifetime) without access to the good stuff, how would you know what that really is like, why would it be necessary to find out?
> 
> Maybe a lot of people's desires in this hobby are about this divide, between the haves, of high end and the have nots.


 For most people Budweiser tasted fine, what does that prove?
Fine watch not only tell time, but engineering aspect of it is times more fascinating than trivial task of showing time.
Yet people buying cars for it looks first and reliability later. I test drove new cherokee today, just because it looks great, no kicks no power, blunt POS.
Same with amps it must please not only your hearing but visually as well.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> For most people Budweiser tasted fine, what does that prove?
> Fine watch not only tell time, but engineering aspect of it is times more fascinating than trivial task of showing time.
> Yet people buying cars for it looks first and reliability later. I test drove new cherokee today, just because it looks great, no kicks no power, blunt POS.
> Same with amps it must please not only your hearing but visually as well.


Budweiser does taste fine. 

The fact that it sells so well, is directly related to it's ease in swallowing. It's not harsh, bitter, or covered up in flowery silliness or overly loaded with bitter parts.


Budweiser could be the national beer of America, and I wouldn't mind.


If the government produced Budweiser, and put either a tariff on all other beers, or they subsidized Budweiser so that it was much cheaper than all other beers, I'd be okay with it.



because I like certain parts of socialism, and socialist doctrine.


Do people need better than Budweiser, Victor?


----------



## Victor_inox

I don`t drink tasted like piss bud, well unless it`s free. and yes certain aspect of socialism is great.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> I don`t drink tasted like piss bud, well unless it`s free. and yes certain aspect of socialism is great.


if your Budweiser tastes like piss, you know more about piss than Budweiser...





but socialism in some regards, is beneficial. 

I drive on streets that were put there by dollars that I didn't earn.

I went to schools that my parents didn't pay to have built.

I have a government that spends way too much money on things I do not care anything about, and does things I will never agree with, using the money I make, my sweat equity.


Is it perfect?


well, there's not much better out there, if you want to put a value on it.


----------



## WRX/Z28

sqnut said:


> If hearing capability were flawed, I would not have spent 7 years tweaking, no point doing it if you can't hear a difference. I stuck it out cause I could hear the difference in cutting boosting by +/- 0.2 db or TA difference at 0.02ms etc. It took me that time to get it right. I certainly didn't measure my way there so I guess the hearing works, but thanks for the concern. Take a chill pill.


Exactly. It's amazing that I can hear the slightest difference in T/A, EQ, phase, positioning, speakers, even recordings... yet amps all sound identical when driven within their unclipped range, and making the same power.

If an amp sounds different, it has failed at it's only job, which is taking an input signal and making it bigger. An amp should be transparent, otherwise it's functioning as an EQ, or phase adjuster. 

People that haven't properly implemented time alignment seem to be the one who think amps make huge differences, because if they used it properly they'd see that T/A makes an enormous difference, one that far exceeds any hopes that an amp has of making. EQ makes the next biggest difference when used properly. EQ has the capability of making huge changes in sound. 

Speakers make a huge difference as well, as does placement. Even environment makes a larger difference than any amp does, or ever should. 

Those insisting amp make huge differences have some vested interest in proving it. Either they produce/sell amps themselves, or they purchased an expensive amp, and need to justify it to not feel foolish. 

Not one person insisting that amps sound different has ever mentioned that they properly tested for the difference. It was always some vauge "I changed them out, and wow what a difference" These statements were never under the same conditions, never said to even be the same track, nevermind being able to A/B compare. This puts this insistence somewhere on the top tier of BS, since you've never really properly tested to begin with. 

Those that insist never have a measurement that explains the difference, they just have again, some vague notion that one performed better than the other, with minutes or even hours between testing. Noone ever points out what changed, whether it be eq curve, phase, or output, since these are generally the only things that make the difference people are claiming (other than magic dust  ). We are all expected to believe in some difference that can't be quantified because someone insists they heard it. The manner that they arrived to this conclusion is beyond flawed, but they insist anyway that it's undeniable proof, because their ears can't be wrong, and it's not their ears that are wrong, it's their testing methods. 

It's ok, these guys will continue to chase sonic nirvana in their amps instead of chasing it in things that actually matter. 

Best of luck in the hunt, I know which way i'll achieve phenomenal sound, and it's not going to be by swapping amps a hundred times.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> if your Budweiser tastes like piss, you know more about piss than Budweiser...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but socialism in some regards, is beneficial.
> 
> I drive on streets that were put there by dollars that I didn't earn.
> 
> I went to schools that my parents didn't pay to have built.
> 
> I have a government that spends way too much money on things I do not care anything about, and does things I will never agree with, using the money I make, my sweat equity.
> 
> 
> Is it perfect?
> 
> 
> well, there's not much better out there, if you want to put a value on it.


Piss is a piss, bud or not. 
I can tell about benefits of socialism but you clearly already set your mind on what it is.
I never attended schools your parents paid for, I pay my taxes like everyone else, road fee, bridges fee, whatever else fees. I pay to Social security more than about 95% of americans. so is medicare. Damn socialist programs that one day might support me, you, everyone. 

US government spent more money on **** I don`t need than about whole Europe combined.
My mom got 3 years paid leave when I was born. with guaranteed employment after that. first 5 years of my life day care was paid by government. I paid zero for school, college, my whole education of 18 years.
yes, beer was piss just like bud but vodka was good. Probably why i don`t drink girls drinks like beer. 
What was that you were saying?


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> NO, those who can`t hear difference not trained to hear, I`m 48 and i bet I can hear difference in just about any 2 amps. it has nothing to do with hearing loss with ageing.
> Why is violin player can easily distinguish mass produces el cheapo from Stradivarius?
> Most people can`t hear that so is with amps. Convincing enough?


Blind tests with people thinking they can hear the difference shows otherwise. Yes, when you KNOW it is two different amps, you think you hear a difference, because your preconceptions tell you that you should.

But take a blind test on it, with amps with specs better than human ears can pick up, and you'll guess no better than 50% of the time (showing random luck, not that you can actually tell the difference, which would put you correct answers at or near 100%). 

NO ONE who has participated in blind tests of amps has done better than random luck (50% give or take 10%). Don't think you'd be the special one that would show everyone else they just have bad ears.


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> For most people Budweiser tasted fine, what does that prove?
> Fine watch not only tell time, but engineering aspect of it is times more fascinating than trivial task of showing time.
> Yet people buying cars for it looks first and reliability later. I test drove new cherokee today, just because it looks great, no kicks no power, blunt POS.
> Same with amps it must please not only your hearing but visually as well.


Yes. This is the TRUE reason to select an amp - if you like it. If you have it in budget and like the look and perception you get for the $1,000 amp, that's what makes it worth it to you. 

But, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that if a $150 amp has specs good enough that in a car environment you would not be able to tell a noise/distortion/accuracy difference, it is not technically as good. It is every bit as good for the purpose a car amp is made for. It's just not for everyone (maybe you don't like how it looks, it's size, or the fact it's just $150 because there is a psychological desire to have expensive things).


----------



## Dspencer

Amps vs. amp is nothing like beer vs. beer, or any other comparison in which one can actually tell a difference.

For example, I can tell the difference between Hershey's chocolate and Nestle. Why? different ingredients/mix of ingredients that cause my taste buds to send a different combination of nerve impulses to my brain, which then comes to an accurate translation that there is a difference in taste.

In the beer vs. beer or chocolate vs chocolate comparison, amps are more like putting more ice in the beer because you want it colder, or pouring table sugar on the chocolate because you want it sweeter. Don't tell me pure water ice is going to make one beer taste better than the other, or common table sugar of a different brand will make a difference in how much sweeter the chocolate tastes...

Speakers might be like that, EQ settings may cause a difference in sound, etc. BUT amps with specs better than human hearing can differentiate cannot be compared as sounding "different." 

If so, the amps aren't doing their job. The amp's job isn't to change the sound in any way, so it may be differentiated - it is to AMPLIFY the sound from the source faithfully/accurately. 

Yes, there are super cheap and poorly built amps out there that cannot do this. They add noise/distortion, and basically take a clean input signal and screw it up. 

BUT, any halfway decent amp with proper (lowest acceptable before ears can hear the problem) specs will sound the same as a much higher $ version with the same power output. 

Then why worry about which amp to buy? 

1. Size (do you need compact or prefer tanks?)
2. Appearance
3. Features (built in crossovers, bass/boost, remote, etc. that you want)
4. Price (do you have a tight budget, or feel like splurging high dollar to make yourself feel special?)
5. Reputation for durability (obviously no one wants to get an amp line known for dying after 2 months of use because of bad parts/assembly)
6. Brand loyalty (is there a brand you prefer to give your money to, for whatever reason?)
7. Peer pressure (if all your friends are using brand X you don't want to throw in brand Y if you know you'll get hounded for it forever)

If you are buying amps because you actually believe it is superior in sound quality just because it costs more, you are being a fool...


----------



## Victor_inox

:dead_horse:untrained ears doesn't mean bad ears.


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> :dead_horse:untrained ears doesn't mean bad ears.


I don't see how trained vs. untrained ears has any relevance in this discussion.

If we were discussing proper EQ, time alignment/phasing, staging, etc., yes, the untrained ears wouldn't be as good at knowing if settings are at their best, or if some of the equipment is just not good enough. 

If we are talking speakers, absolutely - inexperienced/untrained ears may not be able to hear the difference between speaker X and speaker Y. But of course, to them, it doesn't matter anyway - lol.

My father thinks I'm crazy for upgrading my Lexus IS350 sound system. To him, there is no reason the 13 speaker factory system wasn't "good enough." But to me, it was anemic (not enough power or dynamics because too little of an amp running too many speakers), and the sound not very accurate (how could it be, even though the speakers are actually good quality, they aren't getting much wattage each). 

I guess he'd be considered one with "untrained ears." :laugh: But, to him, compared to his Nissan Altima factory system he finds ok, my factory Lexus system was phenomenal. I doubt it's that he can't hear the difference because they are "untrained ears." It's more likely he just doesn't care - I mean, the guy listens to talk radio more than anything...

Any amp properly doing it's job is simply amplifying the input signal, noise/distortion free.


----------



## Victor_inox

In ideal world yes amp just amplified signal. truth is ideal amplifier does not exist,
single component can throw sound signature away. Every damn resistor in sound path has it`s own sound signature. High tolerances components usually cost more, therefore there direct correlation between quality components and price of the assembly. 
I assume you are young fella, your hearing might be undamaged but untrained it seems. you have to learn what to listen for. 
I do this **** professionally for many years, always was able to tell amps apart, sometimes even same model. THat discussion is silly to me. everyone will believe in what they want to believe or swing to whatever side their friends telling them, or internet tests.


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> In ideal world yes amp just amplified signal. truth is ideal amplifier does not exist,
> single component can throw sound signature away. Every damn resistor in sound path has it`s own sound signature. High tolerances components usually cost more, therefore there direct correlation between quality components and price of the assembly.
> I assume you are young fella, your hearing might be undamaged but untrained it seems. you have to learn what to listen for.
> I do this **** professionally for many years, always was able to tell amps apart, sometimes even same model. THat discussion is silly to me. everyone will believe in what they want to believe or swing to whatever side their friends telling them, or internet tests.


No, I'm not a "young fella" and neither is my hearing damaged or untrained. LMAO

I don't need to learn what to listen for. You, however, need to learn how to be open-minded and consider you don't know everything.

Some humility and considering your ears aren't the standard would also help...it's quite arrogant to think you have the right way of hearing while others with different opinions don't.

It would also help if your arguments didn't stand only on subjective opinions, but could be backed by objective, even scientific, fact. 

Fact: resistance (DC) or impedance (AC), has NOTHING to do with how music playback sounds (well, not within the limits we are discussing with amps). 

I did offer a scientific way to test your theory (it's already been done many times, and says you are wrong, by the way). A blind listening test wherein you must guess which amp of several is being used. They play back the same portion of a song, switching randomly between amps for each round, and you guess which amp you THINK it is.

In every case such tests have been done, the most arrogant audiophiles (super sure before the test that they can "hear the difference") had no better than random luck % chance to guess right. Of course, such people, instead of admitting that science just proved their thinking wrong, usually then turn around and accuse the test of being inaccurate or rigged.

I guess for some people it is just too hard to admit they believe something that is not reality. They'd rather believe their opinion is more accurate than scientific testing, and their ears better than scientific instruments far more sensitive to sound changes than human hearing.

Derp derp


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> In ideal world yes amp just amplified signal. truth is ideal amplifier does not exist,
> single component can throw sound signature away. Every damn resistor in sound path has it`s own sound signature. High tolerances components usually cost more, therefore there direct correlation between quality components and price of the assembly.
> I assume you are young fella, your hearing might be undamaged but untrained it seems. you have to learn what to listen for.
> I do this **** professionally for many years, always was able to tell amps apart, sometimes even same model. THat discussion is silly to me. everyone will believe in what they want to believe or swing to whatever side their friends telling them, or internet tests.


By the way, thank you for admitting the "ideal amplifier does not exist." We can agree on that. Only, I take that realization and consider it a good reason NOT to spend crazy $ on an amp that is supposed to be ideal...when an amp for $150 has specs well better than needed to make sure the signal is amplified properly and passed to the speakers to be properly reproduced.

Ideal amp: 100% efficient, absolutely no amplification of noise (100% noise filtering), absolutely no distortion of signal while amplifying it (so even scientific instruments can't pick up the tiniest of hints at distortion).

Good enough amp not to tell the difference with human ears in a car environment: efficient enough not to overtax the car electrical system and not overheat, signal to noise of over 100db, thd less than 1% for subs, less than 0.5% for mids/highs, damping factor of 200+, stereo separation high enough so left and right are distinct, for stereo effect - which matters less without using headphones, because there is no way to get 100% stereo separation (even if amp can do it) in a car, or room. 

In the human audible range (20hz-20khz), all that matters is reference levels (levels at which noise/distortion) are not audible. Making noise/distortion any less audible at that point does nothing for the listening experience. It would be like something being invisible to the human eye but then thinking you need to make it more invisible. pfft


----------



## cajunner

the methodology to debunk "golden ears" hinges on operating the amplifiers under test, at levels that do not show a sonic signature.

I can guarantee that if you push a cheap amp into the 30% distortion zone, it'll have artifacts and sonic irregularity that an amp with better circuits and parts, won't have.

and it will be audibly different.

since all these "all amps sound the same" people require the amps to be operated in a linear region and within an envelope of human hearing detection, and also to defeat features built into the pre-amps of better quality amplifiers, the actual comparison falls flat, based on unrealistic performance margins.

The high cost amp, spreading the load evenly through matched transistors, using darlington or better circuits, will likely have better longevity, and increased power output at the fringe where wayward sonic details begin to smother the image.

The cheap amp, using minimal parts and smaller, less robust gain stages and driver amplifier sections, will be more tied to the saturation of the toroidal transformer, the square waves will come through quicker, more forcefully, and have a larger impact on the sound.

At an amplifier's limits, is how I like to judge my amps.

Like race cars, if the top speed renders the car unusable, it's a bad performer.

If a race car is able to reach top speed safely, and stay there without blowing up, and handles well, and doesn't catch air and put the driver into a few death spirals, that's a good performer.

see what I'm saying here?

The high cost amp usually springs for better parts, and the circuit used is more likely to have been "massaged" for noise rejection, ability to pass current, etc. that the cheap amp won't begin to touch.


These things, at the amp's limits, are definitely audible.


----------



## Victor_inox

:dead_horse::dead_horse:we agree to disagree how `bout that.
Not with you caj, spencer.


----------



## 2010hummerguy

If there is anything I have learned about the internet, there are three things you will never convince anyone of:

1.) Religion
2.) American vs. Japanese cars
3.) Amp SQ


----------



## Victor_inox

Yes and about 10000 other thinga


----------



## Dspencer

cajunner said:


> the methodology to debunk "golden ears" hinges on operating the amplifiers under test, at levels that do not show a sonic signature.
> 
> I can guarantee that if you push a cheap amp into the 30% distortion zone, it'll have artifacts and sonic irregularity that an amp with better circuits and parts, won't have.
> 
> and it will be audibly different.
> 
> since all these "all amps sound the same" people require the amps to be operated in a linear region and within an envelope of human hearing detection, and also to defeat features built into the pre-amps of better quality amplifiers, the actual comparison falls flat, based on unrealistic performance margins.
> 
> The high cost amp, spreading the load evenly through matched transistors, using darlington or better circuits, will likely have better longevity, and increased power output at the fringe where wayward sonic details begin to smother the image.
> 
> The cheap amp, using minimal parts and smaller, less robust gain stages and driver amplifier sections, will be more tied to the saturation of the toroidal transformer, the square waves will come through quicker, more forcefully, and have a larger impact on the sound.
> 
> At an amplifier's limits, is how I like to judge my amps.
> 
> Like race cars, if the top speed renders the car unusable, it's a bad performer.
> 
> If a race car is able to reach top speed safely, and stay there without blowing up, and handles well, and doesn't catch air and put the driver into a few death spirals, that's a good performer.
> 
> see what I'm saying here?
> 
> The high cost amp usually springs for better parts, and the circuit used is more likely to have been "massaged" for noise rejection, ability to pass current, etc. that the cheap amp won't begin to touch.
> 
> 
> These things, at the amp's limits, are definitely audible.


There's just one problem, you ignored a key part of what I've been stating.

In my scenarios ALL amps (whether $150 or $10,500) have specs beyond what would cause audible distortion/noise. 

I clearly, in a few posts, have stated that yes, there are poorly designed/made amps from the bargain bin that will introduce distortion/noise not to mention probably crap out in a few months.

We aren't disagreeing on that. The point is, as long as the amp is made well enough, no difference can be heard. This is scientific fact. Human ears can only hear so much.

Again, it's like thinking that once something is invisible you need to make it more invisible. If you think you can see it, once it's actually invisible, it's psychological - you can't actually see it, you are tricking yourself into thinking you can.

To make it more clear what amps I'm NOT saying could hang with more expensive amps - an amp that is $60 but has poor design/build and specs. Duh, of course that one is going to sound like crap at higher volume. It was built poorly.

And example of amps I'm saying sound just as good. Soundstream Reference. Got mine for under $150 (granted, msrp is much higher). The guts are beautiful - very well made amp - super clean. In a proper blind test, even at higher volumes, you could not tell it from a $1,000 amp for clarity, etc., power output being the same and all else equal.


----------



## Victor_inox

Science, what science? So far any tests ive seen has norhing do do with science.


----------



## Victor_inox

Or btw any amplificarion of signal over 6 db shows sonis signature. Im not taking sound pressure level but electrical parameter and rhat is scientific fact shown on spectrum analysis of real music not just sine wave or pink noise.


----------



## captainobvious

cajunner said:


> the methodology to debunk "golden ears" hinges on operating the amplifiers under test, at levels that do not show a sonic signature.
> 
> I can guarantee that if you push a cheap amp into the 30% distortion zone, it'll have artifacts and sonic irregularity that an amp with better circuits and parts, won't have.
> 
> and it will be audibly different.
> 
> since all these "all amps sound the same" people require the amps to be operated in a linear region and within an envelope of human hearing detection, and also to defeat features built into the pre-amps of better quality amplifiers, the actual comparison falls flat, based on unrealistic performance margins.
> 
> The high cost amp, spreading the load evenly through matched transistors, using darlington or better circuits, will likely have better longevity, and increased power output at the fringe where wayward sonic details begin to smother the image.
> 
> The cheap amp, using minimal parts and smaller, less robust gain stages and driver amplifier sections, will be more tied to the saturation of the toroidal transformer, the square waves will come through quicker, more forcefully, and have a larger impact on the sound.
> 
> At an amplifier's limits, is how I like to judge my amps.
> 
> Like race cars, if the top speed renders the car unusable, it's a bad performer.
> 
> If a race car is able to reach top speed safely, and stay there without blowing up, and handles well, and doesn't catch air and put the driver into a few death spirals, that's a good performer.
> 
> see what I'm saying here?
> 
> The high cost amp usually springs for better parts, and the circuit used is more likely to have been "massaged" for noise rejection, ability to pass current, etc. that the cheap amp won't begin to touch.
> 
> 
> These things, at the amp's limits, are definitely audible.



You make a fine point, but I'd argue that if you're pushing an amp into clipping or excessive noise, you're already failing to operate the product properly. It's not *supposed *to be used in that range.


EDIT: and when I say "you" and "you're" I'm referring to the user, not you in particular- obviously


----------



## legend94

Architect7 said:


> If there is anything I have learned about the internet, there are three things you will never convince anyone of:
> 
> 1.) Religion
> 2.) American vs. Japanese cars
> 3.) Amp SQ


seems like number 2 is an easy one compared to the other two. unless reliability is not a concern


----------



## legend94

Victor_inox said:


> Or btw any amplificarion of signal over 6 db shows sonis signature. Im not taking sound pressure level but electrical parameter and rhat is scientific fact shown on spectrum analysis of real music not just sine wave or pink noise.


I think your time would be better spent inventing something else :blush:

Not sure the people you are talking to are getting what you are saying.


----------



## WRX/Z28

legend94 said:


> I think your time would be better spent inventing something else :blush:
> 
> Not sure the people you are talking to are getting what you are saying.


Oh, we get it, we just also get that it has no factual basis.


----------



## 2010hummerguy

legend94 said:


> seems like number 2 is an easy one compared to the other two. unless reliability is not a concern


Shots fired!


----------



## Dspencer

legend94 said:


> I think your time would be better spent inventing something else :blush:
> 
> Not sure the people you are talking to are getting what you are saying.


No, I'm sure we do get it - I do. 

They make some valid points, in theory, or in personal preference. They don't really see how much some of us agree with them on those points, though we disagree on others. 

I think all of us would agree that most bottom shelf brand cheap amps cannot produce clean power all the way up through to clipping (as another said, testing an amp past clipping for distortion is silly - the highest end amps distort the sound at clipping too).

It is not acceptable for an amplifier to introduce audible noise/distortion below clipping. All of us should be able to hear the difference between an amp that is noisy/distorts music vs. one that doesn't. There's no training of ears needed or experience. A child can hear this difference.

Factory systems often distort at higher volume levels - low quality components as well as not enough clean power to push the speakers properly. I don't know a single person that cannot tell a factory system sounds like crap compared to a higher powered aftermarket system with separate amps and better speakers, even if still running off the factory head unit.

Not trying to write a book again, but trying to emphasize to the ones saying high end sq amp is not a myth, that no one is stating that any ole amp will do.

I would not put a $60 amp in my audio system that has crappy design and parts that would not provide my speakers with a clean stream of power. It would be a waste of $60.

Just like, if I can help it, I wouldn't drive an old beater car, or even some of the lower end models on new car lots. That I've mentioned I drive a Lexus, that I paid for, should tell everyone I'm not a person not realizing quality of build/parts matters. Of course it matters. Duh

What I have been saying - once you get to an ACCEPTABLE level of quality with an amplifier, whether you got it on sale for $150 (like the Reference amp I have) or paid $850 for one, you cannot hear the difference, no matter how much you want to think you can.

Anyone turning around and arguing that cheap amp will distort or sound crappy is not paying attention to what I'm saying. We already agree on that. We are debating whether self-acclaimed golden ears can truly hear better than the rest of humanity - hearing things that science says are beyond human perception.


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> Or btw any amplificarion of signal over 6 db shows sonis signature. Im not taking sound pressure level but electrical parameter and rhat is scientific fact shown on spectrum analysis of real music not just sine wave or pink noise.


For this discussion, spectrum analysis is useless. No one is arguing that amp X for $850 vs amp Y for $150 wouldn't potentially have differences using sensitive instrumentation to test. 

The point some of us are making is that it doesn't matter after a certain point, to human hearing. As long as both amplifiers effectively make background noise invisible (so to speak), and do not introduce distortion, all other components in the sound system being equal, human ears will never know the difference.

Now, you may think you do because of a psychological effect. And that is what blind tests have proven (and I'm speaking of ones that used scientific method and played music at reasonably high volumes). When subjects knew which amps they listened to they were more likely to describe it with preconceived ideas about that amp. When they were asked to describe the sound of each amp during blind testing, though, none were able to accurately describe the same amps in the same way. 

Why did their brains hear differently when not knowing the amp being used vs when they knew? Human psychology is a powerful thing.

If you all would just admit that, we'd probably all be in agreement that, yeah, if you feel it is worth $850 for a particular amp, even if just for psychological reasons, and you can afford, by all means, buy it.

But to insist on having magical golden ears, it's like talking to people who think the sun revolves around the earth...and believe in unicorns...


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

I had an amp that sounded really REALLY good for a few years. It was a fake Brax made by a guy out in Vegas. Most if not all of you know who I'm talking aboutI guarantee it would have measured dirty like an LP amp, but man did it give me a boner when it supplied my fronts with endless headroom...and kept going...and going...and going...until the caps finally started leaking and shorted out the output stage. I'll stick with reliability from a manufacturer that's known for making really good amps and has a lot to lose if they come out with a crap product. I know what my Alpine PDX5 has been through. The original owner is a good buddy of mine and he would run it balls to the wall for several hours straight on long trips. Then it went into a friend of his sister's Jeep for a few years. After six years of constant abuse I have no worries about it. My Mosconi seems to be built very well too and is giving me a/b power where I need it most...bridged to a pair of 2" 8 ohm widebanders. Yeah I'd love to have my fake brax back now that a local diyma member got it fixed but the bonerific sound it produces/produced isn't enough to put a surfboard time bomb back under my seat. As for my reason for this post...no effin clue :laugh:


----------



## Dspencer

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I had an amp that sounded really REALLY good for a few years. It was a fake Brax made by a guy out in Vegas. Most if not all of you know who I'm talking aboutI guarantee it would have measured dirty like an LP amp, but man did it give me a boner when it supplied my fronts with endless headroom...and kept going...and going...and going...until the caps finally started leaking and shorted out the output stage. I'll stick with reliability from a manufacturer that's known for making really good amps and has a lot to lose if they come out with a crap product. I know what my Alpine PDX5 has been through. The original owner is a good buddy of mine and he would run it balls to the wall for several hours straight on long trips. Then it went into a friend of his sister's Jeep for a few years. After six years of constant abuse I have no worries about it. My Mosconi seems to be built very well too and is giving me a/b power where I need it most...bridged to a pair of 2" 8 ohm widebanders. Yeah I'd love to have my fake brax back now that a local diyma member got it fixed but the bonerific sound it produces/produced isn't enough to put a surfboard time bomb back under my seat. As for my reason for this post...no effin clue :laugh:


:laugh:


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> I think your time would be better spent inventing something else :blush:
> 
> Not sure the people you are talking to are getting what you are saying.


Conflict stimulate creativity.


----------



## 2010hummerguy

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I had an amp that sounded really REALLY good for a few years. It was a fake Brax made by a guy out in Vegas. Most if not all of you know who I'm talking aboutI guarantee it would have measured dirty like an LP amp, but man did it give me a boner when it supplied my fronts with endless headroom...and kept going...and going...and going...until the caps finally started leaking and shorted out the output stage. I'll stick with reliability from a manufacturer that's known for making really good amps and has a lot to lose if they come out with a crap product. I know what my Alpine PDX5 has been through. The original owner is a good buddy of mine and he would run it balls to the wall for several hours straight on long trips. Then it went into a friend of his sister's Jeep for a few years. After six years of constant abuse I have no worries about it. My Mosconi seems to be built very well too and is giving me a/b power where I need it most...bridged to a pair of 2" 8 ohm widebanders. Yeah I'd love to have my fake brax back now that a local diyma member got it fixed but the bonerific sound it produces/produced isn't enough to put a surfboard time bomb back under my seat. As for my reason for this post...no effin clue :laugh:


The good news is that the cap plague is over and just about any caps you buy today are going to last a lot longer than the garbage that was coming out of Taiwan for so many years.

I had to replace the caps in my LG IPS monitors and have a spare power supply for my home theater LCD for this exact reason.


----------



## CrossFired

Victor_inox said:


> If you think you right, stick to it. i`m not interested in amp challenge because I know my truth, I did similar challenges many times in controlled by me environment. I formed my opinion based on that.


Me too! Over the years I've done A/B testing many times, and it's rare that I could not name the amp from it's sonic character.


----------



## emoon3

Architect7 said:


> If there is anything I have learned about the internet, there are three things you will never convince anyone of:
> 
> 1.) Religion
> 2.) American vs. Japanese cars
> 3.) Amp SQ


So true...


----------



## captainobvious

CrossFired said:


> Me too! Over the years I've done A/B testing many times, and it's rare that I could not name the amp from it's sonic character.


Blind, level matched and conducted by someone other than you?


----------



## cajunner

Dspencer said:


> There's just one problem, you ignored a key part of what I've been stating.
> 
> In my scenarios ALL amps (whether $150 or $10,500) have specs beyond what would cause audible distortion/noise.
> 
> I clearly, in a few posts, have stated that yes, there are poorly designed/made amps from the bargain bin that will introduce distortion/noise not to mention probably crap out in a few months.
> 
> We aren't disagreeing on that. The point is, as long as the amp is made well enough, no difference can be heard. This is scientific fact. Human ears can only hear so much.
> 
> Again, it's like thinking that once something is invisible you need to make it more invisible. If you think you can see it, once it's actually invisible, it's psychological - you can't actually see it, you are tricking yourself into thinking you can.
> 
> To make it more clear what amps I'm NOT saying could hang with more expensive amps - an amp that is $60 but has poor design/build and specs. Duh, of course that one is going to sound like crap at higher volume. It was built poorly.
> 
> And example of amps I'm saying sound just as good. Soundstream Reference. Got mine for under $150 (granted, msrp is much higher). The guts are beautiful - very well made amp - super clean. In a proper blind test, even at higher volumes, you could not tell it from a $1,000 amp for clarity, etc., power output being the same and all else equal.


you probably glossed over the part where I say good amps have good parts, and good amps have better features that do make a sonic addition, and not subtraction, by way of using higher quality op-amps, designing class A driven pre-amp driver stages, using parametric equalization in the amp's pre-amp, using special circuits, (Rockford is famous for naming their circuits, as are many others, Topaz, Nomad, etc.) and if you think that a reactive signal like a speaker presents, through EMF, doesn't matter when deciding how an amp sounds, they have you gutted.

There are differences, and they are audible.

That the average Joe can't devise a simple test to indicate which amps are audibly superior since it appears the average Joe can't operate his amps near the limits without being faulted for it, (hint: I clip. I like to clip, clipping completes me) then there's a bunch of people reading who are jostled about, not understanding what differences there are in your various amp selections.

I remember when the Japanese high end, Nakamichi/Yamaha/Technics/Alpine/Sony etc. burst into the car amp market, because I'm ancient like that.

Then you had the competition, you had Tempe, Arizona.

And if you pushed those higher end Jap amps on woofers, their circuits were mush, they weren't designed to build long sine waves. Did they make rated power? sure. Did they sound great on highs? sure. Did they have the balls of the American wave of Orion, RF, PPI, etc., driving low impedance loads?

not a chance.

Which gave rise to the battle we see being fought today. Is a Brax Matrix going to put out like a Mosconi?

Is a Luxman going to put out like a Ground Zero?

haha...


I have no experience with these amps, lol...


----------



## Dspencer

WRX/Z28 said:


> Oh, we get it, we just also get that it has no factual basis.


Yep!


----------



## Dspencer

CrossFired said:


> Me too! Over the years I've done A/B testing many times, and it's rare that I could not name the amp from it's sonic character.


Was this done blind (3rd party switching amps without you knowing which one being used) or by your knowledge of having switched amps?

Psychological studies have shown that preconceived thoughts about products will lead one to believe there is a difference that in double blind tests cannot be replicated. 

In other words, we tend to make ourselves believe some difference is there when it really isn't.


----------



## Dspencer

cajunner said:


> you probably glossed over the part where I say good amps have good parts, and good amps have better features that do make a sonic addition, and not subtraction, by way of using higher quality op-amps, designing class A driven pre-amp driver stages, using parametric equalization in the amp's pre-amp, using special circuits, (Rockford is famous for naming their circuits, as are many others, Topaz, Nomad, etc.) and if you think that a reactive signal like a speaker presents, through EMF, doesn't matter when deciding how an amp sounds, they have you gutted.


Not at all glossed over. Again, I agree there are different quality level of amplifiers. I don't just go buy the cheapest possible. I carefully make sure that any amplifier I buy is of acceptable quality level for the goal I have in mind for it. 

Of course parts make a difference. Why do you think I drive a Lexus IS350 and not a Kia?

My disagreement is with people using psychological phenomena to explain "difference in sound," that according to specs is beyond human hearing comprehension. If amp A parts and amp B parts are both GOOD ENOUGH to amplify the input to high quality sound so that no audible difference truly exists, then it is psychological if any difference is perceived.

That isn't to say it's bad to make purchases based on that psychology. Some people prefer blue, others green. It's psychological. If you'd rather buy the blue shirt rather than the green shirt, go for it. But if they are made of the same cotton and the blue shirt costs $25 more, just admit you chose the higher priced shirt for psychological preference, not for some quality difference that can't be objectively proven.



> There are differences, and they are audible.
> 
> That the average Joe can't devise a simple test to indicate which amps are audibly superior since it appears the average Joe can't operate his amps near the limits without being faulted for it, (hint: I clip. I like to clip, clipping completes me) then there's a bunch of people reading who are jostled about, not understanding what differences there are in your various amp selections.
> 
> I remember when the Japanese high end, Nakamichi/Yamaha/Technics/Alpine/Sony etc. burst into the car amp market, because I'm ancient like that.
> 
> Then you had the competition, you had Tempe, Arizona.
> 
> And if you pushed those higher end Jap amps on woofers, their circuits were mush, they weren't designed to build long sine waves. Did they make rated power? sure. Did they sound great on highs? sure. Did they have the balls of the American wave of Orion, RF, PPI, etc., driving low impedance loads?
> 
> not a chance.
> 
> Which gave rise to the battle we see being fought today. Is a Brax Matrix going to put out like a Mosconi?
> 
> Is a Luxman going to put out like a Ground Zero?
> 
> haha...
> 
> 
> I have no experience with these amps, lol...


I don't think anyone is disputing there are differences in amps. Different parts making up the amp will make a difference in amp performance and durability. That's not the discussion we are having.

American brands amps pushing great low frequency tones with clean power at low ohm loads vs. Japanese amps sucking for low end but good on highs, has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Even among one manufacturers line of amps, there will be some better at a task than others - some of their amps (A or A/B, for example) may be better for mids/highs. Others (D monoblock) may be better for driving subwoofers. 

The point of this thread is that once you get past human threshold of hearing at that frequency, 2 amps designed to do the same job don't sound different, except psychologically when people have a preconception about it. So, higher end amp SQ superiority is a myth. 

A mid level priced amp that has good enough specs is going to do the job in most car audio systems just as well as a high end amp, if all else is equal (same source, same speakers, same true power output, etc.). Just like wiring that is good enough will do the job high priced wiring can do (because humans can't detect the small differences in signal transfer). 

Whether that mid level amp looks the way you want, lasts as long, makes you feel as good to own, etc., is another discussion.


----------



## cajunner

if we ratchet it up, and put commercial amps designed to power concerts in a taste test, is anyone going to deny the sound produced will differ?

Is a Crown I-Tech equal to a Behringer, or a (gasp!) Pyle?

I think we can move the debate into any region of amplification, from the silliest chip amps to the biggest monsters.

If you ask a guy that runs sound what amp he prefers, and he's a professional, it's likely he has his favorites. I'm pretty sure that if you ask him whether the only difference he's likely to notice is durability, he'd laugh in your face.

Amps aren't made equal, and don't sound equal, no matter how much people want to believe their tests of double-blind studies.


----------



## cajunner

Dspencer said:


> Not at all glossed over. Again, I agree there are different quality level of amplifiers. I don't just go buy the cheapest possible. I carefully make sure that any amplifier I buy is of acceptable quality level for the goal I have in mind for it.
> 
> Of course parts make a difference. Why do you think I drive a Lexus IS350 and not a Kia?
> 
> My disagreement is with people using psychological phenomena to explain "difference in sound," that according to specs is beyond human hearing comprehension. If amp A parts and amp B parts are both GOOD ENOUGH to amplify the input to high quality sound so that no audible difference truly exists, then it is psychological if any difference is perceived.
> 
> That isn't to say it's bad to make purchases based on that psychology. Some people prefer blue, others green. It's psychological. If you'd rather buy the blue shirt rather than the green shirt, go for it. But if they are made of the same cotton and the blue shirt costs $25 more, just admit you chose the higher priced shirt for psychological preference, not for some quality difference that can't be objectively proven.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone is disputing there are differences in amps. Different parts making up the amp will make a difference in amp performance and durability. That's not the discussion we are having.
> 
> American brands amps pushing great low frequency tones with clean power at low ohm loads vs. Japanese amps sucking for low end but good on highs, has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
> 
> Even among one manufacturers line of amps, there will be some better at a task than others - some of their amps (A or A/B, for example) may be better for mids/highs. Others (D monoblock) may be better for driving subwoofers.
> 
> The point of this thread is that once you get past human threshold of hearing at that frequency, 2 amps designed to do the same job don't sound different, except psychologically when people have a preconception about it. So, higher end amp SQ superiority is a myth.
> 
> A mid level priced amp that has good enough specs is going to do the job in most car audio systems just as well as a high end amp, if all else is equal (same source, same speakers, same true power output, etc.). Just like wiring that is good enough will do the job high priced wiring can do (because humans can't detect the small differences in signal transfer).
> 
> Whether that mid level amp looks the way you want, lasts as long, makes you feel as good to own, etc., is another discussion.


you've made your point, and in a static test, where the differences in amps are held to a minimum through equalization, level matching, etc. it is true that you can make an amp sound similar enough to another, as to not be able to differentiate between the two, or however many.

my point, is that there are differences in amps when you don't hold them to a minimum, and that the differences are audible enough to detect with even untrained ears.

we're probably in agreement more than the discussion will follow, but the dogged persistence to claim that once you eliminate what's "outside of hearing perception" the amps are equals in sonics, is doing a disservice to the community who just take that part to heart, and don't realize that we push our amps into clipping every day, it's not hard.


3 db, doubles power demands.

going from 97 db to 100 db, isn't that great of a change in a 5.25" speaker, but it's coil is going to saturate the field, the eddy currents are going to confuse the cone's path, the sound is going to suffer.

And the amp that is delivering the power, is going to move from "50W/ch RMS, 20-20K @ .04 THD" to 100 watts of clipped tops.

Understanding this, will take you closer to the truth than just believing blindly in double blind tests.


----------



## Victor_inox

How hard is to grasp a fact that human abilities different? Hearing could be simulated by surrou dings or chemicals or both. Brain interpret hearing nerves signal and respond with endorfins. What sounds great right now could sound like crap 10 minutes later. 
Many factors contribute to that. Training your brain is major factor.


----------



## Dspencer

cajunner said:


> if we ratchet it up, and put commercial amps designed to power concerts in a taste test, is anyone going to deny the sound produced will differ?
> 
> Is a Crown I-Tech equal to a Behringer, or a (gasp!) Pyle?
> 
> I think we can move the debate into any region of amplification, from the silliest chip amps to the biggest monsters.
> 
> If you ask a guy that runs sound what amp he prefers, and he's a professional, it's likely he has his favorites. I'm pretty sure that if you ask him whether the only difference he's likely to notice is durability, he'd laugh in your face.
> 
> Amps aren't made equal, and don't sound equal, no matter how much people want to believe their tests of double-blind studies.


I can't speak for everyone, but I'm not arguing that there aren't PERCEIVED differences. I'm arguing that amps with similar specs and power rating do not sound different, based on the science of human hearing sensitivity. 

The perceived difference is psychological. We all have psychological perceptions - it's not a bad thing. We should just be honest with ourselves that our perceptions are changed by the way we think and what we've decided to prefer.

I don't care how experienced the "professional" is. That doesn't make him/her any less subject to psychological perception influence. Take doctors for example. They are one of the most highly educated professionals in modern societies, yet they are prone to psychological preferences, and other motivations.

Thus why one doctor will recommend one brand name drug while an equally educated doctor with equal experience will recommend another brand of drug for the same treatment. 

IF both drugs accomplish the same goal of treatment (pain relief, for example), there is no scientific/factual reason to choose brand A over brand B based on quality difference. But, there are plenty of other reasons one might decide they prefer brand A over brand B - preference being psychological.

I use generic acetaminaphin and ibuprofin. Why not. I mean, the generic brands relieve my pain just as well as Tylenol or Motrin. I know this to be true from my own personal experience and preference of what I want to pay, regardless of what any doctor says about the brand names being better.

It's only better if I gain something extra from it. In the case of amps, or drugs, if you BELIEVE one is better than the other, than it is TO YOU. No one is saying don't buy brand A amplifiers if that's what you prefer. There are plenty of good reasons having to do with personal preference.

But don't kid yourself that you have magic ears or that some professional is the authority on what is best, when really it is simply a matter of personal and psychological preference. 

Even among high end amplifier manufacturers, that's why so many exist. People want choice. Why? Because we are never going to all have the same preferences. Super experienced professional sound guy and audiophile #1 is not going to hear the same sound system the exact same way as equally qualified professional #2. 

Speaking of concert pro audio guys, why do you think that all concert venues with high budgets don't all use the exact same manufacturers for their high-powered concert equipment? Because those professionals can't even all agree on what's "best." 

Why can't they agree on what's best. Because it's a matter of personal opinion, and has nothing whatsoever to do with scientific fact.


----------



## Dspencer

cajunner said:


> you've made your point, and in a static test, where the differences in amps are held to a minimum through equalization, level matching, etc. it is true that you can make an amp sound similar enough to another, as to not be able to differentiate between the two, or however many.
> 
> my point, is that there are differences in amps when you don't hold them to a minimum, and that the differences are audible enough to detect with even untrained ears.
> 
> we're probably in agreement more than the discussion will follow, but the dogged persistence to claim that once you eliminate what's "outside of hearing perception" the amps are equals in sonics, is doing a disservice to the community who just take that part to heart, and don't realize that we push our amps into clipping every day, it's not hard.
> 
> 
> 3 db, doubles power demands.
> 
> going from 97 db to 100 db, isn't that great of a change in a 5.25" speaker, but it's coil is going to saturate the field, the eddy currents are going to confuse the cone's path, the sound is going to suffer.
> 
> And the amp that is delivering the power, is going to move from "50W/ch RMS, 20-20K @ .04 THD" to 100 watts of clipped tops.
> 
> Understanding this, will take you closer to the truth than just believing blindly in double blind tests.


Well duh. 

Again, that's not being debated by me. Of course there are different quality levels of amps. Who is disputing that? Some of us simply state that all else being equal, two amps don't "sound" different technically - just psychologically based on the human minds power to alter perception based on beliefs. 

Pay attention to the "all else being equal" statement. Obviously if amp A is made with crap parts and is noisy and introduces distortion past 60% power rating, it's a piece of crap and not worth whatever cheap price it sells for.


----------



## Victor_inox

You cant be self taught how to hear different recording,s compression, equipment. Saying that amp a sounds identical to amp b at the same amplification just shows untrained hearing and a bit of ignorance .
Even amps making same power at the same amount of distortion. Cheap amps not necessarily sounds worse just different. Maybe similar. Some human can puck up thar difference, some can't. 
We are going in circles here.


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> How hard is to grasp a fact that human abilities different? Hearing could be simulated by surrou dings or chemicals or both. Brain interpret hearing nerves signal and respond with endorfins. What sounds great right now could sound like crap 10 minutes later.
> Many factors contribute to that. Training your brain is major factor.


I think you have an incorrect assumption that we can't grasp such. Some of the replies from your side of the argument have nothing to do with what we are actually saying on our side of the debate. 

Now, if any of us said, "All human ears are created equal," you'd have a point. What has been said, and is proven fact, is that human ears have limits. This is due to the limitations of the physical parts making up the ear, and the nerve network sending impulses to the brain. 

The mind is a powerful thing, though. Regardless of what actual information your physical ears send your brain, the mind has the power to add in mental perceptions based on belief. 

The brain filters the signal from the ears, translates it, and the mind takes over and decides what to make of it. If you believe amp brand A is better than amp brand B for sound quality, your mind is going to take over on the translation end and add in a perceived sound quality difference. 

There are plenty of studies to prove this is a psychological phenomena our minds have the power to accomplish. It is exactly why 2 equally qualified people with equally qualified ears can hear something differently based on personal preference. It isn't that the sound waves changed, or that one of them has magic ears, it's that each person's mind translates the raw input differently.

Thus why I agree there are GOOD reasons for each person to have their own preferences and buy whatever they think best. If it's what makes you happy, go with it. No one is saying stop buying brand X. But we are also entitled to our opinions and preferences.


----------



## Victor_inox

You right about one thing despite the fact that you contradict yourselfsychoacoustics play big role of how we persive music. Some things sounds better then others, there alway be people who prefer vynil over cds. To them thet soy sounds better despite inconvenience of bulky media, price and crackling.


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> You cant be self taught how to hear different recording,s compression, equipment. Saying that amp a sounds identical to amp b at the same amplification just shows untrained hearing and a bit of ignorance .
> Even amps making same power at the same amount of distortion. Cheap amps not necessarily sounds worse just different. Maybe similar. Some human can puck up thar difference, some can't.
> We are going in circles here.


You simply need to subject yourself to a double blind test with unbiased testers (people you don't know and no point to prove), and you'll find out just how powerful your mind really is...

It's not a bad thing. No reason to deny it or act like perception is actually the work of the mind, and not the ears, when all else is equal.

That would be the humble thing to do. Instead of insisting you must be right, actually test it out scientifically to see if your theory is correct or not. On the other hand, it is very arrogant to think that people disagreeing with you must be untrained or have inferior hearing.


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> We are going in circles here.


I agree. But I think it's because your replies often have nothing to do with what I'm actually arguing, and assumptions about me.


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> You right about one thing despite the fact that you contradict yourselfsychoacoustics play big role of how we persive music. Some things sounds better then others, there alway be people who prefer vynil over cds. To them thet soy sounds better despite inconvenience of bulky media, price and crackling.


Yet again it seems we agree on something. The mind plays a big role in how we perceive music. And that is a good enough reason for some to prefer vinyl over cd's or one amp brand over another.

As long was we can agree on that being the main reason one audiophile or car audio enthusiast prefers one amp over another, and not that one is superior and the other inferior necessarily, we're good. 

In the end, we all buy what we WANT to buy based on our own preferences. It just helps to be honest about WHY we do so. We lie to ourselves sometimes with incorrect reasons why we go with brand A over brand B, and fanboys will argue to their death that their preferred brand is the mac daddy of them all, everything else sucks...:laugh:


----------



## Victor_inox

I hate branding and funboys of anything, said that some brands superior in engineering achievement and craftsmanship. Some of those brands long dead for disregarding market demands. others blooming under new management.


----------



## CrossFired

The way you keep hammering your belief down everyones throat, leads me to believe your very unsure of your own beliefs. 

I've been involved in a few truly blind test, and scored 100% in everyone.

It looks to me that you have a hard time believing that other folks have abilities that your lacking. You appear to be an egomaniac.




Dspencer said:


> I agree. But I think it's because your replies often have nothing to do with what I'm actually arguing, and assumptions about me.


----------



## Dspencer

CrossFired said:


> The way you keep hammering your belief down everyones throat, leads me to believe your very unsure of your own beliefs.
> 
> I've been involved in a few truly blind test, and scored 100% in everyone.
> 
> It looks to me that you have a hard time believing that other folks have abilities that your lacking. You appear to be an egomaniac.


:laugh:

It's not personal, bro. I'm just with a couple others who would prefer the other side's arguments had some sort of objectivity involved.

I'm completely good with any evidence anyone can provide, or reference to evidence I can go look up and verify. 

I'm not worried about what someone else can hear or whether I lack such ability. For the point I've been making, or hammering it down everyone's throat as you call it, it wouldn't matter if I was deaf. Because my arguments aren't based on what I can or cannot hear. My main point remains that outside of scientifically proven fact regarding human hearing, any other claim of hearing ability is psychological. I'll stand by that until proof of the contrary is presented to me.

By all means, provide the documentation for the double blind tests you participated in using scientific method that show you have the ability to be 100% accurate in knowing which amplifier is in use.

It would be nice if your side of the argument would stop making it personal and making assumptions about the other debaters. At no time have I said that I have not experienced thinking I can hear differences you all claim to hear. I simply account that perception to psychology, if all else is equal (amp specs are beyond thresholds science says humans cannot detect with auditory faculties). 

I drive a Lexus IS350 because I do believe psychological perception is important to my buying decision. I feel great driving her. I don't feel as great driving a Corolla. It's personal preference. If the Corolla can get me from point A to point B just as well, in the regard the cars are equal - I just prefer the Lexus. 

What I don't like is when someone will say the IS350 is superior in appearance to the BMW 3 series, or other competitor, or even a Camry made by the same company (Toyota/Lexus). Who decides it looks better? Only the individual making the purchase. There's no way to prove that such psychological preferences are superior/inferior to someone else.

Likewise with amps and your ears vs. someone else. If you prefer the perception of sound you get from brand A amp, that doesn't mean that Joe Blow is inferior in hearing capability or untrained because he prefers brand B. 

I prefer the Lexus, you may prefer the BMW. Who's right or wrong? Neither. We're both right - we both like what we like. But let's not kid ourselves and think that one of the 2 vehicles is clearly superior in something like appearance. And it's not about who's eyes have the best vision...


----------



## Dspencer

CrossFired said:


> You appear to be an egomaniac.


See, this is an example of another subjective argument from your side of the debate to make your point. If you were actually responding to my arguments, and not making it personal about me vs. you, you'd see that my posts on here don't claim any special skills of my own to make my points.

Your side, on the other hand, does claim to have special abilities average folk don't have.

I have instead suggested we use facts (objective, and scientifically tested) to decide if the OP subject is true or not.


----------



## Victor_inox

Spence I`m wondering what is your qualifications about making statements as hearing science works? Or any science for that matter. Just wondering because it seems to me that you don`t have any, just a some reading on the net.
So, IS has superior appearance? or is it 3 series? you got me confused.


----------



## turbo5upra

I don't think you can conduct this test with jimbob off the street... It needs to be well trained people- I know far too many people to which "tires are tires" "brake pads are brake pads" if you don't know what you are looking for/at you don't know what you're looking for.


----------



## Victor_inox

turbo5upra said:


> I don't think you can conduct this test with jimbob off the street... It needs to be well trained people- I know far too many people to which "tires are tires" "brake pads are brake pads" if you don't know what you are looking for/at you don't know what you're looking for.


exactly right, Most people just like that. my wife using tiny ball sony speaker with her ishit and can`t be happier, it`s louder than internal speakers and it has mic in it. At least she keep it quiet when I spent unspeakable amount of money on electronics and ****. Usually she says "sounds good" to anything.
best buy ****ty speakers sounds to her just as good as wilsons.
Her stock venza sounds good enough that she specifically pointed out to me not to touch anything.


----------



## turbo5upra

Funny my old lady bitches that her car isn't loud enough and streaming via Bluetooth sounds like ass


----------



## Victor_inox

turbo5upra said:


> Funny my old lady bitches that her car isn't loud enough and streaming via Bluetooth sounds like ass


Lucky you! 
Mine does other things I love, if you know what I mean. 
My 5 years old loves good sound and asking me to play his favorite music all the time. hates mommies BT speaker and asked me to install stereo in his room.


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> Spence I`m wondering what is your qualifications about making statements as hearing science works? Or any science for that matter. Just wondering because it seems to me that you don`t have any, just a some reading on the net.
> So, IS has superior appearance? or is it 3 series? you got me confused.


I have a science education specializing in psychology and healthcare. Audio is a hobby. Thus the references to psychology and healthcare related studies, which I know about.

I've been big into car and home audio, and computer tech, as hobbies, since high school, way back in the day. Yes, I used to run the ole school stuff in my car systems.  Cheater amps, where did you go? I wasn't some typical high school or college student with ghetto rigged systems in my cars. I designed and installed my own systems properly, including my own speaker enclosures custom built. I'm not a n00b to the car audio world. lol

But who cares what my personal life includes? Not one point I've made has any relevance to my own personal life or opinions. Why keep making it personal?

The only references I've made to my personal experience (cars like my Lexus, healthcare and psych studies) have just been illustrations in an attempt to make my argument more clearly understood by anyone with a brain regardless of education level.

Now, if you want me to start speaking in techenese, I'll be happy to do so, if that will make you feel like I actually know what I'm talking about...


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> So, IS has superior appearance? or is it 3 series? you got me confused.


Uh, which do you think looks better? That's the right answer for YOU. I bought the one I think looks better. :laugh:

The point was, you can't scientifically prove, or argue with any objectivity, about things regarding personal preference. This relates to hearing amps, or other system components. What sounds best to one may not sound best to another. The right choice is whatever sounds best to you. What gets me is when people get arrogant about it and think they are the standard of hearing by which all others should be judged.

It would be like, "I obviously have better vision, because I can tell the BMW looks better and you can't." derp derp

OR, "You are obviously untrained about cars, because the Lexus looks better!" 

Such is caused by what we educated in psychology refer to as "egocentrism."


----------



## Dspencer

turbo5upra said:


> Funny my old lady bitches that her car isn't loud enough and streaming via Bluetooth sounds like ass


Mine appreciates sound quality, but she complains if I crank it up too loud.


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> exactly right, Most people just like that. my wife using tiny ball sony speaker with her ishit and can`t be happier, it`s louder than internal speakers and it has mic in it. At least she keep it quiet when I spent unspeakable amount of money on electronics and ****. Usually she says "sounds good" to anything.
> best buy ****ty speakers sounds to her just as good as wilsons.
> Her stock venza sounds good enough that she specifically pointed out to me not to touch anything.


Eeek. Stock systems - NO!!!! :laugh:

Thankfully, my wife appreciates the difference in sound quality for the music she loves, and let me upgrade her Highlander system. Before the upgrade I couldn't stand to go anywhere in that vehicle...JBL premium factory system my ass! :laugh:

I could barely tolerate my Lexus 13 speaker stock system. I mean, it was worlds better than the Highlander's factory system, but no, not acceptable.


----------



## Victor_inox

Terrific background, FYI that was not personal question just verification of your qualifications.
I have PHD in physics,quantum mechanics and electronics specifically.
I build more amplifiers in my life than most audiophiles had in their possession.
I also have a dozen audio related patents. Psychoacoustics was a part of my study some 25 years ago - golden age of audio. I tested shidload of musicians , regular joes, audiophiles, you name it. People hearing could be trained to notice smallest amounts in FR fluctuation, spectrum, perceived noise floor, etc.
many older participants performed much better than younger fellas despite age related hearing loss. old guys can enjoy music more than younger guys. have explanation of that fenomena? I do just want to hear yours.


----------



## cajunner

the truth about professional people is that they have more than their preference based on subjective review of amp performance.

they have more riding on whether their equipment works, and works well, than anyone in the recreational pursuit of music listening.


so the amp they choose, is built on a cost/performance ratio, they would rather pay 3 times the amount if their amp delivers during their work time, they NEED that amp to deliver.


so let's assume amps have circuits that protect the amp in overloading conditions.

most amps do.

many amps will ratchet down the current being passed through the amp if a protection circuit is triggered, which will degrade the amp's sonics, but allowing it to "play through" and while that protection circuit is engaged, the amp will be audibly different.

so a professional guy has experience with amps that halfway through a concert, start going mushy. He doesn't like it, his customers do not like it, the audience does not like it.

One amp is built to perform, and another amp is built to a price point. At start-up, one amp is going to sound the same as the other, but let them peak out for about 20 minutes and the cheap amp, is going to start going down hill. The professional amp that is built for the duty cycle of a professional performance, is not going down hill.


This is roughly translatable to car amps.

When you see an amp built with excellence in mind, say a Brax Matrix, or that big PPI F2500 or the Sony XM2000 or Luxman's CM20000 or whatever, those amps are high end, actually some of the highest end.

You put those amps into a situation of delivering a low impedance load and they don't freak out, trip thermals, start up protection systems, because they are built for the task.


Cheaper amps, built specifically for the lowest common denominator, may be able to hang with the marquee amps in a specialized test where the uncommon ability of the amps is not allowed to be expressed, but in just plain real working world applications, the ability of the amp to deliver across wider voltage spreads, to send high current through and not burn up from thermal runaway or the ability of the power supply to maintain the signal without saturation because the amp has higher tolerance design specs, these amps will absolutely be audibly superior, and it's not an ABX test that will give that impression, it's the time spent with the amp in various output conditions, it's the rock solid performance that lesser amps won't be able to give you.

I know, it seems like I'm fighting the blind studies crowd with subjective interpretation but the truth about amps doesn't reside in static tests, it lives in the use of the amps through demanding performance conditions, it lives in the space of expectation, we demand more from an amp we pay 3 times the amount, even if it's never pushed in our own scenarios. We want that ability, we will pay for that headroom.

Just like a sports car that can go 188 mph, which we'll never attempt, it's knowing that we own something more, something with design and engineering far beyond our capacity that suits us, something within us that wants to own excellence.


----------



## Victor_inox

Dspencer said:


> Eeek. Stock systems - NO!!!! :laugh:
> 
> Thankfully, my wife appreciates the difference in sound quality for the music she loves, and let me upgrade her Highlander system. Before the upgrade I couldn't stand to go anywhere in that vehicle...JBL premium factory system my ass! :laugh:
> 
> I could barely tolerate my Lexus 13 speaker stock system. I mean, it was worlds better than the Highlander's factory system, but no, not acceptable.


Well I think lexus is much better car overall , IN awd form, but bimmer looks better to me. 
You first post says your IS has 17 speakers. you forgot probably it`s too many ****ty speakers. 
I`ve had SC 430 with Mark levinson factory system and it was great for factory system.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> the truth about professional people is that they have more than their preference based on subjective review of amp performance.
> 
> they have more riding on whether their equipment works, and works well, than anyone in the recreational pursuit of music listening.
> 
> 
> so the amp they choose, is built on a cost/performance ratio, they would rather pay 3 times the amount if their amp delivers during their work time, they NEED that amp to deliver.
> 
> 
> so let's assume amps have circuits that protect the amp in overloading conditions.
> 
> most amps do.
> 
> many amps will ratchet down the current being passed through the amp if a protection circuit is triggered, which will degrade the amp's sonics, but allowing it to "play through" and while that protection circuit is engaged, the amp will be audibly different.
> 
> so a professional guy has experience with amps that halfway through a concert, start going mushy. He doesn't like it, his customers do not like it, the audience does not like it.
> 
> One amp is built to perform, and another amp is built to a price point. At start-up, one amp is going to sound the same as the other, but let them peak out for about 20 minutes and the cheap amp, is going to start going down hill. The professional amp that is built for the duty cycle of a professional performance, is not going down hill.
> 
> 
> This is roughly translatable to car amps.
> 
> When you see an amp built with excellence in mind, say a Brax Matrix, or that big PPI F2500 or the Sony XM2000 or Luxman's CM20000 or whatever, those amps are high end, actually some of the highest end.
> 
> You put those amps into a situation of delivering a low impedance load and they don't freak out, trip thermals, start up protection systems, because they are built for the task.
> 
> 
> Cheaper amps, built specifically for the lowest common denominator, may be able to hang with the marquee amps in a specialized test where the uncommon ability of the amps is not allowed to be expressed, but in just plain real working world applications, the ability of the amp to deliver across wider voltage spreads, to send high current through and not burn up from thermal runaway or the ability of the power supply to maintain the signal without saturation because the amp has higher tolerance design specs, these amps will absolutely be audibly superior, and it's not an ABX test that will give that impression, it's the time spent with the amp in various output conditions, it's the rock solid performance that lesser amps won't be able to give you.
> 
> I know, it seems like I'm fighting the blind studies crowd with subjective interpretation but the truth about amps doesn't reside in static tests, it lives in the use of the amps through demanding performance conditions, it lives in the space of expectation, we demand more from an amp we pay 3 times the amount, even if it's never pushed in our own scenarios. We want that ability, we will pay for that headroom.
> 
> Just like a sports car that can go 188 mph, which we'll never attempt, it's knowing that we own something more, something with design and engineering far beyond our capacity that suits us, something within us that wants to own excellence.


 It transferable to all electronics, car amps included. Pro gear built like tanks and for reason. what happens if this







connected to that







failed? actually not much as one stack dead would`n make any audible difference to crowd already experiencing temp hearing loss of 20 DB. pro amp usually cut down outs until causing condition disappeared.


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> Terrific background, FYI that was not personal question just verification of your qualifications.
> I have PHD in physics,quantum mechanics and electronics specifically.
> I build more amplifiers in my life than most audiophiles had in their possession.
> I also have a dozen audio related patents. Psychoacoustics was a part of my study some 25 years ago - golden age of audio. I tested shidload of musicians , regular joes, audiophiles, you name it. People hearing could be trained to notice smallest amounts in FR fluctuation, spectrum, perceived noise floor, etc.
> many older participants performed much better than younger fellas despite age related hearing loss. old guys can enjoy music more than younger guys. have explanation of that fenomena? I do just want to hear yours.


I believe that people can be trained to hear differences they could not perceive before. This could be a result of learning to focus and pay closer attention in some cases, such training causing an increase in psychological phenomena (like psychoacoustics), or other causes.

It is hard to truly test such things in a completely scientific way whenever humans are the subjects of such tests, because there is no way to take psychological phenomena off the list of possible variables skewing the results.

But, I believe it is possible for some to perceive more subtle differences in audio quality, without the need for scientific proof, because of personal experience. 

For example, my wife is not as picky about the components of her car audio upgrade as I am, so I purchased lower priced parts since she won't notice the difference - a penny saved is a penny earned :laugh:. I mean, from her perspective, the upgrade I did in her car is like heaven on earth compared to the factory system that was in there.

Then my father is even less picky about audio quality. He's perfectly fine with his Nissan Altima's factory system - eeeeek!

I have no provable explanation for why you found older folks to be better at being trained to hear differences than younger ones. That they have come to better appreciate the simple things in life, like the pleasure of listening to higher quality audio reproduction, seems like a valid theory to formulate.

There are always exceptions, with humans, however - such as my father who has much less appreciation for the finer details of musical reproduction than I do. But, it's not that he couldn't focus and hear the difference, it's that he just doesn't care - it's of no importance to him.


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> Well I think lexus is much better car overall , IN awd form, but bimmer looks better to me.
> You first post says your IS has 17 speakers. you forgot probably it`s too many ****ty speakers.
> I`ve had SC 430 with Mark levinson factory system and it was great for factory system.


Yes, the Mark Levinson system for Lexus vehicles is not bad at all. I'd still say it doesn't meet my standards, though.

And yes, the Pioneer built 13 speaker system mine came with doesn't have bad components. When I took the speakers out I was actually surprised by the build quality (compared to most factory speakers I've seen). BUT, that poor little amp in the trunk trying to power 13 speakers - not enough. 

I believe that is the #1 reason the factory system in my Lexus sounded like crap to me. Underpowered. That and the little 7" subwoofer...


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> It transferable to all electronics, car amps included. Pro gear built like tanks and for reason. what happens if this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> connected to that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> failed? actually not much as one stack dead would`n make any audible difference to crowd already experiencing temp hearing loss of 20 DB. pro amp usually cut down outs until causing condition disappeared.


the point I'm making is that amps are working machines.

if you put in quality parts, the machines work like they were designed and continue to work when conditions get hairy.


if you put in bean counter parts, and barely meet the bare minimum for the circuit to remain stable under near-ideal conditions, the amp may be sold for much less but you don't have the same performance.

If the question is, "Have car amps reached a point where the cheap-built amps have no sonic performance attributes that can be qualitatively proven inferior by expensive-built amps?" then I'd say that's debatable.

in the average install, an amp that can make 150W/ch before hitting 1% THD using a solid circuit design and with no counterfeit or defective parts, will probably not be easy to pick out over much higher cost amps with similar output capabilities.


but drive that same amp that came in with the cheap Chinese-built transistors that are "generic" and "jellybeans" and not "Sanken" or "Fairchild" or whatever, and the cheap op-amp copies instead of Texas Instruments genuine product, drive that amp with a long difficult load and performance will not remain the same.


differences WILL show up.


----------



## Dspencer

And to be extra clear, Victor, I don't believe we actually disagree on whether or not some can hear minor sound quality differences. That's why I continued to use the condition in my statements of both amps in consideration having good enough quality that any differences are beyond human threshold for hearing. 

I've used $150-$200 amps that were beyond that threshold, and much more costly amps that surprisingly weren't, and I could hear noise/distortion. That's not the norm, but it happens - companies over-hyping and using clever marketing to sell crap for a lot of money.

Tests have show this in wiring too - some cheap wires tested out with noise/distortion lower than human's can perceive (physically), while some expensive wiring had noticeable noise/distortion. Such tests showed it is not how "high end" the wiring is thought to be by marketing hype and cost, but what the real world application tests results were. 

This is why I'm very careful to research when buying amps. I set a budget I'm willing to spend for that particular upgrade at thas time, and then research out which amps in that price range have the specs and real world testing to prove they are of acceptable quality. 

Even when buying high priced amps, I'd research the same, to make sure I'm not buying some over-hyped piece of junk a company wants to scam me on.

If I didn't believe I could hear the difference, I wouldn't care, I'd just buy the cheapest possible amp putting out the power I want.


----------



## Victor_inox

Unimportance of HIFY to some we all agreed on. you old man don`t give a damn about it so was mine. My theory that older Gentlemen appreciate fine details in music because music is emotions they just have a better experience with it. I`ve seen old farts cry while listening especially fine examples. Now it gives me goose bumps as well. 
I`m not there crying yet but I understand their emotions. 
Coinsedently it always happening with cream of the crop amplifiers, turntables, reel to reel. they know nothing about who make it or how much it cost.
It also likely that they have had a lot of nice equipment during their lives as audio nuts and learn to hear nuances younger generation lost due to compressed media. 
reel to reel in car is ridiculous, Uncompressed music makes it`s slow return though.
I yanked XM radio out of my vehicle as I can`t stand it anymore, Pandora plus is slightly better but not by much. When XM started quality was better but they keep pushing more channels in the same bandwidth compressing it further. I`d rather get 10 channels then 150 of atrocious quality. and **** the sports, sport on radio is retarded. 
Sometimes I hate ****ing progress.


----------



## Dspencer

cajunner said:


> the point I'm making is that amps are working machines.
> 
> if you put in quality parts, the machines work like they were designed and continue to work when conditions get hairy.


Yes, of course. Probably all audio enthusiasts agree on this point.



> If the question is, "Have car amps reached a point where the cheap-built amps have no sonic performance attributes that can be qualitatively proven inferior by expensive-built amps?" then I'd say that's debatable.


I'd say it's not even debatable. No, I don't think cheap-built amps at this time will perform as well as ones well built with quality parts.



> in the average install, an amp that can make 150W/ch before hitting 1% THD using a solid circuit design and with no counterfeit or defective parts, will probably not be easy to pick out over much higher cost amps with similar output capabilities.
> 
> 
> but drive that same amp that came in with the cheap Chinese-built transistors that are "generic" and "jellybeans" and not "Sanken" or "Fairchild" or whatever, and the cheap op-amp copies instead of Texas Instruments genuine product, drive that amp with a long difficult load and performance will not remain the same.
> 
> 
> differences WILL show up.


I absolutely agree in both regards - average car audio scenario, and the mentioning of "long difficult load" scenario. Because, again, we agree, parts matter.

However, it does seem that with technological advancements, quality parts for electronics have become lower and lower cost. The price of an amp 15 years ago was much more telling of whether it was good quality or not, because the manufacturers had to charge the high price to make a profit, after spending so much on the parts.

Today, really high quality electronic parts can be had on the cheap for those manufacturers buying in bulk, and top quality circuit boards cost practically nothing.

This leads me to believe that some companies still charging outrageous prices for their amps are simply making a much, much higher profit margin. This is why I believe that there are mid-priced amps that can perform as well, or sometimes outperform, much higher priced competitors.

I believe JL Audio is a great example. I believe they over-price their stuff but are really good at marketing hype, so they can continue to make crazy profit margins. If you look at the specs and quality of parts level they use vs. a competitor price much lower, you'll often find that the competitor's product has the same level of quality materials, or higher, and as good or better specs, for less money.

Companies like JL Audio are riding on reputation and marketing hype to fill their pockets with extra money.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> the point I'm making is that amps are working machines.
> 
> if you put in quality parts, the machines work like they were designed and continue to work when conditions get hairy.
> 
> 
> if you put in bean counter parts, and barely meet the bare minimum for the circuit to remain stable under near-ideal conditions, the amp may be sold for much less but you don't have the same performance.
> 
> If the question is, "Have car amps reached a point where the cheap-built amps have no sonic performance attributes that can be qualitatively proven inferior by expensive-built amps?" then I'd say that's debatable.
> 
> in the average install, an amp that can make 150W/ch before hitting 1% THD using a solid circuit design and with no counterfeit or defective parts, will probably not be easy to pick out over much higher cost amps with similar output capabilities.
> 
> 
> but drive that same amp that came in with the cheap Chinese-built transistors that are "generic" and "jellybeans" and not "Sanken" or "Fairchild" or whatever, and the cheap op-amp copies instead of Texas Instruments genuine product, drive that amp with a long difficult load and performance will not remain the same.
> 
> 
> differences WILL show up.


100% agree with you. 
Fine example of that is Behringer A500 amp.
I bet if anything better sounding could be sourced for 5 times that price.
distortion is unmeasurable until you set volume controls anywhere but max.
That shows ****ty parts used and a small mistake in engineering.
But that $200 amp sounds great and volume bug can be easily fixed by using preamplifier with volume control. 
Behringer power supply using hardly sufficient components and goes out often.


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> Unimportance of HIFY to some we all agreed on. you old man don`t give a damn about it so was mine. My theory that older Gentlemen appreciate fine details in music because music is emotions they just have a better experience with it. I`ve seen old farts cry while listening especially fine examples. Now it gives me goose bumps as well.
> I`m not there crying yet but I understand their emotions.
> Coinsedently it always happening with cream of the crop amplifiers, turntables, reel to reel. they know nothing about who make it or how much it cost.
> It also likely that they have had a lot of nice equipment during their lives as audio nuts and learn to hear nuances younger generation lost due to compressed media.
> reel to reel in car is ridiculous, Uncompressed music makes it`s slow return though.
> I yanked XM radio out of my vehicle as I can`t stand it anymore, Pandora plus is slightly better but not by much. When XM started quality was better but they keep pushing more channels in the same bandwidth compressing it further. I`d rather get 10 channels then 150 of atrocious quality. and **** the sports, sport on radio is retarded.
> Sometimes I hate ****ing progress.


I can tolerate Pandora and happy to pay for it for the convenience/variety it offers. Never tried XM though in my systems - that sucks if they are degrading the quality of signal to fit more channels in...

Yes, sometimes progress seems to be a step backward in one way to make a step forward in another, for a time. Such as compressed media because digital music sources are more convenient than having 100 cd's in a huge book in your car, or a bunch of records...

But, as you mentioned, I think there are always enough people who appreciate quality that as technology continues to improve, companies find better ways to offer that convenient source material while increasing quality.

MP3 is a great example. MP3 quality 10 years ago was nowhere near what is available now. There are higher level MP3 formats available now that offer more musical detail and clarity than CD quality can. 

The downside is still that my higher quality MP3 files, and especially lossless files, take up much more storage space than the more compressed files. But, for me, it's worth the extra space needed - and still way more convenient than the 100+ cd's I used to have in my car. :laugh:

And I'm glad for progress in many ways - cell phones are a great example. My smartphone today has more computing power than my personal computer 10 years ago, by a lot. Plus, with technological advancements in manufacturing, such electronic devices, far superior in quality to those 10 years ago, cost less, or the same as back then. It's almost like we paid as much money for complete junk back then compared to what we can get now for that money.


----------



## cajunner

Dspencer said:


> Yes, of course. Probably all audio enthusiasts agree on this point.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say it's not even debatable. No, I don't think cheap-built amps at this time will perform as well as ones well built with quality parts.
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree in both regards - average car audio scenario, and the mentioning of "long difficult load" scenario. Because, again, we agree, parts matter.
> 
> However, it does seem that with technological advancements, quality parts for electronics have become lower and lower cost. The price of an amp 15 years ago was much more telling of whether it was good quality or not, because the manufacturers had to charge the high price to make a profit, after spending so much on the parts.
> 
> Today, really high quality electronic parts can be had on the cheap for those manufacturers buying in bulk, and top quality circuit boards cost practically nothing.
> 
> This leads me to believe that some companies still charging outrageous prices for their amps are simply making a much, much higher profit margin. This is why I believe that there are mid-priced amps that can perform as well, or sometimes outperform, much higher priced competitors.
> 
> I believe JL Audio is a great example. I believe they over-price their stuff but are really good at marketing hype, so they can continue to make crazy profit margins. If you look at the specs and quality of parts level they use vs. a competitor price much lower, you'll often find that the competitor's product has the same level of quality materials, or higher, and as good or better specs, for less money.
> 
> Companies like JL Audio are riding on reputation and marketing hype to fill their pockets with extra money.



JL is probably a bad example since they can be shown to develop their own boards, not uBuy stuff out of Ghzanghou or whatever, and do build product here in the states.

I understand your point, but if you look at the latest design in class D transistors, the reliance on faster switching to develop a higher sonic quality, is the separation, it is the dividing line between lesser amps switching at lower frequencies because the transistors themselves aren't capable.

JL and Alpine, leaders in quality class D designs, use these new transistors that are basically stuck to the board, you can't even desolder them to replace them, they are that small!

This allow their amps to have a superior sonic blueprint.

Now, if we remember days gone by, you could look into an amp and see cheap fat resistors, or ugly capacitors. Or conversely, WIMA poly capacitors, and nice resistors with blue backgrounds, indicating higher tolerance parts.


Today it's not so easy to detect a low cost build, from the higher cost ones just by peeking in, since most amps aren't going through-hole for their parts, and the ones that are, have sections of their amp that are SMT as well.


And it's true, the average quality of parts today is more consistent due to manufacturing processes being better, so you don't have the same swings in tolerance that old bits and pieces had.

It may be that I've simply become dated, my ideas about amps having a BOM using parts that run much higher due to performance related cost structures, is no longer valid.

I do come from the era of through-hole, where you could see the parts and read the names on the little bits, where not everything was mass produced in a plant in China, where you had proof, when you wanted to know why your amp cost more to make that great sound.


----------



## Victor_inox

I can`t stand JL amps for that exact reason, more hype than anything else completely blunt in my books. only worth buying used for a discount.
They do use some advanced tech in their power supplies and their buying power gets them quality parts, their QC is also great I never seen dud new amp of their. 
If you want to look at engineering marvel in car audio amps buy yourself a brax, any brax not just matrix. even used. Another example of awesomeness in engineering and sound quality is 15 years old planet audio HVT series. can be found NOS for a very little money.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Unimportance of HIFY to some we all agreed on. you old man don`t give a damn about it so was mine. My theory that older Gentlemen appreciate fine details in music because music is emotions they just have a better experience with it. I`ve seen old farts cry while listening especially fine examples. Now it gives me goose bumps as well.
> I`m not there crying yet but I understand their emotions.
> Coinsedently it always happening with cream of the crop amplifiers, turntables, reel to reel. they know nothing about who make it or how much it cost.
> It also likely that they have had a lot of nice equipment during their lives as audio nuts and learn to hear nuances younger generation lost due to compressed media.



older gentlemen lose testosterone, and the higher estrogen level in comparison to young men's hormonal balance, means higher emotional response.

that's why they cry, along with the life experience of knowing regret.


----------



## Victor_inox

Btw 400KHz switching frequency can be found in many amps of today, that tech is not monopolised by JL nor Alpine. 
SMd components actually better for engineering purpose not just lowering cost.
Shorter traces between components is desirable for reliability, stability and sound quality.
manufacturers can`t care less if it fail, they simply replace PCB with all components assembled by placing machine.makes it unrepairable by average joe with soldering iron.
One of the big reasons old tube amplifiers sounded so good is that PTP assembly, easiest to repair and shortest possible connections. but expensive manual labor and through holes PCBs killed that. dual layers save space and shorten connections as well. 
Some of the best car amps was made like that. 
Yes I`m old. I love my gear repairability.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> older gentlemen lose testosterone, and the higher estrogen level in comparison to young men's hormonal balance, means higher emotional response.
> 
> that's why they cry, along with the life experience of knowing regret.


You ****ing ruined it, damn you! 
On other hand it`s not making them less males in my book and better people to hang with due to their life experiences. Old farts knows a thing or two I can learn from.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> You ****ing ruined it, damn you!


it's still beautiful, in that shrinking violet way...



I mean, if old men have all that money, and it doesn't bring them SOMETHING when they spend it on luxury items, wouldn't that be a shame?


I look forward to the day when the equipment makes me cry, because I am so caught up in the sound.

because that's all I'll have left, the plumbing will be out of order, and the desire to bed down women with pretty genitalia will have subsided...


----------



## Victor_inox

Or maybe you got it backwards? maybe they spent all that money on fine things because they care? 
****ing is overrated, I spent so much of my time doing just that when I could be doing something more productive for mankind.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Btw 400KHz switching frequency can be found in many amps of today, that tech is not monopolised by JL nor Alpine.
> SMd components actually better for engineering purpose not just lowering cost.
> Shorter traces between components is desirable for reliability, stability and sound quality.
> manufacturers can`t care less if it fail, they simply replace PCB with all components assembled by placing machine.makes it unrepairable by average joe with soldering iron.
> One of the big reasons old tube amplifiers sounded so good is that PTP assembly, easiest to repair and shortest possible connections. but expensive manual labor and through holes PCBs killed that. dual layers save space and shorten connections as well.
> Some of the best car amps was made like that.
> Yes I`m old. I love my gear repairability.


those old PTP-built amps were inefficient class A tube monsters, little room heaters with a grill instead of a cover. No complicated genius circuits, just simple valve technique and better quality iron, for the transformer plates.

Reading about Sansui and how he helped develop better transformers, and used them in his amplifiers, I always wonder if many generations later the company that Sansui became, still adhered to using a better parts/design on their mass produced transformer used in their amps.

I'm pretty old too, about 3 years behind ya. Shrinking nut sack is coming for us all...


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Or maybe you got it backwards? maybe they spent all that money on fine things because they care?
> ****ing is overrated, I spent so much of my time doing just that when I could be doing something more productive for mankind.


no, that can't be it.


:laugh::laugh:


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> those old PTP-built amps were inefficient class A tube monsters, little room heaters with a grill instead of a cover. No complicated genius circuits, just simple valve technique and better quality iron, for the transformer plates.
> 
> Reading about Sansui and how he helped develop better transformers, and used them in his amplifiers, I always wonder if many generations later the company that Sansui became, still adhered to using a better parts/design on their mass produced transformer used in their amps.
> 
> I'm pretty old too, about 3 years behind ya. Shrinking nut sack is coming for us all...


THan we`ll found another pleasures in life. Or wait, we have.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> THan we`ll found another pleasures in life. Or wait, we have.


you could say that audio is a hedge against the rat race of modern man.

modern man is supposed to be strong, smart, witty, rich, funny and understanding, and well hung.

audio just requires you to be a decent listener, funny how easy it is to escape into some tunes, and somehow we argue over semantics like amp sound.

if we lose the well hung, we don't have to be strong smart, witty, funny or understanding.

it'll help to be rich, though...


----------



## Victor_inox

I feel pretty, 
Oh, so pretty............. 
Good night I`m crashing.


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> I can`t stand JL amps for that exact reason, more hype than anything else completely blunt in my books. only worth buying used for a discount.
> They do use some advanced tech in their power supplies and their buying power gets them quality parts, their QC is also great I never seen dud new amp of their.
> If you want to look at engineering marvel in car audio amps buy yourself a brax, any brax not just matrix. even used. Another example of awesomeness in engineering and sound quality is 15 years old planet audio HVT series. can be found NOS for a very little money.



What's the engineering marvel in the Brax amps? Aren't they a basic triple darlington design? 

I'd say there is quite a bit of cutting edge engineering in the JL HD amps.


----------



## legend94

captainobvious said:


> What's the engineering marvel in the Brax amps? Aren't they a basic triple darlington design?



i want to hear more about your favorite amps. brax, planet audio hvt...and?


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> What's the engineering marvel in the Brax amps? Aren't they a basic triple darlington design?
> 
> I'd say there is quite a bit of cutting edge engineering in the JL HD amps.


Best of the best amplifiers of all times has simple design.

JL HD is more complicated and was at the time of introduction cutting edge.
cutting edge doesn`t mean much because cutting edge moves off the edge very fast.  
If anything JL XD is more cutting edge IMHO. Almost the same thing is appreciably smaller package.


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> i want to hear more about your favorite amps. brax, planet audio hvt...and?


I think reading this would be more beneficialNelson Pass Interview - Audiophile Review


----------



## legend94

Victor_inox said:


> I think reading this would be more beneficialNelson Pass Interview - Audiophile Review


good read and nice way they named the gfa amp if thats true.


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> good read and nice way they named the gfa amp if thats true.


Maybe true because these are indeed Great ****ing amplifiers.


----------



## spaceace60

co_leonard said:


> I would just like to share a story.
> 
> I have two amplifiers of the same brand and the same model. Both are barely a year old. Opening them up, they both show the same date-codes and quality control stamps on the PCB which means they probably came from one manufacturing batch. Carefully examining the individual components, the soldering as well as the build quality shows no visible differences. Safe to say they will measure similarly on a test bench, given the exact same gain settings.
> 
> The capacitors in one of the amplifiers was upgraded. Here are pictures (not actual) of the new capacitors:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Generic power supply caps were changed to Nichicon KG Gold Tune. Low-level electrolytic caps were replaced with Nichicon ES Muse. The small square polypropylene caps were replaced with Wima MKP. The work was professionally done, with a temperature controlled soldering iron and solder sucker tool. No part of the PCB was damaged in the process.
> 
> Only the caps were upgraded. Nothing else was touched.
> 
> The upgraded amp was used for roughly three weeks (played around 5 hours a day) in a friend's car.
> 
> No idea if the upgraded amp will measure the same as the stock amp, but when I swapped it with the stock amp in my car and carefully set (with an oscilloscope) similar gains, it sure sounded a whole lot better!
> 
> My friends and I agreed that we started hearing things we didn't hear before. Here are some examples: Low-level details such as pages turning (Salena Jones, We've Only Just Begun), improved attacks (The Sheffield Drum and Track Record - Amuseum) snare drum strikes seemed to "pop" a whole lot more and longer decays on cymbals (it became easier to follow the sound of a cymbal strike decay down to the noise floor) and the sound of the singers mouth opening to sing (Jane Monheit, Somewhere Over the Rainbow).
> 
> Just to be sure, we swapped back the stock amp (gain settings reset with the same oscilloscope). Those low-level details all but disappeared. We had to keep really quiet and concentrate to hear what was immediately audible with the upgraded amp.
> 
> Then we put back the upgraded amp and the improvements we heard were all back.
> 
> So...
> 
> Does this have to do with "watts?" Doubtful. Gains were carefully matched and the amp's output devices were untouched.
> 
> What about other factors such as Frequency Response, Bandwidth, Output Noise, THD+N, TIM, Crosstalk? Maybe. But measuring these are beyond my capabilities.
> 
> Perhaps I should take both amps to a professional and have them measured?
> 
> Happy Holidays!


i'm not sure what the difference is/was but the fact that you could hear those subtle differences says alot to me! (and i believe what your saying!) I'm not sure whats the actual reason?(ie:what parts cause what?? but as a pro guitarist i sure as hell can tell one guitar amps tone/coloration from another!! and even the difference in warmth between tube vs. solidstate!!(infact i can hear the difference between 6l6's and 5881's even between brands ect!!) theres a difference in harmonics,feel,ect ect so there is a ton of difference in guitar amps so i can't imagine all car amps could sound equal???? bottomline no way different components used from 1 car amp to another could sound the same?? hell even amps that are hardwired vs. ones that use all pc boards sound different(like an old wired Marshall to a new circuitboard Marshall)


----------



## WRX/Z28

spaceace60 said:


> i'm not sure what the difference is/was but the fact that you could hear those subtle differences says alot to me! (and i believe what your saying!) I'm not sure whats the actual reason?(ie:what parts cause what?? but as a pro guitarist i sure as hell can tell one guitar amps tone/coloration from another!! and even the difference in warmth between tube vs. solidstate!!(infact i can hear the difference between 6l6's and 5881's even between brands ect!!) theres a difference in harmonics,feel,ect ect so there is a ton of difference in guitar amps so i can't imagine all car amps could sound equal???? bottomline no way different components used from 1 car amp to another could sound the same?? hell even amps that are hardwired vs. ones that use all pc boards sound different(like an old wired Marshall to a new circuitboard Marshall)


Music production and reproduction are two different things. Car amps are supposed to add/subtract nothing fron the signal, guitar amps are purposely built with eq and distortion built in. What else is it that you guys think changes in the signal from the point it goes in until the time it comes out, esides the obvious eq, phase, and power level?


----------



## Victor_inox

I don`t give an obese rodent rectum how much reproduction of music differ from recorded version. Music an emotional matter to me, it rather sounds good or it doesn`t.
in that regard amps sounds different, there is some amps I hate with 0.002% distortion. not everything can and should be measured. 
I suggest we agree to disagree instead of running circles for 43 pages.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I don`t give an obese rodent rectum how much reproduction of music differ from recorded version. Music an emotional matter to me, it rather sounds good or it doesn`t.
> in that regard amps sounds different, there is some amps I hate with 0.002% distortion. not everything can and should be measured.
> I suggest we agree to disagree instead of running circles for 43 pages.


Or tell me what changes from input of the amp to output besides inaudible distortion, eq, phase and power... Its not a trick question, or one that you guys are likely to answer without some serious reflection on your stance...


----------



## Victor_inox

It seems you don`t believe in sonic signatures of an amp. 
because what you saying is that every modification people going crazy about is a waste of money. pioneer 99 mods, etc. 
caps/res upgrades..... 
Components sounds different like it or not.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> It seems you don`t believe in sonic signatures of an amp.
> because what you saying is that every modification people going crazy about is a waste of money. pioneer 99 mods, etc.
> caps/res upgrades.....
> Components sounds different like it or not.



So what changes from input to output, specifically? If an amp has a sonic signature, it's failing at it's only job, That's an amp I don't want.  but even a sonic signature can be compensated for via EQ.

I see you're skirting the question, and I'm not surprised.


----------



## WRX/Z28

WRX/Z28 said:


> Exactly. It's amazing that I can hear the slightest difference in T/A, EQ, phase, positioning, speakers, even recordings... yet amps all sound identical when driven within their unclipped range, and making the same power.
> 
> If an amp sounds different, it has failed at it's only job, which is taking an input signal and making it bigger. An amp should be transparent, otherwise it's functioning as an EQ, or phase adjuster.
> 
> People that haven't properly implemented time alignment seem to be the one who think amps make huge differences, because if they used it properly they'd see that T/A makes an enormous difference, one that far exceeds any hopes that an amp has of making. EQ makes the next biggest difference when used properly. EQ has the capability of making huge changes in sound.
> 
> Speakers make a huge difference as well, as does placement. Even environment makes a larger difference than any amp does, or ever should.
> 
> Those insisting amp make huge differences have some vested interest in proving it. Either they produce/sell amps themselves, or they purchased an expensive amp, and need to justify it to not feel foolish.
> 
> Not one person insisting that amps sound different has ever mentioned that they properly tested for the difference. It was always some vauge "I changed them out, and wow what a difference" These statements were never under the same conditions, never said to even be the same track, nevermind being able to A/B compare. This puts this insistence somewhere on the top tier of BS, since you've never really properly tested to begin with.
> 
> Those that insist never have a measurement that explains the difference, they just have again, some vague notion that one performed better than the other, with minutes or even hours between testing. Noone ever points out what changed, whether it be eq curve, phase, or output, since these are generally the only things that make the difference people are claiming (other than magic dust  ). We are all expected to believe in some difference that can't be quantified because someone insists they heard it. The manner that they arrived to this conclusion is beyond flawed, but they insist anyway that it's undeniable proof, because their ears can't be wrong, and it's not their ears that are wrong, it's their testing methods.
> 
> It's ok, these guys will continue to chase sonic nirvana in their amps instead of chasing it in things that actually matter.
> 
> Best of luck in the hunt, I know which way i'll achieve phenomenal sound, and it's not going to be by swapping amps a hundred times.


Just to reiterate my logic infused stance...


----------



## Victor_inox

So somehow it`s OK for you to be stubborn but not for me?
the same set of facts can be tailored to fit any preconceived belief.
Every amp has sonic signature so you don`t want any amp, I`ve got that. 
Now you have to find an amp with most neutral signature but only you can do it for yourself. Most people stuck with what they want or found adequate for their needs. No you can`t copy amp sound sig using EQ only.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> So somehow it`s OK for you to be stubborn but not for me?
> the same set of facts can be tailored to fit any preconceived belief.
> Every amp has sonic signature so you don`t want any amp, I`ve got that.
> Now you have to find an amp with most neutral signature but only you can do it for yourself. Most people stuck with what they want or found adequate for their needs. No you can`t copy amp sound sig using EQ only.


So what changes that can't be accounted for, other than distortion (inaudible in any good amp btw)? 

It's not about being stubborn, tell me what I should measure that will get me a good sounding amp instead of a bad sounding one? 

I could copy any amp eq signature with a proper processor that has a Q adjustment and exact band adjustment and fine enough level adjustments (and enough bands to cover the amps additions). Again, if it has a sonic signature, it fails the sound quality test. 


Please answer my question.


----------



## Victor_inox

You achieved phenomenal sound, mission accomplished, move on on another hobby!


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> You achieved phenomenal sound, mission accomplished, move on on another hobby!


It's not just a hobby for me... but still, answer the question please.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> So what changes that can't be accounted for, other than distortion (inaudible in any good amp btw)?
> 
> It's not about being stubborn, tell me what I should measure that will get me a good sounding amp instead of a bad sounding one?
> 
> I could copy any amp eq signature with a proper processor that has a Q adjustment and exact band adjustment and fine enough level adjustments. Again, if it has a sonic signature, it fails the sound quality test.
> 
> 
> Please answer my question.


 I answered, you ignored it. 
For the 10th million time it`s not about sounds good or bad, it`s different.
difference could be very small and insignificant for most but it`s there.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I answered, you ignored it.
> For the 10th million time it`s not about sounds good or bad, it`s different.
> difference could be very small and insignificant for most but it`s there.


Where did you answer it? I don't see it. 

What changes from input to output that can't be accounted for? Besides the obvious EQ, Phase, Distortion (proven to be inaudible) and power...

What is different? Can you measure the difference?


----------



## Victor_inox

its music not math and it sounds different to me. bite me!
Can you measure difference between strat and les paul?I`d certainly be interested in these results.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> its music not math and it sounds different to me. bite me!


Amazing, you can't answer the question but you insist that your position is infallible... 

I already know the answer to my question, and I think you do too...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Amazing, you can't answer the question but you insist that your position is infallible...
> 
> I already know the answer to my question, and I think you do too...



So is yours. read it again, answer my question.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> So is yours. read it again, answer my question.


I could certainly measure the difference between either one electrically.  Now you, since I was so gracious to answer your question first, while you continue to skirt mine...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> I could certainly measure the difference between either one electrically.  Now you, since I was so gracious to answer your question first, while you continue to skirt mine...


So you saying you can make Strat sound like les paul?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> So you saying you can make Strat sound like les paul?


Electrically? sure...  Remember, amps don't produce sound, they take an input and make it bigger. 

Guitars produce sound, however, I can measure all of the electrical difference after the production...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Electrically? sure...


musically? I`l`ll help you here, one so far was able to emulate that indistinguishably, close, maybe but never the same. Why do you think is that? Maybe we missing certain measurements?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Please attempt to answer my question, since you think amps are so different that we can't account for an FR anomaly in a flawed amp, or a power difference, or phase difference... 

I'm waiting. I answered your question even though you refuse to answer mine. It's only fair...


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> musically? I`l`ll help you here, one so far was able to emulate that indistinguishably, close, maybe but never the same. Why do you think is that? Maybe we missing certain measurements?


First off, try answering my question, and i'll elaborate on my answer to yours... I'm waiting for the inevitable "something that can't be measured" reference to fairy dust and mythical unicorns that hide in the metal case that amplifies my sound.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> First off, try answering my question, and i'll elaborate on my answer to yours...


 What question was that?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> What question was that?


:laugh: You are a tool.


----------



## Victor_inox

read my signature, i expressed my point of view, I`m not sure what else I can add to that. 
Not everything measurable or known how to measure.
GUitar example is perfect illustration to that point of view.
Music instruments has been measured million of times, still there not a good copy of stradivarius violin. there no exact sounding pianos unless it`s a sampler.
about 15 years ago Technics introduces physical modelling synthesiser.
Idea was to model physical process of actual instrument, it has big following back then, people tried to model real instruments and shared libraries. still not the same as real instruments.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> :laugh: You are a tool.


You just realised that?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> read my signature, i expressed my point of view, I`m not sure what else I can add to that.
> Not everything measurable or known how to measure.
> GUitar example is perfect illustration to that point of view.
> Music instruments has been measured million of times, still there not a good copy of stradivarius violin. there no exact sounding pianos unless it`s a sampler.
> about 15 years ago Technics introduces physical modelling synthesiser.
> Idea was to model physical process of actual instrument, it has big following back then, people tried to model real instruments and shared libraries. still not the same as real instruments.


You can add the answer to: What changes from the input side of an amp to the output side that can't be measured and accounted for, besides distortion (inaudible), phase, EQ or FR, and power? 

It's an electrical device, not a physical musical instrument. Don't you know the difference?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> You just realised that?


Just realized how big of a tool, I figured you were just mistaken, and/or not understanding what we were saying. Now I see that it doesn't matter, you don't want to understand, you want to cling to the belief that there is some intangible fairy dust and unicorns addition to an amps input signal that you just have to try every single one to account for... 

Sorry man...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> You can add the answer to: What changes from the input side of an amp to the output side that can't be measured and accounted for, besides distortion (inaudible), phase, EQ or FR, and power?
> 
> It's an electrical device, not a physical musical instrument. Don't you know the difference?


HOw it can`t be answered if there is no measurements?
I know the difference, question is can you measure it in electronic domain?
after it recorded? I assume you can. next question would be can you replicate it with different instrument.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> HOw it can`t be answered if there is no measurements?
> I know the difference, question is can you measure it in electronic domain?
> after it recorded? I assume you can. next question would be can you replicate it with different instrument.


So now there are differences in an electrical signal that can't be measured? Did you watch the movie Pulse one too many times? There are no serial killers in the wires man...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Just realized how big of a tool, I figured you were just mistaken, and/or not understanding what we were saying. Now I see that it doesn't matter, you don't want to understand, you want to cling to the belief that there is some intangible fairy dust and unicorns addition to an amps input signal that you just have to try every single one to account for...
> 
> Sorry man...


 I feel sorry for you, man. you believe in your oscilloscope more than in your ears.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I feel sorry for you, man. you believe in your oscilloscope more than in your ears.


I feel sorry for you man, you think electricity is magic...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> So now there are differences in an electrical signal that can't be measured? Did you watch the movie Pulse one too many times? There are no serial killers in the wires man...


 Why it wasn`t measured yet to fake cheap electric guitar into good one? 

BTW I never watched that movie.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Why it wasn`t measured yet to fake cheap electric guitar into good one?
> 
> BTW I never watched that movie.


Electrical signals man, stick to the topic at hand. So now you think something can be added to an electrical signal that can't be measured and accounted for?


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> I feel sorry for you man, you think electricity is magic...



I probably know more about electricity that 99.9% of college graduates.
I also listen with my ears not my measurements equipment.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I probably know more about electricity that 99.9% of college graduates.
> I also listen with my ears not my measurements equipment.


That's wonderful, it's not seeming that way tonight. 

Maybe if you spent more time measuring, and understanding electrical signal, you might understand what is changing in what you're hearing.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Electrical signals man, stick to the topic at hand. So now you think something can be added to an electrical signal that can't be measured and accounted for?


 Why is that when you don`t have an answer you telling me that something irrelevant to the topic? you completely disregard a fact that psycho acoustics play huge role in sound perception.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> That's wonderful, it's not seeming that way tonight.
> 
> Maybe if you spent more time measuring, and understanding electrical signal, you might understand what is changing in what you're hearing.


I`ll keep that in mind.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Why is that when you don`t have an answer you telling me that something irrelevant to the topic? you completely disregard a fact that psycho acoustics play huge role in sound perception.


Psychoacoustics are a huge part in the perceived difference in amps... you're absolutely right on that. 

What don't I have an answer for? How musical instruments sound different? of course they do, different materials, construction methods, dimensions, weight, but they are creating sound, not amplifying sound that has already been created...

What can be added to an electrical signal that can't be measured?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I`ll keep that in mind.


You should... seriously.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Psychoacoustics are a huge part in the perceived difference in amps... you're absolutely right on that.
> 
> What don't I have an answer for? How musical instruments sound different? of course they do, different materials, construction methods, dimensions, weight, but they are creating sound, not amplifying sound that has already been created...
> 
> What can be added to an electrical signal that can't be measured?


Why are you so uptight with can can not? Aside from a fact that if output measurement differ from input you don`t want that amp.
how much difference there should be to dismiss that amp as impervious to reference point? Inaudible? OK but audible or inaudible differ from listener to listener.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Why are you so uptight with can can not? Aside from a fact that if output measurement differ from input you don`t want that amp.
> how much difference there should be to dismiss that amp as impervious to reference point? Inaudible? OK but audible or inaudible differ from listener to listener.


So you're an engineer that throws science out the window, and thinks that some things in an electrical signal can't be measured? Bizarre...

Never met a competent engineer that didn't believe that science can explain everything... I guess a higher power governs the electrical signal in amplifiers...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> So you're an engineer that throws science out the window, and thinks that some things in an electrical signal can't be measured? Bizarre...
> 
> Never met a competent engineer that didn't believe that science can explain everything...


Don`t put words in my mouth. 
Science try to explain everything, sometimes things just more complicated than they appeared, that required more time/research. 
Real scientist should never accept easiest answer because often it`s not complete or incorrect. THe moment you stopped questioning yourself you are no longer a scientist.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Don`t put words in my mouth.
> Science try to explain everything, sometimes things just more complicated than they appeared, that required more time/research.
> Real scientist should never accept easiest answer because often it`s not complete or incorrect. THe moment you stopped questioning yourself you are no longer a scientist.


So there are electrical principles that have yet to be discovered? Can't be measured? Just say yes... and then you can go turn in your engineering degree...

It's ok, you've been exposed. Just go with it, and science be damned!!!


----------



## WestCo

Victor_inox said:


> Don`t put words in my mouth.
> Science try to explain everything, sometimes things just more complicated than they appeared, that required more time/research.
> Real scientist should never accept easiest answer because often it`s not complete or incorrect. THe moment you stopped questioning yourself you are no longer a scientist.


Very true, Victor


----------



## WRX/Z28

WestCo said:


> Very true, Victor


Maybe he should question his belief in amplifiers changing sound without electrical differences involved... 

Instruments are always far superior at measurements than our eyes/ears... hence the reason for tape measures and levels at the simplest level. 

Time to re-evaluate your beliefs... and time to start learning the science of sound, instead of subscribing to the snake oil hocus pocus of sound...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> So there are electrical principles that have yet to be discovered? Can't be measured? Just say yes... and then you can go turn in your engineering degree...
> 
> It's ok, you've been exposed. Just go with it, and science be damned!!!


you should rename 12v company to measured music or something like that. keep measuring. close your mind to any possibilities that you might don't know everything. Sorry, you already did.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> you should rename 12v company to measured music or something like that. keep measuring. close your mind to any possibilities that you might don't know everything. Sorry, you already did.


Never said I knew everything, I do know that electrical signals can be measured in every way imaginable, and I know that you know it too... at least if you really are an electrical engineer. 

You should rename your 12v company to Hocus Pocus sound. "We don't know why it sounds better, it just does, believe me on that, cause I heard it with my golden ears that are much better than yours, so you should just learn how to listen." I know it's a long tag line, but just trust me, it'll catch on.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Maybe he should question his belief in amplifiers changing sound without electrical differences involved...
> 
> Instruments are always far superior at measurements than our eyes/ears... hence the reason for tape measures and levels at the simplest level.
> 
> Time to re-evaluate your beliefs... and time to start learning the science of sound, instead of subscribing to the snake oil hocus pocus of sound...


 I`d listen to you if I give a ****, but I don`t. 
I never said anything about electrical differences, you keep putting words in my mouth. 
instrumen`t are not alway superior to our senses. amazing that you don`t know that while pretending to be an engineer/ scientist.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Never said I knew everything, I do know that electrical signals can be measured in every way imaginable, and I know that you know it too... at least if you really are an electrical engineer.
> 
> You should rename your 12v company to Hocus Pocus sound. "We don't know why it sounds better, it just does, believe me on that, cause I heard it with my golden ears that are much better than yours, so you should just learn how to listen." I know it's a long tag line, but just trust me, it'll catch on.


 read my previous post, I don`t give a ****.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I`d listen to you if I give a ****, but I don`t.
> I never said anything about electrical differences, you keep putting words in my mouth.
> instrumen`t are not alway superior to our senses. amazing that you don`t know that while pretending to be an engineer/ scientist.


 I think I've sufficiently exposed the fact that you have no idea why an amp sounds different besides the obvious measurable reasons, and that's because there are no other reasons. 

Best of luck with your Hocus Pocus sound systems that rely on "It sounds better because I said it does, don't bother to ask why!"


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> I think I've sufficiently exposed the fact that you have no idea why an amp sounds different besides the obvious measurable reasons, and that's because there are no other reasons.
> 
> Best of luck with your Hocus Pocus sound systems that rely on "It sounds better because I said it does, don't bother to ask why!"


 Sure thing, ever occurred to you that maybe I don`t want to share with you?
because I don`t see a point. I have nothing to prove to you and nothing to learn from you. 
Or BTW stuff I sell explained in details.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Sure thing, ever occurred to you that maybe I don`t want to share with you?
> because I don`t see a point. I have nothing to prove to you and nothing to learn from you.
> Or BTW stuff I sell explained in details.


LOL, sure, you're here on a forum insisting in the magic of amplifiers, but you don't want to tell us how or why. 

Come on man. I'm about to break out my hip waders...

and that's your problem, you think you have nothing to learn from me. I'm not so pretentious to think that about you, I'm always learning, and I'm sure you know some things that maybe I don't.


----------



## WestCo

WRX/Z28 said:


> Maybe he should question his belief in amplifiers changing sound without electrical differences involved...
> 
> Instruments are always far superior at measurements than our eyes/ears... hence the reason for tape measures and levels at the simplest level.
> 
> Time to re-evaluate your beliefs... and time to start learning the science of sound, instead of subscribing to the snake oil hocus pocus of sound...


No I am good. 

The layout of an amp can change the sound. With everything else being equal. 

Sound as an electrical wave or mechanical wave is changed by its environment. It doesn't take much to change things. 

Admittedly most of the mainstream gear out there sounds pretty similar (using ppi amps as a benchmark) for what they are they are nice for the price. Now put that head to head with a class A or class A baised amp and a high resolution source; you are going to notice a significant increase in clarity provided you have a good set of drivers. 

Even test equipment has it's shortcomings, and RTA gear isn't a whole picture of how a system will sound (especially using test tones or generated noise). These are my beliefs and I, like you, am set in my ways.


----------



## WRX/Z28

WestCo said:


> No I am good.
> 
> The layout of an amp can change the sound. With everything else being equal.
> 
> Sound as an electrical wave or mechanical wave is changed by its environment. It doesn't take much to change things.
> 
> Admittedly most of the mainstream gear out there sounds pretty similar (using ppi amps as a benchmark) for what they are they are nice for the price. Now put that head to head with a class A or class A baised amp and a high resolution source; you are going to notice a significant increase in clarity provided you have a good set of drivers.
> 
> Even test equipment has it's shortcomings, and RTA gear isn't a whole picture of how a system will sound (especially using test tones or generated noise). These are my beliefs and I, like you, am set in my ways.


So the layout of an amp can have no effect on the electrical signal, but still change the sound?  Keep reaching.


BTW, I own more old school PPI amps than anyone here. They don't sound any different than anything else I own when driven below clipping and compared at identical power.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> LOL, sure you're here on a forum insisting in the magic of amplifiers, but you don't want to tell us how or why.
> 
> Come on man. I'm about to break out my hip waders...


 
where did I said about magic ? You, again putting words in my mouth.
amps sounds different, measured or unmeasured. 
I obviously failed to defend my position but I just don`t see a point.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> where did I said about magic ? You, again putting words in my mouth.
> amps sounds different, measured or unmeasured.
> I obviously failed to defend my position but I just don`t see a point.


See, here is your issue, you know you can't defend that point, but you're still hanging on instead of learning, and questioning your beliefs. 

I used to be in your shoes, you can look back to my early posts where I vehemently insisted that amps sounded different, until I removed all the variables, and A/B'd them blind. I then found out how wrong I was.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> So the layout of an amp can have no effect on the electrical signal, but still change the sound?  Keep reaching.
> 
> 
> BTW, I own more old school PPI amps than anyone here. They don't sound any different than anything else I own when driven below clipping and compared at identical power.


Seriously dude, it`s not just me you do that to everyone. where did WestCO said that?


----------



## WestCo

WRX/Z28 said:


> So the layout of an amp can have no effect on the electrical signal, but still change the sound?  Keep reaching.
> 
> 
> BTW, I own more old school PPI amps than anyone here. They don't sound any different than anything else I own when driven below clipping and compared at identical power.


No, the layout does effect the electrical signal. Simplest case being E/M interference. 

I was referring to the new school elcheapo amps. They don't sound too bad, especially for the price. I haven't had the pleasure of old school ppi. But the old school Lanzars... I hoard them.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Seriously dude, it`s not just me you do that to everyone. where did WestCO said that?





WestCo said:


> The layout of an amp can change the sound. With everything else being equal.
> .


Right here.


----------



## WRX/Z28

WestCo said:


> No, the layout does effect the electrical signal. Simplest case being E/M interference.
> 
> I was referring to the new school elcheapo amps. They don't sound too bad, especially for the price. I haven't had the pleasure of old school ppi. But the old school Lanzars... I hoard them.



So how does that manifest itself on the output of the amp compared to input, what measurement changes? What allows you to measure supposed electromagnetic interference in an amp?


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> See, here is your issue, you know you can't defend that point, but you're still hanging on instead of learning, and questioning your beliefs.
> 
> I used to be in your shoes, you can look back to my early posts where I vehemently insisted that amps sounded different, until I removed all the variables, and A/B'd them blind. I then found out how wrong I was.


 congratulations!
I have better things to do as to research your posts, sorry. 
What variables you removed? did you disassembled and assembled with identical parts? If not then you failed to remove all variables.


----------



## WestCo

WRX/Z28 said:


> So how does that manifest itself on the output of the amp compared to input, what measurement changes? What allows you to measure supposed electromagnetic interference in an amp?


It can manifest itself as spikes or valleys in frequency response. Mid range frequencies are especially vulnerable to the effect.

Easiest way to look at EM interference is noise level at the output. That is the same way we test potential cables. Run high current wires next to a set of RCA's of equivalent length and measure the noise level. 

If someone were to change the configuration of an amp; tests could easily be done with RTA gear.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> congratulations!
> I have better things to do as to research your posts, sorry.
> What variables you removed? did you disassembled and assembled with identical parts? If not then you failed to remove all variables.


The variables in the testing methods, not the amps you wackadoodle... :laugh:


It's ok man, I hated DS-21 with a passion, and stuck to my guns too. Then logic got the better of me, and I was tired of spending thousands on amps blindly believing that they sounded better... I wanted to prove that the giant collection of amps I built up all had different characteristics.

Then one day a couple buddies of mine helped me test it out. I wanted to badly to tell him that I could pick out which amp was which if I just listened long enough. I wanted to tell him that my friends could too...

Once I level matched, turned off all crossovers and boosts, and used my scope to ensure that nothing clipped and played through studio monitors. I couldn't tell a difference, and couldn't even guess... I probably should have thanked that guy, but he was kind of an asshat about it, which is probably the way I'm coming off, but it's ok. One day you'll actually be curious and want to see for yourself in the correct way, and your eyes will be opened. 

Maybe one day you'll accept that fact that I'm not an asshat, and you'll appreciate that I made you test for yourself... or maybe not. Who am I kidding? You're stubborn as hell. You'll probably just insist to me in the next post that you already tested for yourself, and your flawed testing showed a difference... definitely one that can't be quantified.


----------



## WRX/Z28

WestCo said:


> It can manifest itself as spikes or valleys in frequency response. Mid range frequencies are especially vulnerable to the effect.
> 
> Easiest way to look at EM interference is noise level at the output. That is the same way we test potential cables. Run high current wires next to a set of RCA's of equivalent length and measure the noise level.
> 
> If someone were to change the configuration of an amp; tests could easily be done with RTA gear.


So FR changes that can be corrected for... or eliminated by choosing an amp without that flaw. Excellent. Thanks for the tip... 

Sorry, at least I'm humoring you that this is the case...


----------



## Victor_inox

You clearly in love with yourself and your DSP.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> You clearly in love with yourself and your DSP.


You clearly avoid DSP and cling to witchcraft instead...

SCIENCE DAMNIT!!!


----------



## legend94

@wrx

What amps do you have installed now?

@Vic

Can changing just the cap brands on an amp be measurable?


----------



## Victor_inox

Wrong, I love DSP, they very usefull to openminded people. 
Don`t use word science in vain, you obviously not familiar with principals.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Instead of clinging to amps as the source of all your SQ, why not learn about proper time alignment implementation. Diffraction, early reflections, sound wave behavior, phase, and then start experimenting with drivers and placement, you know, the things that actually make a real difference!


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Wrong, I love DSP, they very usefull to openminded people.
> Don`t use word science in vain, you obviously not familiar with principals.


Come on man, YOU are going to say that to ME after this conversation?


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> @wrx
> 
> What amps do you have installed now?
> 
> @Vic
> 
> Can changing just the cap brands on an amp be measurable?


 Yes, there no two caps measured exactly like each other.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Come on man, YOU are going to say that to ME after this conversation?


What you called science is in fact surrogate substitute for one.


----------



## WRX/Z28

legend94 said:


> @wrx
> 
> What amps do you have installed now?
> 
> @Vic
> 
> Can changing just the cap brands on an amp be measurable?



PPI Art Series because I'm nostalgic. If they break, I'll gladly change to a newer reliable amp from any of the major manufacturers with no sound difference (Unless I pay for more power, or cheap out and end up with less power) or run one of the other's out of the collection of amps I have... you know, the ones I tested through.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> What you called science is in fact surrogate substitute for one.


Delusional much? You think that electrical signals differ with no change in measurement... I know I know, I'm putting words in your mouth. LOL, except that you said it...

You are in no position to question my understanding of science...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Instead of clinging to amps as the source of all your SQ, why not learn about proper time alignment implementation. Diffraction, early reflections, sound wave behavior, phase, and then start experimenting with drivers and placement, you know, the things that actually make a real difference!


I could lecture on coherence, phase, sound wave behaviour.I`m just not interested in doing so. 
i always says that drivers makes major difference in SQ. that did not eliminate importance of every component in the path. no substitute for DSP.
But also good sounds can be achieved without one.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Delusional much? You think that electrical signals differ with no change in measurement... I know I know, I'm putting words in your mouth. LOL, except that you said it...
> 
> You are in no position to question my understanding of science...


 I`m not questioning, I`ve heard enough, and for the fourth time I don't give a ****. got it?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I could lecture on coherence, phase, sound wave behaviour.I`m just not interested in doing so.
> i always says that drivers makes major difference in SQ. that did not eliminate importance of every component in the path. no substitute for DSP.
> But also good sounds can be achieved without one.


Not interested in doing so, even though these things make large differences... You'd rather argue that amps all sound different than discuss the things that matter? 

Sounds like your baloney has a first name... and it's Hocus...


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I`m not questioning, I`ve heard enough, and for the fourth time I don't give a ****. got it?


Then stop spouting your BS if you don't give a ****... either that or back it up with real science and measurements of changes from one amp to the next. 

Put up or shut up as my dad used to say...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Then stop spouting your BS if you don't give a ****... either that or back it up with real science and measurements of changes from one amp to the next.
> 
> Put up or shut up as my dad used to say...


I don`t own you anything. piss off.


----------



## legend94

Your both pretty to me.


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> Your both pretty to me.


I love you too.


----------



## WRX/Z28

legend94 said:


> Your both pretty to me.


Eh, there's a lot prettier men than me, trust me on that.  

My beard gets in the way of my natural good looks. :laugh:


----------



## legend94

Seriously I hate to see you go at each other like this.

Could you both agree to disagree?!?!

Or talk about things you agree on like speaker placement....


----------



## WRX/Z28

Eh, I don't take it personal, because I have no vested interest... wait, scratch that. My vested interest would actually be to say that amps all sound different, and better/more expensive amps sound better. It's just not true, and I'd be a big fat liar if I said it now that I've tested it properly for myself. 

If you haven't tested properly, and you think you have, you get a pass, because you're not a liar, you're just misinformed. If you insist you have tested properly when you know you haven't then you're a liar. 

If we met in real life, we be buying each other beers because we all love this hobby. You'd still think I was an ******* when a subject came up that I knew I was right about. That seems to be when it comes out, or so all my friends tell me. 

I'm a perfectly nice guy the other 1% of the time... LOL


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> Could you both agree to disagree?!?!
> 
> ...


 That was my proposition, denied. He believe in something, that`s admirable, pushing it down my throat seems like a good idea to him, Ohh well, whatever.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> That was my proposition, denied. He believe in something, that`s admirable, pushing it down my throat seems like a good idea to him, Ohh well, whatever.


I'm just going to say this, try to learn from this place. Once I accepted that I still had a lot to learn, I actually did... 

If you talk to the OG here, you'll see that it's a commonly accepted fact...


----------



## legend94

I feel like I could use a drink after reading the last few pages.


----------



## WRX/Z28

legend94 said:


> I feel like I could use a drink after reading the last few pages.


I've never found a beer I didn't like, except Russian River Consecration, but that was not beer! hahahahah


----------



## cajunner

this thread should be relatively empty at this time of night.


----------



## edzyy

Swapped out an Arc XDI 600.4 for a PPI Phantom 900.4

Didn't hear any difference between the 2 at lower volumes, but the speakers seem to have strained a lot less at higher volumes with the PPI


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> I've never found a beer I didn't like, except Russian River Consecration, but that was not beer! hahahahah


somehow it suppose to get me?
actually with good reviews. not everyone shares your piss poor taste in beer.
rated as world -class beer. 
Consecration | Russian River Brewing Company | Santa Rosa, CA | BeerAdvocate


----------



## cajunner

amplifier designers don't seem to think there's no audible difference in amps, why is that?

you ask any one of them if every amplifier sounds the same as the next and they are probably not having any of it.

now, we have Victor here, who is a self-professed amp designer, who is actually working on a mobile tube power amp.

He's successfully selling tube pre-amps for reasonable profit, based on the actual difference in the sound the pre-amp makes.

now if that's not proof, it's at least consistent.

the thing is, before Bob Carver could meet the challenge of convincing two heavy duty stereo guys that his piddly solid state amp would sound indistinguishable, from a super duper tuber, is that there was convincing evidence that they COULD tell the amps apart before Bob went to work on matching them.

so, I really don't know how much the latest taste tests that show low confidence blind test outcomes, have muddied the waters but it seems people want to believe that their new school amps leave nothing on the table, compared to their super-sized AB ancestry.

I think this is probably a point of fact, and a matter of precision. Because most amps share similar circuits today, each using the same controller IC and the same basic op-amp choices and the same cheap Chinese supplier of potentiometers and variable resistors and whatever else, and the PC boards have pretty much been computer-optimized for noise rejection and layout, most car amps are going to sound alike except for the few that dare to throw equalization into the mix.

rockford did it and they got penalized for it, purists didn't want their "modified" amps even if listening tests show that a smallish bump at 45 hz and 16 Khz is considered a plus.

I know it isn't easily put into a scientific testing format, and that true blind ABX tests will not allow many people to choose the better amp, consistently, but if you listen to wisdom, if you question people who have been in the hobby a long time, you won't run into that many who say amps are just commodity parts, interchangeable.

Most of the old hands at car audio have their opinions from a time when amps did sound very different from each other, and although it's a lot harder to tell these days, you won't be able to completely blot out that experience. Back in the day, amps weren't all made on the same shop floors, in the same warehouse sized factories in China.


----------



## turbo5upra

cajunner said:


> amplifier designers don't seem to think there's no audible difference in amps, why is that?
> 
> you ask any one of them if every amplifier sounds the same as the next and they are probably not having any of it.
> 
> now, we have Victor here, who is a self-professed amp designer, who is actually working on a mobile tube power amp.
> 
> He's successfully selling tube pre-amps for reasonable profit, based on the actual difference in the sound the pre-amp makes.
> 
> now if that's not proof, it's at least consistent.
> 
> the thing is, before Bob Carver could meet the challenge of convincing two heavy duty stereo guys that his piddly solid state amp would sound indistinguishable, from a super duper tuber, is that there was convincing evidence that they COULD tell the amps apart before Bob went to work on matching them.
> 
> so, I really don't know how much the latest taste tests that show low confidence blind test outcomes, have muddied the waters but it seems people want to believe that their new school amps leave nothing on the table, compared to their super-sized AB ancestry.
> 
> I think this is probably a point of fact, and a matter of precision. Because most amps share similar circuits today, each using the same controller IC and the same basic op-amp choices and the same cheap Chinese supplier of potentiometers and variable resistors and whatever else, and the PC boards have pretty much been computer-optimized for noise rejection and layout, most car amps are going to sound alike except for the few that dare to throw equalization into the mix.
> 
> rockford did it and they got penalized for it, purists didn't want their "modified" amps even if listening tests show that a smallish bump at 45 hz and 16 Khz is considered a plus.
> 
> I know it isn't easily put into a scientific testing format, and that true blind ABX tests will not allow many people to choose the better amp, consistently, but if you listen to wisdom, if you question people who have been in the hobby a long time, you won't run into that many who say amps are just commodity parts, interchangeable.
> 
> Most of the old hands at car audio have their opinions from a time when amps did sound very different from each other, and although it's a lot harder to tell these days, you won't be able to completely blot out that experience. Back in the day, amps weren't all made on the same shop floors, in the same warehouse sized factories in China.


In our just for fun test the old school pg was the least pleasing... Midrange and top end detail was great- midbass and lower midrange sounded like butt. I know this could be due 20 year old caps and whatnot just saying it was funny to me that the evil class d amp sounded tons better in our little test.


----------



## sqnut

cajunner said:


> this thread should be relatively empty at this time of night.


Not if you are on the other side of the world.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> somehow it suppose to get me?
> actually with good reviews. not everyone shares your piss poor taste in beer.
> rated as world -class beer.
> Consecration | Russian River Brewing Company | Santa Rosa, CA | BeerAdvocate


I'm familiar with Beer Advocate, I'm a long time member there.  Have you tried it? Give it a shot and let me know what you think. It's a wild ale, which = free roaming yeast, as well as bacteria are allowed to overtake it. 

Stuff is terrible, and has a vinegar sour taste to it. I was with a group of beer snobs, and was all for trying something new. Hated it, and handed it off, and not one person that tried it liked it. 

This is opinion, similar to liking a smiley face eq curve because ton's of people "rate" that as the perfect eq curve, or the tons of guys that love Beyma/EV drivers... Probably won't find too many of those here on an SQ biased forum. 

BTW, check it out this way, you may need to scroll a little: http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/863/45653/?sort=low&start=0



cajunner said:


> amplifier designers don't seem to think there's no audible difference in amps, why is that?


You should ask yourself why that is? The answer: Because it would put them out of a job if they were to admit that their collection of electrical circuits does exactly the exact same job as someone elses. That's not really any kind of proof with their vested interest. Why would anyone inherently built a specific sound into an amp designed for music reproduction, when it's so easy to build one that performs flat from 20-20. Other than FR, and any audible noise indicating a flaw, and obviously power, what changes from amp to amp as far as variation from input signal to output signal? As soon as you can answer this question, you'll discover the truth. 

These devices are not as difficult to understand as you guys make them out to be. 



cajunner said:


> you ask any one of them if every amplifier sounds the same as the next and they are probably not having any of it.


You should then ask them what changes measurably from input to output, and why? Remind them that the amp should be transparent in the audio path if it's competently designed as most are, and see what they say. 



cajunner said:


> now, we have Victor here, who is a self-professed amp designer, who is actually working on a mobile tube power amp.
> 
> He's successfully selling tube pre-amps for reasonable profit, based on the actual difference in the sound the pre-amp makes.
> 
> now if that's not proof, it's at least consistent.
> 
> the thing is, before Bob Carver could meet the challenge of convincing two heavy duty stereo guys that his piddly solid state amp would sound indistinguishable, from a super duper tuber, is that there was convincing evidence that they COULD tell the amps apart before Bob went to work on matching them.
> 
> so, I really don't know how much the latest taste tests that show low confidence blind test outcomes, have muddied the waters but it seems people want to believe that their new school amps leave nothing on the table, compared to their super-sized AB ancestry.
> 
> I think this is probably a point of fact, and a matter of precision. Because most amps share similar circuits today, each using the same controller IC and the same basic op-amp choices and the same cheap Chinese supplier of potentiometers and variable resistors and whatever else, and the PC boards have pretty much been computer-optimized for noise rejection and layout, most car amps are going to sound alike except for the few that dare to throw equalization into the mix.
> 
> rockford did it and they got penalized for it, purists didn't want their "modified" amps even if listening tests show that a smallish bump at 45 hz and 16 Khz is considered a plus.


Amazing that people immediately point to that one. One design that admittedly had an EQ curve built into it, no magical voodoo, just an EQ curve. I never said you couldn't build an eq curve into an amp. It's obvious that you can, but it's not a desirable trait. If a bump at 45hz and 16k is a plus in every car system, an inexpensive EQ can accomplish that, never mind the eq built into most cheap decks today. If you think it makes sense to spend more money on a flawed amp with an inherent eq curve built in, instead of a cheaper amp and an equalizer, well, then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you should look at how most cars measure, and ask yourself why you think a boost at 45hz is a good idea in any stretch of the imagination from a sound quality standpoint.



cajunner said:


> I know it isn't easily put into a scientific testing format, and that true blind ABX tests will not allow many people to choose the better amp, consistently, but if you listen to wisdom, if you question people who have been in the hobby a long time, you won't run into that many who say amps are just commodity parts, interchangeable..


You will find that most, if not all of the OG here will say exactly that, that competently designed amps sound indistinguishable when driven *before the onset of clipping*.
This part is key, since the vast majority clip their amps whether they like to admit it or not. Those that don't, and set the amp via scope or DMM, leave a ton of usable power on the table because people can tolerate and can actually prefer a clipped signal. 

This is the difference people are thinking they are hearing. They set gains by ear, or swap one amp to the next, and unknowingly are clipping a different amp to a different degree. 

* So why can't people reliably pick out an unclipped, level matched, flat response amp in blind A/B Test?



cajunner said:


> Most of the old hands at car audio have their opinions from a time when amps did sound very different from each other, and although it's a lot harder to tell these days, you won't be able to completely blot out that experience. Back in the day, amps weren't all made on the same shop floors, in the same warehouse sized factories in China.


It's not difficult to see that amps can easily be made to measure so close to one another that human hearing can't distinguish one from the other. Even amps that measure small variations from each other have no audible difference. 


To sum all of this up. What, besides FR, noise, and power can vary from input to output between different amps? What change can't be measured and accounted for? Why would any change be desirable in a device designed to simply take an input signal and make it bigger? 

Are we not able to build an amp that emits no noise of it's own and has a flat FR from 20-20 here in the 21st century? There reality is that there are a vast majority of competently designed amps that fit this bill, and they are cheaper than ever to produce and to purchase. There's no mystery left in these devices... there's no "undiscovered country", and certainly no magic... just a device that takes a signal, and makes it bigger.


----------



## sqnut

WRX/Z28 said:


> * So why can't people reliably pick out an unclipped, level matched, flat response amp in blind A/B Test?


Becoz our ears suck at telling absolute but are great at picking out deltas. Our hearing is geared to hear differences.


----------



## WRX/Z28

sqnut said:


> Becoz our ears suck at telling absolute but are great at picking out deltas. Our hearing is geared to hear differences.


Wait... people can't pick out the differences because our hearing is geared to hear them?


----------



## Mitsu1grn

Greetings!

A gentleman in an earlier thread discussed hearing differences in his " modded amp" and the control amp. He changed a lot of the capacitors and heard a difference. If anyone would like to know why that happened I suggest reading a number of white papers written 30 years ago by Walt Jung, Richard Marsh and John Curl. These gentlemen are renowned audio electronic engineers and there tests may shed some light as to the differences in capacitors in amplifiers and pre amplifiers. 

Just something to read and make you think. 

Nick


----------



## WRX/Z28

lycan said:


> no offense intended, but the poll is silly. The correct answer is _not_ dependent on ... in fact, only loosely correlated with ... a majority opinion on an audio message board.
> 
> The only _real_ question of interest is : do we have a comprehensive set of specifications that completely describe & determine "the sound" of purely electronic devices (lets not include loudspeakers, for now)? All data ... all scientific investigation, all theory, and all tests ... leads to an affirmative answer.
> 
> If two pieces of audio electronics have the same gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion ... then what is the parameter by which they CAN sound different?
> 
> What is it?
> 
> The type of solder used? If it doesn't impact gain, power, frequency response, noise or distortion ... then it is irrelevant.
> 
> The type of capacitors used? If it doesn't impact gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion ... then it is irrelevant.
> 
> The type of wire used? If it doesn't impact gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion ... then it is irrelevant.
> 
> By the way ... nobody in their right mind says that all amps sound the same. I can pull two amps off the same production line, and set their gain controls different by 0.25dB. They WILL sound different. However, the REASON they sound different is because that gain knob happens to impact one of these : gain, power, frequency response, noise or distortion.
> 
> Conversely, there's always someone who says : "I swapped amps, and i KNOW they sounded different !!!!"
> 
> That's a meaningless statement. What WOULD be a meaningful statement is : "I swapped amps, and i carefully measured gain, power, frequency response noise & distortion to make sure these classic parameters were the same. Then, in a controlled listening test where the name brands were hidden, a statistically significant difference was identified. And because i carefully eliminated the classic variables of gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion, i have come to the conclusion that the difference could NOT be attributed to any of these classic variables".
> 
> Of course, that statement has never been offered in the history of the world.
> 
> So the question always remains : How do you know whether or not the difference you heard can be attributed to : gain, power, frequency response, noise or distortion?
> 
> How could anyone possibly answer this question? Do we have no choice but to wander aimlessly in the dark ... no choice but to rely on guru opinions and internet polls? Is there no logical process to determine if differences can be attributed to gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion? What's the process to determine if these specs are indeed comprehensive?





t3sn4f2 said:


> Fastfoward to 2:45


Some of my favorites...


----------



## cajunner

WRX/Z28 said:


> Wait... people can't pick out the differences because our hearing is geared to hear them?


we CAN pick out differences, that aren't easily correlated to metrics that are electrical and logarithmic, since our hearing is analog based.

If an amp has a really high 5th harmonic distortion but clean in the second and third, it can be picked out from an amp that has clean output in 2nd, 3rd, and 5th harmonics, but a little nastiness in 4th order.

when you discuss distortion, just because an amp doesn't have a lot of initial clipping distortion because it's not squaring the waves, an amp can be producing higher levels of high order distortion that as a cumulative, will make that amp sound different from another amp.

and I'm not just getting caught up in semantics, as distortion is an all-encompassing specification, but within that specification there are things that some amp circuits will do, when applying more or less negative feedback to control the output transformers that will become audible, and well below your "clipping" distortion limitation.

It's like you think all amps are equally capable, as if those things they patent in the circuitry don't matter at all, when in fact they matter a lot.


----------



## legend94

Which Rockford amps altered the eq?

And what does og mean?


----------



## sqnut

WRX/Z28 said:


> Wait... people can't pick out the differences because our hearing is geared to hear them?


Our ears aren't very accurate with absolutes. So, even trained ears would struggle to cut exactly 1 db at 300, 2khz and 5 khz at a repeatability of ~ 8/10. But the ears are very sensitive to even minute differences. So we will hear a 0.1 db diff in amplitude or a 0.02 ms in timing which is a difference of 1/50,000 sec. 

Our ears only work in the time and response domain. So the folks who are hearing a difference between amp A vs amp B, need to show that there is a measurable difference in either of the two domains.

Since our ears are so good at telling deltas the difference we are hearing is purely down to two things. Incorrect setup makes the swapped amp slightly louder or softer and you will hear the slghtest difference here. The second reason is expectation bias. None this dribble about 'my ears', 'I can hear it' etc are even worth a response.

Ask anyone who tweaks a lot about the power of psychoacoustics. I have lost count of the times I'd be tuning and think hmm need to cut 1.25 khz a touch on the far side to make the vocals less harsh. So I'll do it and instantly hear the difference. Wow that sounds much better and I move onto to something else. 5 mts later I feel like I need to cut 1.25 some more. Now when I go to cut I realize that last time out I didn't cut/check properly and actually nothing was cut. But I heard a big difference. Expectation bias happens all the time. I mean all the time.


----------



## rton20s




----------



## seafish

^^^^^^^ lol....THANK YOU!!!!


----------



## LaserSVT

legend94 said:


> Which Rockford amps altered the eq?
> 
> And what does og mean?


Don't know about the amps. Never cared enough to research it but I think its all of them.

OG is Original Gangsta.



legend94 said:


> Your both pretty to me.


*You're 

Just felt like starting a different fight.


----------



## cajunner

the thing about the PUNCH, is that back in the seventies, when the amps were first being designed, the normal bass and treble controls were shelf tone controls, which would bring a lot of excursion and a lot of wasted power, or an excess of power being used to bump up the bass.

The first Punch amps had sliders that allowed a narrow Q filter to adjust bass at the bottom of the average woofer's response curve, without drowning it in mid bass from a shelf tone control circuit.


The need for 16Khz bump, is that the average car speaker had tweeters that rolled off around 10Khz, and to get a little snazz out of the install, you could add sparkle without a shelf tone control at 10Khz, which by itself was making all the spits and curses from whizzer cones painfully obvious.

What it was, was the beefing up of the ends of the audio spectrum because the equipment of the day was unsuited, incapable of playing without rolling off the ends.

Today, it's an unnecessary option on most aftermarket installs since coaxes are able to keep up, and subwoofers can get down.

But the circuit itself, in a fixed format as a FR manipulation still carries water because it's been proven that compared to flat, a little bump at 45 hz and 16Khz is going to bring up the volume without calling attention to itself, you'll perceive it as sounding better, clearer, more vivid.

Mosconi also produces an equalized baseline, according to... subwoofery's graphs on this issue?


----------



## Dspencer

cajunner said:


> It's like you think all amps are equally capable, as if those things they patent in the circuitry don't matter at all, when in fact they matter a lot.


I cannot speak for the person you were replying to, but I can say that as another person who believes there is a lot of BS about "different sound" for amps, your statement is completely wrong.

I don't think all amps are equally capable, and the one you were replying to never said such. What we are saying is, that all else being equal (drivers, source, EQ, DSP, etc.), if amp A and amp B BOTH can take the input signal and amplify it equally, with no audible distortion (and no added amp EQ like the failed RF amps), there is no difference in sound.

Blind tests have proven this. In such cases, the differences people claim to hear are actually explained best by psychology. 

BUT, IF amp A can take the input signal and amplify it to 400 wrms before clipping, but amp B can only amplify to 350 wrms before clipping, then of course there will be a difference in sound from the drivers - more clean power = better control of the drivers for more clarity, especially at higher volumes.

If amp A can amplify to 400 wrms but has audible noise/distortion even below clipping, and amp B does 400 wrms cleanly before clipping, then of course amp B is superior and people will hear the difference...

I mean, I don't see what is so complicated about this subject, guys. There are only so many variables in play for such - amps are not infinitely complicated. 

As another stated, the job of an amp is to take the input signal and make it bigger. That's all. For those mentioning amps with cheap parts - yes, that will make a difference because it isn't faithfully taking the input and putting out CLEAN POWER on the other end - it's introducing distortion. 

But all else being equal, there should be no difference between amp A and amp B, other than the individuals psychological perceptions of such.


----------



## WRX/Z28

cajunner said:


> we CAN pick out differences, that aren't easily correlated to metrics that are electrical and logarithmic, since our hearing is analog based.
> 
> If an amp has a really high 5th harmonic distortion but clean in the second and third, it can be picked out from an amp that has clean output in 2nd, 3rd, and 5th harmonics, but a little nastiness in 4th order.
> 
> when you discuss distortion, just because an amp doesn't have a lot of initial clipping distortion because it's not squaring the waves, an amp can be producing higher levels of high order distortion that as a cumulative, will make that amp sound different from another amp.
> 
> and I'm not just getting caught up in semantics, as distortion is an all-encompassing specification, but within that specification there are things that some amp circuits will do, when applying more or less negative feedback to control the output transformers that will become audible, and well below your "clipping" distortion limitation.
> 
> It's like you think all amps are equally capable, as if those things they patent in the circuitry don't matter at all, when in fact they matter a lot.


So which ones have a measured distortion level that is in the audible range, simply avoid those. Problem solved.


----------



## t3sn4f2

WRX/Z28 said:


> Some of my favorites...















.


----------



## tjswarbrick

Too bad a straight wire with gain hasn't been invented yet.
ALL amps have distortion. Be it frequency response, phase, harmonics, noise, interference, or whatever. And if your measurement devices are precise enough, you'll see that said distortion is not identical amp to amp, or linear as power increases (or load decreases, for that matter.)
It can be said that the differences are low enough as to be negligible or inaudible, particularly in an automotive environment.
It could also be speculated that automotive front ends and processors have already added enough of their own distortions to make any additional changes caused by amplifiers moot.
But that doesn't mean that they don't exist, or that nobody, anywhere could ever hear them. 
In car amps, I'm not sure I've ever heard the difference (but I've never done a double-blind, A/B whatever...)
Listening to some very high fidelity home speakers (Alon dipoles) I heard a difference between a tubed 60wpc Conrad Johnson and a S-S 70wpc YBA. I didn't level match or do it blind - but then, though I'd welcome the opportunity to participate in one of those I'm not sure it's the best way to evaluate audio gear. I liked the C-J better - more open; more liquid; seemed more tactile and "there". But I bought the YBA anyway because it was Good Enough, had no audible distortions or problems, was very highly regardrded, and I was afraid of the maintenance issues with a tubed amp.

Regardless, my personal opinion is that MOST differences between MOST properly-designed mobile audio amplifiers will be so minimal as to be audibly negligible. But I'm sure not going to tell somebody they're hearing things if they feel otherwise.

In the flashlight world, some designers use PWM to control output; some use voltage regulation. Some people are sensitive to PWM up in the MHz range; some people don't notice it when it's in the hundreds of Hertz. (Personally, I only notice it if it's below a couple KHz or so, in most cases.)

I auditioned some home speakers. I didn't look, and hadn't even gotten to the listening seat when I mentioned to the sales guy to check the wiring. He said "why, they sound right." I told him "I hope not. They sound phasey, have funky bass, and bug my ears." He checked, and sure enough one was out of phase. He couldn't hear the difference.

Sometimes a Clos DuBois Merlot is fantastic; sometimes it's "meh." Sometimes a Fat Tire is sweet and nutty, sometimes it's bitter. Sometimes my highs are detailed and beguiling; sometimes they're bright and annoying. Does that invalidate my ability to taste the difference, or hear minute differences in my setup? Over time, I find that I enjoy a good Merlot, a Fat Tire, and my system most most of the time.

Can't we all just get along?


----------



## Dspencer

I'm still interested in a good answer to the question WRX/Z28 brought up. 

If you take out the variables of audible distortion, FR (both amps do 20hz-20khz), clean power output, EQ/boosts, etc., what is it that some you think is causing a "sound signature" you can supposedly hear the difference between amps?


----------



## WRX/Z28

sqnut said:


> Our ears aren't very accurate with absolutes. So, even trained ears would struggle to cut exactly 1 db at 300, 2khz and 5 khz at a repeatability of ~ 8/10. But the ears are very sensitive to even minute differences. So we will hear a 0.1 db diff in amplitude or a 0.02 ms in timing which is a difference of 1/50,000 sec.


Sorry, but you're incorrect. It's commonly accepted that 2-3db is the smallest audible change to the human ear. Fractions of a decibel are outside of our hearing capabilities. As far as timing, I doubt that a fraction of a millisecond is audible as moving your hear 1/8" to one side could yield a larger change. 



sqnut said:


> Our ears only work in the time and response domain. So the folks who are hearing a difference between amp A vs amp B, need to show that there is a measurable difference in either of the two domains.


Agreed.



sqnut said:


> Since our ears are so good at telling deltas the difference we are hearing is purely down to two things. Incorrect setup makes the swapped amp slightly louder or softer and you will hear the slghtest difference here. The second reason is expectation bias. None this dribble about 'my ears', 'I can hear it' etc are even worth a response.


Again, agreed... mostly. Our hearing is not quite as good as you seem to believe. 



sqnut said:


> Ask anyone who tweaks a lot about the power of psychoacoustics. I have lost count of the times I'd be tuning and think hmm need to cut 1.25 khz a touch on the far side to make the vocals less harsh. So I'll do it and instantly hear the difference. Wow that sounds much better and I move onto to something else. 5 mts later I feel like I need to cut 1.25 some more. Now when I go to cut I realize that last time out I didn't cut/check properly and actually nothing was cut. But I heard a big difference. Expectation bias happens all the time. I mean all the time.


It's also impossible to remember small details in sound in short spans of time...


----------



## WRX/Z28

Dspencer said:


> I'm still interested in a good answer to the question WRX/Z28 brought up.
> 
> If you take out the variables of audible distortion, FR (both amps do 20hz-20khz), clean power output, EQ/boosts, etc., what is it that some you think is causing a "sound signature" you can supposedly hear the difference between amps?


I'm still waiting, and I don't think anyone in the other camp wants to/can answer that...


----------



## cajunner

I've already explained it, the fact that everyone is overlooking it, is not my fault.


----------



## strakele

WRX/Z28 said:


> Sorry, but you're incorrect. It's commonly accepted that 2-3db is the smallest audible change to the human ear. Fractions of a decibel are outside of our hearing capabilities. As far as timing, I doubt that a fraction of a millisecond is audible as moving your hear 1/8" to one side could yield a larger change.


This is the only thing I have issue with. Smaller changes than that are certainly audible. If you have a Pioneer head unit and can hear the difference that one click on the volume knob makes, then you can hear a 1-ish db difference. When level matching drivers, a .5dB click is audible. It's much easier to tell when it's full range like the above examples. A .5dB cut at a specific frequency is much harder to hear, but for a trained listener, certainly not impossible. That's not to say that even an experienced listener won't be subject to expectation bias. But they would be able to tell a difference a statistically significant number of times.


----------



## turbo5upra

I know 3db is the commonly published number but I also must disagree- pulling 1 db left or right can help a lot... What frequency is the published 3db at?


----------



## legend94

LaserSVT said:


> *You're
> 
> Just felt like starting a different fight.


In this instance there will be no fighting! I'm letting smart devices alter my grammar. Sad but true.


----------



## legend94

cajunner said:


> the thing about the PUNCH, is that back in the seventies, when the amps were first being designed, the normal bass and treble controls were shelf tone controls, which would bring a lot of excursion and a lot of wasted power, or an excess of power being used to bump up the bass.
> 
> The first Punch amps had sliders that allowed a narrow Q filter to adjust bass at the bottom of the average woofer's response curve, without drowning it in mid bass from a shelf tone control circuit.
> 
> 
> The need for 16Khz bump, is that the average car speaker had tweeters that rolled off around 10Khz, and to get a little snazz out of the install, you could add sparkle without a shelf tone control at 10Khz, which by itself was making all the spits and curses from whizzer cones painfully obvious.
> 
> What it was, was the beefing up of the ends of the audio spectrum because the equipment of the day was unsuited, incapable of playing without rolling off the ends.
> 
> Today, it's an unnecessary option on most aftermarket installs since coaxes are able to keep up, and subwoofers can get down.
> 
> But the circuit itself, in a fixed format as a FR manipulation still carries water because it's been proven that compared to flat, a little bump at 45 hz and 16Khz is going to bring up the volume without calling attention to itself, you'll perceive it as sounding better, clearer, more vivid.
> 
> Mosconi also produces an equalized baseline, according to... subwoofery's graphs on this issue?


Thank you. I remember hearing something about that when I got into car audio in the mid 90s. Some people I knew would not use rf amps because they said they were altered.

However with less options and higher prices back then it makes sense to me to market to the majority even if they didn't know why the amp sounded better.


----------



## Dspencer

cajunner said:


> I've already explained it, the fact that everyone is overlooking it, is not my fault.


Every explanation I've read from you uses one of the variables we asked to be removed.

For example, at one point you said el cheapo amp will sound like crap vs high-end with superb parts. Well, yeah, because el cheapo amp with crap parts = distortion/noise added and amplified.

But it doesn't explain how "golden ears" hear a real difference when both amps have distortion/noise and other specs beyond human thresholds of hearing (scientifically).

We also asked that FR be removed - obviously, if amp A does 35hz-15khz frequency response, that is not adequate for a full range setup and amp B with 20hz-20khz will not only sound different, but BETTER. We all agree on that, but it doesn't answer our objection to the myth of high end.

Power output will obviously make a difference in sound quality. If amp A cannot put out advertised wattage below clipping (say 400 wrms) but amp B has higher grade parts and can, then yes, amp B with 400 wrms clean vs amp A with 400 wrms clipping/distorted will sound different. BUT if both amps (regardless of price or how "high end" they are considered) put out 400 wrms CLEAN power, any extra money used by the higher priced amp manufacturer was a waste, because there is no real world useful difference.

And last but not least, if an amp is providing some sort of EQ, then there will be an audible difference in how the music sounds. That's the whole point of EQ. If amp A puts out a flat FR, while amp B boosts certain frequencies internally, and you like the way music sounds with those frequencies boosted, then of course you'll hear a difference and prefer amp B.

Now, instead of excuses, please, someone, tell us how (other than magically in whimsical fantasy land) 2 amps with equal clean power output, no equalization, and full 20hz-20khz output will sound any different. 

And don't give me BS about each individual part and circuit paths having a "sound signature." Unless those parts are adding equalization somehow, they shouldn't be altering how the music sounds AT ALL - unless they are introducing noise because they are junk parts, because those resistors and such are all just a way of manipulating electron flow for the function of the amp, and are NOT equalizers changing anything about any of the frequency range of music.


----------



## Dspencer

strakele said:


> This is the only thing I have issue with. Smaller changes than that are certainly audible. If you have a Pioneer head unit and can hear the difference that one click on the volume knob makes, then you can hear a 1-ish db difference. When level matching drivers, a .5dB click is audible. It's much easier to tell when it's full range like the above examples. A .5dB cut at a specific frequency is much harder to hear, but for a trained listener, certainly not impossible. That's not to say that even an experienced listener won't be subject to expectation bias. But they would be able to tell a difference a statistically significant number of times.


In a perfectly quiet environment, we can tell quite small differences in sound level - definitely below 2 db. 0.5 db is not a stretch in the right environment with the listener focused. 

However, none of us are driving around in anechoic champers with no noise in the environment. We are driving around in cars, that even when parked, have engine noise (most of us with high powered systems probably have the engine running if the audio system is on, well, those without a battery bank), and if the windows are down, even parked, there is environmental noise (other cars passing by, birds chirping, the next door neighbor mowing the lawn, insect noises, etc.).

It is a TREMENDOUS waste of time and money trying to get the car audio (or marine audio) system to be "perfect." Because the environment it is being installed in is so far from perfect it ruins a perfect audio system.

I can understand people making buying decisions for home theater that take into consideration a 0.5% THD-N difference. But come on, if 2 amps in a car audio environment both have GOOD ENOUGH specs so that no difference (figuring in environmental noise and poor sound chamber dynamics) is audible, why claim to "hear the difference." 

If anyone has super hearing of that magnitude, they'd be too sensitive to noise and regular environments (like the car) would drive them nuts.

As long as the amp puts out clean rated power (and by clean meaning any noise/distortion is beyond human hearing ability in that environment), I don't believe they really "hear" a difference. I believe they imagine (psychoacoustics) a difference.


----------



## subwoofery

Dspencer said:


> I'm still interested in a good answer to the question WRX/Z28 brought up.
> 
> If you take out the variables of audible distortion, FR (both amps do 20hz-20khz), clean power output, EQ/boosts, etc., what is it that some you think is causing a "sound signature" you can supposedly hear the difference between amps?


Been out of the fight to see where it was going... As always, nowhere. 

I think most will agree that 2 amps that measure the same, sound the same - gain, power, frequency response, noise or distortion. If not, we would not have this discussion... 

I've provided tests that show distortion graphs over the whole bandwith when an amp is asked to play a 1kHz tone (seeing 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th harmonics) - Brands like Brax, Zapco, DLS, Sinfoni, Mosconi, etc... 
Therefore, most of you should agree that NO two amp measures the same which leads to a conclusion that NO two amp sounds the same. 

You're asking what if we leave out variables when in fact it's just not possible since that's what makes an amp an amp. Distortion is part of EVERY amp - see my next post. 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

cajunner said:


> we CAN pick out differences, that aren't easily correlated to metrics that are electrical and logarithmic, since our hearing is analog based.
> 
> If an amp has a really high 5th harmonic distortion but clean in the second and third, it can be picked out from an amp that has clean output in 2nd, 3rd, and 5th harmonics, but a little nastiness in 4th order.
> 
> when you discuss distortion, just because an amp doesn't have a lot of initial clipping distortion because it's not squaring the waves, an amp can be producing higher levels of high order distortion that as a cumulative, will make that amp sound different from another amp.
> 
> and I'm not just getting caught up in semantics, as distortion is an all-encompassing specification, but within that specification there are things that some amp circuits will do, when applying more or less negative feedback to control the output transformers that will become audible, and well below your "clipping" distortion limitation.
> 
> It's like you think all amps are equally capable, as if those things they patent in the circuitry don't matter at all, when in fact they matter a lot.


Here's my post for reference: 


subwoofery said:


> Buy looking at some tests done on some amps, I've noticed a trend - the warm sound we hear from some amps doesn't come from the freq response but from the distorsion figures over the whole spectrum (usually above 1kHz). Here are a few examples:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also want to point out that the distorsion figures we see doesn't necessarily mean that "warm" amps have the highest "Total Harmonic Distorsion" numbers.
> "Warm" amps:
> Audison - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.138%
> DLS Ref - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.029%
> Mosconi - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.07%
> Sinfoni - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.02%
> 
> "Clinical" amps:
> Brax X2 - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.44% (not a mistake)
> DLS TA2 - yes, this hybrid tube amp actually exhibits more of a clinical sound. It's THD @ 4 ohm is 0.046%
> Focal - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.028%
> Zapco - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.005%
> 
> Let's discuss
> 
> Kelvin


Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

WRX/Z28 said:


> I'm familiar with Beer Advocate, I'm a long time member there.  Have you tried it? Give it a shot and let me know what you think. It's a wild ale, which = free roaming yeast, as well as bacteria are allowed to overtake it.
> 
> Stuff is terrible, and has a vinegar sour taste to it. I was with a group of beer snobs, and was all for trying something new. Hated it, and handed it off, and not one person that tried it liked it.
> 
> This is opinion, similar to liking a smiley face eq curve because ton's of people "rate" that as the perfect eq curve, or the tons of guys that love Beyma/EV drivers... Probably won't find too many of those here on an SQ biased forum.
> 
> BTW, check it out this way, you may need to scroll a little: Consecration | Russian River Brewing Company | Santa Rosa, CA | BeerAdvocate
> 
> 
> 
> You should ask yourself why that is? The answer: Because it would put them out of a job if they were to admit that their collection of electrical circuits does exactly the exact same job as someone elses. That's not really any kind of proof with their vested interest. Why would anyone inherently built a specific sound into an amp designed for music reproduction, when it's so easy to build one that performs flat from 20-20. Other than FR, and any audible noise indicating a flaw, and obviously power, what changes from amp to amp as far as variation from input signal to output signal? As soon as you can answer this question, you'll discover the truth.
> 
> These devices are not as difficult to understand as you guys make them out to be.
> 
> 
> 
> You should then ask them what changes measurably from input to output, and why? Remind them that the amp should be transparent in the audio path if it's competently designed as most are, and see what they say.
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing that people immediately point to that one. One design that admittedly had an EQ curve built into it, no magical voodoo, just an EQ curve. I never said you couldn't build an eq curve into an amp. It's obvious that you can, but it's not a desirable trait. If a bump at 45hz and 16k is a plus in every car system, an inexpensive EQ can accomplish that, never mind the eq built into most cheap decks today. If you think it makes sense to spend more money on a flawed amp with an inherent eq curve built in, instead of a cheaper amp and an equalizer, well, then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you should look at how most cars measure, and ask yourself why you think a boost at 45hz is a good idea in any stretch of the imagination from a sound quality standpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> You will find that most, if not all of the OG here will say exactly that, that competently designed amps sound indistinguishable when driven *before the onset of clipping*.
> This part is key, since the vast majority clip their amps whether they like to admit it or not. Those that don't, and set the amp via scope or DMM, leave a ton of usable power on the table because people can tolerate and can actually prefer a clipped signal.
> 
> This is the difference people are thinking they are hearing. They set gains by ear, or swap one amp to the next, and unknowingly are clipping a different amp to a different degree.
> 
> * So why can't people reliably pick out an unclipped, level matched, flat response amp in blind A/B Test?
> 
> 
> 
> It's not difficult to see that amps can easily be made to measure so close to one another that human hearing can't distinguish one from the other. Even amps that measure small variations from each other have no audible difference.
> 
> 
> To sum all of this up. What, besides FR, noise, and power can vary from input to output between different amps? What change can't be measured and accounted for? Why would any change be desirable in a device designed to simply take an input signal and make it bigger?
> 
> Are we not able to build an amp that emits no noise of it's own and has a flat FR from 20-20 here in the 21st century? There reality is that there are a vast majority of competently designed amps that fit this bill, and they are cheaper than ever to produce and to purchase. There's no mystery left in these devices... there's no "undiscovered country", and certainly no magic... just a device that takes a signal, and makes it bigger.


That's the thing, it's not *EASY* to build a simple wire with a gain - every amps measure different (see my previous post). 
So I actually think that Victor is right, changing a component in an amp, processor or pre-amp WILL impact either gain, distortion, noise, freq response or power. 

If you say that Brax, Sinfoni, Audison, DLS or else are bad design because they introduce distortion, then I don't know what to tell you 

Kelvin


----------



## Dspencer

subwoofery said:


> That's the thing, it's not *EASY* to build a simple wire with a gain - every amps measure different (see my previous post).
> So I actually think that Victor is right, changing a component in an amp, processor or pre-amp WILL impact either gain, distortion, noise, freq response or power.
> 
> If you say that Brax, Sinfoni, Audison, DLS or else are bad design because they introduce distortion, then I don't know what to tell you
> 
> Kelvin


I've listened to a lot of amps in my time, and sorry, but no good quality amp I've listened to IN A CAR ENVIRONMENT produced enough distortion to be audible. 

Therefore, ANY distortion such amps are introducing is negligible and makes NO DIFFERENCES WHATSOEVER in the sound of the music. 

Hell, my wife's Highlander system I did last year has low priced Soundstream Picasso Nano amps in it (we needed to hide them because she wouldn't allow any cargo space be taken up with them - so needed a VERY small footprint) doesn't distort below clipping - even to the point when the db level starts hurting the ears. Now, the Kenwood component set and coaxials don't sound the best (for my taste, she's much less picky so we opted to save money because they are more than good enough for her), but it isn't because of the Picasso Nano amps that only cost about $120 each. 

And I was nervous buying them, because of their specs - signal to noise, for one. But with music blaring, it's still good enough signal to noise that no noise or distortion is heard - but again, it's a car environment, not an anechoic chamber, for the love of Pete.

Now, I have heard some really cheap amps with cheap parts that even at 50% volume distorted - people used to factory systems and without audio knowledge/experience may not notice, but to me even at 33% volume I could hear it. And of course, even without ground loops and such, those amps will have white-noise with the source unit volume all the way down - but that doesn't really effect when playing music.

My wife's supposedly factory "premium JBL" system did sound like total crap. The difference with the Picasso Nano's and kenwood components is night and day, and I didn't have to spend a fortune. 

Yes, instruments like you used for those pretty graphs WILL show differences in noise/distortion and such. And yes, theoretically, it is possible such would color the sound, and cause the "sound signature" of an amp people are talking about.

BUT, in car audio there are only 2 reasons I can think of that an amp would have a "sound signature" for real, and it not be psychoacoustics. 

1. audible distortion/noise coloring the music (which must be loud enough in db to be audible even with the music and environmental noises - again, none of our vehicles are anechoic chambers...)
2. internal/built-in equalization

Even in an anechoic chamber, I don't buy into a human being truly being able to hear such minor differences in distortion levels between 2 quality amplifiers (unless the amp manufacturer added a certain type of manipulation to color the sound on purpose).

Again, what humans can physically hear, and what sensitive instruments can pick up for nice graphs on paper, are two totally different things...


----------



## Dspencer

subwoofery said:


> That's the thing, it's not *EASY* to build a simple wire with a gain - every amps measure different (see my previous post).
> So I actually think that Victor is right, changing a component in an amp, processor or pre-amp WILL impact either gain, distortion, noise, freq response or power.
> 
> If you say that Brax, Sinfoni, Audison, DLS or else are bad design because they introduce distortion, then I don't know what to tell you
> 
> Kelvin


I don't think we disagree that "changing a component in an amp, processor or pre-amp WILL impact either gain, distortion, noise, freq response or power." 

I agree fully with that statement. That's what we seem to not be able to get your side of the argument to see.

We don't disagree with the facts about how electrical parts work or how sound works. 

Our point is that IF BOTH AMPS are high enough quality that distortion/noise/artifacts are not audible to humans (too low of a -db difference - remember, more than -0.5db sound difference is not audible, ESPECIALLY IN A CAR or other noisy environment - unless you drive with high quality headphones on...), and gain is set properly for each (max amp function without clipping), and both have 20hz-20khz frequency response, and put out the same amount of pre-clipping power, humans cannot physically hear a difference (though we may THINK we can because of psychology).

THAT is why we are asking you take FR, %THD-N, etc., out of the argument.

No one denies that if amp A has audible distortion it will color the sound of the music. I mean, duh, we all know it will and agree on that.

And that's the frustrating part about this debate. We constantly agree on all such FACTS, but we can't get anyone from the other side to tell us what would make an amp sound different other than those things mentioned above, which in any 2 quality amps is a non-issue.

Every single %THD-N you posted for the amps with your graphs is far below what is audible to humans. Not a single one of the amps has enough distortion in the test to be heard with music playing in a car audio environment...I'm not sure why you all ignore this and try to point to such micro differences as "see, there's a difference!" Yes, on paper we all agree there are differences. The disagreement is over WHAT PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY HEAR.


----------



## Dspencer

And unless I see hard scientific evidence to prove otherwise, I don't believe in "training" people to hear better.

Training listeners alters their psychology. It doesn't make their physical ears or brains any better at hearing. It's not like their ears suddenly received dog-like hearing upgrades. 

Training my children to behave doesn't suddenly make them super-human. It alters their psychology so they behave in a manner acceptable to we parents and other people in society.

If you come off as an expert, and confidently tell other people something with conviction, and they believe it, you've just altered their psychology. Now they too BELIEVE they can "hear the difference," and you've just negated any ability to eliminate psychoacoustics from testing. In fact, you've just increased the likeliness of psychoacoustics, just like product marketing does.

I've been in sales/marketing for years, in addition to having an education background in psychology and healthcare. I see on a regular basis how psychology plays a huge roll in marketing, and what people PERCEIVE as a good deal. 

Audio manufacturers with good marketing and sales accomplish this. They use human psychology to CONVINCE potential customers that their product is superior for X, Y, Z reasons. And people buy into it - with no real proof that the products are IN FACT better...

I'm fine with this - I've made a lot of money off of human psychology. But don't kid yourselves that it isn't playing a role in the products you buy and the differences in perception.


----------



## cajunner

I'll say it again, I already explained it, go back and re-read my posts.

If I'm feeling generous later, I *might* go ahead and explain it again.


----------



## Dspencer

cajunner said:


> I'll say it again, I already explained it, go back and re-read my posts.
> 
> If I'm feeling generous later, I *might* go ahead and explain it again.


I read all of your posts. The issue isn't that I disagree with test benching differences in amps, even of the highest quality, with the highest quality parts.

The issue is that those differences that sensitive instruments can verify are far below human physical hearing capability, especially in normal listening environments.

It's like how how really high quality wiring, of much thicker gauge than necessary, will test bench as having better current/signal carry than lower quality wire of higher gauge. 

Yes, there may be a little more voltage drop using 4 gauge ofc vs 1/0 gauge, or 4 gauge ofc vs cad power wire, but in many applications it's not enough for a human being to "hear the difference."

There are still other good reasons to use quality wire, but it's not like people can "hear the difference." I use 1/0 ofc power wire for a system of just 1000 wrms, not because it's necessary, but because it's safer (less risk of fire - and better for the amps for longevity). 

There are legitimate reasons people buy the amps they do. But until testing shows that signal amplification from one quality amp to another is enough of a difference for human beings to physically differentiate, I believe the perceived difference in sound is psychological.

I've not seen a single double blind test set up properly reveal that any human being has hearing sensitivity well beyond normal limits, or that they can "hear the difference" accurately between quality amplifiers. Every test I've researched shows random luck of picking amps blindly, at best. 

We are not asking for more of the same explanation with tiny differences in test benching, or whatever. We are asking for evidence that the tiny differences between amps can change the audio output ENOUGH for human hearing to tell the difference.

Just like scientific tests on wiring proved long ago that "high end" wiring changing sound quality is a myth, all tests I've seen for amps prove the same thing. 

People trying to blind guess which amp they are hearing have not had 100% accuracy, or even close to that, even when claiming to have golden ears and years of experience and expertise hearing the difference.

It's like the video in which people ate two halves of the same banana, but one was marked organic and the other marked non-organic. People truly though they were tasting different bananas, and thus described the bananas as tasting differently. Then they were told it was actually the same banana.

I would bet $ that if I tested you blind on 10 different amps of high quality (low distortion/noise, plenty of clean power output, full frequency response, and no EQ), you'd not have any better than random chance guessing right. BUT, that if I put the amps all out on display and told you which ones you were listening to (deceiving you - really you'd be listening to the same amp over and over), you'd describe each replay of the song differently.

Why? Because of the power of your mind to imagine perceptions that your physical senses aren't actually detecting. 

Again, that psychological phenomena has AMPLE proof in MANY scientific experiments. No educated person would argue that psychology does not play a HUGE role in human perception. It's just that when someone thinks they are absolutely right, and have some special ability to tell imperceptible differences, their mind will make it so to their perception.

And thus why people can be so easily tricked - like with the two halves of one banana but being told the halves came from different bananas.

People going into such a test with no bias to organic vs. non-organic, would tell the tester, "They taste the same to me." People influenced by bias will psychologically perceive difference and tell the tester, "Oh yeah, this half tastes sweeter, has a smoother texture, and just seems more pure." 

It's just as funny to watch people do this over amps as those in the video did over bananas...


----------



## cajunner

you see people latching on to various "camps" where the theme for entry is lycan's proposition that anything that can be measured different, will not be the same so it throws out the hardware.

but, what I keep saying is that the circuits themselves, make the difference. It's true that most amps have similar circuits today, and therefore most amps sound the same.


But it's the circuits, the various little protection schemes, grounding protocols, pre-amp drive biasing, etc. that actually make up the difference that a bill of materials including changes in capacitor quality, transistor quality, PCB trace thickness, heat distribution, etc. cannot.

These circuits within the amplifier and put there to manage various parts of the signal path or power supply, are patented for various reasons, but certainly not because they don't matter.

See, you can put several amps of say, >100W/ch output, against each other and set them to play at between 1 and 10 watts, and you probably could ramp up the volume, lower it, whatever, and not notice differences in sound quality. But when you start to engage circuits, and raise the noise floor of the amp because it's operating at near full current capacity, things start to change. Those patented circuits that some amps have, and others do not, start to make a difference.

You look at RF's power cube, and it will explain reactive loads to a degree so you can make an apples to apples comparison between amps, if all amp manufacturers would adopt the scheme.


but they don't. Of course, who can blame them if they already know how that particular measurement system is going to make their amplifiers look, in comparison to RF product, which performs well on the test.

this is a scientifically valid test that is outside of FR, distortion, noise, and just indicates gain, in reactive loading.

so I understand that there's the "parts sound different" camp, the "amp topography doesn't matter if you are outside of human hearing," camp, the "all amps today are good enough" camp, the "noise, distortion, gain and FR are all you need" camp, etc. etc.

but what we don't see enough of is the amplifier designer camp, where people build circuits that sound different from each other, and those circuits are sometimes licensed, and sometimes too costly to implement, and sometimes implemented poorly, etc.

it's the circuit in the amp, that makes the amp sonic signature.

at a static resistive load, you can match amps but you can't match circuits, you can accept that all amplifier circuits that are commercially successful are able to beat the human ear's ability to distinguish, but the real test is when you put one amp against another and play music through them, difficult reactive loads being pushed by complex waves.

the amps only begin to show themselves then, and on a scale that swallows up the "FR/gain/THD" test set.

think of it like dynamic equalization, except that it's not a circuit Bose designed to control output volume for smaller speakers, it's the amp's particular circuit being excited at various levels that change the steady state response as the amp ramps up power output and meets various little set points, triggering various circuits that may have an audible impact on the sound quality, but designed for a purpose like preventing thermal runaway or reducing saturation on the toroid, or whatever.


----------



## sqnut

...and I'm supposed to be on the same side 



WRX/Z28 said:


> Sorry, but you're incorrect. It's commonly accepted that 2-3db is the smallest audible change to the human ear. Fractions of a decibel are outside of our hearing capabilities. As far as timing, I doubt that a fraction of a millisecond is audible as moving your hear 1/8" to one side could yield a larger change.


Most processors today have eq calibrations at 0.3-0.5 db this is a fairly fine resolution. The eq on the p80 and older 800/880 are +/- 2db which is really coarse. 2-3 db is the smallest audible change? Even an untrained ear would pick a +/- 1db at 3khz easily. Don't believe everything you read on the net. Try and see what your sesitivity level is. Blind Listening Tests

Yes, the ears sensitivity is not the same through the 10 octaves. So a +/- 0.5 db at 50hz will be barely audible. You're not going to hear a 0.1db difference here. 

In the midrange the sensitivity is much better and you will hear 0.2-0.3 difference here. Folks who tweak by ear, trained ears will pick this very easily. The basic FM curves are a guide to sensitivity. 




WRX/Z28 said:


> Again, agreed... mostly. Our hearing is not quite as good as you seem to believe.


You'd be surprised. Again, don't go by general rules / vague guidelines. Our hearing is extremely sensitive. Let's take TA. On the pio units TA is in steps of 0.5" that is 0.04ms or 1/25,000 of a second difference. Easily heard by anyone. My bit10 lets me do this in 0.02 ms when you're fine tuning. The difference is audible but the ability to say better or worse at this resolution requires some practice. 





WRX/Z28 said:


> It's also impossible to remember small details in sound in short spans of time...


Must we keep clearing doubts / myths?

The main point I was trying to make is that although our hearing is very sensitive, we only hear in the response and time domain. All this talk about different electronics, circuits distortion and what not basically HAS to boil down to a measured difference in either response or a time. Anything that does not fall in these two domains means we're not hearing it. To my knowledge none of the folks who claim a difference has shown any measured difference that means anything.


----------



## sqnut

cajunner said:


> you see people latching on to various "camps" where the theme for entry is lycan's proposition that anything that can be measured different, will not be the same so it throws out the hardware.
> 
> but, what I keep saying is that the circuits themselves, make the difference. It's true that most amps have similar circuits today, and therefore most amps sound the same.
> 
> 
> But it's the circuits, the various little protection schemes, grounding protocols, pre-amp drive biasing, etc. that actually make up the difference that a bill of materials including changes in capacitor quality, transistor quality, PCB trace thickness, heat distribution, etc. cannot.
> 
> These circuits within the amplifier and put there to manage various parts of the signal path or power supply, are patented for various reasons, but certainly not because they don't matter.
> 
> See, you can put several amps of say, >100W/ch output, against each other and set them to play at between 1 and 10 watts, and you probably could ramp up the volume, lower it, whatever, and not notice differences in sound quality. But when you start to engage circuits, and raise the noise floor of the amp because it's operating at near full current capacity, things start to change. Those patented circuits that some amps have, and others do not, start to make a difference.
> 
> You look at RF's power cube, and it will explain reactive loads to a degree so you can make an apples to apples comparison between amps, if all amp manufacturers would adopt the scheme.
> 
> 
> but they don't. Of course, who can blame them if they already know how that particular measurement system is going to make their amplifiers look, in comparison to RF product, which performs well on the test.
> 
> this is a scientifically valid test that is outside of FR, distortion, noise, and just indicates gain, in reactive loading.
> 
> so I understand that there's the "parts sound different" camp, the "amp topography doesn't matter if you are outside of human hearing," camp, the "all amps today are good enough" camp, the "noise, distortion, gain and FR are all you need" camp, etc. etc.
> 
> but what we don't see enough of is the amplifier designer camp, where people build circuits that sound different from each other, and those circuits are sometimes licensed, and sometimes too costly to implement, and sometimes implemented poorly, etc.
> 
> it's the circuit in the amp, that makes the amp sonic signature.
> 
> at a static resistive load, you can match amps but you can't match circuits, you can accept that all amplifier circuits that are commercially successful are able to beat the human ear's ability to distinguish, but the real test is when you put one amp against another and play music through them, difficult reactive loads being pushed by complex waves.
> 
> the amps only begin to show themselves then, and on a scale that swallows up the "FR/gain/THD" test set.
> 
> think of it like dynamic equalization, except that it's not a circuit Bose designed to control output volume for smaller speakers, it's the amp's particular circuit being excited at various levels that change the steady state response as the amp ramps up power output and meets various little set points, triggering various circuits that may have an audible impact on the sound quality, but designed for a purpose like preventing thermal runaway or reducing saturation on the toroid, or whatever.


TLDR Is there a measurable difference in response down to ~ +/- 0.1db? Yes or no?


----------



## subwoofery

sqnut said:


> ...and I'm supposed to be on the same side  *LOL*
> 
> 
> 
> Most processors today have eq calibrations at 0.3-0.5 db this is a fairly fine resolution. The eq on the p80 and older 800/880 are +/- 2db which is really coarse. 2-3 db is the smallest audible change? Even an untrained ear would pick a +/- 1db at 3khz easily. Don't believe everything you read on the net. Try and see what your sesitivity level is. Blind Listening Tests
> 
> Yes, the ears sensitivity is not the same through the 10 octaves. So a +/- 0.5 db at 50hz will be barely audible. You're not going to hear a 0.1db difference here.
> 
> In the midrange the sensitivity is much better and you will hear 0.2-0.3 difference here. Folks who tweak by ear, trained ears will pick this very easily. The basic FM curves are a guide to sensitivity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be surprised. Again, don't go by general rules / vague guidelines. Our hearing is extremely sensitive. Let's take TA. On the pio units TA is in steps of 0.5" that is 0.04ms or 1/25,000 of a second difference. Easily heard by anyone. My bit10 lets me do this in 0.02 ms when you're fine tuning. The difference is audible but the ability to say better or worse at this resolution requires some practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must we keep clearing doubts / myths?
> 
> The main point I was trying to make is that although our hearing is very sensitive, we only hear in the response and time domain. All this talk about different electronics, circuits distortion and what not basically HAS to boil down to a measured difference in either response or a time. Anything that does not fall in these two domains means we're not hearing it. To my knowledge none of the folks who claim a difference has shown any measured difference that means anything.


Yes, Dspence puts too much faith in what he reads on the internet.

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

Tried the blind test and 1dB is easy to hear. 

@ 0.2dB I can hear the increase in SPL, not so much when it drops. 

But I guess it's impossible since this is against human nature... right? 

Kelvin


----------



## sqnut

subwoofery said:


> Tried the blind test and 1dB is easy to hear.
> 
> @ 0.2dB I can hear the increase in SPL, not so much when it drops.
> 
> But I guess it's impossible since this is against human nature... right?
> 
> Kelvin


Do that test twice a day for 5 mts each time for a week. I can assure that at the end of the week you'll be able to pick the 0.2 db cut with better accuracy. You're just training your ears to tell a difference at a finer resolution.


----------



## subwoofery

sqnut said:


> Do that test twice a day for 5 mts each time for a week. I can assure that at the end of the week you'll be able to pick the 0.2 db cut with better accuracy. You're just training your ears to tell a difference at a finer resolution.


I'll try that when I get home... Can't hear nothing with those crappy computer speakers :laugh: 

Kelvin


----------



## cajunner

sqnut said:


> TLDR Is there a measurable difference in response down to ~ +/- 0.1db? Yes or no?


who cares about measurements?

this is about higher end amp sound quality.

sound quality, is not a rating system that depends on statistical performance, unless you are taking a poll in a comparison survey, and using that information to credit or discredit something that changes sound quality.

you can attempt to define sound quality by citing various measurement criteria, but you won't be able to apply those measurements, with reasonable certainty to any group of people that changes from the last.

you can find what an average difference is, in minute details.


One, that the average listener is able to discern/achieve, then you can go about creating a test apparatus that puts all amplifiers into a condition of meeting those threshold levels that have been universally acknowledged as the limits of human hearing.

That only proves you can devise the apparatus, it doesn't address the fact that the test apparatus is not how the amplifiers will be used, and that the sonic signatures of the amps are most audible and valid, when the amp is able to produce it's full power, and when the EMF is strongest from the motors it drives.

This is the crux of the testing as proof semantics, you can make amplifiers sound the same but most people can tell a difference when operating those amplifiers outside of testing requirements.


----------



## sqnut

subwoofery said:


> Here's my post for reference:
> 
> 
> Kelvin


Curious if Genesis Amps would be classified as warm or clinical? And here I was thinking that speakers are warm / clinical


----------



## 2010hummerguy

sqnut said:


> Curious if Genesis Amps would be classified as warm or clinical? And here I was thinking that speakers are warm / clinical


On a serious note, I've noticed that amps with negative feedback loops will sound warmer than non feedback amps. I am sure this means the feedback loop is introducing even order distortion especially in the 2nd harmonic but I can't handle very much of it. Same reason I cannot stand regular Esotecs, they sound horrible to me. Give me a SEAS Nextel all day long...

I did get to hear a very high dollar Genesis tube integrated last weekend custom built by Genesis' top engineer and it was the first tube I've ever liked. Too much even order distortion sounds very dirty to me, probably because I was raised on solid state and CDs. But this thing was superb.


----------



## subwoofery

sqnut said:


> Curious if Genesis Amps would be classified as warm or clinical? And here I was thinking that speakers are warm / clinical


Depends... What kind of OP are there inside? Burr-Brown or else? 

Kelvin


----------



## Jesus Christ

cajunner said:


> but, what I keep saying is that the circuits themselves, make the difference. It's true that most amps have similar circuits today, and therefore most amps sound the same.
> 
> 
> But it's the circuits, the various little protection schemes, grounding protocols, pre-amp drive biasing, etc. that actually make up the difference that a bill of materials including changes in capacitor quality, transistor quality, PCB trace thickness, heat distribution, etc. cannot.
> 
> These circuits within the amplifier and put there to manage various parts of the signal path or power supply, are patented for various reasons, but certainly not because they don't matter.
> 
> See, you can put several amps of say, >100W/ch output, against each other and set them to play at between 1 and 10 watts, and you probably could ramp up the volume, lower it, whatever, and not notice differences in sound quality. But when you start to engage circuits, and raise the noise floor of the amp because it's operating at near full current capacity, things start to change. Those patented circuits that some amps have, and others do not, start to make a difference.


Do you have any specific examples of these circuits and what we can expect to hear with each different circuit?


----------



## cajunner

Jesus Christ said:


> Do you have any specific examples of these circuits and what we can expect to hear with each different circuit?


what do I look like, an electrical engineer?


no, you cannot have examples of audio circuits and their effects.


you can however, pick up a magazine and read advertising copy like I have, and maybe be able to pick out which ones are good and which ones don't make any difference.

good luck!


----------



## Jesus Christ

cajunner said:


> what do I look like, an electrical engineer?
> 
> 
> no, you cannot have examples of audio circuits and their effects.
> 
> 
> you can however, pick up a magazine and read advertising copy like I have, and maybe be able to pick out which ones are good and which ones don't make any difference.
> 
> good luck!


So since you have no experience with these circuits how can you say they're responsible for what you claim to be hearing?


----------



## sqnut

subwoofery said:


> Depends... What kind of OP are there inside? Burr-Brown or else?
> 
> Kelvin


What you're saying is that you know the OP inside the Brax, Sinfoni, DLS, Audison etc amps since you rated them, but you don't know it for Genesis. Just yanking your chain a bit


----------



## sqnut

cajunner said:


> you can however, pick up a magazine and read advertising copy like I have, and maybe be able to pick out which ones are good and which ones don't make any difference.


So you build your scientific database based on manufacturers ad copy?


----------



## cajunner

Jesus Christ said:


> So since you have no experience with these circuits how can you say they're responsible for what you claim to be hearing?


because I believe and trust that people who sell stereo for a living wouldn't be untruthful, why? Is that bad?

what makes you think circuits can't be responsible for the differences people hear in amplifiers?



sqnut said:


> So you build your scientific database based on manufacturers ad copy?


scientific database?

I have a collection of specifications, if that helps.

really, I think everyone is so locked in to the premise that you can't hear differences, it's harder to get through that bias and show that amplifiers aren't all made the same.

When everyone starting shopping from a UBUY catalog, maybe you can't tell the amps apart but when people developed their circuits here in America you had engineers who made precedents, progress, and products that were just better than the others, during their time.


----------



## subwoofery

sqnut said:


> What you're saying is that you know the OP inside the Brax, Sinfoni, DLS, Audison etc amps since you rated them, but you don't know it for Genesis. Just yanking your chain a bit


Actually I know exactly what WAS in my Genesis DMX and what IS in it NOW. 
And yes, I still OWN my Genesis DMX - just not using it right now. 

Kelvin


----------



## Jesus Christ

cajunner said:


> what makes you think circuits can't be responsible for the differences people hear in amplifiers?


I never said they couldn't, I just wanted to know what evidence you had to support your claims beyond just speculation.


----------



## Dspencer

cajunner said:


> because I believe and trust that people who sell stereo for a living wouldn't be untruthful, why? Is that bad?
> 
> what makes you think circuits can't be responsible for the differences people hear in amplifiers?
> 
> 
> 
> scientific database?
> 
> I have a collection of specifications, if that helps.
> 
> really, I think everyone is so locked in to the premise that you can't hear differences, it's harder to get through that bias and show that amplifiers aren't all made the same.
> 
> When everyone starting shopping from a UBUY catalog, maybe you can't tell the amps apart but when people developed their circuits here in America you had engineers who made precedents, progress, and products that were just better than the others, during their time.


Again, I don't see anyone saying that parts don't make A DIFFERENCE. The issue is with the theory that human ears can blindly tell the sound coming from two amps with specs beyond what is necessary for great sound quality.

I'm not locked into the premise that humans can't tell amps a part, I'm convinced for now that psychology plays a huge role in why some people THINK they can hear differences that aren't actually there - as proven by blind tests. 

The overwhelming evidence in tests show that people PERCEIVE a difference in their minds, when they know which amps are playing - they will describe them differently. BUT, when they are not sure which amps are playing (blind tests) or deceived (told an amp is playing when it is the other one), the vast majority of people at best guess correctly a random % of the time - showing they cannot really tell the difference, they just think they can.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm going to stick with what experiments have proven, and subscribe to the theory that amplifiers, like wires, do not change the sound within human hearing limits IF they are all of high enough quality to have noise/distortion levels too low to hear, AND have no built in EQ that is in play.


----------



## Dspencer

Maybe it's because I'm of the digital era generation with CD's and beyond, but I don't want an amplifier adding distortion (such as 2nd order with some tubes, etc) - it sounds muddied up to me. 

I prefer crystal clean sound reproduction with a digital sound processor to set EQ and time alignment that sounds best to me. Clarity of sound reproduction at high volume levels is what I seek .

But, that's personal preference. There are plenty of good reasons for people to choose one amplifier over another, based on personal preferences. But this doesn't mean that magical fairy dust sprinkled on "high end" amps is one of them.


----------



## Victor_inox

that statement is moronic to put it nicely.


----------



## Victor_inox

tube amps muddy?
what tube amps did you listened to?
So, you can hear a difference between tubes and solid state? How about your statement that all amps sounds the same? Seriously get a clue.


----------



## subwoofery

Tube amps have a sound that is different than other topology? Is that what you're saying? 

Kelvin


----------



## WRX/Z28

cajunner said:


> because I believe and trust that people who sell stereo for a living wouldn't be untruthful, why? Is that bad?
> 
> what makes you think circuits can't be responsible for the differences people hear in amplifiers?


Hmmm... guess what I do for a living. 



cajunner said:


> scientific database?
> 
> I have a collection of specifications, if that helps.
> 
> really, I think everyone is so locked in to the premise that you can't hear differences, it's harder to get through that bias and show that amplifiers aren't all made the same.
> 
> When everyone starting shopping from a UBUY catalog, maybe you can't tell the amps apart but when people developed their circuits here in America you had engineers who made precedents, progress, and products that were just better than the others, during their time.


So what changes that can't be accounted for? What does the amp add/subtract from the signal other than it's own EQ curve (failed it's only job), some kind of phase variance (failed it's only job) or inaudible noise?


----------



## WRX/Z28

sqnut said:


> ...and I'm supposed to be on the same side
> 
> 
> 
> Most processors today have eq calibrations at 0.3-0.5 db this is a fairly fine resolution. The eq on the p80 and older 800/880 are +/- 2db which is really coarse. 2-3 db is the smallest audible change? Even an untrained ear would pick a +/- 1db at 3khz easily. Don't believe everything you read on the net. Try and see what your sesitivity level is. Blind Listening Tests
> 
> Yes, the ears sensitivity is not the same through the 10 octaves. So a +/- 0.5 db at 50hz will be barely audible. You're not going to hear a 0.1db difference here.
> 
> In the midrange the sensitivity is much better and you will hear 0.2-0.3 difference here. Folks who tweak by ear, trained ears will pick this very easily. The basic FM curves are a guide to sensitivity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be surprised. Again, don't go by general rules / vague guidelines. Our hearing is extremely sensitive. Let's take TA. On the pio units TA is in steps of 0.5" that is 0.04ms or 1/25,000 of a second difference. Easily heard by anyone. My bit10 lets me do this in 0.02 ms when you're fine tuning. The difference is audible but the ability to say better or worse at this resolution requires some practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must we keep clearing doubts / myths?
> 
> The main point I was trying to make is that although our hearing is very sensitive, we only hear in the response and time domain. All this talk about different electronics, circuits distortion and what not basically HAS to boil down to a measured difference in either response or a time. Anything that does not fall in these two domains means we're not hearing it. To my knowledge none of the folks who claim a difference has shown any measured difference that means anything.


These aren't myths... these are proven through research, not forum member opinion...


----------



## sqnut

When operated in the linear mode you can't really hear a difference between tube and SS. HOWEVER when they are driven into clipping, they will measure and sound different. The soft clipping on the tube amps is what people take as the signature of a tube amp.


----------



## sqnut

WRX/Z28 said:


> These aren't myths... these are proven through research, not forum member opinion...


Did you try the test? If you did ask yourself how come you can hear a +/- 1db or less difference when research according to you say +/- 2-3 db is the limit....


----------



## captainobvious

subwoofery said:


> Tube amps have a sound that is different than other topology? Is that what you're saying?
> 
> Kelvin


Is the goal of the tube amplifier to add audible distortion to the signal? Why else would tubes be used in a modern circuit? Many find this distortion pleasing to the ear, but again, that's a goal of using the tubes- to alter the sound, not just amplify its magnitude, no?


----------



## ChrisB

captainobvious said:


> Is the goal of the tube amplifier to add audible distortion to the signal? Why else would tubes be used in a modern circuit? Many find this distortion pleasing to the ear, but again, that's a goal of using the tubes- to alter the sound, not just amplify its magnitude, no?



Tell an audiophile that their precious tube amps induce distortion that isn't present in the original music signal and post their reaction.


----------



## sqnut

The difference in distortion between Tube and SS is OUTSIDE the amps linear mode. If both amps are in the linear range, no difference. Blind tests with both amps in linear range shows people can't pick the difference.


----------



## Victor_inox

sqnut said:


> The difference in distortion between Tube and SS is OUTSIDE the amps linear mode. If both amps are in the linear range, no difference. Blind tests with both amps in linear range shows people can't pick the difference.


Describe linear range.


----------



## captainobvious

sqnut said:


> The difference in distortion between Tube and SS is OUTSIDE the amps linear mode. If both amps are in the linear range, no difference. Blind tests with both amps in linear range shows people can't pick the difference.



Ahh, ok. Good point.

Operated outside of that range, I'm sure I'd rather hear the distortion of the tube amp vs a SS in most cases. Plus, it can keep my toes warm or fry an egg in a pinch


----------



## Victor_inox

you guys put too much faith in internet articles. What is linear range? explain please.
Some tube amps FR 3Hz to 100KHz with .5Db nonlinearity in specified power band. 
Odd harmonics SS introduce to signal is much more intrusive than even low order tube does, therefore tubes sounds better to many users. and there no SS invented without these harmonics present and audible. Ever wondered why is that parameter usually not included in specs?


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> Ahh, ok. Good point.
> 
> Operated outside of that range, I'm sure I'd rather hear the distortion of the tube amp vs a SS in most cases. Plus, it can keep my toes warm or fry an egg in a pinch


200W tube amp can heat up a small room in winter.

Frying eggs is also possible as power tubes heat up to 350F easily.


----------



## 2010hummerguy

The problem with tube amps is they are usually so low power that you must operate outside of linear range especially with dynamic content=vinyl! The Genesis tube I heard last weekend was over 100wpc which is probably why I liked it...never driven to clipping thanks to ample headroom.


----------



## subwoofery

captainobvious said:


> Is the goal of the tube amplifier to add audible distortion to the signal? Why else would tubes be used in a modern circuit? Many find this distortion pleasing to the ear, but again, that's a goal of using the tubes- to alter the sound, not just amplify its magnitude, no?


Go down to: "_Here is a distortion graph of a typical push pull amplifier:_" 
The Decware Audiophile Tube Amplifier / Model ZEN TORII MKIII 
Some tube amps topology cancels even order harmonics. So the amp produces less distortion. Wouldn't that be better? Apparently not according to the website... 

The graphs are exactly what I've been posting in the thread 

Kelvin


----------



## Victor_inox

Architect7 said:


> The problem with tube amps is they are usually so low power that you must operate outside of linear range especially with dynamic content=vinyl! The Genesis tube I heard last weekend was over 100wpc which is probably why I liked it...never driven to clipping thanks to ample headroom.


High sensitivity speakers usually solve that problem. 
BUt high sensitivity speakers is usually huge by today`s standards


----------



## tjswarbrick

ChrisB said:


> Tell an audiophile that their precious tube amps induce distortion that isn't present in the original music signal and post their reaction.


Actually, it wouldn't bother us a bit because we understand and accept the fact that all amplifiers, and pieces of electronic gear, have some level of distortion. Always. Not just under full power, or at clipping, or whatever. It just gets a lot worse then!

In general. tube amps have higher levels of 2nd harmonic distortion, while SS will have higher levels in the third than the second. Many (though not all!) people find the former less objectionable.
In general, tube amps tend to have higher levels of second harmonics than SS do of third. THAT's the audiophile dilemma here, and each individual needs to decide on a compromise that works best for them and their system. But there have been very low distortion tube designs, and I've seen a couple of each type that don't fit the stereotype. (No chance to listen to them, though.) 

I don't get my specs from ad copy - I get most of 'em from the Measurements section on each piece of gear tested in Stereophile magazine. John Atkinson uses very precise, accurate equipment and has been doing it for a lot of years. But even he occasionally gets called on the carpet for his measurements being incorrect. And they certainly don't always jive with what his reviewers, and even himself, hear - so I am of the belief that there are things going on in circuits and components that we do not yet know to measure.

Still, I wish there was a mobile sound source for reviews Listening and Measurements of that caliber so those of us who so desire could select a few items that look good on paper, measure well, yet have different sonic signatures so we could go listen for ourselves. 

BTW, for those who say such-and-such component, wire, circuit CAN'T make a difference - some of those components do change the electrical properties of the complete circuit (source to speakers.) Wires, for instance, have different capacitance, inductance and resistance - as well as being made from "oxygen free single crystal" copper or "pure silver" or whatever. They may be largely inaudible to most in an automotive environment, but how can they NOT make a difference? 

Finally - a bunch of guys say "it doesn't matter because you're listening in a car with the engine on..." However, when I'm tuning my system or being judged in the lanes, the engine is not on and one goal is to have the car in the quietest environment possible (empty parking lot, enclosed garage, whatever.) So I think the whole inadequate dynamic range above the noise floor argument goes out the window in those situations. I'm sure *I* can't hear the difference between a 115dB S/N ratio and 120dB ratio under those conditions, but it would be a lot greater than the 48dB I could discern through some IEMs on my work PC the other day because the background noise was a constant grumbling hiss.


----------



## sqnut

Victor_inox said:


> Describe linear range.


The range upto the point the signal clips. The difference between the two is in the way they clip. The hard clipping on a SS amp has a different harmonic content from the soft clipped tube. On the tube the harmonics are rolling off as the frequency rises. The SS harmonics don't roll off till well beyond the audible limit. The tube amp is not adding any distortion that a SS wouldn't......_in the linear range._

This difference gives the tubes their 'warm' sound every time a dynamic peak clips the amp for a nano second.


----------



## 2010hummerguy

Victor_inox said:


> High sensitivity speakers usually solve that problem.
> BUt high sensitivity speakers is usually huge by today`s standards


Absolutely. And many of these are 1-way full range. I've never heard a 1-way FR that I liked. All sounded nasal, would not image well and of course could not be turned up very high before suffering from all kinds of intermodulation distortion. Those are for another crowd, certainly not for me.


----------



## Victor_inox

Architect7 said:


> Absolutely. And many of these are 1-way full range. I've never heard a 1-way FR that I liked. All sounded nasal, would not image well and of course could not be turned up very high before suffering from all kinds of intermodulation distortion. Those are for another crowd, certainly not for me.


Have you tried these:Dayton Audio PS220-8 8" Point Source Full-Range Neo Driver


----------



## ChrisB

Serious question, which of the following items has the ability to impact the sound more?

This:



OR


This:


----------



## Victor_inox

bit one but how it`s related to the topic in question?


----------



## Hanatsu

WRX/Z28 said:


> It's commonly accepted that 2-3db is the smallest audible change to the human ear. Fractions of a decibel are outside of our hearing capabilities.


Depends on Q and frequency as well. 0,5dB +/- is certainly audible. 

A low Q boost/cut by a certain level is much more audible than a high Q change. 

We pretty much agree otherwise, can't believe this thread keeps going on...


----------



## subwoofery

ChrisB said:


> Serious question, which of the following items has the ability to impact the sound more?
> 
> This:
> 
> 
> 
> OR
> 
> 
> This:


Depends really. If you're still using the OEM system, I'm sure the amp will impact the sound more since you'll be able to play your system louder - therefore affecting power and gain 

Kelvin


----------



## ChrisB

Victor_inox said:


> bit one but how it`s related to the topic in question?


Is high end amp sq really that important? Is it more important than the processor? What about my Genesis component speakers?

We're all splitting hairs over amplifiers sounding different, but at the end of the day, does it really matter?


----------



## Hanatsu

ChrisB said:


> Is high end amp sq really that important? Is it more important than the processor? What about my Genesis component speakers?
> 
> We're all splitting hairs over amplifiers sounding different, but at the end of the day, does it really matter?


The amount of improvement you could gain from better speakers, install and tuning is huge compared to swapping electronics imo. I've said for years, if you want real change get a DSP... 

If you want more power, you better get an amp with 4 times the output of the old if you expecting real differences. Anyone who have seen the measured acoustic data of an interior of a car knows what to proritize.


----------



## cajunner

Hanatsu said:


> Depends on Q and frequency as well. 0,5dB +/- is certainly audible.
> 
> A low Q boost/cut by a certain level is much more audible than a high Q change.
> 
> We pretty much agree otherwise, can't believe this thread keeps going on...


you have a scientific answer.

the reason I believe the thread continues, is that many people who have been in situations where they hear two different amplifiers playing, noticed a difference.

this is not any blind comparison test, this is not perfectly matched levels test, this starts at a soundboard which has already been modified (possibly? haha) by the owner of the soundboard to make sales, not to identify the differences in amplifiers.

and it extends into every single thing they have been told over the years, by people of authority with magazine articles adding to the advertising copy, and the parroting of the "facts" that say one amp is awesome, then the next amp is awesome, and so on, so it would appear that the entire industry is in cahoots from the guy that makes the Black Gate capacitors to the guy trying to sell you on a showroom floor.

this is an overwhelming amount of "anecdotal" evidence, it's collusion and it's just business as usual, the purveyors of audio have been at it for so long that it's just standard operating procedure.


so when a forum does some informal, but scientifically (quasi) valid tests and shows not a whole lot of distinguishing features from high enough end amps, it's a little like picking up the imaginary shirt that the emperor wears, and saying "I see you" to the audio industry, and they don't care. The disinformation is out there, and it's so prevalent that it would take 10 threads a day featuring debunking experiments, for years to overcome perception bias and thousands of examples of past audio manipulations by the now middle-aged consumer.


this is maybe true, the idea that we are getting more of something, that we are paying for special, and special becomes us, because it's what we own, is a genuine thing.


I may be a xenophobic *******, but if I buy this amp I'm now special, I have the special thing, I can flaunt the special thing in a signature, and I can focus attention to me through my expenditures.

does that make what I have sound any better? 


you damn right it does!


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> tube amps muddy?
> what tube amps did you listened to?
> So, you can hear a difference between tubes and solid state? How about your statement that all amps sounds the same? Seriously get a clue.


I know I'm not the one you were writing to there, but NO ONE has said "all amps sound the same." If so, please show the quote. 

We all know amps can sound different - but it's due to build in EQ, noise/distortion (even if unique to a type of tube vs. solid state amp) and frequency response. 

If all of those things are equal (both amps have no added build in EQ, noise/distortion is below audible limits (like it should be with a high quality amp - solid state at least, and frequency response of 20hz-20khz), I've found no proof any human being can accurately, again and again, in blind tests, tell the difference. Therefore, there is something else causing the perception of the difference in those cases (psychoacoustics). 

It's been repeated several times, but your side keeps acting like you didn't get it - NO ONE IS SAYING NO AMPS SOUND DIFFERENT THAN ANOTHER.


----------



## Dspencer

tjswarbrick said:


> BTW, for those who say such-and-such component, wire, circuit CAN'T make a difference - some of those components do change the electrical properties of the complete circuit (source to speakers.) Wires, for instance, have different capacitance, inductance and resistance - as well as being made from "oxygen free single crystal" copper or "pure silver" or whatever. They may be largely inaudible to most in an automotive environment, but how can they NOT make a difference?
> 
> Finally - a bunch of guys say "it doesn't matter because you're listening in a car with the engine on..." However, when I'm tuning my system or being judged in the lanes, the engine is not on and one goal is to have the car in the quietest environment possible (empty parking lot, enclosed garage, whatever.) So I think the whole inadequate dynamic range above the noise floor argument goes out the window in those situations. I'm sure *I* can't hear the difference between a 115dB S/N ratio and 120dB ratio under those conditions, but it would be a lot greater than the 48dB I could discern through some IEMs on my work PC the other day because the background noise was a constant grumbling hiss.


I don't think anyone argues that components of a system (even wires) don't make a difference. I think our side of the debate is clearly stating that once you get beyond audible noise/distortion levels (whether caused by subpar wiring or amps, or source unit, whatever), it no longer matters.

Like the example I used once long ago in this debate. It would be silly to waste a lot of time and money trying to make the invisible man MORE invisible.

So, at the point you get an amp that has no audible noise (outside an anechoic chamber - because we aren't listening to car audio in there, and no, most of us don't have a garage we listen in that is anechoic, and the sound comp lanes aren't anechoic either...), trying to get a "better" amp only for the purpose of making noise/distortion less audible, to raise the quality of sound, is pointless. 

Now, it's only pointless in that regard. There are legitimate reasons for people to pursue better amps, or whatever. Looks, durability, features, brand loyalty - support the companies you like financially, psychology, increase power output while staying as clean, etc. 

Of course you'll hear a difference between 48 db s/n vs. 120 db. I doubt anyone would seriously disagree. But, 110 & 95 db outside an anechoic chamber with proper source material - probably not...same with THD%-N less than .5%. Clipping amps is obviously a different story, and issues like ground loops, etc.


----------



## DBlevel

ChrisB said:


> Is high end amp sq really that important? Is it more important than the processor? What about my Genesis component speakers?
> 
> We're all splitting hairs over amplifiers sounding different, but at the end of the day, does it really matter?



Yes. 

Butler tube amp sounded different than the Planet Audio tube amps.

PA tubers were much more brighter and detailed on the top end and cleaner, opened on the lower end.

Butlers were flat no detail needed much more EQ to sound close. 

Same thing with Mosconi, they needed more EQ to have and crisp detailed delivery versus Zuki.

Zuki I preferred over many others but for detail you still had to play with the EQ, Zuki Eleets was a warm, full sound..........I liked them and still do! That's why I have a few sitting on the shelf!

Planet Audio tubers were great! 15+ yrs old and I think they can still hold they're own with ANYTHING!!! Out there!!!! Period. Challenge me...I have a few sitting here I'll offer as a test dumby!

The PA tubers were very clean and detailed.......amazing! I Almost hate selling them but plenty in the shadows right now.

Any of the old school Zed built has been amazing! Clean, underpowered and detailed sound.......US Acoustic USA series for sure!!! I have those on the shelves as well!

The older Zed built amps A/B I have been super impressed with!!

Includes the Autotek, Hifonics and yes........Zed built Boss/Crunch goodies!


----------



## Dspencer

cajunner said:


> I may be a xenophobic *******, but if I buy this amp I'm now special, I have the special thing, I can flaunt the special thing in a signature, and I can focus attention to me through my expenditures.
> 
> does that make what I have sound any better?
> 
> 
> you damn right it does!


And that is an example of the right reason to buy "high-end" equipment. There are plenty of good reasons for those who want to. 

But "telling the difference" is often psychological, not that a midrange amp with good enough specs doesn't sound as good in an normal environment.

It's like wires. You can pay crazy amounts of $ for "high-end" wiring. BUT, midrange wires with good enough specs vs the super expensive stuff will NOT produce an audible difference. 

But, if you like the color of the wire sleeve, and feel special with the $250 rca cable, sure, you had good reasons of your own to buy it.


----------



## ChrisB

DBlevel said:


> Yes.
> 
> Butler tube amp sounded different than the Planet Audio tube amps.
> 
> PA tubers were much more brighter and detailed on the top end and cleaner, opened on the lower end.
> 
> Butlers were flat no detail needed much more EQ to sound close.
> 
> Same thing with Mosconi, they needed more EQ to have and crisp detailed delivery versus Zuki.
> 
> Zuki I preferred over many others but for detail you still had to play with the EQ, Zuki Eleets was a warm, full sound..........I liked them and still do! That's why I have a few sitting on the shelf!
> 
> Planet Audio tubers were great! 15+ yrs old and I think they can still hold they're own with ANYTHING!!! Out there!!!! Period. Challenge me...I have a few sitting here I'll offer as a test dumby!
> 
> The PA tubers were very clean and detailed.......amazing! I Almost hate selling them but plenty in the shadows right now.
> 
> Any of the old school Zed built has been amazing! Clean, underpowered and detailed sound.......US Acoustic USA series for sure!!! I have those on the shelves as well!
> 
> The older Zed built amps A/B I have been super impressed with!!
> 
> Includes the Autotek, Hifonics and yes........Zed built Boss/Crunch goodies!


Ahh, but that brings up another issue. I went with a multiple channel class d amplifier for size and power in that given size. Until I get out of this compact car phase, which I may be over now, I'll need as much power as I can get in something that occupies about the same area as a sheet of 8.5" x 11" paper.

I owned a 4 channel Zuki Eleets 4 and I never installed it due to size. I had a Lunar L200x2 that I never installed due to size and current draw requirements. It pulled 110 amps on normal music and at the time I owned a Subaru WRX with a stock alternator.

Going back even further, I had a Hifonics Zeus VII that was stolen before it, was ever installed.

Oh well, if I do get a larger car next, Audison has some amplifiers that I am interested in and so does Mosconi.


----------



## DBlevel

I've changed the speakers/transducers in a system.

The amplifiers can change enough to me .............

US Amps, Orion, Brax, Mosconi, Zuki, Alpine, Memphis, Audio Art, PPI, Phoenix Gold, Sundown, Cadence, U S Acoustics, ESX, Zapco.....

They all had a disqucted sound/power signature...........

That's to me of course over the past year or so.


----------



## TrickyRicky

ChrisB said:


> Ahh, but that brings up another issue. I went with a multiple channel class d amplifier for size and power in that given size. Until I get out of this compact car phase, which I may be over now, I'll need as much power as I can get in something that occupies about the same area as a sheet of 8.5" x 11" paper.
> 
> I owned a 4 channel Zuki Eleets 4 and I never installed it due to size. I had a Lunar L200x2 that I never installed due to size and current draw requirements. It pulled 110 amps on normal music and at the time I owned a Subaru WRX with a stock alternator.
> 
> Going back even further, I had a Hifonics Zeus VII that was stolen before it, was ever installed.
> 
> Oh well, if I do get a larger car next, Audison has some amplifiers that I am interested in and so does Mosconi.


Holy **** 100amps on a L200x2? Are you sure this was with music? That is outrageous, inefficient?


----------



## Victor_inox

Dspencer said:


> I know I'm not the one you were writing to there, but NO ONE has said "all amps sound the same." If so, please show the quote.
> 
> We all know amps can sound different - but it's due to build in EQ, noise/distortion (even if unique to a type of tube vs. solid state amp) and frequency response.
> 
> If all of those things are equal (both amps have no added build in EQ, noise/distortion is below audible limits (like it should be with a high quality amp - solid state at least, and frequency response of 20hz-20khz), I've found no proof any human being can accurately, again and again, in blind tests, tell the difference. Therefore, there is something else causing the perception of the difference in those cases (psychoacoustics).
> 
> It's been repeated several times, but your side keeps acting like you didn't get it - NO ONE IS SAYING NO AMPS SOUND DIFFERENT THAN ANOTHER.


You right I was not talking to you.
secondly I understand what you saying I simply disagree with you.
Fact that YOU found no prove on internet means NOTHING. 
I have a sound board with ab switching want to come in and take a listen?
You`ll have full access to the board to verify that it`s not staged in any form.


and lastly no reason to ****ING SCREAM!


----------



## ChrisB

TrickyRicky said:


> Holy **** 100amps on a L200x2? Are you sure this was with music? That is outrageous, inefficient?


It was THAT inefficient BUT it was built to sound great, NOT run efficiently.


----------



## cajunner

tempers running high tonight.

maybe the hack discombobulated the usual suspects, so let's rally and come from behind, we'll be winners again, there's no reason to believe we're arguing useless semantics, it's all for a purpose, we know someone is out there that will agree with us...

relax!

and by ! I in no way mean to antagonize anyone, by my exclamation...


----------



## DBlevel

Again a class d sounds different than a class a/b..........

Can't really compare them.

That 1kwatt class d 

VS

1kwatt class a/b

How clean?

Efficient?

2014 Zed Audio class d Minotaur 750 watts rms at 2 ohms.....

1998ish US Acoustic USA2200 600 at 4 ohms........

Even at 500rms at 4 ohms I can't remember which one is cleaner??

More efficient? VS current etc.......

I'm sure it's not that big of a difference.






Hifonics Zeus 1000ish watts at 4 ohms rms......

Sure higher current draw but g"" DA"" amazingly clean sound!

What would it take for current dat any brand 1k watts at 4 ohms .....class a/b or class d???


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> You right I was not talking to you.
> secondly I understand what you saying I simply disagree with you.
> Fact that YOU found no prove on internet means NOTHING.
> I have a sound board with ab switching want to come in and take a listen?
> You`ll have full access to the board to verify that it`s not staged in any form.
> 
> 
> and lastly no reason to ****ING SCREAM!


:laugh: Sorry for the wrong impression - I wasn't screaming, or upset - just trying to make sure that part sticks out, because no matter how many times we say it in regular case type, someone will pop up and argue that amps sound different, which is not being disagreed.


----------



## Victor_inox

So, we agree to disagree?


----------



## Dspencer

DBlevel said:


> Again a class d sounds different than a class a/b..........
> 
> Can't really compare them.
> 
> That 1kwatt class d
> 
> VS
> 
> 1kwatt class a/b
> 
> How clean?
> 
> Efficient?
> 
> 2014 Zed Audio class d Minotaur 750 watts rms at 2 ohms.....
> 
> 1998ish US Acoustic USA2200 600 at 4 ohms........
> 
> Even at 500rms at 4 ohms I can't remember which one is cleaner??
> 
> More efficient? VS current etc.......
> 
> I'm sure it's not that big of a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hifonics Zeus 1000ish watts at 4 ohms rms......
> 
> Sure higher current draw but g"" DA"" amazingly clean sound!
> 
> What would it take for current dat any brand 1k watts at 4 ohms .....class a/b or class d???


This may be somewhat outdated theory. There was a time when A/B was no doubt the way to go for full range. However, with improvements in technology, full range class D now have the ability to amplify to a powerful and clean output much more efficiently. There is less reason these days to prioritize going class A/B for car audio, but many reasons to go with class D (smaller size for less install space, less heat, more power more efficiently, etc.).

With that said, I did go with a Soundstream Reference 2 channel recently instead of a comparable class D, but that was more for nostalgia than anything else. I used to run the original Soundstream Reference amps back in the day and loved them.

And, I don't use my Lexus trunk space much anyway, so in this case, the large footprint didn't bother me, and I built a custom amp rack with cooling fans to deal with the extra heat.

Though I went with the Reference a/b amp for some reasons I found worthwhile, I can't honestly say that a class d couldn't be found that puts out as much or more power, as cleanly, and with a smaller footprint - I could have, I just wanted that classic Soundstream Reference blue beauty and the fulfillment of nostalgia. 

Plus, with the current Reference line discontinued by Soundstream, online dealers were getting rid of them at crazy low prices - couldn't pass up the deal I got on mine. $115 for the Ref2.370! WOW

Does it's job very well, by the way - I'll be putting up a review of this blue beauty at some point once I fine tune the system. Just got my front stage component speakers installed last night...Polk Momo 6501 chosen primarily for shallow mount depth (Lexus front door is a *****) with the neodynium mag, power handling, and resistance (3 ohm - will use more of the capability of my Reference amp than a 4ohm set), plus they got great reviews as being very good quality for the price. 

On that note, I guarantee that the Momo set vs say a $60 pair of component speakers will make a MUCH bigger difference in sound quality in my car than changing amps (that have the proper power output and low noise/distortion).


----------



## DBlevel

Ran the o/s SS reference and new SS reference amps.

Both great amps but again a/b to a class d not comparable.
I know you weren't comparing but the SS reference heatsinks are very cool!!

I do like the class a SS....

Hard to find tho


----------



## Dspencer

DBlevel said:


> Ran the o/s SS reference and new SS reference amps.
> 
> Both great amps but again a/b to a class d not comparable.
> I know you weren't comparing but the SS reference heatsinks are very cool!!
> 
> I do like the class a SS....
> 
> Hard to find tho


Yeah the SS Ref heatsinks are perty - lol. I'm very impressed by the new ones sq for price. I had SS class A back then too - when SS amps were legendary!

Oh, and I'm trying out the SS Rubicon Rub1.1000d as well. So far seems to put out tons of clean power to the sub. 

I thought I'd give the new SS a try for nostalgia and wasn't super confident as they have gone more midrange and budget as a company, but was impressed with the Picasso Nano I put in my wife's SUV last year for space saving, and after reading some reviews on the new Reference and Rubicon line decided I'd take the plunge. 

I'm glad I did, it saved me a bunch of $ and I've been pushing them hard in testing and they do very well - both have nice looking heat sinks as a bonus, and built like tanks, especially the Reference.

I also gave the PP dsp-88r a shot for digital processing - great features for the price and so far in testing I'm not the least bit disappointed in it - was a little concerned it wouldn't be great based on the sale price, but turns out it's a nice little dsp.


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> So, we agree to disagree?


STFU! :laugh:


----------



## DBlevel

If the o/s class a were easier..... Maybe cheaper to find I run them. Specially with Vic's tube pre amps.

Of course I am biased on the SS stuff but I am a fan but when I can find things cheaper I run those instead.

That custom 6 channel polished heatsink setup of the class a was sick! Ridiculous! Wish I would've had the cash for it...........


----------



## Victor_inox

Dspencer said:


> STFU! :laugh:


****ing finally!


----------



## FG79

So I take a few months off from the one man vs. all fight show and this is still going on? 

I don't wish to re-enter this on the debate side, just as a spectator. 

The ego always wants other people to see your way. Never fails. But what also doesn't fail is other egos not willing to yield easily either. 

Just to re-iterate a point I made awhile ago that I think is still rather relevant:

This "debate" will only be solved in person. The idea that arguments (in written, not even verbal form at that) will sway others is rather naive at this point. I more or less held the common opinion in this thread (i.e. "amps aren't that important") several years ago due to nothing but internet reading and it was extremely hard to have that opinion changed online, and it wasn't until I got to hear things in real life that I *could* see things differently. 

Whether or not you agree with what I think about amplifiers and audio in general is irrelevant. I genuinely think that it is impossible to change a strong opinion just on reasoning alone. There are exceptions but they mostly have to do with trusting somebody you know in this game unconditionally.....and if you already do that, you're not going to be very resistive of their opinions anyways. 

So in theory, even with my firm beliefs now, there could be a potential change back to the old, but I'd like to have SOMEBODY demonstrate that to me in real life.


----------



## FG79

Architect7 said:


> The problem with tube amps is they are usually so low power that you must operate outside of linear range especially with dynamic content=vinyl! The Genesis tube I heard last weekend was over 100wpc which is probably why I liked it...never driven to clipping thanks to ample headroom.


Architect, not all tube amps are the same so you shouldn't be so quick to jump to those conclusions.

I've been around some high power tube amps around 100WPC+, and some tubes that are only like 5-10 WPC. 

Depending on the application, one is better than the other. If you have rather inefficient speakers, then the very low power amps won't be ideal and the higher would be better in many cases.

But with very efficient speakers, like say a nice horn loaded setup with 15" or 18" woofers putting down 105+ dB @ 1W, then the lower power tubes are almost always "nicer" sounding. 

There's an inherent nicer sound at the lower output levels for these low power tube amps (not every single one of them....just the "good ones", hehe). 

So this isn't a general statement that all low power tubes sound better than high power tubes. But when you take the best of the best in each category, and you don't *need* all of that power, then that's been my experience.

Car audio is a little different of course because the efficiency of drivers are not as good as what is available in home/pro audio. A pure tube only setup would be very refined indeed but I'm not sure if tubes all by themselves would give you that classic "car audio" experience if you know what I mean. 

A nice bi-amped setup with tubes driving horns or tweeters/dedicated midranges would be awesome and untouchable IMO. 

The philosophy of low vs. high power tube amps, I would also extend to SS to a good degree. In comparing my old Phoenix Gold MS amps to the Xtant X604, they are both of similar caliber but the tradeoff is overall power/headroom vs. SQ, respectively.


----------



## DBlevel

The only thing I'd replace the Brax x2400.2 with is the Planet Audio HVT754. Which currently I do have sitting in the garage.........


----------



## Victor_inox

FG79 said:


> A nice bi-amped setup with tubes driving horns or tweeters/dedicated midranges would be awesome and untouchable IMO.


 That part i wholeheartedly agree on, with SS on midbass that will be a bliss.
THat exactly what I`m doing in my own car. sounds terrific in my test closet (shaped as cabin of my 4runner) with brax matrix driving MW 160 and tubes on 140 and 102. 12W single ended each. MOst likely I`ll move up on 650 430 110 in actual vehicle but leave amps as described.


----------



## DBlevel

Victor_inox said:


> That part i wholeheartedly agree on, with SS on midbass that will be a bliss.
> THat exactly what I`m doing in my own car. sounds terrific in my test closet (shaped as cabin of my 4runner) with brax matrix driving MW 160 and tubes on 140 and 102. 12W single ended each. MOst likely I`ll move up on 650 430 110 in actual vehicle but leave amps as described.


All I read was brax matrix ........ You should get rid of it 

Specially if it's an x4

No good


----------



## Victor_inox

DBlevel said:


> All I read was brax matrix ........ You should get rid of it
> 
> Specially if it's an x4
> 
> No good


 You have few braxes yourself stay away from mine, please


----------



## DBlevel

Victor_inox said:


> You have few braxes yourself stay away from mine, please


Send them to the dark side!!!

Mr Vic 

I'll show them all the attention you don't


----------



## Victor_inox

DBlevel said:


> Send them to the dark side!!!
> 
> Mr Vic
> 
> I'll show them all the attention you don't


Maybe I should listen to gurus here and switch to class D copycats since they sounds just as good. 
THey like it here. I posted in your for sale thread, answer please.


----------



## DBlevel

Victor_inox said:


> Maybe I should listen to gurus here and switch to class D copycats since they sounds just as good.
> THey like it here. I posted in your for sale thread, answer please.


Sorry Vic man didn't see that, I'll go look real quick.


----------



## 2010hummerguy

FG79 said:


> Architect, not all tube amps are the same so you shouldn't be so quick to jump to those conclusions.
> 
> I've been around some high power tube amps around 100WPC+, and some tubes that are only like 5-10 WPC.
> 
> Depending on the application, one is better than the other. If you have rather inefficient speakers, then the very low power amps won't be ideal and the higher would be better in many cases.
> 
> But with very efficient speakers, like say a nice horn loaded setup with 15" or 18" woofers putting down 105+ dB @ 1W, then the lower power tubes are almost always "nicer" sounding.
> 
> There's an inherent nicer sound at the lower output levels for these low power tube amps (not every single one of them....just the "good ones", hehe).
> 
> So this isn't a general statement that all low power tubes sound better than high power tubes. But when you take the best of the best in each category, and you don't *need* all of that power, then that's been my experience.
> 
> Car audio is a little different of course because the efficiency of drivers are not as good as what is available in home/pro audio. A pure tube only setup would be very refined indeed but I'm not sure if tubes all by themselves would give you that classic "car audio" experience if you know what I mean.
> 
> A nice bi-amped setup with tubes driving horns or tweeters/dedicated midranges would be awesome and untouchable IMO.
> 
> The philosophy of low vs. high power tube amps, I would also extend to SS to a good degree. In comparing my old Phoenix Gold MS amps to the Xtant X604, they are both of similar caliber but the tradeoff is overall power/headroom vs. SQ, respectively.


You missed the part where I said the high powered Genesis tube amp I recently heard was very neutral, probably because it was not being driven to its limits. I used the word "Usually" because it is not always the case that tube amps are low powered. But it is the case almost all of the time because the market for high power tubes is just so small.

One of the best systems I ever heard was the Edgarhorn setup on tubes at Image Dynamics many years ago. But I do not believe it was being driven into distortion.


----------



## 2010hummerguy

Victor_inox said:


> Have you tried these:Dayton Audio PS220-8 8" Point Source Full-Range Neo Driver


I'd like to try it as well as the Tang Band version.


----------



## thehatedguy

Most of the lower powered tube amps are probably single ended...and single ended on horns is good IMO.

But Dr Edgar liked to use Cyrus Brenemman's amps, and they were mostly push pull.


----------



## thehatedguy

And technically the Genesis is a hybrid...a really good and unique one (if you are talking about the P15).


----------



## TrickyRicky

Victor_inox said:


> Maybe I should listen to gurus here and switch to class D copycats since they sounds just as good.
> THey like it here. I posted in your for sale thread, answer please.


Most if not all, class D amps are rebranded....same pbc/circuit shared with various companies. Crap if you ask me, you go thinking you bought a one of a kind class D amp then to find out Pyle and Boss also have the same pbc layout just marketed a bit different (outrageous specs).


Critical Mass got caught selling the same amps "So and so" sells for less than a couple of hundred bucks and CM slap a retail of 12K...LO FUKCING L. They even had the nerve to use the same EXACT heatsink/terminals/end covers...


----------



## FG79

thehatedguy said:


> Most of the lower powered tube amps are probably single ended...and single ended on horns is good IMO.


I don't know if the Western Electric amps are singled ended, but they are nicer than the AN amps which are already very good on their own. 

More weight.


----------



## 2010hummerguy

thehatedguy said:


> Most of the lower powered tube amps are probably single ended...and single ended on horns is good IMO.
> 
> But Dr Edgar liked to use Cyrus Brenemman's amps, and they were mostly push pull.


Good to know, thanks!



thehatedguy said:


> And technically the Genesis is a hybrid...a really good and unique one (if you are talking about the P15).


Pretty sure this one was all tube...one-off custom job by their lead engineer.


----------



## ChrisB

Victor_inox said:


> Maybe I should listen to gurus here and switch to class D copycats since they sounds just as good.
> THey like it here. I posted in your for sale thread, answer please.


Meh, it's going in a car and car audio is all about compromise. I picked the compromises I was willing to accept, with dedication to amplifier real estate being the main one, and designed the system around that. 

Could I achieve better sound with an all class ab setup? Maybe. 

Am I willing to dedicate the space and budget for the electrical system to support an all class ab setup in a compact car? Nope.


----------



## Dspencer

I can definitely tell a difference (or think I can ) between my SS Reference A/B amp on component set vs. my wife's SS Picasso Nano class D. BUT, hers fits easily under front passenger seat while mine takes up a good portion of my large trunk amp rack...plus hers never gets hot and the Reference can get pretty hot even with the rack being fan cooled.

Meh, I didn't need the space in this case, like we did for her SUV (mommy mobile). It's hard to say how much of the better sound in my car is due to the amp vs. having better component set than she has. 

Her fronts are a midrange kenwood component set, albeit one that gets great reviews and does sound fairly good. But the SS Reference paired with my Momo 6501 set definitely has better midbass, much more impact and blends great with sub, and the mid/high frequencies do sound better as well. But hey, her component set was like $150 or less and mine was about $240.

My guess is that the speakers make more difference than the amp, though I do think her Picasso Nano amp, having a worse S/N and Thd could not sound as good on my component set as the SS Reference - haven't tested that though.

Also, my front doors actually have 4 speakers each lol - so of course my front stage will sound better than just a woofer/tweeter combo in each of her front doors, with proper power and all. I'm running 1 momo 6.5" woofer, 3" mid, and 2 tweets in each front door - sounds fantastic with the dsp on time align and EQ duty to get everything blended perfectly.

I will say the momo 6.5" woofer is VERY impressive paired with the SS Ref2.370 amp! I have to keep the midbass dialed back even with a 3" mid and 2 tweets or it is too much. For a little woofer in a door it really kicks!

Oh yeah, back to the point - because my speaker set up is so far superior to hers, and I have a dsp and she doesn't, really hard to know just how much the difference in amps contributes to overall sound quality. And I'm too lazy to swap speakers out just to test it.


----------



## Dspencer

ChrisB said:


> Meh, it's going in a car and car audio is all about compromise. I picked the compromises I was willing to accept, with dedication to amplifier real estate being the main one, and designed the system around that.
> 
> Could I achieve better sound with an all class ab setup? Maybe.
> 
> Am I willing to dedicate the space and budget for the electrical system to support an all class ab setup in a compact car? Nope.


I hear ya - I went full class D for wife's SUV because she needs all the cargo space she can get. Modern class D amps that are built decently aren't bad at all. I was actually quite surprised by her Picasso Nano 4ch. I was expecting it + components to sound better than her factory system, but not by as much as it does - she has the JBL premium factory amped system before. It actually sounded good enough to spur me to jealousy so I upgraded my car, lol. Very surprising!

Back when I was heavier into car audio (pre-marriage and kids), class D on mids/highs just wouldn't cut it. Seems that they do now.


----------



## mcsoul

I believe this for the most part, I run audison amps and they sound good, but not much
different than many other amps run in their power/distortion sweet spot.

But then there's old hifonics/zed; and to my ear those amps do sound better running
full range than just about anything I've heard, like taking a wet blanket off the speaker.


----------



## BadSS

It's not all about frequency response. There can be big differences in the noise floor and "dynamics" of similarly rated amps. For the most part, it is hard to tell one amp from the other as long as there is no difference in the noise floor and they're compared at similar wattage under clipping. Saying that, I've run and installed a number of amps in my and my friend's cars over the years. I haven't run any real high dollar amps, but the only amps I've been thoroughly impressed with has been the Zed made HiFonics Gen X and the first A/B series of amps from Zed Audio. Dynamics are outstanding and they seem to deliver better detail that other amps I've run. The only explanation I can come up with is that both these lines of amps have "over built" power supplies and have a super low noise floor at all volumes.

The biggest surprises have come from the clearance priced Cerwin Vega EXL amps from a few years back - the best budget amps EVER - extremely low price and good power with a more than acceptable noise floor. The other was the JL HD amps. Expensive, but the only Class D full range I think I could personally run,,, which considering how I feel about the other Class D amps I've installed is saying something - lol.


----------



## probillygun

I'll also add that I can hear difference in amps. 

My most recent surprise/example was when I had to test an old Mmats 4 channel amp for a friend before he sold it. I had no intention of even listening for a difference in SQ but I hooked it up through the pre outs of my Denon (Made in Japan) 85 x 2 receiver I use in my garage system and I was only doing this to check the amp and make sure all the channels worked and woooow it sounded much better and smoother than my Denon which I always thought was decent. I can also say I heard the SQ difference immediately even at low volume and all volumes, it was very obvious when I connected the first speaker. 

Now its got me thinking I even need separates in my garage system also!


----------



## Hanatsu

probillygun said:


> I'll also add that I can hear difference in amps.
> 
> My most recent surprise/example was when I had to test an old Mmats 4 channel amp for a friend before he sold it. I had no intention of even listening for a difference in SQ but I hooked it up through the pre outs of my Denon (Made in Japan) 85 x 2 receiver I use in my garage system and I was only doing this to check the amp and make sure all the channels worked and woooow it sounded much better and smoother than my Denon which I always thought was decent. I can also say I heard the SQ difference immediately even at low volume and all volumes, it was very obvious when I connected the first speaker.
> 
> Now its got me thinking I even need separates in my garage system also!


And they will measure different if there really is an audible difference. That's the real debate here.


----------



## mcsoul

I'm not convinced that standard measurements on test tones tells the whole story of an amp's ability to play complex full range music. I think in most cases it does.


----------



## sqnut

mcsoul said:


> I'm not convinced that standard measurements on test tones tells the whole story of an amp's ability to play complex full range music. I think in most cases it does.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say.


----------



## cajunner

it is not a myth!


----------



## subwoofery

mcsoul said:


> I'm not convinced that standard measurements on test tones tells the whole story of an amp's ability to play complex full range music. I think in most cases it does.


Good read here: Butler Audio: Tubes vs. Transistors 

Kelvin


----------



## Dspencer

Hanatsu said:


> And they will measure different if there really is an audible difference. That's the real debate here.


Exactly. Everyone agrees amps can make a sound difference in systems. The issue is whether brand A vs brand B, both have specs good enough to scientifically have no audible distortion/noise/eq difference, sound different outside of psychoacoustics. 

Brand A may be +$200, or be a brand the listener prefers, etc., and suddenly people swear it sounds better. Though no scientific test can prove so. Which leads to the theory of psychoacoustics - that the difference in sound is all in our minds and not physical at all.

The other issues is back to personal preference - do you prefer your amps have no built in EQ and therefore, if high quality aka without distortion through power range, does not color the sound in any audible way (some call this clinical - people preferring the "clinical" or clean amps) or a preference for amps that do in fact color the sound, and when high end they are built so on purpose. Maybe the amp makes the sound "warmer," for example.


----------



## Victor_inox

Dspencer said:


> Exactly. Everyone agrees amps can make a sound difference in systems. The issue is whether brand A vs brand B, both have specs good enough to scientifically have no audible distortion/noise/eq difference, sound different outside of psychoacoustics.
> 
> Brand A may be +$200, or be a brand the listener prefers, etc., and suddenly people swear it sounds better. Though no scientific test can prove so. Which leads to the theory of psychoacoustics - that the difference in sound is all in our minds and not physical at all.
> 
> The other issues is back to personal preference - do you prefer your amps have no built in EQ and therefore, if high quality aka without distortion through power range, does not color the sound in any audible way (some call this clinical - people preferring the "clinical" or clean amps) or a preference for amps that do in fact color the sound, and when high end they are built so on purpose. Maybe the amp makes the sound "warmer," for example.


Your post implies that psychoacoustics is no science, that is simply incorrect.
Please educate yourself on the matter before making ignorant statements.
Psychoacoustics is the scientific study of sound perception. More specifically, it is the branch of science studying the psychological and physiological responses associated with sound (including speech and music). It can be further categorized as a branch of psychophysics.


----------



## Dspencer

Victor_inox said:


> Your post implies that psychoacoustics is no science, that is simply incorrect.
> Please educate yourself on the matter before making ignorant statements.
> Psychoacoustics is the scientific study of sound perception. More specifically, it is the branch of science studying the psychological and physiological responses associated with sound (including speech and music). It can be further categorized as a branch of psychophysics.


Sorry for the confusion - my statements were not meant to imply psychology is not a science - I majored in it, lol. 

What I meant is that, when there is no physical evidence that scientific tests can correlate to what people claim to hear, we then just throw it over to the theory of psychoacoustics.


----------



## sqnut

So are we saying that amps indeed do sound different but we are unsure of what to measure therefore we don't see the differences.

Two amps that aren't calibrated to have the same output will absolutely sound different. That accounts for 99.9% of those who hear a difference. The balance is down to amps that have some sort of built in eq and psychoacoustics. 

When we think about anything we assign it attributes. Think about it, it applies to everything. It's how our brain processes information. If you have 2-3 different amps that you have used, chances are you would have assigned attributes to it which you will hear when you swap them. When you buy a product you are buying into its functionality and its perceived attributes.


----------



## Victor_inox

Known scientific tests, maybe there some not discovered yet?
Music is emotional matter, psychoacoustics is extremely important, I truly believe in it.
KNown measurements don`t cover it


----------



## Hanatsu

I've tried for years to correlate measurements to what we hear. I have a pretty good idea what threshold is audible for different types of distortions when it comes to speakers. Non-linear distortion created by electronics are often rich in odd order HD/IMD and usually contain more energy than speaker distortion (taller order non-linearities). Other than that, the effect these types of distortion has on the sound can be directly compared. The audibility of non-linear distortion varies with frequency and volume and so the audibility threshold varies when playing different music content (at different volume). Transient distortion and steady state distortion also have different audibility thresholds that can be compared with a high Q vs low Q FR irregularity (also frequency dependant). This can be a rather diffuse topic to discuss - what you hear/don't hear - if the distortion adds up or if it's more or less audible in dead/reverbant acoustic environments. However if you take a look at the klippel listening tests regarding non-linear distortion you find that the majority of people having issues hearing amounts below 3% or so. Three percent is a rather large number when you put it in perspective to amplifier distortion (or pre-amp/source units etc) which usually lies in the 0,01-0,5% %THD region depending on design (below clipping ofc). My own conclusion is that non-linear distortion in most amplifiers can therefore be ignored as it falls well below the audible threshold. The two other static types of distortion would be linear and noise. Most fullrange amps can reproduce 30-40kHz today and most also measure flat. What I haven't seen much is tests on how amps behave under capacitive/inductive loads under difficult impedance loads. Again, this would probably relate much to clipping distortion (only difference being that it would occur sooner than the resistive load output rating).

So far I've not seen conclusive testing/proof that amps have distortions audible to us within "normal operation" (i.e below clipping). The ABX/AX blind tests I've done and the ones I've read about on the web seems to confirm this. Amps would certainly sound different if some EQ was integrated into the design but I rather control that with a DSP.


----------



## Hanatsu

I put a lot less faith in human hearing mechanism than some other people here. Phychoacoustics is a very complicated area. It's amazing how our hearing adapts and how we can hear differences based on what the brain predicts gonna happen. Ever heard about sound engineers adjusted some setting and heard an improvement - later realizing the module never actually were active in the first place?


----------



## sqnut

Hanatsu said:


> Ever heard about sound engineers adjusted some setting and heard an improvement - later realizing the module never actually were active in the first place?


That happens a lot while tuning. You think you have changed something and you hear the difference only to discover that the change wasn't made, very common. But the fact that you always "discover", is a constant.

Psychoacoustics / expectation bias makes you hear the non existent change but reality _*always*_ catches up with perception. No point fighting the psychoacoustics, just gate it with reality checks.


----------



## fredridge

when everything is the same, everything's the same


----------



## RobERacer

Dspencer said:


> I can definitely tell a difference (or think I can ) between my SS Reference A/B amp on component set vs. my wife's SS Picasso Nano class D. BUT, hers fits easily under front passenger seat while mine takes up a good portion of my large trunk amp rack...plus hers never gets hot and the Reference can get pretty hot even with the rack being fan cooled.
> 
> Meh, I didn't need the space in this case, like we did for her SUV (mommy mobile). It's hard to say how much of the better sound in my car is due to the amp vs. having better component set than she has.
> 
> Her fronts are a midrange kenwood component set, albeit one that gets great reviews and does sound fairly good. But the SS Reference paired with my Momo 6501 set definitely has better midbass, much more impact and blends great with sub, and the mid/high frequencies do sound better as well. But hey, her component set was like $150 or less and mine was about $240.
> 
> My guess is that the speakers make more difference than the amp, though I do think her Picasso Nano amp, having a worse S/N and Thd could not sound as good on my component set as the SS Reference - haven't tested that though.
> 
> Also, my front doors actually have 4 speakers each lol - so of course my front stage will sound better than just a woofer/tweeter combo in each of her front doors, with proper power and all. I'm running 1 momo 6.5" woofer, 3" mid, and 2 tweets in each front door - sounds fantastic with the dsp on time align and EQ duty to get everything blended perfectly.
> 
> I will say the momo 6.5" woofer is VERY impressive paired with the SS Ref2.370 amp! I have to keep the midbass dialed back even with a 3" mid and 2 tweets or it is too much. For a little woofer in a door it really kicks!
> 
> Oh yeah, back to the point - because my speaker set up is so far superior to hers, and I have a dsp and she doesn't, really hard to know just how much the difference in amps contributes to overall sound quality. And I'm too lazy to swap speakers out just to test it.


One of the things that would be a bit of a give away would be how open your truck sounds compaired to her SUV. This actually interests me a lot as I have a SS ref D running my Focal KRX2's in biamp. My sense is that it is my amp that is making the Focals sound choked (not as oopen and breathy) as I remeberred them in the shop. They don't sound thin with the SS but that may be more of a testament to the drivers and install than the amp. I am looking at anAB Arc audio that seems like it might fit under my seat. Similar power but flat to 50k. My SS is down 3db @ 20K. 
Car audio is a compromise it is true but tech has changed a ton in the last 20 years and we are far more able to deal with these imperfections than we used to be. It is similar to live music. Live has been all.compromise for many years but of recent history with the current tech Sonics are now approaching that of some of the better studios. Same with car audio. It is all about knowing the tech.


----------



## cajunner

when someone has to debate with themselves whether or not a different set of speakers or different car environment is changing the sound more than their amplifier...


let's just say that recent tests indicate that an amplifier is in the bottom percentile, in the pyramid of sound quality modifiers.

speakers are huge, as electrical to physical conversion is the biggest swing, and the differing environments coming in sometimes second, sometimes first...

but amps?

I think there's more variation available in which material the tweeter is built from than amplifier differences in the modern era, or anything built beyond 2000.


----------



## Hanatsu

cajunner said:


> when someone has to debate with themselves whether or not a different set of speakers or different car environment is changing the sound more than their amplifier...
> 
> 
> let's just say that recent tests indicate that an amplifier is in the bottom percentile, in the pyramid of sound quality modifiers.
> 
> speakers are huge, as electrical to physical conversion is the biggest swing, and the differing environments coming in sometimes second, sometimes first...
> 
> but amps?
> 
> I think there's more variation available in which material the tweeter is built from than amplifier differences in the modern era, or anything built beyond 2000.


Yes I believe so as well. The only problem I have is that a large amount of people seem to go from tip down and slide past the important fundament


----------



## sqnut

RobERacer said:


> One of the things that would be a bit of a give away would be how open your truck sounds compaired to her SUV. This actually interests me a lot as I have a SS ref D running my Focal KRX2's in biamp. My sense is that it is my amp that is making the Focals sound choked (not as oopen and breathy) as I remeberred them in the shop. They don't sound thin with the SS but that may be more of a testament to the drivers and install than the amp. I am looking at anAB Arc audio that seems like it might fit under my seat. Similar power but flat to 50k. My SS is down 3db @ 20K.
> Car audio is a compromise it is true but tech has changed a ton in the last 20 years and we are far more able to deal with these imperfections than we used to be. It is similar to live music. Live has been all.compromise for many years but of recent history with the current tech Sonics are now approaching that of some of the better studios. Same with car audio. It is all about knowing the tech.


Wow!!


----------



## fcarpio

I just swapped my amps and I made it a point to listen to see how different they were. The only thing I set on the new amps were the gains, everything else remained the same. I do hear more detailed sound with the new amps for the mids and highs, I am even liking my speakers better than before as they seem to be a better match for each other. Other than sound quality I think the amp I have for sub duty is not as tight as the one I used to have, the power difference is more noticeable for the subs. I did a quick sweep of the RTA and the new amps changed the curve, so they do sound different. I am pretty sure I can get them to sound better using the same process I used for the original amps with my RTA. The old amps were much more powerfult but I can't really tell that much difference as far as power goes. At this quality level (not top grade, not cheap stuff, just decent gear) the differences are very subjective. I cannot speak for the cheap stuff or the very high end as I do not have that kind of gear.

I went from a set of DLS Ultimate A6 and A4 to a set of much smaller and much lighter Helix Precision B2 and B4, no regrets.


----------



## Hanatsu

fcarpio said:


> I did a quick sweep of the RTA and the new amps changed the curve


That's interesting, never happened to me... and I've swapped amps a lot. Did you happen to save these RTA plots? Would like to know what was different.


----------



## fcarpio

Hanatsu said:


> That's interesting, never happened to me... and I've swapped amps a lot. Did you happen to save these RTA plots? Would like to know what was different.


Ahh dang, I did not save the RTA plot. 

This morning I messed for few minutes with my setup again to adjust the levels on the amps (in the processor) to better the overall balance and the sound improved. The subs are punchier (I had them set too low) but the difference in sound is still there. It seems that the B4 is a tad brighter than the A4 and that is consistent with what I saw in the RTA.

That is my story and I am sticking to it!


----------



## sqnut

If changing an amp changes the response curve in the car the said amp has a built in eq curve. A roll off in the upper mids and beyond will give you a perception of a more prominent lower end. Now when you take that roll off away by swapping amps, you need to raise the sub gain to make up for that loss of bass. 

In this case the amp sounds and measures differently cause that's the way it was made. The debate is more about hearing differences in amps that measure the same.


----------



## fcarpio

sqnut said:


> If changing an amp changes the response curve in the car the said amp has a built in eq curve. A roll off in the upper mids and beyond will give you a perception of a more prominent lower end. Now when you take that roll off away by swapping amps, you need to raise the sub gain to make up for that loss of bass.
> 
> In this case the amp sounds and measures differently cause that's the way it was made. The debate is more about hearing differences in amps that measure the same.


Yeah, makes sense.


----------



## subwoofery

sqnut said:


> If changing an amp changes the response curve in the car the said amp has a built in eq curve. A roll off in the upper mids and beyond will give you a perception of a more prominent lower end. Now when you take that roll off away by swapping amps, you need to raise the sub gain to make up for that loss of bass.
> 
> In this case the amp sounds and measures differently cause that's the way it was made. The debate is more about hearing differences in amps that measure the same.


(from L to R: Helix B2, Helix B4, DLS A4)








Dunno, measures about the same to me. No boost in the freq or early roll off  

Kelvin


----------



## Hanatsu

But it's a bit flatter beyond 40kHz. Love the sparkle up there xD


----------



## subwoofery

Hanatsu said:


> But it's a bit flatter beyond 40kHz. Love the sparkle up there xD


Yet the Helix is the brighter sounding, go figure  lol 

Kelvin


----------



## fcarpio

Nah, I did not get that. Mine was just a sweep and a mic on REW. I was able to hear a slight difference, that is when I remembered this thread and decided hooked up the RTA. Oh, well, I am not going to lose any sleep over this.


----------



## subwoofery

fcarpio said:


> Nah, I did not get that. Mine was just a sweep and a mic on REW. I was able to hear a slight difference, that is when I remembered this thread and decided hooked up the RTA. Oh, well, I am not going to lose any sleep over this.


... yeah but your post does help the discussion since you heard a difference (even a slight one) with gains match correctly even though both amps measure about the same  

SQnut did state that


> The debate is more about hearing differences in amps that measure the same.


Kelvin


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> when someone has to debate with themselves whether or not a different set of speakers or different car environment is changing the sound more than their amplifier...
> 
> 
> let's just say that recent tests indicate that an amplifier is in the bottom percentile, in the pyramid of sound quality modifiers.
> 
> speakers are huge, as electrical to physical conversion is the biggest swing, and the differing environments coming in sometimes second, sometimes first...
> 
> but amps?
> 
> I think there's more variation available in which material the tweeter is built from than amplifier differences in the modern era, or anything built beyond 2000.



This is absolutely the truth. The only thing is the question was really if buying a better amplifier is going to improve the sonic of the audio chain. The answer is absolutely. Does one hear a difference between a more budget minded home theatre system and a balls out, drop your jaw to the floor, open your wallet and bend over so you can take it hard rig? Do we actually think people are all idiots? I have to say those who think that are really fffing arrogant aren't they? (side note there is a fine line between arrogance and confidence and it has a lot to do with ignorance! You will note the root word of ignorance!... We all have choices to make in life.) I have seen it time and time again. People do hear the difference and when it is really good they will note it without even being prompted but the reality is better is better and you pay a lot to get a little as a tradition in any audio. The truth... Gold platted connectors and hand, point to point wiring, high end components and better thought out designs (R+D time) cost more. These all increase the cost of manufacturing. More cost to make equals an exponentially increased cost to the consumer. That is just the way it is. Don't like it? Tough, then listen to your ****e and tell yourself it sounds great and you are saving money. The truth is the truth though. Don't be upset when your neighbor drops the big bucks after he heard yours. You'll ashamed you were so arrogant about it when you hear his though. 
I don't have money to buy a Brax so I am just not looking at that level. What is the difference? I would almost prefer not to know but I will bet it is monumental. Sometimes, you can't pinpoint it till someone points it out to you. Sometimes those kinds of differences come at a crazy price too. Maybe the Brax isn't noticeably less distorted or wider frequency response but their value will show up otherwise they just would not exist. People aren't stupid and wealthier people are usually more educated and more discerning than general and that is a product that wealthier folks would be more prone to buy. This is very true with HD audio. Sure you can hear the hi hat. Yes, the lead voice is in your face but did you hear the 4 distinct parts of the vocal harmonies? Could you understand them individually enough that you could sing them back or are you guessing? How about the ghost notes on the snare? Great audio is all about detail and car audio is getting more and more capable every day.


----------



## sqnut

sqnut said:


> If changing an amp changes the response curve in the car the said amp has a built in eq curve.


fcarpio mentioned he got a different reading just by changing amps. What I mentioned is the only way that could happen. If the amp measures flat then obviously measurements were not accurate.



subwoofery said:


> (from L to R: Helix B2, Helix B4, DLS A4)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno, measures about the same to me. No boost in the freq or early roll off
> 
> Kelvin


----------



## Hanatsu

Move the mic 1" and the HF response will be altered. The exact same measuring conditions are paramount in these types of comparisons.


----------



## sqnut

Hanatsu said:


> Move the mic 1" and the HF response will be altered. The exact same measuring conditions are paramount in these types of comparisons.


In my mind the mic position was a constant. Setup mic measure with amp A, swap amp A for B and measure again......if it changed between readings then the test is null and void.


----------



## fcarpio

sqnut said:


> In my mind the mic position was a constant. Setup mic measure with amp A, swap amp A for B and measure again......if it changed between readings then the test is null and void.


No, that is where I failed. Measurement A was done the last time I touched my system, maybe two or three months ago. Measurement B was done yesterday. Go ahead a kill me now. :blush:


----------



## Dspencer

RobERacer said:


> This is absolutely the truth. The only thing is the question was really if buying a better amplifier is going to improve the sonic of the audio chain. The answer is absolutely. Does one hear a difference between a more budget minded home theatre system and a balls out, drop your jaw to the floor, open your wallet and bend over so you can take it hard rig? Do we actually think people are all idiots? I have to say those who think that are really fffing arrogant aren't they? (side note there is a fine line between arrogance and confidence and it has a lot to do with ignorance! You will note the root word of ignorance!... We all have choices to make in life.) I have seen it time and time again. People do hear the difference and when it is really good they will note it without even being prompted but the reality is better is better and you pay a lot to get a little as a tradition in any audio. The truth... Gold platted connectors and hand, point to point wiring, high end components and better thought out designs (R+D time) cost more. These all increase the cost of manufacturing. More cost to make equals an exponentially increased cost to the consumer. That is just the way it is. Don't like it? Tough, then listen to your ****e and tell yourself it sounds great and you are saving money. The truth is the truth though. Don't be upset when your neighbor drops the big bucks after he heard yours. You'll ashamed you were so arrogant about it when you hear his though.
> I don't have money to buy a Brax so I am just not looking at that level. What is the difference? I would almost prefer not to know but I will bet it is monumental. Sometimes, you can't pinpoint it till someone points it out to you. Sometimes those kinds of differences come at a crazy price too. Maybe the Brax isn't noticeably less distorted or wider frequency response but their value will show up otherwise they just would not exist. People aren't stupid and wealthier people are usually more educated and more discerning than general and that is a product that wealthier folks would be more prone to buy. This is very true with HD audio. Sure you can hear the hi hat. Yes, the lead voice is in your face but did you hear the 4 distinct parts of the vocal harmonies? Could you understand them individually enough that you could sing them back or are you guessing? How about the ghost notes on the snare? Great audio is all about detail and car audio is getting more and more capable every day.


LMFAO!!!!

Yer a trip. 

Yes, often times, "you get what you pay for" proves true. I'm pretty sure everyone posting hear is reasonably intelligent and able to make their own decisions on what is best for them based on their system goals.

To think one has to pay big $ to get a great sounding system is the ignorant viewpoint. 

I'm running the following in my Lexus, and it is the best sounding system I've heard to date that wasn't a pro competition system with a lot more complexity and cost - and I mean a LOT more cost. 
* Soundstream amps (Reference for full range and Rubicon for sub).
* Precision Power digital processor (dsp-88r) - time align set for great front stage imaging
* Polk Momo 6501 6.5" 2 ways at 300wrms (total for set)
* Infinity Kappa 120.9w 1 cu.ft. sealed at 600wrms
* Factory Pioneer speakers in doors for fill (and the front mid and tweet I left in place running on the factory Pioneer amp helped to bring the soundstage up over the dash, since my Momo's are the stock woofer location (tweeter mounted in Polk grill over the woofer)
With the dsp, it all blends beautifully, the stage is near perfect in driver or passenger seat, and it makes me eargasm. The system is so well matched up, that I can keep equalization (other than crossover points) flat and songs sound like you are in the studio while they are recording.

My system proves that great SQ can be had on a modest budget - and it wasn't because I couldn't afford higher end stuff - I'm just the type that always researches and looks into what is the best bang for my buck, because regardless of how much money I have, I'd be a fool to waste it - that's how people with good earning potential still remain relatively poor - no concept of being wise with that money, with most saved and invested, and the extras in life being what you use your pocket change for.

This is the same reason you see a lot of millionaire/billionaires driving Toyota/Lexus vehicles or the like, rather than $500k cars. I know many very wealthy people who drive regular luxury vehicles (Lexus, Mercedes, BMW) instead of wasting their money on cars that are priced 4x higher without being 4x better (yeah, the Royce may be better luxury, but not enough for a wise man to justify 4x the cost or more).

The only wealthy people I know who blow their money on the most expensive things, just because it's most expensive and therefore must be "the best," are those that won the lottery, or inherited it, or had some accomplishment that suddenly brought them into wealth, when they didn't grow up with it. They get all excited, and go on spending sprees.

The other wealthy people, who are wise about it, do appreciate quality, but they also weight out the benefits vs. cost difference. Their not going to pay 4x more money for something that has barely tangible extra benefits vs. the competition - that would just be foolish.

Higher end Polk components, the new Infinity Kappa subs, Soundstream/Precision Power amps/dps are near impossible to beat as far as best bang for buck. I did a lot of research before purchasing and read hundreds of reviews. In fact, my shopping process took far longer than the install - far longer. 

All of those products sale for significantly less than their true competitors (based on quality). People look at their price tag, though, and think they must just be mid-range quality. I assure you, those products I listed in my build do not sound midrange - they very much sound high-end.

I'd challenge anyone to take the Soundstream Reference full range amps and do blind testing and see if they don't match right up with very high dollar amps. It has been done, by the way, and the Reference series was right there with the high cost amps.


----------



## cajunner

RobERacer said:


> Great audio is all about detail and car audio is getting more and more capable every day.


To me, great audio is about resolution. You can say detail and resolution is two peas in the same pod, but here's a story:

One time, in music appreciation class...

the teacher brings in a pair of full range, monkey coffin Pioneers. He apologizes for the playback equipment, to a class of college students who likely have not heard better than Circuit City could pack into a box, and then he turns up volume, (forget source, amp, chain, etc.) and the room, acoustically live, basically a crap venue as a classroom with fully reflective surfaces... anyways, he turns it up and wham!

I'm saying to myself, "whoa, this guy's a nut, that's freaking loud for school" and it's some classical **** he's blasting, but here's the thing:

the music itself was available, you didn't have to struggle to take it apart, you could hear it and it wasn't subtle. 

I don't know if it was for the class, maybe some designer media, materials that had crazy miking technique or whatever, but during that class, if the teacher wanted you to hear something, you didn't have to search for it. 

That was resolution, to me.

Detail, or fine detail, or whatever, is more about listening to a piece and then something reveals itself that you didn't know, was not aware of before.

And an amplifier can be that last veil, or the smudges on the mirror, or whatever you want to call it, but in a car that's moving-


using circuits that are mature and depending on the quality of the parts, (in spec, tolerance) most amplifiers are capable of producing audio that is ABX blind test proof.


but imho, if you can hear a difference, then the amp is defective. And that doesn't mean the amp doesn't play, or sounds funny or anything, but given the tolerances of every amp design available in today's market, you won't swing more than about .5 db, from 20 to 20K.

Which of course, is plenty enough room to make one amp sound different from another amp, but in the instance of taking an amp out and putting another in, isn't going to make such a difference unless something else is contributing.

I think if people could really hear the supposed difference between a class A and a class AB amp, you'd see a lot more class A amps on the market, because there would be a legitimacy that there just isn't now.

That goes for most of the circuit designs, too.

When FM radio got the PLL tuning feature, you didn't have to guess if that circuit was better or worse than the drift that was before.

If you take an old tube amplifier and feed it high resolution audio, you'll get high resolution audio out of it.

You might not get extreme highs and lows, but you'll get the middle just as pretty as you please, and if you don't run that glass amp into clipping you'll have a hard time picking it from a group of sand bricks.

It's not the amplifier choice that is going to fine-tune your systems.


----------



## Hanatsu

subwoofery said:


> Yet the Helix is the brighter sounding, go figure  lol
> 
> Kelvin


Oh... lol. Gotta be the phase issues at 80kHz then


----------



## RobERacer

*~*



cajunner said:


> To me, great audio is about resolution. You can say detail and resolution is two peas in the same pod, but here's a story:
> 
> One time, in music appreciation class...
> 
> the teacher brings in a pair of full range, monkey coffin Pioneers. He apologizes for the playback equipment, to a class of college students who likely have not heard better than Circuit City could pack into a box, and then he turns up volume, (forget source, amp, chain, etc.) and the room, acoustically live, basically a crap venue as a classroom with fully reflective surfaces... anyways, he turns it up and wham!
> 
> I'm saying to myself, "whoa, this guy's a nut, that's freaking loud for school" and it's some classical **** he's blasting, but here's the thing:
> 
> the music itself was available, you didn't have to struggle to take it apart, you could hear it and it wasn't subtle.
> 
> I don't know if it was for the class, maybe some designer media, materials that had crazy miking technique or whatever, but during that class, if the teacher wanted you to hear something, you didn't have to search for it.
> 
> That was resolution, to me.
> 
> Detail, or fine detail, or whatever, is more about listening to a piece and then something reveals itself that you didn't know, was not aware of before.
> 
> And an amplifier can be that last veil, or the smudges on the mirror, or whatever you want to call it, but in a car that's moving-
> 
> 
> using circuits that are mature and depending on the quality of the parts, (in spec, tolerance) most amplifiers are capable of producing audio that is ABX blind test proof.
> 
> 
> but imho, if you can hear a difference, then the amp is defective. And that doesn't mean the amp doesn't play, or sounds funny or anything, but given the tolerances of every amp design available in today's market, you won't swing more than about .5 db, from 20 to 20K.
> 
> Which of course, is plenty enough room to make one amp sound different from another amp, but in the instance of taking an amp out and putting another in, isn't going to make such a difference unless something else is contributing.
> 
> I think if people could really hear the supposed difference between a class A and a class AB amp, you'd see a lot more class A amps on the market, because there would be a legitimacy that there just isn't now.
> 
> That goes for most of the circuit designs, too.
> 
> When FM radio got the PLL tuning feature, you didn't have to guess if that circuit was better or worse than the drift that was before.
> 
> If you take an old tube amplifier and feed it high resolution audio, you'll get high resolution audio out of it.
> 
> You might not get extreme highs and lows, but you'll get the middle just as pretty as you please, and if you don't run that glass amp into clipping you'll have a hard time picking it from a group of sand bricks.
> 
> It's not the amplifier choice that is going to fine-tune your systems.


So from this I am to understand that if one can notice any sonic difference between a Sound Stream Picasso Nano 4.520D (A $250 cdn amp) and a Focal FPS 4160 (+$1200 cdn) then one of them is not operating up to spec? Of course it is totally assumed that the only thing to change was the amp. Everything down to the input sensitivity being calibrated exactly was the same. From that it necessarily follows that you intend for us to believe that just about any amp (MTX Terminator???) should have no noticeable sonic difference regardless of price? K I don't have a Brax around to compare however I did happen to audition the Focal KRX2's driven via an Focal FPS 4160 and I own a Sound Stream Ref RFM 600.4 (same amp as Picasso Nano with a few small tweaks.) which is what in fact I currently have running those focals. I will tell you now that they sound very different!!! Straight up if I could't hear the difference between the two I better quit because hearing minute sonic differences is what I do for a living. The difference in this case is in fact that plain as day though. I totally would spend that kind of money on an amp and was expecting to need to spend that kind of money on a good amp once I have it but it won't fit under my seat so it is not an option! It also has features that are not so important to my situation. I personally don't give a **** about what the box looks like for one but there are other things too.

Brax Amps. I would like to hear your full assessment of the Brax as compared to your other amps. What exactly are the differences both sonically and physically? 

Who's the trip???


----------



## rton20s

Just so I understand this, you are hearing a difference between the Picasso Nano and the Reference Micro (virtually identical except for some component selections, I assume) in the same exact install? Or is this in different vehicles or with different speakers? 

Just wanting to make sure we are clear about what you are saying.


----------



## cajunner

*Re: ~*



RobERacer said:


> So from this I am to understand that if one can notice any sonic difference between a Sound Stream Picasso Nano 4.520D (A $250 cdn amp) and a Focal FPS 4160 (+$1200 cdn) then one of them is not operating up to spec? Of course it is totally assumed that the only thing to change was the amp. Everything down to the input sensitivity being calibrated exactly was the same. From that it necessarily follows that you intend for us to believe that just about any amp (MTX Terminator???) should have no noticeable sonic difference regardless of price? K I don't have a Brax around to compare however I did happen to audition the Focal KRX2's driven via an Focal FPS 4160 and I own a Sound Stream Ref RFM 600.4 (same amp as Picasso Nano with a few small tweaks.) which is what in fact I currently have running those focals. I will tell you now that they sound very different!!! Straight up if I could't hear the difference between the two I better quit because hearing minute sonic differences is what I do for a living. The difference in this case is in fact that plain as day though. I totally would spend that kind of money on an amp and was expecting to need to spend that kind of money on a good amp once I have it but it won't fit under my seat so it is not an option! It also has features that are not so important to my situation. I personally don't give a **** about what the box looks like for one but there are other things too.
> 
> Brax Amps. I would like to hear your full assessment of the Brax as compared to your other amps. What exactly are the differences both sonically and physically?
> 
> Who's the trip???


what I'm saying is that if the close aural comparison of ABX testing cannot flesh out a clear winner, you surely won't be able to make that leap in the space between installing one amp to another.

so most amps are going to sound like each other, unless they are not in spec, or out of tolerance.

and this has been hashed so many times, it's like returning to this thread compares to being flogged.

the point I'm trying to make that may be different from all the other posts, (okay, nothing is different, haha) is that for all the people who claim to hear the difference, 99% can't even claim to have gain matched properly. It's always anecdotal or unable to muster a defense against the slightest scientific evidence or proof through testing.


You can kick and scream, but Brax doesn't have the high grade pixie dust in their amps, no matter how much they can charge consumers who believe this to be true.

It's hard to accept, and there's no reason why you can't enjoy the really super high end stuff, but if you're thinking you paid for superiority over the rest you've contributed to the fallacy, and created expectation bias that will take precedence over any logic-based charge of testing.

You might also claim "maybe I can't hear it, but I know it is there" because someone on the internet or in the store or just out there, walking along a street or in a mall or possibly even at church, says they can hear it.

It could be a guy that sells a line of speakers, and it could be the guy that sells the patch cords, and it could be the guy that sells the tube pre-amps.

You could be that guy.

I'm not that guy, haha...


----------



## Hanatsu

Can people just quit with the price argument. An amp that costs $1200 must be better than a $200 amp? It's likely, yes, but not in the aspects you might think. Does silver components matter? Does uber expensive caps matter? Class A or D? If distortion, FR and noise remain the same; nope - it doesn't. It comes down to the design of the amp and how the internal components are used to optimize the design. I've owned Sinfoni, Brax, DLS Ultimate and Helix Comp amps. All these amps had incredible build quality and there were quality components combined with neat designs. All these amps were basically noise free, measuring flat in all low output tests I made. We later performed a ABX blind test where every single listener failed at hearing any differences vs 1st gen Alpine PDX among others. Since then I simply do not bother with the so called "high end" stuff. Is high end amp SQ a myth? Of course not. The title of this thread should really be: "Can a cheap amp sound as good as an expensive one?" ... and yes it can. I'm basing this both on blind test conducted by myself and the ones I've read about here/on other forums and most importantly how the amps measure. If FR is flat, THD+N and T-IMD below -80dB of fundamental, you simply won't hear any distortion. It's beyond human hearing capabilities. Again, most amps do measure flat and I believe that non-linear distortion can be ignored with levels below 0,1%. I'm 100% certain that any audible deviation will show up in either a simple FR plot or a HD sweep.


----------



## RobERacer

rton20s said:


> Just so I understand this, you are hearing a difference between the Picasso Nano and the Reference Micro (virtually identical except for some component selections, I assume) in the same exact install? Or is this in different vehicles or with different speakers?
> 
> Just wanting to make sure we are clear about what you are saying.


No, I was comparing the Sound Stream and the focal. I clearly stated that they are virtually the same unit.


----------



## rton20s

RobERacer said:


> No, I was comparing the Sound Stream and the focal. I clearly stated that they are virtually the same unit.


Same environment different environment? Same speakers? All of these things make a difference. If you actually read through the thread, you'll see that most in here have come to some level of agreement that if we have measurements that are the same that picking out the differences in a blind test is extremely unlikely. The further away you move from Blind A/B testing with instant switching the less weight any anecdotal evidence holds.


----------



## RobERacer

Hanatsu said:


> Can people just quit with the price argument. An amp that costs $1200 must be better than a $200 amp? It's likely, yes, but not in the aspects you might think. Does silver components matter? Does uber expensive caps matter? Class A or D? If distortion, FR and noise remain the same; nope - it doesn't. It comes down to the design of the amp and how the internal components are used to optimize the design. I've owned Sinfoni, Brax, DLS Ultimate and Helix Comp amps. All these amps had incredible build quality and there were quality components combined with neat designs. All these amps were basically noise free, measuring flat in all low output tests I made. We later performed a ABX blind test where every single listener failed at hearing any differences vs 1st gen Alpine PDX among others. Since then I simply do not bother with the so called "high end" stuff. Is high end amp SQ a myth? Of course not. The title of this thread should really be: "Can a cheap amp sound as good as an expensive one?" ... and yes it can. I'm basing this both on blind test conducted by myself and the ones I've read about here/on other forums and most importantly how the amps measure. If FR is flat, THD+N and T-IMD below -80dB of fundamental, you simply won't hear any distortion. It's beyond human hearing capabilities. Again, most amps do measure flat and I believe that non-linear distortion can be ignored with levels below 0,1%. I'm 100% certain that any audible deviation will show up in either a simple FR plot or a HD sweep.


It was pretty clear that I was validating the fact that there are in fact sonic differences between those two amp examples (the Picasso Nano and the Focal FPS). Where did you understand that I was stating that "because it costs more it must just sound better" without qualifying that? This was totally in response to a statement from another person who was clearly arguing that I should not be able to hear any difference between my Sound Stream and other amps (in that discussion I mention Brax as a manufacturer). I also took the time to point out that more expensive electronics tend to cost more to make for various reasons. Someone also took that discussion off the rails by stating something to the effect of components made out of precious metals (they mentioned silver) don't sound any different than others. Of course I simply mentioned gold platting and was referring actually to connectors. Specifically on the signal side as opposed to the amplified side. Gold tends not to corrode like other metals do. It is in fact a commonly sought after upgrade in audio equipment across the board be it car audio, home audio or more commonly pro audio. Dirty signal connections increase noise. It is simple. There of course was also an underlying tone in what I said which challenges one to find out what the differences actually are and how they do in fact effect the sound. It was more a statement of if you can't hear a difference ever then there is something likely wrong with your method of analysis. "I am a trip" because I pointed out that folks who actually believed that there was no difference in sonics from one amp to the next. Those same people expanded that to state that folks who spend the money to buy a high end amp are wasting their money as there is no sonic difference. I think a few of them must work for some of the budget manufacturers or something because by your statements even you agree that some amps do sound better than others and that price is often (not always) an indicator of that. That was all I was saying. "If it costs more there is usually a good reason for it!" With that if you run around looking at $200 amps expecting to get $2000 amp performance you are probably going to be looking a very long time before you find what you are looking for. Would you not agree?


----------



## RobERacer

What I am actually looking to find out how does the best new Class D tech yet measure up to the better Class AB designs. It has been suggested to me that the new Alpine PDX amps (class D) sound better than the Focal FPS (class AB). As you know I am looking toward that level of sonic. I am having a hard time believing that about the Alpine and I am skeptical that I will ever be offered the chance to hear them side by side to decide for myself before committing to buy. I hate being disappointed and I have a feeling I would be with the Alpine. Don't get me wrong I will bet the Alpine is good but I am looking for very good. Not just "Ok, it is better".


----------



## Hanatsu

I agree that you're not generally wasting money buying a better quality amp in terms of longlivity and stability etc. I think similar audio quality can be attained much cheaper though. Put the spare money into a proper DSP instead ^^


----------



## Hanatsu

Both Alpine PDX 2nd gen and JL HD are really good amps. I see no reason why they wouldn't equal the performance of any high end A-A/B amp.


----------



## sqnut

RobERacer said:


> "If it costs more there is usually a good reason for it!"


Absolutely, and the good reason is the manufacturers want to fill your head with so much crap that you lose the ability to think rationally. That way you swallow the $ 2,000 tag on the esoteric amp and feel you're in sonic nirvana.

As if filling your head with crap isn't enough, they then go and rub your nose in it by putting out razor flat FR like on any other amp. Wait, the 2K amp is sonically superior, yet it doesn't measure any different? ANY difference we hear is either in the time domain or the response domain. Well we just took response out of the equation. An amp that changes the response or timing of the signal is a lousy amp to begin with.

How much does it cost to do the gold soldering, use esoteric electronics, the whole shebang that goes into these esoteric amps? Maybe an extra $ 3-400 in parts, if that. So lets assume an amp with a decent design, build and one that measures adequately sells for $ 400. This includes overheads and profits for the manufacturer. Now add on the extra 400 to make it an esoteric amp. It should now retail for 1,000 adding an extra 200 for marketing the amp. Where's the extra grand going? Largely into the manufacturers pocket, some goes to the distributor who plugs the product like mad for higher margins from the manufacturer. Win-win for all, smell the coffee.

If you're going to spend $ 2K on an amp for better sound quality then you need to hear what sound quality means in the first place and how to get there.


----------



## minbari

the problem with arguing with "audiophiles" about this amp or that speaker is they truely believe they are right. numbers, charts, plots dont mean anything because thier overpriced stuff has a "quality that cant be measured" that makes it 10x better than your stuff that costs 5x less. (because they dont want to feel ripped off)

its a bit like arguing with a christian. you will get no-where!


----------



## sqnut

minbari said:


> its a bit like arguing with a christian. you will get no-where!


....lol.


----------



## Bnixon

One thing we might want to keep in mind when it comes to pricing of various amps is the business side of the equation. There are two basic approaches high volume lower margin or low volume higher margin. The esoteric by definition is low volume high margin. The market for such items is very small. The cost of the additional materials is only a small portion of the cost. The bulk of the additional cost is in overheads for the company.

In my non professional and non scientific opinion you can get close to the same sound quality out of less expensive amps. But it is like esoteric guitars...there is only so much sound and playability improvement to gain by higher prices materials. At a certain point the improvement per $ get very small or esoteric  it almost becomes cosmetic.

Let the debate go on.


----------



## sqnut

Bnixon said:


> One thing we might want to keep in mind when it comes to pricing of various amps is the business side of the equation. There are two basic approaches high volume lower margin or low volume higher margin. The esoteric by definition is low volume high margin. The market for such items is very small. The cost of the additional materials is only a small portion of the cost. The bulk of the additional cost is in overheads for the company.
> 
> In my non professional and non scientific opinion you can get close to the same sound quality out of less expensive amps. But it is like esoteric guitars...there is only so much sound and playability improvement to gain by higher prices materials. At a certain point the improvement per $ get very small or esoteric  it almost becomes cosmetic.
> 
> Let the debate go on.


No issue with the business model, but price does not buy you sonically superior performance, period.


----------



## Victor_inox

period,huh? 
What I`ve seen a lot is that people buying cheap **** and truly believe it sounds just as good because paperwork said it should. And or listening others on internet forums too much.
Whoever buying 20 years old McIntosh amps just nostalgic idiot right?
Why would anyone in their minds buy Brax instead of (insert your favorite POS chinese **** with 3KW stamped on the body with 20A fuse.)


----------



## sqnut

Victor_inox said:


> period,huh?
> What I`ve seen a lot is that people buying cheap **** and truly believe it sounds just as good because paperwork said it should. And or listening others on internet forums too much.
> Whoever buying 20 years old McIntosh amps just nostalgic idiot right?
> Why would anyone in their minds buy Brax instead of (insert your favorite POS chinese **** with 3KW stamped on the body with 20A fuse.)


That is not what I said and you're twisting what I said. I run what would be regarded as good amps and I'm admitting that the amps have 0 contribution to the sound quality in the car.


----------



## fcarpio

Victor_inox said:


> period,huh?
> What I`ve seen a lot is that people buying cheap **** and truly believe it sounds just as good because paperwork said it should. And or listening others on internet forums too much.
> Whoever buying 20 years old McIntosh amps just nostalgic idiot right?
> Why would anyone in their minds buy Brax instead of (insert your favorite POS chinese **** with 3KW stamped on the body with 20A fuse.)


There HAS to be a difference, I think you have a good point.


----------



## Victor_inox

sqnut said:


> I'm admitting that the amps have 0 contribution to the sound quality in the car.


THan why would you have one ? Dude you`ve got me confused here.


----------



## fcarpio

Victor_inox said:


> THan why would you have one ? Dude you`ve got me confused here.


I think he is referring to the change in sound quality from amp to amp.


----------



## Victor_inox

fcarpio said:


> I think he is referring to the change in sound quality from amp to amp.


I was just teasing him. 
THat debate is settled to me and probably everyone else.
Sound quality aside I love my equipment to last long time, el cheapo will not.
Don`t get me wrong I love to pay less but every time I do It ends up in a trash or CL. Quality stuff has good resale value as benefit.
Most people buying a deal not a merchandise. 
I`ve seen my share of poorly designed amps with ****ty components inside,
Whoever posted that quality components doesn`t cost much obviously doesn`t know the truth. quality components cost a lot and hard to find, too much counterfeits. 
Knowing process from design to retail I can say that 3 thousand dollars for a Brax is not outrageous. JL popular because you get a lot of engineering, manufacturing, support for your money.


----------



## sqnut

In a car, sound quality comes from reconstructing the original signal at ear level in the time and response domain while keeping in mind room characteristics. It's 80% [edit] your tuning skills with the [edit] dsp and the balance 20% is equipment, placement, correct install. Equipment largely means good speakers and good speakers can be had across the price spectrum. 

Amps should be reliable and make rated power, watts don't cost the earth and they certainly should not colour my sound by sounding different. I'd be pissed if I swapped an amp to find it sounded different, cause that would just toss all my tuning out the window.


----------



## Victor_inox

People who proclaim Laws of physics works differently in car environment amuse me.


----------



## Hanatsu

sqnut said:


> That is not what I said and you're twisting what I said. I run what would be regarded as good amps and I'm admitting that the amps have 0 contribution to the sound quality in the car.


^^

Agreed. Same here, I run good amps for reasons other than the so called SQ gain. 

"There HAS to be a difference" is not a good argument, sorry.


----------



## sqnut

> People who proclaim Laws of physics works differently in car environment amuse me.


So you're saying one needs a PhD to understand why amps sound different. I'm amused by those who've never heard sound quality in a car, discount both how we hear and the room characteristics and just zone in high dollar equipment to recreate good sound in a car.


----------



## Hanatsu

Victor_inox said:


> People who proclaim Laws of physics works differently in car environment amuse me.


When have anyone here claimed the laws of physics work differently in a car?

The acoustic environment of a car is unique in more than one area. It cannot be directly compared to a large home audio room. DSP is far far more important in a car than a home audio system for reasons I don't have to mention. 95% of the audible distortion in a car is induced by the cabin's transfer function, an asymmetrical listening position and road noise. People who thinks amps are so different from each other and thinks processing isn't required amuses me.


----------



## cajunner

sqnut said:


> So you're saying one needs a PhD to understand why amps sound different. I'm amused by those who've never heard sound quality in a car, discount both how we hear and the room characteristics and just zone in high dollar equipment to recreate good sound in a car.


the ability to buy expensive equipment creates the illusion that by making that purchase, they will have a quality sound no matter what the install looks like, this is the motivating factor that never gets talked about.

the ability to buy expensive equipment justifying someone's claim to have golden ears, is right in there with many other illusions in life, such as money makes you happy, and you have no right to an opinion if you don't have a college degree.

in 10 out of 10 competitions, the guy that knows how to tune and uses good install techniques and DSP while using <$500/pc amplifiers, is going to trounce the guy who goes into an audio salon and opens the checkbook for the premium stuff then maintains the 2 channel home audio philosophy and uses factory locations for his treatment of the signal down chain.

that's how it is, but on a forum the guy that owns the uber-grade stuff will maintain the sonic purity of his amplifiers, but try and get that guy to produce a competition winner, ask him to hear his install...

and then you will know.

That's how it is in deluded rich guy land, thinking because you have the money and somebody is out there selling a higher priced widget, that the widget is going to work better because you paid more for it.


----------



## fcarpio

Hanatsu said:


> "There HAS to be a difference" is not a good argument, sorry.


Off course, if you take it out of context it makes no sense.

What I was trying to say is that you cannot compare an amp full of cheap components to an amp that has much higher quality componets and tell me that they sound just the same.

I am not an expert but feel free to correct me if I am wrong (I know you will). Take capacitors for instance. A cheap capacitor is not going to charge as fast or hold a charge as long as a decent capacitor. So when the punch comes the amp with the cheap capacitors is going to struggle, something that will not happen to the amp that was made with better components under the same conditions. And that is just capacitors, there is a lot more to amps than just that.


----------



## Victor_inox

sqnut said:


> So you're saying one needs a PhD to understand why amps sound different. I'm amused by those who've never heard sound quality in a car, discount both how we hear and the room characteristics and just zone in high dollar equipment to recreate good sound in a car.


Keep assuming.


----------



## sqnut

Victor_inox said:


> Keep assuming.


That's just lame .


----------



## fcarpio

I find it amusing that a lot of folks get amused by this thread.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> the ability to buy expensive equipment creates the illusion that by making that purchase, they will have a quality sound no matter what the install looks like, this is the motivating factor that never gets talked about.
> 
> the ability to buy expensive equipment justifying someone's claim to have golden ears, is right in there with many other illusions in life, such as money makes you happy, and you have no right to an opinion if you don't have a college degree.
> 
> in 10 out of 10 competitions, the guy that knows how to tune and uses good install techniques and DSP while using <$500/pc amplifiers, is going to trounce the guy who goes into an audio salon and opens the checkbook for the premium stuff then maintains the 2 channel home audio philosophy and uses factory locations for his treatment of the signal down chain.
> 
> that's how it is, but on a forum the guy that owns the uber-grade stuff will maintain the sonic purity of his amplifiers, but try and get that guy to produce a competition winner, ask him to hear his install...
> 
> and then you will know.
> 
> That's how it is in deluded rich guy land, thinking because you have the money and somebody is out there selling a higher priced widget, that the widget is going to work better because you paid more for it.


 Ever thought about that maybe you got it backwards?
Guy buying expensive equipment actually knows difference?
I assure you that I tried everything from the very bottom to the very top.
My ability to buy top shelf stuff has nothing to do with my choices of equipment, in fact I often use middle grade components myself.as soon as those components build up to my requirements. 
Usually I see quiet the opposite - guys unwilling to spend for high grade equipment will protect their choices bashing someone else choice.


----------



## Victor_inox

sqnut said:


> That's just lame .


Just like post it quoted.


----------



## Victor_inox

fcarpio said:


> I find it amusing that a lot of folks get amused by this thread.


Entertaining but boring lately.


----------



## legend94

if something measures differently is not possible that it sounds different? 

:inquisitive:


----------



## Hanatsu

fcarpio said:


> What I was trying to say is that you cannot compare an amp full of cheap components to an amp that has much higher quality componets and tell me that they sound just the same.


Again, it's not about single components - it's how they work together in a design. Cheap components can fail prematurely and fail at staying within spec under certain circumstances. This may or may not affect the sound. If the design is properly executed you can use whatever components you want as long as they stay within the tolerances to work as intended in the given design. Swapping individual components to more exotic/expensive ones in an existent circuit will most likely not improve anything at all. 



fcarpio said:


> I am not an expert but feel free to correct me if I am wrong (I know you will). Take capacitors for instance. A cheap capacitor is not going to charge as fast or hold a charge as long as a decent capacitor. So when the punch comes the amp with the cheap capacitors is going to struggle, something that will not happen to the amp that was made with better components under the same conditions. And that is just capacitors, there is a lot more to amps than just that.


That can't be generalized in such manner. It's important in several applications that capacitors inhibit low ESR but it's really not this simple. Caps is mostly about longevity, cheap electrolytes fail faster. OP-AMPs and most ICs are not so different from each other, many of these ICs used in amplifier circuits are crazy cheap components and most of them perform very similar, it's not hard nor expensive for the manufacturers to make good performing ICs and such nowadays. Again, it's about the design - nothing will "struggle" if the circuit is properly executed. 

If an amp sound/measure better than another is a lot more how well the design is executed than the price of the individual components. Again, it's easy to make an audio amplifier with a flat FR and low non-linear distortion below clipping. It would actually be harder to make an amp that did color the sound noticeably. One thing that expensive designs tend to be generally better at is lower noise floor.


----------



## ChrisB

This thread drove me to make a funny:


----------



## diyftw

Ive spent countless hours tuning my system, testing and building many different enclosures for my 3 ways up front, and swapped out many different components. 

Every time I changed a speaker, or xover point, enclosure, or TA, etc per same frequency response I noticed a difference. 

I swapped out my JL G4500 amp that I had been running for years with a Helix A4 with powerstation. No audible difference.

The only audible issues I have with amps is if the power between channels changes with respect to input voltages (11-14V). I did a blind test online and was able to tell 0.3db differences. 

After all of my cash and time I would say that you dont have to spend mega dollars for SQ class AB amps and just but buy whatever amp you want that has enough power, is well built, and has the features (e.g. Xovers, size, where everything is located) you require. Tight output power range Vs varying input voltages is recommended. Anything more than this is just a 'nice to have'.


----------



## FG79

ChrisB said:


> This thread drove me to make a funny:


And how much road noise do you have with the engine off?

Differences will correlate. A > B with engine off will still yield A > B with lots of road noise. 

Less of a difference, maybe. But still a difference. I always could tell.


----------



## probillygun

I really do love this thread. 

It's a great debate that likely can go on forever with no clear path on whether higher end amps are an SQ myth or not because some hear it and some don't for whatever reason...

However, I can say for me that sometimes when I switch amps the difference is minimal, most times more obvious, this goes for my vehicle systems and my home systems.

But I've NEVER switched amps at NOT been able to hear some difference, and most times it doesn't even matter what volume level. 

Maybe some people can just hear differecnes better than others or are listening for certain instrments to have a certain sound to them and when it's different they can hear it while others can't? 

I wish I WASN'T able to hear the difference every time I switch out amps actually, it would save me a lot of money 

Again, great thread/discussion


----------



## Woosey

minbari said:


> its a bit like arguing with a christian. you will get no-where!


This response deserves a place on the great wall of fame!! lol


----------



## 1fishman

Woosey said:


> This response deserves a place on the great wall of fame!! lol


Or, The Internal Book of Shame!!


----------



## PPI_GUY

I have to believe that the same people claiming the highest priced car audio amps sound better are the same people buying $5K RCA cables because they're made with quadruple shielded unobtanium and then 'burned in' for 500 hours before being shipped out. 

Look, audio interpretation is about as subjective as anything you will find. Might as well ask 100 people what their favorite color of blue is. We ALL hear differently from the next person. Are all our ears completely identical? Are the nerve connections from the ear drum to the brain the same in every head? Maybe some people can hear a difference in amps A and B. But, then again, maybe they only think they can.


----------



## WestCo

PPI_GUY said:


> I have to believe that the same people claiming the highest priced car audio amps sound better are the same people buying $5K RCA cables because they're made with quadruple shielded unobtanium and then 'burned in' for 500 hours before being shipped out.
> 
> Look, audio interpretation is about as subjective as anything you will find. Might as well ask 100 people what their favorite color of blue is. We ALL hear differently from the next person. Are all our ears completely identical? Are the nerve connections from the ear drum to the brain the same in every head? Maybe some people can hear a difference in amps A and B. But, then again, maybe they only think they can.


These are some great points.

I will post a few things I have learned over the years I have been in audio.

1) The "race to zero" is fiercest on amplifiers. Every company wants to make one and they will do everything they can to get one made at <$50 in Korea. That leaves the parent company a healthy profit margin along with the retailers. 

2) There are poor amps, good amps, and great amps. Modern engineering has left the majority of the public with amps that lie somewhere around good. The problem with the debate is that most people have never experienced a truly outstanding amplifier. Why? Because the cost to use the best components would price such an amp out of the profit zone. I cannot get a great amplifier without sending it out to someone to be modified.

3) Look at the source units we have. I generally don't care for sources sold in the US. Why? Well it's a big mix of things. Head units have become in dash computers, there is less of a focus on sound quality and more of a focus on functionality/ease of use. The Japanese DEMAND a high quality deck, that is why the ODR exists (among other great japanese decks). 
Why make a high quality amplifier if we have mediocre source units? There is no reason to.

4) Sound is a highly subjective medium. If the only metric we have is THD to determine how good an amp is then the battle is already lost. THD <.5% is just bragging rights. It tells us very little about the net sound. 

5) What surprises me is that people still tend to drop big bucks on drivers that total 1/2 the cost of the system. In audio this is generally the mentality that drivers are absolutely critical and somehow they will compensate for all the other mediocre components in their system. Drivers are very, very important. But more often then not, I would rather get a good set of drivers and hook them to an outstanding signal path (source, amps, rca's) then buy focal utopias on a 80prs with ppi amps. That's just me, I am a source unit/amp junkie.

There have of course been drivers which I regretted purchasing and that KILLED the performance of my system. I am not going to bash them, that part of my life is over. 

I guess you can call me a 3rd guy. 1/3 budget on source, 1/3 on amps, 1/3 on drivers and research the hell out of all three before you buy em.

I do highly recommend the ppi 900.4 because it is a good sounding amp, and it's cheap.


----------



## gijoe

Whether or not amps sound different isn't even what I'm concerned with. What I am interested in is why people try to tune their system with different amps, that to me is ridiculous. Going from one good amp to another might make an audible difference, but the difference is going to be so much smaller than all of the other factors. 

Tune by getting different speakers and learning how to use an EQ/DSP, not by swapping amps, that is silly.


----------



## Hanatsu

gijoe said:


> Whether or not amps sound different isn't even what I'm concerned with. What I am interested in is why people try to tune their system with different amps, that to me is ridiculous. Going from one good amp to another might make an audible difference, but the difference is going to be so much smaller than all of the other factors.
> 
> Tune by getting different speakers and learning how to use an EQ/DSP, not by swapping amps, that is silly.


Ridiculous indeed. You EQ because of the distortìon induced by the environment and the speaker behaviour. When swapping amps in a preexisting config, you set gains again, nothing else.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


----------



## FLYONWALL9

PPI_GUY said:


> Look, audio interpretation is about as subjective as anything you will find. Might as well ask 100 people what their favorite color of blue is. We ALL hear differently from the next person. Are all our ears completely identical? Are the nerve connections from the ear drum to the brain the same in every head? Maybe some people can hear a difference in amps A and B. But, then again, maybe they only think they can.


For this very reason I am not too keen on the SQ portion of
car audio competition. It is ALL about what the judge likes
vs another. 

Example
You can go to two shows back to back weekends with the 
same sanctioning body, not change a single thing and get
two different scores. This has even happened with the same
judge. Makes ZERO sense.


----------



## Hoptologist

FLYONWALL9 said:


> For this very reason I am not too keen on the SQ portion of
> car audio competition. It is ALL about what the judge likes
> vs another.
> 
> Example
> You can go to two shows back to back weekends with the
> same sanctioning body, not change a single thing and get
> two different scores. This has even happened with the same
> judge. Makes ZERO sense.


You just described life in general   Many competitions and art forms will probably never be evaluated with systems of objectivity. Dog shows, beer competitions, art exhibits, film festivals, award shows, best of year music lists,... subjectivity is the nature of many.


----------



## cleansoundz

diyftw said:


> Ive spent countless hours tuning my system, testing and building many different enclosures for my 3 ways up front, and swapped out many different components.
> 
> Every time I changed a speaker, or xover point, enclosure, or TA, etc per same frequency response I noticed a difference.
> 
> I swapped out my JL G4500 amp that I had been running for years with a Helix A4 with powerstation. No audible difference.
> 
> The only audible issues I have with amps is if the power between channels changes with respect to input voltages (11-14V). I did a blind test online and was able to tell 0.3db differences.
> 
> After all of my cash and time I would say that you dont have to spend mega dollars for SQ class AB amps and just but buy whatever amp you want that has enough power, is well built, and has the features (e.g. Xovers, size, where everything is located) you require. Tight output power range Vs varying input voltages is recommended. Anything more than this is just a 'nice to have'.


I would agree with this statement. As the original OP of this thread nothing has changed in my thinking.


----------



## ChrisB

I kind of feel sorry for those who pay mega bucks for amplifiers based on marketing voodoo and other gimmicks. This goes double for a product that is installed in one of the most hostile environments for audio reproduction known to man.

Oh well, I'll save my money while they waste theirs chasing the unattainable perfect system for the mobile environment.


----------



## Jesus Christ

Audio is one of those areas that turns normal people completely retarded.


----------



## cleansoundz

Jesus Christ said:


> Audio is one of those areas that turns normal people completely retarded.


Isn't that the truth.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> Audio is one of those areas that turns normal people completely retarded.


So is cars and about everything else.
why to buy a lambo when you can get corvette 5 times cheaper?
It`s not 5 times faster or handles 5 times better. friend of mine bought $250000 home speakers.they are better than absolutely awesome $20000 speakers, do they $230000 better? for him they are. is he retarded?
IMHO outstanding product must exist therefore there should be people buying it. mediocrity rule this world, there should be place for perfection.


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> So is cars and about everything else.
> why to buy a lambo when you can get corvette 5 times cheaper?
> It`s not 5 times faster or handles 5 times better.


Because this doesn't happen to guys getting into corvettes.







> friend of mine bought $250000 home speakers.they are better than absolutely awesome $20000 speakers, do they $230000 better? for him they are. is he retarded?


He may be, hard to say without knowing the rest of his equipment. Are there rocks taped to his wires?
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm
Does he have his system tweaked over the phone?
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina60.htm
Frog sounds?
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina45.htm


----------



## Victor_inox

Nice but isn`t that why he bought this car in the first place?


----------



## Guest

HIGH END AMPLIFIER SQ IS NO MYTH....

There is no doubt in my mind that amplifiers DO sound differently... and DO make a big difference...

I've owned a LOT of amplifiers over the years and my ears do hear a difference...


----------



## WestCo

Wait till you hear the amp SounDrive is developing...


----------



## Victor_inox

WestCo said:


> Wait till you hear the amp SounDrive is developing...


Or wait till you hear the amp Victory Sonic developing.


----------



## High Resolution Audio

I wanted to post this to put an end to the argument of weather or not there is a perceived noticeable difference in the way A or B sounds. Everyones senses are different. Just because your senses do not perceive a difference, does not mean that there is not one there. Your senses may not be as highly evolved and refined to a higher level as someone else's. Just as we all have different levels of intelligence, pain tolerances, smell, taste, vision and yes hearing too. We are all different and unique. Please be open to the fact that your unique perception is unique and what sounds good or adequate to you, may not sound good or adequate to someone else.


----------



## SQLnovice

I'm in the process of switching out my jbl ms amps to all jl hd's. Assuming installation is good. Is this a step in the right direction?


----------



## Hanatsu

...and just because you THINK there's a difference doesn't mean there is one. Come on, people will believe whatever they want to believe. I seriously don't believe that our "senses" are that different, we have a certain amount of hearing degradation related most to HF that differs. Rest can be trained if you know exactly what to listen for.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


----------



## turbo5upra

I tested an arc se. 2150 and a helix a2-this weekend. the arc couldn't match the speed or the transparency of the helix. I matched gains- had about 5 seconds of down time for switching outputs and inputs. It was notaciable enough that my girlfriend didn't know what I was thinking or which amp I thought was better... She said wow that one sounds like crap- that was the se... It was warmer and thicker- I wouldn't say it was bad... The helix just sounded that much better.


----------



## turbo5upra

SQLnovice said:


> I'm in the process of switching out my jbl ms amps to all jl hd's. Assuming installation is good. Is this a step in the right direction?


Grab both... A power supply. Battery. Source unit. Chair. And some home speakers and give them a listen.


----------



## Victor_inox

turbo5upra said:


> I tested an arc se. 2150 and a helix a2-this weekend. the arc couldn't match the speed or the transparency of the helix. I matched gains- had about 5 seconds of down time for switching outputs and inputs. It was notaciable enough that my girlfriend didn't know what I was thinking or which amp I thought was better... She said wow that one sounds like crap- that was the se... It was warmer and thicker- I wouldn't say it was bad... The helix just sounded that much better.


Come on You just "hear things"


----------



## cajunner

turbo5upra said:


> Grab both... A power supply. Battery. Source unit. Chair. And some home speakers and give them a listen.


as good as this advice is, the test of a car's electrical system on amplifier stability and noise rejection is even more important to the overall sound quality than the differences found in a quiet environment on regulated DC power supplies and a reflection-less room using optimized home speaker boxes.

the way an amp handles the fluctuation of voltage, the rejection of alternator whine, the normal clicks and wheezes of the differentials of power at the fuse block for the ignition switched power to the source unit, all contribute to include noise floor and 'timbre" and "immediacy" or whatever..


----------



## tjswarbrick

turbo5upra said:


> I tested an arc se. 2150 and a helix a2-this weekend. the arc couldn't match the speed or the transparency of the helix. I matched gains- had about 5 seconds of down time for switching outputs and inputs. It was notaciable enough that my girlfriend didn't know what I was thinking or which amp I thought was better... She said wow that one sounds like crap- that was the se... It was warmer and thicker- I wouldn't say it was bad... The helix just sounded that much better.


I hooked my (new to me) 2150se up to my car system, placed on a board in the trunk, with some Dayton bookshelf speakers just playing music down the sidewalk - testing to make sure the amp worked. A neighbor walking by commented that it sounded really , really nice.


----------



## Orion525iT

Wow,

So, a $1000 Robert Zeff designed amp doesn't sound as good as a $1300 Helix amp.

I might as well just give up totally. Never knew you had to spend that much on a single amp to have something that sounds good. Might as well just buy some Boss coaxials powered off a head unit and call it a day.


----------



## Jepalan

turbo5upra said:


> I tested an arc se. 2150 and a helix a2-this weekend. the arc couldn't match the speed or the transparency of the helix. I matched gains- had about 5 seconds of down time for switching outputs and inputs. It was notaciable enough that my girlfriend didn't know what I was thinking or which amp I thought was better... She said wow that one sounds like crap- that was the se... It was warmer and thicker- I wouldn't say it was bad... The helix just sounded that much better.


<Disclaimer: The following is my personal opinion only, no basis in science or claim of fact is made>
Total BS. I don't believe it for a second. 
Which was it anyway? fast and transparent or warm and thick? 
What does that even mean? Just total BS.
This thread will go on forever.......


----------



## quality_sound

turbo5upra said:


> I tested an arc se. 2150 and a helix a2-this weekend. the arc couldn't match the speed or the transparency of the helix. I matched gains- had about 5 seconds of down time for switching outputs and inputs. It was notaciable enough that my girlfriend didn't know what I was thinking or which amp I thought was better... She said wow that one sounds like crap- that was the se... It was warmer and thicker- I wouldn't say it was bad... The helix just sounded that much better.


I don't believe this for a second. I sold Helix and have used more SEs than I can remember. This is just plain silly. If you heard anything that I'd classify as "warm" or "think", the SE was defective. They are ruler flat.


----------



## turbo5upra

Jepalan said:


> <Disclaimer: The following is my personal opinion only, no basis in science or claim of fact is made>
> Total BS. I don't believe it for a second.
> Which was it anyway? fast and transparent or warm and thick?
> What does that even mean? Just total BS.
> This thread will go on forever.......


Whichever- I didn't do the test for you or anyone else. I have arc in my daily driver and her daily driver. Solid amps that work every day. The helix was clinical- it was tighter and more detailed also. The se was warmer sounding and seemed slower- it didn't sound "bad" to me... Just didn't do what the other amp did. 

Yupp-my opinion. You're welcome to take a listen to both amps. I have nothing to prove or disprove to you. I'm happy with my gear choices. You can continue to say I'm wrong without at least taking a walk in my shoes- to me that's ignorant.


----------



## cajunner

Jepalan said:


> This thread will go on forever.......


it's a fundamental point of upgrading a system, spending money is supposed to equate to an improvement.

saying there's no improvement when you spend twice as much, goes against the sales pitch and one's innate sense of value.

surely there must be a distinct difference!


----------



## turbo5upra

quality_sound said:


> I don't believe this for a second. I sold Helix and have used more SEs than I can remember. This is just plain silly. If you heard anything that I'd classify as "warm" or "think", the SE was defective. They are ruler flat.


It was by no means mud. But when you have 2k in amps in front of you- I think we can be critical.

On a side note two of my top 5 all time cars that I've demoed were arc cars. Modded se's in both- just a thought... There has to be a reason they mod them- might it be to get that last little bit of detail out if them?


----------



## Victor_inox

turbo5upra said:


> It was by no means mud. But when you have 2k in amps in front of you- I think we can be critical.
> 
> On a side note two of my top 5 all time cars that I've demoed were arc cars. Modded se's in both- just a thought... There has to be a reason they mod them- might it be to get that last little bit of detail out if them?


they mod them to squeeze every penny out of the customer pockets.
and so you think you`ve got best money can buy.


----------



## quality_sound

turbo5upra said:


> It was by no means mud. But when you have 2k in amps in front of you- I think we can be critical.
> 
> On a side note two of my top 5 all time cars that I've demoed were arc cars. Modded se's in both- just a thought... There has to be a reason they mod them- might it be to get that last little bit of detail out if them?


It's to bypass the preamp and gain sections. That same mod would yield benefits in ANY amp.


----------



## quality_sound

Victor_inox said:


> they mod them to squeeze every penny out of the customer pockets.
> and so you think you`ve got best money can buy.


----------



## cajunner

quality_sound said:


> It's to bypass the preamp and gain sections. That same mod would yield benefits in ANY amp.


that's a keen observation.

let's do the mod to several "mid-grade" amps and see if they improve to the top tier status.

then maybe we could get someone to do the service for cheap, just send the amp in with the source unit/DSP, or even have a baseline for popular units, so the gain can be matched with .5% tolerance resistors and no op-amp mismatch or whatever.

that could be worth the "modding" if you could get it done for a twenty spot, or something...


otherwise, people buy cheap amps because they don't want to spend more on expensive ones, haha...


----------



## Victor_inox

People buy cheap amps because there people In Industry who tellinig them there is no difference so they can sell new amp sooner.


----------



## HiRezAudio

turbo5upra said:


> Whichever- I didn't do the test for you or anyone else. I have arc in my daily driver and her daily driver. Solid amps that work every day. The helix was clinical- it was tighter and more detailed also. The se was warmer sounding and seemed slower- it didn't sound "bad" to me... Just didn't do what the other amp did.
> 
> Yupp-my opinion. You're welcome to take a listen to both amps. I have nothing to prove or disprove to you. I'm happy with my gear choices. You can continue to say I'm wrong without at least taking a walk in my shoes- to me that's ignorant.


I'm with Turbo. I had a Soundstream Ref5.1000 running my system that required service due (I think) to a bit too aggressive gain adjustment for the sub... go ahead and use your imagination on that one. Anyway I picked up an ARC SE 6 channel to replace it while it was getting TLC from Epsilon. When I fired it up with gains pre-adjusted the difference was obvious to my ears. Not as much detail as the SS. Mostly pretty good, but that high end resolution was just not there. I like the SE for its bulletproof design and smaller size, but it doesn't sound as good. I have been into audio for a long time and I am getting back into it now with my current car. I was actually considering a Mosconi AS but I don't think spending $1100 would get me much better than the SS. Yes I know what happened to SS, too sad, but this amp is pretty dang good.


----------



## quality_sound

cajunner said:


> that's a keen observation.
> 
> let's do the mod to several "mid-grade" amps and see if they improve to the top tier status.
> 
> then maybe we could get someone to do the service for cheap, just send the amp in with the source unit/DSP, or even have a baseline for popular units, so the gain can be matched with .5% tolerance resistors and no op-amp mismatch or whatever.
> 
> that could be worth the "modding" if you could get it done for a twenty spot, or something...
> 
> 
> otherwise, people buy cheap amps because they don't want to spend more on expensive ones, haha...


So now an SE is a "mid-tier amp"? I didn't say you could shine a turd with the mods, but there is an audible difference. 

Also, you'd HAVE to have a processor because you wouldn't have any other way to control gain.


----------



## cajunner

quality_sound said:


> So now an SE is a "mid-tier amp"? I didn't say you could **** a turd with the mods, but there is an audible difference.
> 
> Also, you'd HAVE to have a processor because you wouldn't have any other way to control gain.


you won't need to control gain if you have the source unit impedance/voltage matched to the amp.

and I am not saying SE is a mid tier, I'm saying that there are several units on the market that are price conscious, and if deleting the pre-amp and gain sections works for top level product, it should make a difference on lower end stuff too.


Or is it that the quality is so good for ARC/BRAX that only a dismantling of the preamps will do the trick of improvement?

modding amps for better left/right tolerances, output matching, that sort of thing is okay to me, but not worth the trouble *most of the time* because the amount of variability in amp lines is pretty low.

if there's something defective about an amp, it should be seen in most of the exact same amps out there, or it's not proving anything.

the tolerances of the input gains on most amps can vary, I think as much as .5 db without tossing the amp into the refurb bin, right?

that's a lot of difference to make up, and could well make an amp sound better by cutting out the preamp/gains.


----------



## quality_sound

cajunner said:


> you won't need to control gain if you have the source unit impedance/voltage matched to the amp.


That would require even MORE mods but you'd still need a way to set channel levels so the relative gain somewhere in the chain will need to be adjustable.



> and I am not saying SE is a mid tier, I'm saying that there are several units on the market that are price conscious, and if deleting the pre-amp and gain sections works for top level product, it should make a difference on lower end stuff too.


That's what I said in the first place. lol



> Or is it that the quality is so good for ARC/BRAX that only a dismantling of the preamps will do the trick of improvement?


There isn't a whole lot else to be done that would be audible. There are ALWAYS upgrades but we're seriously into diminishing returns.



> modding amps for better left/right tolerances, output matching, that sort of thing is okay to me, but not worth the trouble *most of the time* because the amount of variability in amp lines is pretty low.


Agreed, and it's better than the source anyway.



> if there's something defective about an amp, it should be seen in most of the exact same amps out there, or it's not proving anything.
> 
> the tolerances of the input gains on most amps can vary, I think as much as .5 db without tossing the amp into the refurb bin, right?
> 
> that's a lot of difference to make up, and could well make an amp sound better by cutting out the preamp/gains.


It's not the tolerance, it's just a simple reduction in stuff in the audio path. Think of glass. It's "clear" and "colorless" but if you put enough panes in front of you, or make it thick enough, your vision gets fuzzy.


----------



## Hanatsu

tjswarbrick said:


> I hooked my (new to me) 2150se up to my car system, placed on a board in the trunk, with some Dayton bookshelf speakers just playing music down the sidewalk - testing to make sure the amp worked. A neighbor walking by commented that it sounded really , really nice.


The best testing procedure I've heard about in a long time. Tell him to write a review xD xD


----------



## turbo5upra

cajunner said:


> as good as this advice is, the test of a car's electrical system on amplifier stability and noise rejection is even more important to the overall sound quality than the differences found in a quiet environment on regulated DC power supplies and a reflection-less room using optimized home speaker boxes.
> 
> the way an amp handles the fluctuation of voltage, the rejection of alternator whine, the normal clicks and wheezes of the differentials of power at the fuse block for the ignition switched power to the source unit, all contribute to include noise floor and 'timbre" and "immediacy" or whatever..


Sorry my suggestion was based on critical listening. At 70mph I doubt you will notice anything worth noting between the two as far as sonice characteristics. For a daily driver I base my amp selection off the amp that powers up and I can run it with my foot through the floor all day long without it failing. If I were sitting in a garage with the key off for extended periods (my toy and car I compete with) id concern myself with the sonic charactistics. Because essentially at that point I have a power supply a chair and some good tunes.

I would concern myself with speaker choice and install and the most important thing- tuning far before I'd worry about amp choice (within reason) but imo when looking to get the last drop out of a system the amp matters.


----------



## cajunner

turbo5upra said:


> Sorry my suggestion was based on critical listening. At 70mph I doubt you will notice anything worth noting between the two as far as sonice characteristics. For a daily driver I base my amp selection off the amp that powers up and I can run it with my foot through the floor all day long without it failing. If I were sitting in a garage with the key off for extended periods (my toy and car I compete with) id concern myself with the sonic charactistics. Because essentially at that point I have a power supply a chair and some good tunes.
> 
> I would concern myself with speaker choice and install and the most important thing- tuning far before I'd worry about amp choice (within reason) but imo when looking to get the last drop out of a system the amp matters.


I have half a mind to disagree with you on the point.

When driving, I turn up the volume specifically to reach a dynamic range that keeps the music realistic, as I would when sitting still in the garage. That threshold is closer to clipping the amp and would make differences noticeable, you would likely hear an amp that clips harshly sound worse than a softer clipping brand, you may find this to be the most available evidence of amps sounding different since you are no longer in the envelope of equal gain/noise/distortion that you were when in the garage.

So an amp that is being driven harder should give up more artifacts and detail should suffer as the signal is squashed by headroom limits of the power supply and current limiting protections keep the amp throttled back... and at the higher current levels the speakers themselves contribute more distortion and compression, adding to the change in sound characteristics.

just an opinion.


----------



## subwoofery

quality_sound said:


> It's to bypass the preamp and gain sections. That same mod would yield benefits in ANY amp.


According to some in this thread, bypassing the preamp and gain sections yields no benefits. 
According to some in this thread, removing or adding components in any amplifier doesn't impact frequency response, distortion, gain, etc... 
According to some in this thread, it's just not possible - just goes against physics 

Kelvin


----------



## turbo5upra

cajunner said:


> I have half a mind to disagree with you on the point.
> 
> When driving, I turn up the volume specifically to reach a dynamic range that keeps the music realistic, as I would when sitting still in the garage. That threshold is closer to clipping the amp and would make differences noticeable, you would likely hear an amp that clips harshly sound worse than a softer clipping brand, you may find this to be the most available evidence of amps sounding different since you are no longer in the envelope of equal gain/noise/distortion that you were when in the garage.
> 
> So an amp that is being driven harder should give up more artifacts and detail should suffer as the signal is squashed by headroom limits of the power supply and current limiting protections keep the amp throttled back... and at the higher current levels the speakers themselves contribute more distortion and compression, adding to the change in sound characteristics.
> 
> just an opinion.



Sorry- I tend to throw too much power at stuff- but if we are approaching clipping that can have a huge impact.


----------



## miniSQ

I have a JL 300/4 v2 running my fronts active, and i wold love to upgrade the sound of my system. What amp or amps can you guys suggest that will give me a noticeable sound quality upgrade?


----------



## turbo5upra

miniSQ said:


> I have a JL 300/4 v2 running my fronts active, and i wold love to upgrade the sound of my system. What amp or amps can you guys suggest that will give me a noticeable sound quality upgrade?


And I was called out for trolling.


----------



## miniSQ

turbo5upra said:


> And I was called out for trolling.


Not a troll...i am still considering the Mosconi that is for sale from england. Would this be a notice able sound upgrade? Or just me jumping on the mosconi bandwagon?

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/car-audio-classifieds/169113-fs-mosconi-one-120-4-amplifier.html


----------



## turbo5upra

miniSQ said:


> Not a troll...i am still considering the Mosconi that is for sale from england. Would this be a notice able sound upgrade? Or just me jumping on the mosconi bandwagon?
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/car-audio-classifieds/169113-fs-mosconi-one-120-4-amplifier.html


I would only jump from the jl if power output was a concern- but I'm waiting on Tintbox to ship me a slash and hd to demo next to some other amps.


----------



## lizardking

Interesting thread. I've since moved from High End amps like Brax and Helix to basic amps as the Phantoms and can absolutely tell no difference. Once I get everything dialed in using a DSP. Most of the time when I read of people trying to convince others of a difference it's usually someone with a vested interest such as manufacturer or a salesman. I would however agree there is a difference in quality of a product. 

Unfortunately, as humans, we convince ourselves of many things and can be easily convinced or persuaded. There are actually people......believe me when I say this. People who actually believe that there was this big boat that everyone including animals of "2 of every kind" got on due to flooding. Apparently, there is some invisible man that lives in the sky that watches everything everybody does every minute of every day. He has 10 rules! If you break any of these 10 rules....well look out. I'm also hearing that we all come from just two people, but there was never incest of any kind. The invisible man also had a son who was really him.


----------



## Orion525iT

^
Self-delusion and conformation bias have a very strong influence on beliefs and ideological positions. As does appeal to authority and personal testimony, both of which do not equate to evidence and cannot be used a basis for fact. But all are leveraged in argumentative positions which lack true merit. 

And then there is plain old intellectual dishonesty.

Empiricism applied to the philosophy of science, data, and quantifiable observations are the only things that should be considered.


----------



## Victor_inox

philosophy of science and quantifiable observations.
****, really?


----------



## cajunner

Orion525iT said:


> ^
> Self-delusion and conformation bias have a very strong influence on beliefs and ideological positions. As does appeal to authority and personal testimony, both of which do not equate to evidence and cannot be used a basis for fact. But all are leveraged in argumentative positions which lack true merit.
> 
> And then there is plain old intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> Empiricism applied to the philosophy of science, data, and quantifiable observations are the only things that should be considered.


data derived from the variable we call hearing, means what you hear, cannot EVER be exactly the same as what I hear.

it may be close, you may have extremely similar pinnae, you may have genetic similarity in ear canal dimensions, eustachian tube length and relative pressure gradient, eardrum thickness and size, etc. but nobody hears the exact same.

so, fully investing one's self into the illusion of stereo, is always going to stop short of repeatable performances in testing and subject to a myriad of influences that can disrupt the results of such tests.

let's just enjoy the conundrum, and reaffirm life's general unpredictability as a way to defend ourselves from the mundane certainty of death and it's ultimate finality.


----------



## miniSQ

cajunner said:


> data derived from the variable we call hearing, means what you hear, cannot EVER be exactly the same as what I hear.
> 
> it may be close, you may have extremely similar pinnae, you may have genetic similarity in ear canal dimensions, eustachian tube length and relative pressure gradient, eardrum thickness and size, etc. but nobody hears the exact same.
> 
> so, fully investing one's self into the illusion of stereo, is always going to stop short of repeatable performances in testing and subject to a myriad of influences that can disrupt the results of such tests.
> 
> let's just enjoy the conundrum, and reaffirm life's general unpredictability as a way to defend ourselves from the mundane certainty of death and it's ultimate finality.


so, yes or no on the mosconi ?


----------



## cajunner

miniSQ said:


> so, yes or no on the mosconi ?


I'm gonna say no...

I mean, you've got what? 75W to mids and tweets?

you could upgrade to 125W per, and gain just a smidge of a difference.


will you make a mountain out of a molehill and claim your system is vastly improved, or will you realistically say the difference isn't all that great?

it's going to depend on your expectations.


you know, expectation counts for a lot, on the internets.


----------



## turbo5upra

If we look at this from theory... We have a pile of manufactures with 15-30 amp designs each... Granted they are manufactured in a limited amount of factory's but each company has specs.

So that said caps and resistors each have a tolarance of typically a couple percent on cheaper amps... 

Next up were adding coils and caps into the mix- speakers and crossovers- so we're tossing all sorts of variables into the final product- and expecting them to perform exactly the same.

We have variables inside the amps which will react with the final load differently (also varied) and are saying that the end results will be all but identical. 

I think material has a bunch to do with results of testing. If you drive a civic down the highway at 75 you will get similar results to driving a 911. Push it to the limits (very technical material)and you should notice something.


----------



## Hanatsu

Don't judge performance based on individual compenents, it's the overall design that matter. Don't overcomplicate the subject. An amplifier 'sees' a load (impedance) and that load is more or less reactive (impedance phase) depending on what you connect to it. There's not a "whole lot of variables" in this regard. There is howver a lot of variables involved in a design of an amp. 

What most people argue about isn't that equipment performs differently, it is the faith audiophiles tend to put in their hearing ability. I have a very hard time believing that human hearing is somehow better than advanced measurement equipment. I put even less faith in people making sighted reviews about equipment. There's always a confirmation bias involved in my opinion.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


----------



## lizardking

This guy makes sense ^^^^^


----------



## Victor_inox

when was last time anyone read bad review? people who spent money on something trying to protect their point of view and investment.
Even worse people who get freebie for purpose of review feel obligated to write a good one. I have no trust in such reviews.
I don`t care what measurements says I can hear subtle difference in sound signature of an amp. perhaps there is something we not accounted for in measurements.
UPgraded components often needed for better reliability not sound difference.


----------



## Orion525iT

Victor_inox said:


> when was last time anyone read bad review? people who spent money on something trying to protect their point of view and investment.
> Even worse people who get freebie for purpose of review feel obligated to write a good one. I have no trust in such reviews.
> I don`t care what measurements says I can hear subtle difference in sound signature of an amp. perhaps there is something we not accounted for in measurements.
> UPgraded components often needed for better reliability not sound difference.


Like what other things not accounted for? 

Point is, without quantifiable, measurable data this entire thread is a hamster wheel to nowhere. If you are hearing a difference, then it is a difference that can be measured. The human ear isn't magical, it can't pick up otherworldly sonic signatures from the aether. 

The only thing that will lay this argument to rest is verifiable, repeatable experimental evidence (data and science). All of which are conspicuously absent from this thread.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

I'd say YES on the Mosconi. It's good clean power with plenty of headroom. I used my 120.4 as a sub amp for several months and it could push a pair of Fi x10's almost to the breaking point. It's honestly been the best all around sub amp I've ever used but is better used on the fronts. If I had the money I'd be running a triplet of One 120.4's. They're THAT good. I've come across some turds when it comes to amps so how well an amp is built and quality of parts WILL make a huge difference on how it sounds. Those that don't believe me can keep on using their $150 amp that cost $50 at the most to build. Ignorance is BLISS.


----------



## turbo5upra

Orion525iT said:


> Like what other things not accounted for?
> 
> Point is, without quantifiable, measurable data this entire thread is a hamster wheel to nowhere. If you are hearing a difference, then it is a difference that can be measured. The human ear isn't magical, it can't pick up otherworldly sonic signatures from the aether.
> 
> The only thing that will lay this argument to rest is verifiable, repeatable experimental evidence (data and science). All of which are conspicuously absent from this thread.


The question is- what exactly would we measure "speed" with. Not being a smartass her. Im talking in very finite amounts. 

I'd be all for a blind ab test of a few amps- but we could go over the setup and gear choices until the cows come home and when all is said and done someone will ***** about what we coulda' or shoulda' did. I did my test with one thing in mind- and I'm happy with my results. 

I have a place. I have the gear. I have just about all the big name amps at my fingertips via a local shop.


----------



## Victor_inox

For many decades now master luthers trying to replicate stradivarius violins. Many times Instruments were created measured exactly like one yet sounds different. What measurement was not accounted for?
And I disagree human hearinfg is magical.


----------



## turbo5upra

for that matter... minerals and water coming together in something that can walk and talk and build amplifiers to listen to while we drive to work is nothing short of magical.

And on a side note. The Earth is flat.


----------



## Victor_inox

I dont get your comparison sorry.


----------



## turbo5upra

Quite simply- The human body is very complex. I don't think we fully understand hearing and there might be a few things that it can do that we can't measure yet. 

The Earth being flat was meaning that quite often popular belief awaits Science catching up.


----------



## Jesus Christ

And we're back to voodoo being the cause.


----------



## turbo5upra

Jesus Christ said:


> And we're back to voodoo being the cause.


Seems legit- I mean who else but the son God to shed some light on this subject. 

Why not start setting up some parameters for a test?


----------



## lizardking

turbo5upra said:


> Seems legit- I mean who else but the son God to shed some light on this subject.
> 
> Why not start setting up some parameters for a test?


The son of God who's really him.


----------



## Victor_inox

turbo5upra said:


> Quite simply- The human body is very complex. I don't think we fully understand hearing and there might be a few things that it can do that we can't measure yet.
> 
> The Earth being flat was meaning that quite often popular belief awaits Science catching up.


and I was called out for being condescending. 

No self respected scientist will ever tell you that all amps sounds the same because it`s not scientific approach. some of the amps can measure similar but I can bet you my most expensive amp that amp of the same model will measure different, yet sound indistinguishable. explain that fenomena other then we are not measuring that part.


----------



## Hanatsu

Seems to me that every time an explanation fails to convince - then it's simply "complex". 

Do you seriously think that there are things we can't measure, related to audio equipment? I'm 100% certain we can. How we correlate what we measure with what we hear is another matter and that's the complex part here. Having said that, there are things such as 'thresholds for audibility' which pretty much are researched and fairly well understood. I've done a lot of research into loudspeaker distortion audibility and it's from there I draw my conclusions. Speakers are high-distortion devices, they have ten to hundreds times more distortion in the non-linear domain than decent amplifiers. Same goes for linear distortion (harder to quantify that though). I hope most of us can agree that it's the speakers and not amplifiers that are the bottleneck in terms of both non-linear and linear distortion. If not, I'll ask how you have come to that conclusion. 

Simple question, if you can't hear 3% of non-linear distortion in a speaker (check out the klippel website to do a listening test of this), how can you expect to hear non-linear distortion in the magnitude of 0,05-0,2% that an amplifier adds to the equation? Granted, there are several types of NLD and the audibility threshold for each one is dependent on order/magnitude and frequency. Even so, the magnitude is so low that it can be considered a non-issue in my opinion. That is until you overdrive the amp.

Why so focused on non-linear distortion? It's the only way I can remotely consider that an amp would have a "character" even though FR is flat. The linear distortion can basically be derived and defined by its frequency response and unless modifications have been done, every amp should simply be flat 20-20kHz. 

Furthermore. (At this point a educated guess); I really don't see how all electrical parameters would matter, it's ultimately through a speaker you "listen to an amplifier". ALL distortions audible to us MUST therefore be measurable through an acoustic measurement of the speaker and ALL forms of distortion will therefore be dictated by the acoustic domain's "rules". There are several ways of determining if there's any difference between amplifier A and B, the best method would probably be subtraction between two recorded waveform normalized to the exact same level. Any non-linear distortion could even be extracted from that, at least that's the theory.

The subtraction test can of course be made without involving speakers at all, but that doesn't seem to be enough for some people. 

I should probably note that *some *tube amplifiers doesn't sound like a SS amp (for better or worse). They are an exception that I consider valid, they will not however - measure the same, that simple rule stands. About all SS-amps I've heard sound the same to me and I've owned highend stuff like Sinfoni, Brax, DLS Ultimate etc. If you want real difference, get good speakers, an adequate amount of power, a powerful DSP and a fine install and you're good to go (again imo).


----------



## Victor_inox

Dreaded Bob Carver argument to the rescue....


----------



## TrickyRicky

Am pretty sure we all can agree that everyone's hearing is DIFFERENT! With time you loose your hearing capabilities and your fhz spectrum gets narrow, you loose the ability to hear certain frequencies as well.


----------



## turbo5upra

Hanatsu said:


> \
> 
> The subtraction test can of course be made without involving speakers at all, but that doesn't seem to be enough for some people.


So we connect a dummy reactive load to the amp and measure?

I was suggesting we grab 3-4 amps. match gains... and do a blind test with music. If I were to go about it though I'm guessing people would call foul even if we tried to make it as unbiased as possible whatever the outcome was.


----------



## Jesus Christ

turbo5upra said:


> I was suggesting we grab 3-4 amps. match gains... and do a blind test with music.


Already been done, people couldn't hear a difference.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/technical-advanced-car-audio-discussion/158209-b-blind-tests-amplifiers-time-hear-myself.html


----------



## ChrisB

As one of my friends told me earlier tonight "One does not change the mind of the brainwashed."

Unfortunately, he is right and this hamster wheel to nowhere will continue with the mythology and voodoo. I just hope everyone makes it to the same realization that I did. Not every expensive audio device is great. Conversely, not every cheap audio device is junk. There are some expensive amplifiers that are junk and there are some cheap amplifiers that are great.

It's kind of sad that DIYMA sort of strayed off course. I remember a time when amplifier clones were pointed out and there was lots of butthurt because a cheap amp used the same board as a more expensive amp. Then there used to be the Klippel tests that would reveal that some cheap speakers measured better than some expensive speakers. Again with a lot of butthurt. But I have great news! Starting in 2015, Obamacare will cover butthurt!


----------



## lizardking

ChrisB said:


> As one of my friends told me earlier tonight "One does not change the mind of the brainwashed."
> 
> Unfortunately, he is right and this hamster wheel to nowhere will continue with the mythology and voodoo. I just hope everyone makes it to the same realization that I did. Not every expensive audio device is great. Conversely, not every cheap audio device is junk. There are some expensive amplifiers that are junk and there are some cheap amplifiers that are great.
> 
> It's kind of sad that DIYMA sort of strayed off course. I remember a time when amplifier clones were pointed out and there was lots of butthurt because a cheap amp used the same board as a more expensive amp. Then there used to be the Klippel tests that would reveal that some cheap speakers measured better than some expensive speakers. Again with a lot of butthurt. But I have great news! Starting in 2015, Obamacare will cover butthurt!




LMAO.....


----------



## turbo5upra

Jesus Christ said:


> Already been done, people couldn't hear a difference.
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/technical-advanced-car-audio-discussion/158209-b-blind-tests-amplifiers-time-hear-myself.html


I wouldn't call 56% a clear cut winner either way but it seems to lend itself toward hearing a difference. 

It's funny that all the people that are saying there is no tangible difference aren't offering up parameters for another more simplified test. I think 3 amps should do. What's next?

I'm about to post up an iasca event in ny for Februaryish and can host the demo session the day before so how do we make this happen and make it fair? I've asked several times so both camps can feel comfortable but nobody has replied with things they would like to see it consist of.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

56% is the flip of a coin.

No better than guessing. 

It doesn't at all point to people being able to tell the difference.

Its like putting all true answers on a true and false test.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

56% is the flip of a coin.

No better than guessing. 

It doesn't at all point to people being able to tell the difference.

Its like putting all true answers on a true and false test.


----------



## Victor_inox

Both camp seems to be settled on their believes.
I did that test to myself dozens of times I know what I hear and not interested in someone else opinion on the matter. with 100% accuracy I could distinguish one amp from another.
set the test closer to Denver and you`ll have a chance to switch me to another camp but highly unlikely.


----------



## Jesus Christ

turbo5upra said:


> I wouldn't call 56% a clear cut winner either way but it seems to lend itself toward hearing a difference.


If the differences are as obvious as some claim I would expect nothing less than 100%.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> If the differences are as obvious as some claim I would expect nothing less than 100%.


 unless those some haven`t participated in that particular test. 
Not everyone has been trained what to listen for and how memorize sound signature of an component. and every amp has sound signature believe it or not. 
I`d gladly participate in properly set test.


----------



## tjswarbrick

Hanatsu said:


> Do you seriously think that there are things we can't measure, related to audio equipment?


Yes. 

More importantly, we don't know how everything we do measure correlates with what we hear. Like why does distortion above 20kHz affect sound quality in the audible range? Don't worry, there are many others.
But then, you'd have to read the audiophile press. And have an open enough mind to think that, maybe, there's some merit to what they have to say.


----------



## Victor_inox

tjswarbrick said:


> Yes.
> 
> More importantly, we don't know how everything we do measure correlates with what we hear. Like why does distortion above 20kHz affect sound quality in the audible range? Don't worry, there are many others.
> But then, you'd have to read the audiophile press. And have an open enough mind to think that, maybe, there's some merit to what they have to say.


well put.


----------



## Orion525iT

tjswarbrick said:


> Yes.
> 
> More importantly, we don't know how everything we do measure correlates with what we hear. Like why does distortion above 20kHz affect sound quality in the audible range? Don't worry, there are many others.
> But then, you'd have to read the audiophile press. And have an open enough mind to think that, maybe, there's some merit to what they have to say.


^Citation please. Primary source preferred, thank you.

I am actually agnostic on the subject at hand. But, in any sort of formal inquiry, the burden of proof lies squarely at the feet of those making the positive claim; i.e the _persuader_. It's is very hard if not impossible to prove a negative. In this case, the positive claim is actually counter to what the thread title suggests. The positive claim is that there is an audible difference; that a difference exists. 

To make a claim that there is a difference without actually providing proof of difference is useless discourse. I can make all sort of ridiculous claims about things and shift the burden of proof and challenge others to prove it isn't the case. But of course they can't.

_Onus probandi_:

With no evidence that there is an audible difference, no evidence to favor that position, we must assume the default position (in this case, that there is no difference). It is the duty of the persuader to provide evidence _against_ the default position. Also, by saying that you believe there are things that cannot be measured and then to use that as evidence to support the positive position (that there is an audible difference), you are making a non-falsifiable claim. That is an example of logical fallacy. 

The entire discussion is basic epistemology. This basis for science and all forms of evidence based investigation.


----------



## turbo5upra

I think that like anything- with proper training one can pick out subtle nuances- The only person from that test that I know on a first name basis is Captain- While I don't doubt his abilities as he has a pretty rock solid car- I don't know the qualifications of the rest of the bunch. 

Now I'm not saying they do or don't know whats going on- But being from the side of the fence where I've proven it to myself I've wanted to try it in open forum and be as objective as I could. 

Everyone here is so set in their ways that they wont even offer up suggestions on how they would like to see someone try it.

for the few that have tried a direct a/b comparison- Cool! for those that haven't Let's just keep our heads in the sand!


----------



## Hanatsu

tjswarbrick said:


> Yes.
> 
> More importantly, we don't know how everything we do measure correlates with what we hear. Like why does distortion above 20kHz affect sound quality in the audible range? Don't worry, there are many others.
> But then, you'd have to read the audiophile press. And have an open enough mind to think that, maybe, there's some merit to what they have to say.


As in IMD? Why reproduce anything above 20kHz in the first place? You can't hear it. Just lowpass the drivers at 18kHz or something, problem solved.

What are the the "many others"? Do a list and I'm sure they can be answered.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


----------



## ChrisB

And the hamster wheel to nowhere keeps on turning...


----------



## rayray881

For those that truly believe they can hear a difference, would you be willing to bet a large sum of cash on it? I have discussed such a blind test with a big name in the home audio industry and would be more than happy to set something up.


----------



## Victor_inox

rayray881 said:


> For those that truly believe they can hear a difference, would you be willing to bet a large sum of cash on it? I have discussed such a blind test with a big name in the home audio industry and would be more than happy to set something up.


Setup one at CES in January and I`m in. 
So how much are you ready to lose?


----------



## rayray881

It would take place in either Tampa or Jacksonville. We would pay for travel expenses. Looking for at least 5 people to participate and have already floated the idea on a few other websites. You can pm me your contact info if you are truly interested. All of the details have not been completed yet, but we are going to put $5k on the line for each person.


----------



## turbo5upra

ChrisB said:


> And the hamster wheel to nowhere keeps on turning...


I'm all set- people ***** both ways and I've asked for input on what would make a fair test and nobody offers any productive suggestions.


----------



## Victor_inox

rayray881 said:


> It would take place in either Tampa or Jacksonville. We would pay for travel expenses. Looking for at least 5 people to participate and have already floated the idea on a few other websites. You can pm me your contact info if you are truly interested. All of the details have not been completed yet, but we are going to put $5k on the line for each person.


sounds like a plan.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Likely because it's been said so many times before. Completely blind a -b testing with near or instantaneous switching. Anything else leaves too many variables on the table. You'd also need the ability to thoroughly measure each amps performance, so that you can compare the results of each. If on had a purposely added response curve, of course it will sound different, nobody is arguing that.


----------



## Victor_inox

turbo5upra said:


> I'm all set- people ***** both ways and I've asked for input on what would make a fair test and nobody offers any productive suggestions.


 you`d have to match power within 0.3db or 0.1of a watt. 
secondly identical cabling for both sound path. some kind of fader between amps to switch signal softly , I think pro audio mixer board should do.
One load for both amps with soft switching in between. maybe two independent loads but it will be hard to show that they are identical. drivers from the same set is often differ in klippel testing. 
Each amp must be powered from the same power source preferably battery. even subtle difference in power runs can be enough to tell the difference. 

Broad selection of music is essential as well. best for comparison reasons is acoustic piano. male and female vocals as well.
Normally I`m able to tell difference on vocal reproduction more easily. Female at that. I`d suggest everyone participating bring their own files lossless of whatever they think better to distinguish components. 
I`ll see if I can think of something else.


----------



## lizardking

Love this thread! Even if someone could be convinced they couldn't tell the difference they would never believe it. Just as in Religion, someone will always have some other excuse to deny the truth. Its human! Unless you're completely open minded and not already biased you won't admit anything. I often refer to it as being "weak" minded. Some people are leaders and some people have to be led.


----------



## Victor_inox

lizardking said:


> Love this thread! Even if someone could be convinced they couldn't tell the difference they would never believe it. Just as in Religion, someone will always have some other excuse to deny the truth. Its human! Unless you're completely open minded and not already biased you won't admit anything. I often refer to it as being "weak" minded. Some people are leaders and some people have to be led.


 It`s important where bias coming from, from years of experience in the field 
or preconceived notions.. It`s so unlike religion where dogma pushed on young inexperienced by their caregivers.


----------



## turbo5upra

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Likely because it's been said so many times before. Completely blind a -b testing with near or instantaneous switching. Anything else leaves too many variables on the table. You'd also need the ability to thoroughly measure each amps performance, so that you can compare the results of each. If on had a purposely added response curve, of course it will sound different, nobody is arguing that.


I guess I should have stated- what would it take to make a convincing test... so that foul couldn't be claimed with whatever the outcome was.


----------



## lizardking

I can't wait to "hear" the results of this thread.....well maybe read the results. LOL. I truly wish I could hear the difference then maybe I could justify the $$$$ I've spent on single amps. I've never gained performance or perceived sound quality difference from an amp installation. None...zero....zilch. It reminds of cold air intakes and the perceived performance in power.....LOL. It's just louder fools. 

Anyway, I'm not sure how someone can hear a difference in amps that measure ruler flat. Isn't sound measured in frequency? How does one frequency sound better than another that is the exact same frequency?


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

If someone wants to do another amp test I'll send my PPI Atom 1000.4 for the test and pay shipping both ways. I'd run a pair of low powered subs with it in a beater vehicle or tow rig but that's about it. It's terrible at high frequencies but if you think all amps sound the same your brain should have no problem tricking you into thinking an inferior device sounds better than it really does.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

turbo5upra said:


> I guess I should have stated- what would it take to make a convincing test... so that foul couldn't be claimed with whatever the outcome was.


It really needs to be as stated. Controlled environment, as in no temperature swings between tests, run without external noise, etc etc. The best speakers that can be afforded for the test, since the distortion from those will swamp whatever the amp puts out. Amps level matched preferably within a tenth of a db non-weighted with pink noise. Instantaneous switching, without any telling signs of a switch (thump, click, etc). The person switching amps needs to be able to do it out of view of the testers. That's another thing, tests need to be ran one person at a time. Or, everyone needs to be in the exact same position for each test. Agreed with victor about preferably using battery power, and running electrically identical cables to each amp. Etc etc. I'm sure I can think of more, but I don't have the resources to run this kind of test (if I did, I would have already done it).


----------



## Victor_inox

lizardking said:


> I can't wait to "hear" the results of this thread.....well maybe read the results. LOL. I truly wish I could hear the difference then maybe I could justify the $$$$ I've spent on single amps. I've never gained performance or perceived sound quality difference from an amp installation. None...zero....zilch. It reminds of cold air intakes and the perceived performance in power.....LOL. It's just louder fools.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not sure how someone can hear a difference in amps that measure ruler flat. Isn't sound measured in frequency? How does one frequency sound better than another that is the exact same frequency?


here we go circle 200. I never seen an amp ruler flat. FR never the same in two separate amplifiers. So is all kind or distortions and harmonics.
now you gonna say that intercoolers not provide any perceived power benefits? sure thing, just measured benefits. So is Cold air intake.
Cold air is denser denser air has more oxygen per volume. Your analogy is backwards.


----------



## turbo5upra

lizardking said:


> I can't wait to "hear" the results of this thread.....well maybe read the results. LOL. I truly wish I could hear the difference then maybe I could justify the $$$$ I've spent on single amps. I've never gained performance or perceived sound quality difference from an amp installation. None...zero....zilch. It reminds of cold air intakes and the perceived performance in power.....LOL. It's just louder fools.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not sure how someone can hear a difference in amps that measure ruler flat. Isn't sound measured in frequency? How does one frequency sound better than another that is the exact same frequency?


So what amps were in your test and how did you conduct it?


----------



## Jesus Christ

turbo5upra said:


> I guess I should have stated- what would it take to make a convincing test... so that foul couldn't be claimed with whatever the outcome was.


Since there are people claiming there is something that can't be measured that causes them to sound different I'd like to see the test performed with two amps that measure the same.


----------



## lizardking

turbo5upra said:


> So what amps were in your test and how did you conduct it?


No test needed. Again, how can someone hear a difference from one frequency from another when the said frequency is the same? Isn't sound measured by frequency? Shouldn't the amp just amplify the frequencies provided by the source? Why does an amp sound warm, sonic, airy, clinical and smooth? Why do the ones with vested interest insist that amps sound different?


----------



## Victor_inox

lizardking said:


> No test needed. Again, how can someone hear a difference from one frequency from another when the said frequency is the same? Isn't sound measured by frequency? Shouldn't the amp just amplify the frequencies provided by the source? Why does an amp sound warm, sonic, airy, clinical and smooth? Why do the ones with vested interest insist that amps sound different?


Wait a second. what is my vested interest?


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> Since there are people claiming there is something that can't be measured that causes them to sound different I'd like to see the test performed with two amps that measure the same.


Good luck finding that pair...


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> Good luck finding that pair...


You're right, they might need to test as many as 2 or 3 amps to find that.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> You're right, they might need to test as many as 2 or 3 amps to find that.


 I dare you!.


----------



## turbo5upra

lizardking said:


> No test needed. Again, how can someone hear a difference from one frequency from another when the said frequency is the same? Isn't sound measured by frequency? Shouldn't the amp just amplify the frequencies provided by the source? Why does an amp sound warm, sonic, airy, clinical and smooth? Why do the ones with vested interest insist that amps sound different?


Whoa- what do I have invested? I borrowed two amps from a friend... This is the second time I've done a similar test with similar results. It's almost comical that you can sit here not having tried it and make a stand either way. My test might have been flawed- It wasn't extremely controlled either time but in mind I'm pretty confident in the results since 2 different power supply's and sources were used. 

you honestly think we know everything about hearing and testing speakers to compare it? We might we might not- but not having at least tried some sort of test how can you have a solid opinion?


----------



## lizardking

Guys,
Not trying to be pecker head.....and some of you people truly believe their can be a difference that is heard that somehow affects your sonic Nirvana. I don't know. All I can relate to you is my 25yrs of installing equipment and listening to idiots trying to convince me of spending stupid money on amps......granted I'm easily to blame as well. As for invested, that is broad term to mean anyone from those that justify the money the spend on high dollar equipment to the salesman trying to rake in profits. There tends to be more profit in more expensive equipment thus I would rather sale you something with a 20% margin vs something with a 5% margin. Nothing wrong with that...Capitalism rules!

To the defense of some, I believe their good guys on here that try to steer people in the right direction and have good intentions when doing so. Until I discovered the use of RAW drivers a few years ago, I was persuaded that I must run all car audio specific speakers. Look at the facts, there are people winning competitions with "cheap" amps and happen to be Class D. No Class A or Class A/B or tube amps for that matter. Is it just possible that the amp is the last piece of the equation and just maybe it's the install/tuning/placement, speakers and the DSP?


----------



## Victor_inox

I don`t sell amplifiers, what vested interest you`ve been talking about?

I`m one of the few defending differences in amplifiers so I assumed your comment was directed at me.

What cheap amp winning competitions? JL HD? they are not cheap. 
 BTW I never said that expensive amplifier will give you competition trophy.
all I stand for is that amps sounds differently and not most critical component of audio system. law of diminishing value fully apply in this case as well.
I said that 1000 times and repeat again get the best speakers first.


----------



## quality_sound

lizardking said:


> No test needed. Again, how can someone hear a difference from one frequency from another when the said frequency is the same? Isn't sound measured by frequency? Shouldn't the amp just amplify the frequencies provided by the source? Why does an amp sound warm, sonic, airy, clinical and smooth? Why do the ones with vested interest insist that amps sound different?



They do sound different. Every single one of them. Even two amps of the same make and model. Unless you MAKE them sound the same. That's why RC uses level matching and EQ in his challenge. Because if he didn't he'd lose his money time and time again. 

That said, it doesn't matter if they sound the same or not once you add ANY EQ into the mix. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hanatsu

Under the condition you got an adequate amount of power available and the equipment is "decent stuff", it's my opinion that the importance goes something like this:



This in terms of audio reproduction quality (end result). There are of course other reasons why you should get high quality stuff. Longevity, quality "feel" and additional features are the biggest reasons for me.


----------



## lizardking

Victor_inox said:


> I don`t sell amplifiers, what vested interest you`ve been talking about?
> 
> I`m one of the few defending differences in amplifiers so I assumed your comment was directed at me.
> 
> What cheap amp winning competitions? JL HD? they are not cheap.
> BTW I never said that expensive amplifier will give you competition trophy.
> all I stand for is that amps sounds differently and not most critical component of audio system. law of diminishing value fully apply in this case as well.
> I said that 1000 times and repeat again get the best speakers first.



Nah, not directed at any one person. I'm fairly sure that Big T and his wife won some trophies with their cheap ole Phantom amps along with their $200 speakers. Maybe the competition was Subjective? Who knows?


----------



## lizardking

Hanatsu said:


> Under the condition you got an adequate amount of power available and the equipment is "decent stuff", it's my opinion that the importance goes something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> This in terms of audio reproduction quality (end result). There are of course other reasons why you should get high quality stuff. Longevity, quality "feel" and additional features are the biggest reasons for me.



Intelligent well informed person here ^^^^


----------



## lizardking

quality_sound said:


> They do sound different. Every single one of them. Even two amps of the same make and model. Unless you MAKE them sound the same. That's why RC uses level matching and EQ in his challenge. Because if he didn't he'd lose his money time and time again.
> 
> That said, it doesn't matter if they sound the same or not once you add ANY EQ into the mix.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



If they do sound different, by the time I'm done tuning for my personal preference, I've never been able to tell. You have a valid point.


----------



## Victor_inox

I don`t trust competitions they created for sole purpose of selling equipment, win on Sunday sell on Monday. that`s why you see mediocre stuff won so many time over that`s where most profit made- on cheap high volume stuff not on exclusive high quality pieces.
I`ve seen a report once how much markup dealers made on top of the line Canon lenses, you know stuff you see in sport illustrated bid line of off white lenses.
Get this- Canon lose money on every one of their L class lenses.
So is with top of the line broadcast video cameras.and almost everything else.
companies make profit on cheap stuff so when you buy top shelf stuff you get great value despite the fact that you paid 5 times more than next level down. 
People think that $8000 for basic Rolex is a lot. after all it`s just shows time, right? 

Rolex and Brax could be status symbols for some, for others they are examples of outstanding craftsmanship and attention to details That by definition can`t be cheap.


----------



## lizardking

Agree about outstanding craftsmanship. I'm a huge fan of just about everything German made. Big profits in expensive anything. I remember when we bought our first Mercedes-Benz and how the salesman had a $5000 suit and a Rolex to go along with it. Just a salesman, not the finance guy or the GM. Then you go to a domestic dealer and that salesman needs the sale to feed his family. The profits from the Benz dealer was allot more and the salesman wasn't afraid to show it. However, we did get a special bottle of Mercedes-Benz wine....still have it.

Speaking of German Engineering. I do have a Helix DSP Pro waiting to be installed..........


----------



## TrickyRicky

Citizen makes a watch with a built in GPS and it self adjust to the time according to the time zone your in.


----------



## Victor_inox

lizardking said:


> Agree about outstanding craftsmanship. I'm a huge fan of just about everything German made. Big profits in expensive anything. I remember when we bought our first Mercedes-Benz and how the salesman had a $5000 suit and a Rolex to go along with it. Just a salesman, not the finance guy or the GM. Then you go to a domestic dealer and that salesman needs the sale to feed his family. The profits from the Benz dealer was allot more and the salesman wasn't afraid to show it. However, we did get a special bottle of Mercedes-Benz wine....still have it.
> 
> Speaking of German Engineering. I do have a Helix DSP Pro waiting to be installed..........



It`s a plot , saleman on volume dealer makes more money than ferrari dealer, you are sooo wrong on this one. I have quite a few friends in car business.
Salesman on MB dealership represent dealer, often expensive accessories given to them by management.


----------



## Victor_inox

TrickyRicky said:


> Citizen makes a watch with a built in GPS and it self adjust to the time according to the time zone your in.


It is not a matter of showing correct time, I`d say not only one.
MEchanical watch is engineering marvel when about 250 tiny parts oscillating 816 thousands time in 24 hours and keep reasonably accurate time within -4+6 second a day. That is chronometer standard. mine does +0.5 sec a day. That is quartz precision in mechanical piece. and does that 40 years in a row. When I`m done I`ll pass it to my son as heir loom. 
many companies make atomic watches or rather radio controlled, there is no exclusivity in that. I have 300 bucks citizen that charges itself by sun light another one by motion of your wrist, converting mechanical energy of your movement into electricity. they are more precise time instruments indeed but I love mechanical piece on my wrist. It`s not easy to grasp in our age of disposable crap.


----------



## lizardking

Victor_inox said:


> It`s a plot , saleman on volume dealer makes more money than ferrari dealer, you are sooo wrong on this one. I have quite a few friends in car business.
> Salesman on MB dealership represent dealer, often expensive accessories given to them by management.


Nice....


----------



## Souldrop

I'm +1 for the quality of the product. I would much rather pay a more premium price for something that should stand to years of use better. That's one thing about premium "SQ" brands.

IMO amps are only one part of the equation and all else being equal the one thing that really sets high end SQ amps apart from other amps is the fact they are overbuilt. So of course my Zapco C2k 2.0 sounds better than my Eclipse EA2000 in a swap. The Zapco more effectively powers my front stage. I paid for an overbuilt amp that was manufactured here in the US. Those two simple factors make it worthwhile for me, not to mention the differences in aesthetics. 

Now comparing two comparatively overrated amps, one mid priced and the other expensive, I really doubt you could discern the differences between the two in a straight blind test. You get to the point of diminishing returns after you hit amps that have solid performance. It's easy to tell the difference between a crappy amp and a decent amp, more difficult to tell the difference between a decent amp and its higher end counterpart especially in a complicated environment such as a car. 

It's not worth it to me to dole out a couple grand for top tier "SQ" amp, but I have no qualms paying 300-500 for a very solid performer. In my eyes audible differences be damned I'm paying for craftsmanship and hopefully longevity.


----------



## subwoofery

lizardking said:


> No test needed. Again, how can someone hear a difference from one frequency from another when the said frequency is the same? Isn't sound measured by frequency? Shouldn't the amp just amplify the frequencies provided by the source? Why does an amp sound warm, sonic, airy, clinical and smooth? Why do the ones with vested interest insist that amps sound different?


Difference in sound comes from 5 things - you can read on it in the links in my sig  

Kelvin


----------



## turbo5upra

lizardking said:


> Intelligent well informed person here ^^^^


And the rest of us aren't


----------



## turbo5upra

Hanatsu said:


> Under the condition you got an adequate amount of power available and the equipment is "decent stuff", it's my opinion that the importance goes something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> This in terms of audio reproduction quality (end result). There are of course other reasons why you should get high quality stuff. Longevity, quality "feel" and additional features are the biggest reasons for me.



Pyramid looks about right. 

If general theme of this thread was will x amp make or break my system I would say spend your money and time where it count's and not on the best sounding amp you can afford. Truth is it's going to take a good installer and tuner to have the sound of the amp being the weak link.


----------



## Victor_inox

lizardking said:


> Nice....


Commission based salary could be nice, free accessories or not.
same goes with jewelry sales, manager give them nice watches and bling bling.


----------



## sqnut

turbo5upra said:


> Truth is it's going to take a good installer and tuner to have the sound of the amp being the weak link.


The 'sound' of an amp is never going to be a weak link, at least not for one that makes rated power under normal distortion levels with a low noise floor.

[edit] Speakers have voicing, but amps? I can swap my Genesis for my 4ch Polk and the difference is night and day on dynamic recordings. That is down to the 4x140 real world watts on the Genesis vs the 4x80 on the Polk. But tonally? I have never noticed a difference. This from someone who spent 5 years going, cut this by 0.3 db raise that by 0.6 db, better or worse. Over and over and over again for 5 years. If the amps had a tonal difference I think I would catch it. 

Funny thing is, when I went from the Polk amps to Genesis I immediately felt they took the sound to a different level. It did cause I had more power on tap recordings with good dynamics sounded much better. I equated that with things like a warmer sound, punchier/tighter mid bass etc etc. It took about four years of tweaking to realize that 'how it sounds and hence getting it to sound right', is about response at ear level. Everything is in that response. It took a while to figure out that the amps contribution to this response is minimal. [edit]


----------



## lizardking

I finally had a chance to read through that entire Amp Comparison thread. Interesting that nobody could come to a solid conclusion and to me it simply pointed to the truth. You can't tell the difference in a blind listening test. Everyone was all over the board which only proved once again that it's a very subjective comparison. Even if one could provide differences using measuring equipment to determine one amp is better than another....which let me know that that is, the human ear will hear what the human ear will hear. Period! That human will hear something different from another human listening to the exact same thing. Very evident in that test. 

It's a fairly big pill to swallow if you pay $2500 for an amp that is no better than an amp that costs $250. When I say no better, I mean in terms of how it will amplifier the signal given. Not the build quality or the longevitiy for those that will throw that out there. Most of the amps today are pretty solid performers and won't fail most people.


Simply put. NOBODY is going to be able to prove in any way possible that one amp sounds better. Not going to happen. Nothing you can do or say that will change that fact. Some things are just infinite or at least for the time being.


----------



## turbo5upra

lizardking said:


> I finally had a chance to read through that entire Amp Comparison thread. Interesting that nobody could come to a solid conclusion and to me it simply pointed to the truth. You can't tell the difference in a blind listening test. Everyone was all over the board which only proved once again that it's a very subjective comparison. Even if one could provide differences using measuring equipment to determine one amp is better than another....which let me know that that is, the human ear will hear what the human ear will hear. Period! That human will hear something different from another human listening to the exact same thing. Very evident in that test.
> 
> It's a fairly big pill to swallow if you pay $2500 for an amp that is no better than an amp that costs $250. When I say no better, I mean in terms of how it will amplifier the signal given. Not the build quality or the longevitiy for those that will throw that out there. Most of the amps today are pretty solid performers and won't fail most people.


I still find it odd that one can take such a firm stand without personal experience. I'm not disqualifying anyone there by this statement but do you know their qualifications and training as far as picking things out? They usually aren't like turning a switch on and off rather subtle changes.

An off topic comparison... I live in an area where we get 120"+ of snow a year... every year people whine that "the roads are bad" I get lights flashed at me for driving well within control but 20MPH faster than everyone else... then when you ask what kind of tires someone has that's complaining they reply "I have all seasons"- you walk through parking lots and notice 3-4/32's on peoples cars and since they "pass inspection" they must be good... they shop for the cheapest thing they can often times. My point is this- they don't know what they are missing- have been so brainwashed that they won't even consider they could be missing something.

Yes these tires will test differently- but my point is if you don't know what you're missing or looking for you might not see the forest through the trees. 

I suggest you take the time to try a few amps before taking such a firm stance.


----------



## lizardking

LOL. I've had more amps than brand new cars which I've had 32. Yes, I have a problem....different thread for that. 

It's not about taking a firm stand it's about the fact this has been tried before and tried before that. It doesn't matter what training someone has or doesn't have. The fact of the matter is that your subtle changes you want to hear are going to be made by the DSP, speaker swap or change of location....not by simply changing the amplifier. Most people, DARE I say 99.9% listen to music for the pleasure not trying to listen for little subtle nuances that may or may not exist. 

It's okay that someone wants to pay $2500 for an amp. We need people in this economy that are willing to overspend and flood it with senseless spending....I'm no better.


----------



## turbo5upra

lizardking said:


> LOL. I've had more amps than brand new cars which I've had 32. Yes, I have a problem....different thread for that.
> 
> It's not about taking a firm stand it's about the fact this has been tried before and tried before that. It doesn't matter what training someone has or doesn't have. The fact of the matter is that your subtle changes you want to hear are going to be made by the DSP, speaker swap or change of location....not by simply changing the amplifier. Most people, DARE I say 99.9% listen to music for the pleasure not trying to listen for little subtle nuances that may or may not exist.
> 
> It's okay that someone wants to pay $2500 for an amp. We need people in this economy that are willing to overspend and flood it with senseless spending....I'm no better.


I'm sorry I miss understood the topic of this thread. I was under the impression it was along the lines of do certain amps offer more transparency- usually being higher end.... Not is it worth spending more. In a daily driver- run whatever you are comfortable with spending your money on that provides the power you require. As I've stated the amp isn't going to make or break most stereos- 

IMO Amps offer one of the lesser returns in sq- but they are a contributing factor.


----------



## lizardking

I'm sure this next amp comparison test will yield different results than all others done before it. I will keep my fingers crossed and hope that someone is actually able to put up concrete proof that is undisputed and not subjective.


----------



## Victor_inox

That will never happens. That discussion goes on since beginning of hi-fi.


----------



## lizardking

There is truth in that statement.


----------



## r000z

i think i am going to use this smart amp technology they are offering from texas intruments... 


|
v

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM6kly1tL_M

then anything is possible!!11


----------



## lizardking

Pretty cool.........I could tell a difference in dynamics from laptop speakers.


----------



## High Resolution Audio

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> 56% is the flip of a coin.
> 
> No better than guessing.
> 
> It doesn't at all point to people being able to tell the difference.
> 
> Its like putting all true answers on a true and false test.


The test was done with 6 listeners???? What kind of scientific research is that? The Scientific method requires that the same test be done over and over, repeatedly yielding the same results. That's no where near enough listeners to conduct a fair evaluation. The following is a post from a DIYMA member. Read what he noticed. Out of hundreds of comparative listeners only a handful could hear the difference. Most could not. Does that mean there is a difference? Yes. Does that mean that most people can't hear the difference?: Yes. He even admitted that he could only hear a little difference. This re-inforces my opinion that everyones hearing is different and some people have highly refined hearing. A handful out of a hundred or so. 

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


----------



## garysummers

I just wanted to share a story about subjective listening tests.
By sharing this story I am not taking a side, just some food for thought about how subjective our listening abilities are.

I was involved in a hi-level listening test some years back hosted by Dolby laboratories and supervised by Tom Holman (THX) at Skywalker Ranch. This was a A-B-C listening test Dolby was conducting to help them decide which digital codec they would use for the Dolby Digital format they were developing. I sat in a room with some of the most renowned ears in the audio world of the time. Recording and mastering engineers, acoustical engineers, film mixing engineers, etc. Each person had a set of Stax headphones and was listening to multiple types of audio material from the spoken word to several music recordings in three different digital compression codecs that were being evaluated. The listener was to listen and to write down his reactions to what they were hearing. As the test progressed I realized I could not hear a difference between any of the different formats on any of the material. As I looked around the room I saw many of the most trusted ears in the business writing like mad. I finally accepted that I was just not qualified for this type of test and handed in my Stax and left.

About two days later I was contacted by Tom Holman who informed me that the switcher used in the test was broken and even though the indicators were noting that it was switching, it never left the "A" input position during the listening test.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Thanks for the input Gary. I know I've heard other stories that mirror this, but it's good to hear this from someone actually involved as well.


----------



## Orion525iT

^Nice input 

Humans are't very good measuring instruments.


----------



## garysummers

The telling of my story was not to imply that these people involved in the test did not have superior listening skills. There achievements and bodies of work were proof that they did.
The story shows however that circumstances and influences of all kinds can affect our perceptive senses.


----------



## jtaudioacc

cajunner said:


> which, means you should be the guy everyone pays for your tune, instead of Jon Whitledge..


James Cameron thinks Gary's a decent tuner, I think.


----------



## Orion525iT

cajunner said:


> is it so odd to believe that people are the 'solve for x' of it?
> 
> we have a few people with eagle-eye vision, Babe Ruth was supposed to be able to read a newspaper from 20 feet...
> 
> you have Usain Bolt, and then there's the rest of us.
> 
> 
> I mean, sure there may be more of us hearing approximately the same things, and then there's a few, who may be hearing more.
> 
> 
> And I also would put out there, that people who have "damage" from environmental exposure, and the loss of high frequencies, may also have a greater capacity to discern the midrange based on genetics and general ability.
> 
> Or, there is a variability in each of our hearing that probably can be grouped, and if it is grouped, there is a good possibility that the grouping is going to land us in the 'speculation' or 'proof' camps, depending on what we are hearing.
> 
> scientifically, we can prove we are "cognitive" based on Briggs/Myers testing, right?
> 
> well, maybe there's a hearing spectrum out there, that corresponds with that, just saying...


But you have to make a distinction here. When you say that Babe Ruth _supposedly_ could read a newspaper from (x) feet, it seems that there is no actual proof and data to back that up other than testimony. However, in the case of Usain Bolt, we have data that shows exactly what he can do. In fact, there is data and studies that have been done to show not only what he does but _how_ he does it (fascinating reading BTW).

I think this is a two part question. First, part of the question might be; if measurements show a difference, at what thresholds can humans detect that difference? Second, are the differences in measurements between amps within that threshold? If yes, then we can make a determination that there are in fact difference between amps, and they are audible. If not, then we _might_ conclude that there is not a difference. 

A follow up could be; If humans can reliably (as in statistically validated) detect a difference that cannot be measured through available means, then we must explore the reason why that is the case. What are we missing in the measurements?


----------



## Orion525iT

cajunner said:


> my personal view point, is that you cannot exclude an amp's performance at the fringes, to obtain useful data in a comparison.


I absolutely 100% disagree with this opinion. Right amp for the right job. If you are pushing the fringes, you need a different amp. If you are punching out square waves, of course there will be an audible difference.

You have to address the variables, otherwise no conclusion can be made.


----------



## cajunner

Orion525iT said:


> I absolutely 100% disagree with this opinion. Right amp for the right job. If you are pushing the fringes, you need a different amp. If you are punching out square waves, of course there will be an audible difference.
> 
> You have to address the variables, otherwise no conclusion can be made.


and there you have it!





if you want to know what an amp sounds like, you don't push it half way.


if you want to know what a car drives like, you don't just run 1/4 miles.


I agree that if you implement an amp into a system where you never reach the ends of it's useful range, it's going to be hard to distinguish from any other amp with similar power capability.


However, all real world testing by non-scientific methods, shows most people buy just enough watts to get by, and not so many that they are always able to have a surplus available all the time.

That's my experience, I don't run 400 watts into 4" midranges, even if I should...


----------



## Orion525iT

cajunner said:


> I agree that if you implement an amp into a system where you never reach the ends of it's useful range, it's going to be hard to distinguish from any other amp with similar power capability.


Isn't this the whole point of the discussion? Am I lost here? Why would pushing the amp beyond it's capabilities and design be a factor in the discussion? 

And to use your car analogy (false equivalence BTW), if I take a turbo charged car to the 1/4 mile, pull the vacuum line off the wastegate, overboost, and blow car up at the 1/8th, is it valid to turn around and say that the car runs like **** or was slower than the car in the next lane? Is it valid to put the gains at 11, and call the amp whatever?

No, right amp for the right job right car for the right job. I am just playing along; the car analogy is false equivalence.


----------



## cajunner

Orion525iT said:


> Isn't this the whole point of the discussion? Am I lost here? Why would pushing the amp beyond it's capabilities and design be a factor in the discussion?
> 
> And to use your car analogy (false equivalence BTW), if I take a turbo charged car to the 1/4 mile, pull the vacuum line off the wastegate, overboost, and blow car up at the 1/8th, is it valid to turn around and say that the car runs like **** or was slower than the car in the next lane? Is it valid to put the gains at 11, and call the amp whatever?
> 
> No, right amp for the right job right car for the right job. I am just playing along; the car analogy is false equivalence.



not really...



the amp is able to show performance differences, only when you take it off the straight line.


a car will react in turns, differently than it will in the straight line.


this is the analogous comparison I was going for.


if you only run an amp at half power, you don't know what that amp sounds like at full power.

if you only run a car in a straight line, you can't know what it does in the curves.

sure, it may be slightly less elegant and all, but it counts...


----------



## BadSS

One’s ability to perceive sound and at what detail or recollection of detail is basically impossible to prove, but it certainly stands to reason there could be those able to “hear” or “perceive sounds” better than others. About the closest thing to proof that I know of is brain scans and EEGs have shown some areas, other than just the auditory cortex of the brain, are more active than others when subjected to sounds. These studies show the “extra activity” (over and above the varying levels of auditory cortex activity) is typically in areas of the brain that are believed to deal with recollection. This was found to be especially so with musicians, more than likely “comparing” what they’re hearing to instruments they play or they’ve frequently heard while in their band or orchestra. However,, even experts within that field of medical study can’t agree on what is really happening in the “extra areas” and what that actually means. Still, they are able to agree no two auditory cortices “measure” the same. Without doubt, this indicates that more or less of “something” is happening when some people are processing sound (and playing devil’s advocate, it could be their “imagination” – lol). Regardless of fact or “belief”, if experts within the medical research field can’t agree on what people are “hearing” or “perceiving” you’re not going to get a group of people outside the profession to agree.

Saying all that, after installing car audio systems (on the side) for over 35 years and comparing most all the amps I’ve installed within my own car, I’ve found there were definite differences, some subtle and some not so subtle, between most of those amps. By far the most distinguishable differences (that should be obvious to anyone) were in the noise floor and the dynamics of similarly RATED amplifiers. While those two traits can be easily backed up with measurements that are known to identify them, I’m not sure what measurement, or combination of measurements, you should be looking at to explain the more subtle differences in amps. Regardless, I do believe when you do hear a difference in amps,, they should measure differently somewhere – I’m just not sure “we” know where that would be.


----------



## sqnut

BadSS said:


> Regardless, I do believe when you do hear a difference in amps,, they should measure differently somewhere – I’m just not sure “we” know where that would be.


We only 'hear a difference' in response, timing and phase.


----------



## captainobvious

cajunner said:


> and there you have it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you want to know what an amp sounds like, you don't push it half way.
> 
> 
> if you want to know what a car drives like, you don't just run 1/4 miles.
> 
> 
> *I agree that if you implement an amp into a system where you never reach the ends of it's useful range, it's going to be hard to distinguish from any other amp with similar power capability.*
> 
> 
> However, all real world testing by non-scientific methods, shows most people buy just enough watts to get by, and not so many that they are always able to have a surplus available all the time.
> 
> That's my experience, I don't run 400 watts into 4" midranges, even if I should...


Therein is the point of the matter. Amplifiers are designed to be used (for best performance) in a specific operating range. Yes, the user can exceed that range, but performance then suffers. If you look at amplifiers output to distortion, you'll see that with the vast majority- distortion stays low right up until a point where it spikes wayyyy up. That's why there are standard amplifier ratings. To provide a more clear understanding of performance (output) before you reach that limit.

If you're (not "you" specifically, a generalization) buying an amplifier without consideration for the desired output level, then you're doing it wrong. Make sure the amplifier has enough output to supply to your chosen drivers, below the acceptable distortion level, to reach your desired volume level and you're doing it right.


----------



## captainobvious

cajunner said:


> not really...
> 
> 
> 
> the amp is able to show performance differences, only when you take it off the straight line.
> 
> 
> a car will react in turns, differently than it will in the straight line.
> 
> 
> this is the analogous comparison I was going for.
> 
> 
> if you only run an amp at half power, you don't know what that amp sounds like at full power.
> 
> if you only run a car in a straight line, you can't know what it does in the curves.
> 
> sure, it may be slightly less elegant and all, but it counts...



A car is also designed to be run in straight lines, AND corners. 
The amplifier is designed to be run within an operating range, not outside of it. The amplifier *sounds the same* (just gets louder) until you reach the point where you're operating outside of its designed range. 

If you want to go by the car analogy, let's use the tires for an example. Tires are designed with a certain speed rating for usage. They perform well within that designed range. But then you start taking turns 20, 30, maybe even 40 mph *faster *than those sidewalls are rated for, then you better expect performance to suffer greatly (and have a good insurance policy). Beyond it's rating, the tire CAN be used, yes- but it was not designed for that and you will get poor performance by doing so and risk damage.

Same goes for the amplifier. 

You're not using 50% of the amplifier power you paid for by staying inside its designed operating range either. Have a look at a couple of these amplifier measurements from Stereophile:




















The first image is the Exposure 3010S amplifier. It's rated for 100w @8ohms. Note how the distortion stays low in its designed range for all 100 watts.

The second image is of the Adcom GFA-7805. It's rated for 300w @8ohms.
Note how the output stays in a very low distortion level throughout its rated output range, then spikes up outside of that designed range. 


So when you say that you're only using 50%, that's not really true. You're using _*100%*_ of the rated power and beyond that you're taxing the power supply and running into a range outside of the scope of intended design. That's not an amplifier issue, that's a user issue.


----------



## cajunner

captainobvious said:


> A car is also designed to be run in straight lines, AND corners.
> The amplifier is designed to be run within an operating range, not outside of it. The amplifier *sounds the same* (just gets louder) until you reach the point where you're operating outside of its designed range.
> 
> If you want to go by the car analogy, let's use the tires for an example. Tires are designed with a certain speed rating for usage. They perform well within that designed range. But then you start taking turns 20, 30, maybe even 40 mph *faster *than those sidewalls are rated for, then you better expect performance to suffer greatly (and have a good insurance policy). Beyond it's rating, the tire CAN be used, yes- but it was not designed for that and you will get poor performance by doing so and risk damage.
> 
> Same goes for the amplifier.
> 
> You're not using 50% of the amplifier power you paid for by staying inside its designed operating range either. Have a look at a couple of these amplifier measurements from Stereophile:
> 
> 
> The first image is the Exposure 3010S amplifier. It's rated for 100w @8ohms. Note how the distortion stays low in its designed range for all 100 watts.
> 
> The second image is of the Adcom GFA-7805. It's rated for 300w @8ohms.
> Note how the output stays in a very low distortion level throughout its rated output range, then spikes up outside of that designed range.
> 
> 
> So when you say that you're only using 50%, that's not really true. You're using _*100%*_ of the rated power and beyond that you're taxing the power supply and running into a range outside of the scope of intended design. That's not an amplifier issue, that's a user issue.


yes, yes...

that's all well and good.

but I feel like this, and it may be an errant feeling, it may be totally out of the box, or it may expose me as a charlatan audiophool...

the dividing line between amplifiers, isn't found at the halfway mark.


years ago, when there was basically RF and everything else, you would connect 3 pairs of subs to a 2 channel amp, and under an admittedly strained load, amplifiers exposed their shortcomings.

you would see the RF amp just happily drive the snot out of those subs, and lesser quality brands went mushy, you'd hear it even in the supposed "linear" range of the watt distribution.

I suppose the amp market has become so mature that even the bottom barrel offerings are hard pressed to show differences from the top grade gear in today's market, but I come from a time when quality was able to be discovered by turning the knob.

Is that a positive, or is it just that the lowest common denominator has infiltrated the market and going from a Power Acoustik to a PPI is just a matter of badging and brushed sinks?

I don't know.

I do know that if someone wants to show off their amp to me, I can say it isn't usually at 1/2 gain, I mean what's the point of that?


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Every time I buy a cheaply made amp I regret it. I have a $600 4ch amp that will walk all over most cheaply made amps rated to do the same power.It will make mids and highs sing like angels equally as well as it beats subs like they owe it money while being accurate and dynamic. 3 of these amps would be perfect for my setup...one bridged to subs, one bridged to midbass, one on mids and highs. I highly doubt a triplet of $150 Powerbass asa3 amps or PPI Ion's would come close. I bet the sonic difference at low volume would be similar but at higher volumes I bet the better built amps will be much more dynamic and stay clean at higher volume without tossing their cookies. To me rated power means nothing if a board full of cheap parts can't give faithful reproduction of sound.


----------



## captainobvious

cajunner said:


> I do know that if someone wants to show off their amp to me, I can say it isn't usually at 1/2 gain, I mean what's the point of that?



This part doesn't make much sense to me.

You can fully drive amplifiers to their maximum output with a hot enough input signal so I don't typically pay attention to where the gain knob is pointed to. In fact, the more you bump that up, the more chance of raising the noise floor.


----------



## PPI_GUY

High Resolution Audio said:


> This re-inforces my opinion that everyones hearing is different and some people have highly refined hearing. A handful out of a hundred or so.


That is exactly what I've been saying as this topic thread has progressed. It's such a subjective thing there is literally no way a consensus can be reached.


----------



## WhereAmEye?

HIGHER END AMP SQ IS A RELATIVE IDEA WHOSE INTRINSIC VALIDITY IS DEPENDENT SOLELY UPON THE INDIVIDUAL USER AND HIS OR HER'S OWN HEARING CAPABILITIES.

Can we change the title now?


----------



## XSIV SPL

Any two amps which are constructed differently will sound differently- it's a fact. Whether we are humanly capable of discerning the difference is exponentially variable and dependent upon both the mood and refinement of the listener, and the environment in which the comparison has been presented.

That said, in some respects, an amp is an amp, but I can personally assert that I did not commit to invest what I have invested in amplifiers because of brand esteem-

There IS a difference, but it's so difficult to make a decision because there is literally NEVER a proper environment to A-B demo a pair or group of amps before you commit to buying one.

If I'm not mistaken, Gary is a guy with a few academy awards who's running all class D amps in his car, and it sounds great. So- what are YOU gonna do?


----------



## spaceace60

Well car amps are no different in theory than guitar amps and trust me guitar amps sound night and day from one another all else being the same ie:guitar,cables ect ect!! even a difference from tube to solid state if I knew tube car amps did for cars as they do for guitar amps i'd have all tube amps in my car!! most guitar amps have tube pre amps using 12ax7's like most car amps as well, a lot of cheaper guitar amps try to push sales of their amps by stating they have tube pre amps(because we all know tube amps sound warmer/better,but problem is that some cheap amps don't have enough plate voltage to get the tubes to where they have any real affect on tone ect,not too mention most of an guitar amps tone/character comes from the power section(not the pre amp)which uses a lot larger tubes ect!! BOTTOM LINE: amps do make a lot of difference in the sound quality of system(obviously not as much as in the low end/subs!)that's why most people will use class D amps for their subs and cleaner a/b amps ect for mids/highs!


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Don't compare guitar amps to car amps, it's not at all the same thing. Guitar amps are designed to sound different. Car amps should not be designed to sound different. The purposes of each are different. 

A guitar amp is supposed to give the player the sound they want. This is where amps sounding different is good.

A car (or home) audio amp is supposed to amplifier the signal fed to it without changing it. Amplifiers designed to change the sound for these environments are bad.


----------



## Victor_inox

spaceace60 said:


> Well car amps are no different in theory than guitar amps and trust me guitar amps sound night and day from one another all else being the same ie:guitar,cables ect ect!! even a difference from tube to solid state if I knew tube car amps did for cars as they do for guitar amps i'd have all tube amps in my car!! most guitar amps have tube pre amps using 12ax7's like most car amps as well, a lot of cheaper guitar amps try to push sales of their amps by stating they have tube pre amps(because we all know tube amps sound warmer/better,but problem is that some cheap amps don't have enough plate voltage to get the tubes to where they have any real affect on tone ect,not too mention most of an guitar amps tone/character comes from the power section(not the pre amp)which uses a lot larger tubes ect!! BOTTOM LINE: amps do make a lot of difference in the sound quality of system(obviously not as much as in the low end/subs!)that's why most people will use class D amps for their subs and cleaner a/b amps ect for mids/highs!


while you`ll not find more dedicated advocate of tube amplification I must point it out that your comparison of guitar amp vs sound reinforcement is incorrect. guitar amps designed to drive output tubes in distortion territory to affect the sound. preamplifier section of best of them is nearly linear and did not making much distortion. output tube on other hand driven into near saturated plate voltage affect sound a lot but trust me you don`t want guitar amp distortion in your SQ setup. 
BTW most car hybrid amps don`t use 12ax7 in preamp stage, not US Amps, not tru, not planet audio. Even current production Ground Zero use different tubes. Butler used 5881 and 6SL7 in latter production, they are electronically similar and in some cases substitute for each other but not the same.
12ax7 is highly linear tube and about perfect for voltage amplification in preamp section.


----------



## Victor_inox

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Don't compare guitar amps to car amps, it's not at all the same thing. Guitar amps are designed to sound different. Car amps should not be designed to sound different. The purposes of each are different.
> 
> A guitar amp is supposed to give the player the sound they want. This is where amps sounding different is good.
> 
> A car (or home) audio amp is supposed to amplifier the signal fed to it without changing it. Amplifiers designed to change the sound for these environments are bad.


If only real life was that easy....
No matter how hard you try to make amplifier completely linear it will sound different from any other amplifier.


----------



## subwoofery

Victor_inox said:


> while you`ll not find more dedicated advocate of tube amplification I must point it out that your comparison of guitar amp vs sound reinforcement is incorrect. guitar amps designed to drive output tubes in distortion territory to affect the sound. preamplifier section of best of them is nearly linear and did not making much distortion. output tube on other hand driven into near saturated plate voltage affect sound a lot but trust me you don`t want guitar amp distortion in your SQ setup.
> BTW most car hybrid amps don`t use 12ax7 in preamp stage, not US Amps, not tru, not planet audio. Even current production Ground Zero use different tubes. Butler used 5881 and 6SL7 in latter production, they are electronically similar and in some cases substitute for each other but not the same.
> 12ax7 is highly linear tube and about perfect for voltage amplification in preamp section.


You sure about the US Amps not having 12ax7 tube in the pre-amp? Will have to dig my old amp out but I do think they have 12ax7 tubes from the factory. 

Kelvin


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Do we ever lock threads around here?


----------



## Orion525iT

I800C0LLECT said:


> Do we ever lock threads around here?


No, but we will flog the hell out of a decapitated pony.


----------



## Victor_inox

subwoofery said:


> You sure about the US Amps not having 12ax7 tube in the pre-amp? Will have to dig my old amp out but I do think they have 12ax7 tubes from the factory.
> 
> Kelvin


 I`ve had none fresh from factory only second hand, maybe someone replaced factory tubes by the time I`ve got my hands on them. Either way they all use double triode tubes very similar electrically. 
Only picture I found right now showing not 12ax7 tubes


----------



## Victor_inox

I800C0LLECT said:


> Do we ever lock threads around here?


Don`t we incapable of STFU and move out if not interested?


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Victor_inox said:


> Don`t we incapable of STFU and move out if not interested?


I know tone doesn't carry well but the smiley face was an attempt to convey that it was light hearted.


----------



## captainobvious

XSIV SPL said:


> Any two amps which are constructed differently will sound differently- it's a fact. Whether we are humanly capable of discerning the difference is exponentially variable and dependent upon both the mood and refinement of the listener, and the environment in which the comparison has been presented.
> 
> That said, in some respects, an amp is an amp, but I can personally assert that I did not commit to invest what I have invested in amplifiers because of brand esteem-
> 
> There IS a difference, but it's so difficult to make a decision because there is literally NEVER a proper environment to A-B demo a pair or group of amps before you commit to buying one.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, Gary is a guy with a few academy awards who's running all class D amps in his car, and it sounds great. So- what are YOU gonna do?



This is the opinion of many people who have never *actually *blind evaluated amplifiers properly, yet who continue to regurgitate the same things without experiencing and knowing for themselves. Hell, this thread is chock full of 'em. I'd be very interested to hear from someone- anyone here who has actually done this and believes it.


----------



## spaceace60

Victor_inox said:


> while you`ll not find more dedicated advocate of tube amplification I must point it out that your comparison of guitar amp vs sound reinforcement is incorrect. guitar amps designed to drive output tubes in distortion territory to affect the sound. preamplifier section of best of them is nearly linear and did not making much distortion. output tube on other hand driven into near saturated plate voltage affect sound a lot but trust me you don`t want guitar amp distortion in your SQ setup.
> BTW most car hybrid amps don`t use 12ax7 in preamp stage, not US Amps, not tru, not planet audio. Even current production Ground Zero use different tubes. Butler used 5881 and 6SL7 in latter production, they are electronically similar and in some cases substitute for each other but not the same.
> 12ax7 is highly linear tube and about perfect for voltage amplification in preamp section.


You are correct about the pre-amp(smaller tubes)being over driven to create useful/prefered distortion in guitar amps!! I mentioned the effect of plate voltage only as an example of how sometimes things being used more for sales/show than actually having a benefit/purpose!! example: a lot of tube type preamps(particularly rack mount processors ect)lack enough plate voltage to really do much to enhance tone!! So I was wondering if the same could/does apply to tube car amps?? Also due to the fact that the power section of a good guitar tube amp has a alot to do with the character of an amp such as tone,harmonics,headroom ect ect(though im not an amp tech) I do know just enough to have somewhat of idea of whats what lol! Amps whether it be car audio,home audio,Pa systems,guitar/bass amps they all most certainly effect your over all sound! I do understand how in theory most people would tend to believe/wish that car amps would be pretty much transparent and do no more than just make things louder I still can't imagine that to be the case??(wishful thinking!) I am however curious as to why high end car amps aren't built with no more than a mere a gain control for ea. channel and nothing else!!!! without all the tone,X-overs/filters ect ect that just add more in the way of coloring/tainting the signal!! Not to mention that the extra $ spent on gimmicks or toys not needed then could be spent for better components or even cut the overall costs!! Not to mention there would be less overall components to malfunction or break in such amps!! sure they should build some amps for the few people who don't have external X-overs,Eq's ect. When you look at almost all Pa/reinforcement system amps they tend to be straight forward no frill bare bones power amps that have no more than a simple power led light and gain controls while im on the subject of X-overs ect which is better?? using the ones in a processor like an Apine H800,bit one or the ones in the amp?? Imo theres just way too much goin on you have X-overs,Eq's in most Hu,then again in the processor and then again built into the amps!! just way way over kill?? A simple system to me would just be soo much better in the end!!!


----------



## captainobvious

spaceace60 said:


> You are correct about the pre-amp(smaller tubes)being over driven to create useful/prefered distortion in guitar amps!! I mentioned the effect of plate voltage only as an example of how sometimes things being used more for sales/show than actually having a benefit/purpose!! example: a lot of tube type preamps(particularly rack mount processors ect)lack enough plate voltage to really do much to enhance tone!! So I was wondering if the same could/does apply to tube car amps?? Also due to the fact that the power section of a good guitar tube amp has a alot to do with the character of an amp such as tone,harmonics,headroom ect ect(though im not an amp tech) I do know just enough to have somewhat of idea of whats what lol! Amps whether it be car audio,home audio,Pa systems,guitar/bass amps they all most certainly effect your over all sound! I do understand how in theory most people would tend to believe/wish that car amps would be pretty much transparent and do no more than just make things louder I still can't imagine that to be the case??(wishful thinking!) I am however curious as to why high end car amps aren't built with no more than a mere a gain control for ea. channel and nothing else!!!! without all the tone,X-overs/filters ect ect that just add more in the way of coloring/tainting the signal!! Not to mention that the extra $ spent on gimmicks or toys not needed then could be spent for better components or even cut the overall costs!! Not to mention there would be less overall components to malfunction or break in such amps!! sure they should build some amps for the few people who don't have external X-overs,Eq's ect. When you look at almost all Pa/reinforcement system amps they tend to be straight forward no frill bare bones power amps that have no more than a simple power led light and gain controls while im on the subject of X-overs ect which is better?? using the ones in a processor like an Apine H800,bit one or the ones in the amp?? Imo theres just way too much goin on you have X-overs,Eq's in most Hu,then again in the processor and then again built into the amps!! just way way over kill?? A simple system to me would just be soo much better in the end!!!



It's done to provide a robust featureset. Not everyone has active processing in their source units. Plus, most modern mobile amplifiers have crossover sections defeatable, so it's a non-issue.


----------



## Victor_inox

There is no frills- no gimmicks car amplifiers, no crossovers no bass boosters and such, amps usually cost more than fancy marketing driven amps with all that build in.


----------



## abusiveDAD

Victor_inox said:


> There is no frills- no gimmicks car amplifiers, no crossovers no bass boosters and such, amps usually cost more than fancy marketing driven amps with all that build in.


so true


----------



## subwoofery

Victor_inox said:


> I`ve had none fresh from factory only second hand, maybe someone replaced factory tubes by the time I`ve got my hands on them. Either way they all use double triode tubes very similar electrically.
> Only picture I found right now showing not 12ax7 tubes


From the factory, I believe they are Sovtek 12AX7LP

Found those on the web: 
TU-4360 (no Xover)









TU4360C









I have some TungSol in mine, what do you think? Can I upgrade the tube to something better for not too much money? Something that might keep the gain yet have lower noise floor :surprised: 

Kelvin


----------



## mc4life27

now i have not gone through the full thread but i had to say something. EVERY amp has its own sound. true its hard to find a way to A-B each brand to find one you like but a good audio shop will make sure their demo board is set up properly and even though they are in a different enviorment but any good ear or anyone who knows what to listen to (taking about SQ and not SPL so the person needs to know what TRUE good SQ sounds like). at all the shops i have worked at, managed, or just built the display boards i have always been able to hear a difference in quality of amps. now it does also matter what kind of speakers are being playing along with the type of head unit and the quality of the install parts. everything in the system plays major rolls in who things sound. some head units cause amps to sound warmer because of the quality of the inputs. example did an install with a Sony (customer had to have it) and at the shop i worked at install all XTANT amps (the removable cover ones where the chip sets were needed to adjust them) along with ADS 336is (the install was awhile ago) and the XTANT hex 12 subs with a cut through on f-150 Harley truck. after spending hours trying to tune the truck to sound good (because we knew what the amps and speakers were capable of sounding like) but no matter what we did it was bright as hell and mid bass sucked and the subs were super punchy (more then they should have been). so just to test we swapped out the deck to a clarion dxz835MP (with dual 24 bit dac also one of my favorite decks still using one today, the sony said it was 24 bit dacs and high voltage pre out) but as soon as we put in the clarion the system can alive and sounded so bitchen, warm, clear, crisp, subs sounded great, it was a night a day difference. needless to say customer kept the clarion. now in my personal car i have REALM amps (SCOSCHE/efx high end amp line well was) witch i have a 150x2 and 1100 or 1200 mono. all hooked to a clarion 835 and old school Memphis msq6 (old high end comp set with orange baskets still one of my fav speakers ever) and everyone who sits in my car goes wow sounds great how many speakers and how many mid bass do i have. when i show them what i have just two 6 1/2 comps with silk tweets and one 12 in a vented box, they are always shocked. its super warm mid bass for days only thing is to some people the highs are not bright enough witch i hate bright tweets that go tstststststs. well i swapped out my 150x2 true AB amp and install the MMATS HiFi-6150D (bitchen amp 150x6) but only using the front two channels, the warmth was gone and mid bass went down and over all i was very unimpressed. ended up taking it out. even the sq4100 has a warmer sq sound the the 6 channel. (still have yet to hear a awesome sq system with class d amps not saying its not there but i have not heard it) but that was in my system in my car. what im trying to say is all amps sound different (ab, tube, and D) and anyone with a decent ear will be able to hear a difference if they have a good way to a-b test the amps. plus it all depends on what other gear is in the car like head unit (also if using CD, ipod, ipod format quality, mp3, or the best dvd audio), speakers, the quality of install accessories and most importantly the system needs to be install CORRECTLY and tuned correctly. just think about it this way someone can have a car with the biggest badass motor, with a fully built rear end and nice wheels. but if all the connecting parts are junk (aka install accessories rca's power wire etc), suspension in stock and stock tires the car will go fast then before but not anywhere as fast as it could go if the connecting parts were matched (match but doesnt mean same brand im not a fan of a full same brand system). plus different head units playing different sources will also make amps sound different also depends on the speakers. but most importantly the install needs to be done correctly. i have heard some car that i was impressed on the sq when they were using low to mid end equipment and also been very disappointed in sq on some cars that were full hi end but crappy install. now if adding a processor in the mix that can change things majorly. plus im sure (i have not played with too many processors so cant truly say) each processor will produce different quality of sound. cheap experiment to prove my point would be if there were components try to swap out just the cross overs. then see how they sounds. maybe it will surprise you. same goes with amps. even if its the same power out put and same speakers but each amp is built with different power supplys, different caps, different preamps, etc, witch all leads to different types of sound going to the speakers (i say different type of sound because it may not be a bad thing or even a good thing just different type of sound). also just swap out head unit theres another test that can be done. i can tell a big difference between my clarion 835mp, alpine cda9815, eclipse 8053, eclipse 8443, old alpines like the true SQ old school, pioneer (old upper end one not sure the model but it wasnt cheap), and many other decks i tried. they all had their own sound some were good sounding some where just bla and flat and i always go back to the trusty 835mp. but again that is what i have found best for my set up with my car and i have about 500lbs of sound deadening witch also makes a huge difference. so again goes to install quality along with matching the right components (i dont mean matching brand i never heard and yet to hear a full brand matching system sound amazing) just match the right quality stuff together. also any REAL high end shops will work with anyone who is truly serious about getting a new amp that if the customer is not happy with the sq they should (well the store i managed) would try a few other amps until it has the sound the customer likes. PLUS ONE MAJOR THING IS everyone is different and will hear things differently, so one person may love it one may hate it. its all preference but if anyone is saying all amps or even all amps that are in the same quality class sound the same truly do not know what they are talking about and must not have any real experience with different set ups. i was luck enough to be in car audio for over 12 years and about 6 of them was installing and managing shops so i was able to try out different amps, speakers, head units, wires, etc and i learned what i wanted for my own system that way i got the sound i was looking for. tube amps sound extremely warm (but sometimes they lack the highs also on tube amp i learned that its better to get the biggest (most power output) you can so the amp does work as hard, since they can tend to loose their sq when all the way cranked (depending on the brand that is), also class d amps are great for subs and small space setups but i have yet to hear a true sq system YET not saying its not there but with out using any processor other then whats in the deck i would bet money any day that a true class AB amp with sound richer warmer and better then any class d if the person wants TRUE SQ and that person knows what TRUE SQ sounds like(i have talked to many people who think they know SQ until they here a TRUE SQ car and they its funny to watch them rethink everything they thought they knew. now the bet on class ab vs class D amps on mids and highs for SQ will stand until im proven wrong (witch someday will happen HOPEFULLY but until that day i will keep saying that AB amps will out perform class d amps and class D is for subs only). also just think about this your system is only as good and the weakest link in the chain. so make sure if you really want SQ take your time matching products up and also make sure you use good quality install parts. it will be worth it in the end even if you have to slowly build your system it will be worth it. now there are some cases where some things like high end RCA's where it wont be a noticeable difference like monster RCAs are a joke and they sound the same as other high end cables for half the cost. but like i said any REAL TRUE HONEST UPPER to high end shop should be there and help you decide and will be honest if the $ is worth it (well thats how i used to do things i made sure to never sell so called snake oil products to people who true cared and only did that when either the person was a prick, it was a show car (sponsored), or thats just what the person wanted but i still tried to match it with the rest of their system. its a shame that a lot of shops out there just want to sell things and make a quick buck and dont give a crap about audio. a good audio shop will have employees who are truly into car audio as a passion (eat, sleep, breath it) and there will be atleast a couple cars with full system in them or at least person project cars being done. any shop that does not have any owner or employees car loaded up with a good system is a shop i would be VERY care full at and i would double check everything they talk about because if they never use the products on their own and have a passion for audio, then most of the time the shop is just in it for the money. also any good shop will make sure their customers are happy (even though once in awhile some people are NEVER happy no matter what) but over all a good shop will do everything they can to make sure the customer is happy with their purchase even if it means swapping out amps or whatever to make it happen or tell you what you need to make it sound awesome (some cars need a processor or a single summing product to get best sound (like adding bass in a benz cl550 witch has the bose system where the the louder the system is the bass flattens out and falls out when it shouldnt be and some people are ok with that but true sq people will not be). sorry for long post just hate it when people talk about stuff that they truly have no clue what they are saying and their only real experience they have is with low end or Walmart equipment. its one thing if your on a budget and get only what you can afford and its another when they become MR. or MRS. know it all just because they installed their own or a buddies system and its the first or second car they have ever heard. plus things change and everyone is different. but over all each component plays their part in the system and they all create different sounds and again a system is only as good as the weakest link (ie: using low end power wire like CCA (unless the correct guage is used witch will end up costing near 100% copper wire would cost) like a garden hose if there is a kink in the hose or if the hose is too small the water flows less, crappy power wire starves amps even if they still work and sound ok but its not giving the amp what it truly needs. 
thanks
tim


----------



## t3sn4f2

mc4life27 said:


> now i have not gone through the full thread but i had to say something. EVERY amp has its own sound. true its hard to find a way to A-B each brand to find one you like but a good audio shop will make sure their demo board is set up properly and even though they are in a different enviorment but any good ear or anyone who knows what to listen to (taking about SQ and not SPL so the person needs to know what TRUE good SQ sounds like). at all the shops i have worked at, managed, or just built the display boards i have always been able to hear a difference in quality of amps. now it does also matter what kind of speakers are being playing along with the type of head unit and the quality of the install parts. everything in the system plays major rolls in who things sound. some head units cause amps to sound warmer because of the quality of the inputs. example did an install with a Sony (customer had to have it) and at the shop i worked at install all XTANT amps (the removable cover ones where the chip sets were needed to adjust them) along with ADS 336is (the install was awhile ago) and the XTANT hex 12 subs with a cut through on f-150 Harley truck. after spending hours trying to tune the truck to sound good (because we knew what the amps and speakers were capable of sounding like) but no matter what we did it was bright as hell and mid bass sucked and the subs were super punchy (more then they should have been). so just to test we swapped out the deck to a clarion dxz835MP (with dual 24 bit dac also one of my favorite decks still using one today, the sony said it was 24 bit dacs and high voltage pre out) but as soon as we put in the clarion the system can alive and sounded so bitchen, warm, clear, crisp, subs sounded great, it was a night a day difference. needless to say customer kept the clarion. now in my personal car i have REALM amps (SCOSCHE/efx high end amp line well was) witch i have a 150x2 and 1100 or 1200 mono. all hooked to a clarion 835 and old school Memphis msq6 (old high end comp set with orange baskets still one of my fav speakers ever) and everyone who sits in my car goes wow sounds great how many speakers and how many mid bass do i have. when i show them what i have just two 6 1/2 comps with silk tweets and one 12 in a vented box, they are always shocked. its super warm mid bass for days only thing is to some people the highs are not bright enough witch i hate bright tweets that go tstststststs. well i swapped out my 150x2 true AB amp and install the MMATS HiFi-6150D (bitchen amp 150x6) but only using the front two channels, the warmth was gone and mid bass went down and over all i was very unimpressed. ended up taking it out. even the sq4100 has a warmer sq sound the the 6 channel. (still have yet to hear a awesome sq system with class d amps not saying its not there but i have not heard it) but that was in my system in my car. what im trying to say is all amps sound different (ab, tube, and D) and anyone with a decent ear will be able to hear a difference if they have a good way to a-b test the amps. plus it all depends on what other gear is in the car like head unit (also if using CD, ipod, ipod format quality, mp3, or the best dvd audio), speakers, the quality of install accessories and most importantly the system needs to be install CORRECTLY and tuned correctly. just think about it this way someone can have a car with the biggest badass motor, with a fully built rear end and nice wheels. but if all the connecting parts are junk (aka install accessories rca's power wire etc), suspension in stock and stock tires the car will go fast then before but not anywhere as fast as it could go if the connecting parts were matched (match but doesnt mean same brand im not a fan of a full same brand system). plus different head units playing different sources will also make amps sound different also depends on the speakers. but most importantly the install needs to be done correctly. i have heard some car that i was impressed on the sq when they were using low to mid end equipment and also been very disappointed in sq on some cars that were full hi end but crappy install. now if adding a processor in the mix that can change things majorly. plus im sure (i have not played with too many processors so cant truly say) each processor will produce different quality of sound. cheap experiment to prove my point would be if there were components try to swap out just the cross overs. then see how they sounds. maybe it will surprise you. same goes with amps. even if its the same power out put and same speakers but each amp is built with different power supplys, different caps, different preamps, etc, witch all leads to different types of sound going to the speakers (i say different type of sound because it may not be a bad thing or even a good thing just different type of sound). also just swap out head unit theres another test that can be done. i can tell a big difference between my clarion 835mp, alpine cda9815, eclipse 8053, eclipse 8443, old alpines like the true SQ old school, pioneer (old upper end one not sure the model but it wasnt cheap), and many other decks i tried. they all had their own sound some were good sounding some where just bla and flat and i always go back to the trusty 835mp. but again that is what i have found best for my set up with my car and i have about 500lbs of sound deadening witch also makes a huge difference. so again goes to install quality along with matching the right components (i dont mean matching brand i never heard and yet to hear a full brand matching system sound amazing) just match the right quality stuff together. also any REAL high end shops will work with anyone who is truly serious about getting a new amp that if the customer is not happy with the sq they should (well the store i managed) would try a few other amps until it has the sound the customer likes. PLUS ONE MAJOR THING IS everyone is different and will hear things differently, so one person may love it one may hate it. its all preference but if anyone is saying all amps or even all amps that are in the same quality class sound the same truly do not know what they are talking about and must not have any real experience with different set ups. i was luck enough to be in car audio for over 12 years and about 6 of them was installing and managing shops so i was able to try out different amps, speakers, head units, wires, etc and i learned what i wanted for my own system that way i got the sound i was looking for. tube amps sound extremely warm (but sometimes they lack the highs also on tube amp i learned that its better to get the biggest (most power output) you can so the amp does work as hard, since they can tend to loose their sq when all the way cranked (depending on the brand that is), also class d amps are great for subs and small space setups but i have yet to hear a true sq system YET not saying its not there but with out using any processor other then whats in the deck i would bet money any day that a true class AB amp with sound richer warmer and better then any class d if the person wants TRUE SQ and that person knows what TRUE SQ sounds like(i have talked to many people who think they know SQ until they here a TRUE SQ car and they its funny to watch them rethink everything they thought they knew. now the bet on class ab vs class D amps on mids and highs for SQ will stand until im proven wrong (witch someday will happen HOPEFULLY but until that day i will keep saying that AB amps will out perform class d amps and class D is for subs only). also just think about this your system is only as good and the weakest link in the chain. so make sure if you really want SQ take your time matching products up and also make sure you use good quality install parts. it will be worth it in the end even if you have to slowly build your system it will be worth it. now there are some cases where some things like high end RCA's where it wont be a noticeable difference like monster RCAs are a joke and they sound the same as other high end cables for half the cost. but like i said any REAL TRUE HONEST UPPER to high end shop should be there and help you decide and will be honest if the $ is worth it (well thats how i used to do things i made sure to never sell so called snake oil products to people who true cared and only did that when either the person was a prick, it was a show car (sponsored), or thats just what the person wanted but i still tried to match it with the rest of their system. its a shame that a lot of shops out there just want to sell things and make a quick buck and dont give a crap about audio. a good audio shop will have employees who are truly into car audio as a passion (eat, sleep, breath it) and there will be atleast a couple cars with full system in them or at least person project cars being done. any shop that does not have any owner or employees car loaded up with a good system is a shop i would be VERY care full at and i would double check everything they talk about because if they never use the products on their own and have a passion for audio, then most of the time the shop is just in it for the money. also any good shop will make sure their customers are happy (even though once in awhile some people are NEVER happy no matter what) but over all a good shop will do everything they can to make sure the customer is happy with their purchase even if it means swapping out amps or whatever to make it happen or tell you what you need to make it sound awesome (some cars need a processor or a single summing product to get best sound (like adding bass in a benz cl550 witch has the bose system where the the louder the system is the bass flattens out and falls out when it shouldnt be and some people are ok with that but true sq people will not be). sorry for long post just hate it when people talk about stuff that they truly have no clue what they are saying and their only real experience they have is with low end or Walmart equipment. its one thing if your on a budget and get only what you can afford and its another when they become MR. or MRS. know it all just because they installed their own or a buddies system and its the first or second car they have ever heard. plus things change and everyone is different. but over all each component plays their part in the system and they all create different sounds and again a system is only as good as the weakest link (ie: using low end power wire like CCA (unless the correct guage is used witch will end up costing near 100% copper wire would cost) like a garden hose if there is a kink in the hose or if the hose is too small the water flows less, crappy power wire starves amps even if they still work and sound ok but its not giving the amp what it truly needs.
> thanks
> tim


:dizzy:


----------



## gckless

Victor_inox said:


> while you`ll not find more dedicated advocate of tube amplification I must point it out that your comparison of guitar amp vs sound reinforcement is incorrect. guitar amps designed to drive output tubes in distortion territory to affect the sound. preamplifier section of best of them is nearly linear and did not making much distortion. output tube on other hand driven into near saturated plate voltage affect sound a lot but trust me you don`t want guitar amp distortion in your SQ setup.
> BTW most car hybrid amps don`t use 12ax7 in preamp stage, not US Amps, not tru, not planet audio. Even current production Ground Zero use different tubes. Butler used 5881 and 6SL7 in latter production, they are electronically similar and in some cases substitute for each other but not the same.
> 12ax7 is highly linear tube and about perfect for voltage amplification in preamp section.


I used to have a USAudio US-2150V, those were 12AX7's I'm fairly sure.










More photos: US-2150V

I know this is a very rare amp, there's not much info out there.



Victor_inox said:


> There is no frills- no gimmicks car amplifiers, no crossovers no bass boosters and such, amps usually cost more than fancy marketing driven amps with all that build in.


The new Zapco Z series LE/LX's only have gain controls 

I'd drop a link but it's blocked at work


----------



## Victor_inox

subwoofery said:


> From the factory, I believe they are Sovtek 12AX7LP
> 
> Found those on the web:
> TU-4360 (no Xover)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TU4360C
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have some TungSol in mine, what do you think? Can I upgrade the tube to something better for not too much money? Something that might keep the gain yet have lower noise floor :surprised:
> 
> Kelvin


12AU7 is lower noise tubes but amplification ratio 70 vs 100 for 12ax7, I`ve had very good results using 12au7 in place of 12ax7, I`d also try 12BH7, 
modern tungsol is nothing special tube original from England was great.
RCA made 12au7 can be found cheap and sounds great , I`d get this if under 30 2 RCA 12BH7 Tubes USA 1953 Blackplate | eBay

or this
Sylvania 12BH7A Gray Plate Top O Getter | eBay

to keep amplification ratio you`ll have to stick to 12ax7, here is great tubes


----------



## subwoofery

Victor_inox said:


> 12AU7 is lower noise tubes but amplification ratio 70 vs 100 for 12ax7, I`ve had very good results using 12au7 in place of 12ax7, I`d also try 12BH7,
> modern tungsol is nothing special tube original from England was great.
> RCA made 12au7 can be found cheap and sounds great , I`d get this if under 30 2 RCA 12BH7 Tubes USA 1953 Blackplate | eBay
> 
> or this
> Sylvania 12BH7A Gray Plate Top O Getter | eBay
> 
> to keep amplification ratio you`ll have to stick to 12ax7, here is great tubes


Sweet, I'll check them out  

Thanks, 
Kelvin


----------



## Victor_inox

you welcome,enjoy.


----------



## thehatedguy

Kelvin, check out this page for different tubes and descriptions

Vacuum Tubes - Upscale Audio


----------



## Victor_inox

thehatedguy said:


> Kelvin, check out this page for different tubes and descriptions
> 
> Vacuum Tubes - Upscale Audio


I`ve heard good things about these guys even though tube description like: "smidge relaxed on top" pisses me off a bit.


----------



## thehatedguy

That's where I got the tubes for my HSS from. I got a matched quad of Winged C 6550s and the Conrad Johnson matched CV4003s from them. Nice guys.


----------



## subwoofery

thehatedguy said:


> Kelvin, check out this page for different tubes and descriptions
> 
> Vacuum Tubes - Upscale Audio


Arg... Now I want to swap tubes  

Good job  

Kelvin


----------



## Victor_inox

subwoofery said:


> Arg... Now I want to swap tubes
> 
> Good job
> 
> Kelvin


 NOS tubes only appreciate in price, it`s solid investment.


----------



## SAudio

RNBRAD said:


> Well you also have to take into affect the psychological thought processes involved which is like the "placebo effect". If you think it's better when in actuality it is not, you may still hear a perceived improvement, though there is none. It's funny how the brain will try to mimic your expectations. This is actual science!!


I know this is an old thread, but I felt like a lot of you are wrong. A High End amp will most likely sound better,

You just need a set of speakers/cables/crossovers that will be capable of showing you the differences.

Get better drivers, get better crossovers (most car crossovers are not what they could be) Try not to go for active crosses.

Focal Utopia got some beter crosses but generally, apart from the fact that most manufacturers round up the values for the capacitors and do not care much about differences in values on the coils (most crosses have coils too close toghether and in the wrong position) they also use a lot of metal screws around the crosses to make them look nice, all those minor changes do count.

If you want to go high end you have to go all the way to the drivers themselves and quality of components used. Go for revelators, go for morel, go for peerless, go for acutton, go for transmission audio, go for what ever pleases you best but go high end all the way.

Learn how to listen and what to look for. Differences are there, they are big and audible.

If you have jbl speakers or hertz or some thing like that, forget about differences.


----------



## jdigital

s/n ratio and THD is a myth?


----------



## WRX/Z28

SAudio said:


> I know this is an old thread, but I felt like a lot of you are wrong. A High End amp will most likely sound better,
> 
> You just need a set of speakers/cables/crossovers that will be capable of showing you the differences.
> 
> Get better drivers, get better crossovers (most car crossovers are not what they could be) Try not to go for active crosses.
> 
> Focal Utopia got some beter crosses but generally, apart from the fact that most manufacturers round up the values for the capacitors and do not care much about differences in values on the coils (most crosses have coils too close toghether and in the wrong position) they also use a lot of metal screws around the crosses to make them look nice, all those minor changes do count.
> 
> If you want to go high end you have to go all the way to the drivers themselves and quality of components used. Go for revelators, go for morel, go for peerless, go for acutton, go for transmission audio, go for what ever pleases you best but go high end all the way.
> 
> Learn how to listen and what to look for. Differences are there, they are big and audible.
> 
> If you have jbl speakers or hertz or some thing like that, forget about differences.


You're spreading the delusion, and the general misinformation instead of attempting to test or understand for yourself. In an apples to apples comparison, you can not tell the difference between two identically powered amplifiers with identical settings. The possibility of setting two amps identically in the real world is slim, therefore people think they hear differences when swapping amps. 



jdigital said:


> s/n ratio and THD is a myth?


S/N ratio and THD are so good on every modern amplifier that you can not hear the difference from an amp with one spec to another. 


Any amp that makes power and has no significant flaws will sound the same as any other amp. 

If you don't like to believe that, continue to spend money on things that don't matter instead of learning what actually does...


----------



## Victor_inox

Fight, fight, fight.


----------



## WestCo

noise floor is enough to convince most people that all amps aren't equal...

S/n and THD are poor indicators of an amps performance.

You can have a good sounding system with average amps and an average source though. 

I've only owned two amps that I consider to be outstanding, neither were stock. It's all about the last few percent performance increase.


----------



## Victor_inox

I just love when it always somwthing like" no significant flaw" or another similar limitation to every amp sound the same proponents.


----------



## WestCo

Victor_inox said:


> I just love when it always somwthing like" no significant flaw" or another similar limitation to every amp sound the same proponents.


A celebration of mediocrity, that's what's wrong with America.


----------



## SAudio

Victor_inox said:


> I just love when it always somwthing like" no significant flaw" or another similar limitation to every amp sound the same proponents.


Look, as there is no cable in the world that will improve the sound quality of your system, there is also no amplifier (and we are comparing same class amplification) that will improve anything. The only thing they can do is deteriorate the signal in various degrees, depending on components and built quality.

If you are comparing amplifier classes then you have a lot more differences in sound. A Genesis class A will always sound better than any alpine with "ice power" technology or a more convencional ab amplification-

If you go for something like Butler Audio's tube amps or Milbert then the differences are even more obvious and audible.

And I am not going into the sources, just amplification. With sources the differences are enormous, an alpine will always have their own "sound" and the few I would call "transparent" are Nakas, Clarion and Mcintosh (both made by Clarion), Denon and pioneer. All the rest sound completely different.


----------



## 2DEEP2

Victor_inox said:


> I just love when it always somwthing like" no significant flaw" or another similar limitation to every amp sound the same proponents.


I have to agree...
Like Guitar amps...
Like Tube amps....
Like Unregulated amps...
Like Dual Mono amps...
Like a cheap class D amps...
Amps designed to have a modified FR...
Amps with muted clipping...
Regardless of what speaker you drive, they all sound the same??? 

No, they just have a significant flaw, LOL


----------



## SAudio

2DEEP2 said:


> No, they just have a significant flaw, LOL


LOL LOL


----------



## cajunner

never heard Scosche's Realm amps, any good?


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> never heard Scosche's Realm amps, any good?


feeling snobby?


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> never heard Scosche's Realm amps, any good?


feeling snobby?


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> feeling snobby?


a little, maybe...


----------



## Victor_inox

WestCo said:


> A celebration of mediocrity, that's what's wrong with America.


Exactly correct, 95% of modern amplifiers including reputable in the past manufacturers producing mediocre product in race to zero.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Lol, significant flaw = being broken, or having an eq curve built in, or some abnormal noise. 

Most competently designed amps emit no noise of their own. If your amp has a muting plug in it's input, and connected to the speaker, it makes noise. Get rid of it immediately, it's broken.

If it has an eq curve, it doesn't really sound different than any other amp with the same equalization applied. 

Keep propogating bs though... It's hilarious to watch. Its sad to think how how much time energy and money you spend chasing sq in amps though... results are much greater in drivers/placement/eq/TA/Phase/environmental changes than in any typical amp.


----------



## WRX/Z28

2DEEP2 said:


> I have to agree...
> Like Guitar amps...
> Like Tube amps....
> Like Unregulated amps...
> Like Dual Mono amps...
> Like a cheap class D amps...
> Amps designed to have a modified FR...
> Amps with muted clipping...
> Regardless of what speaker you drive, they all sound the same???
> 
> No, they just have a significant flaw, LOL


LOL at modified FR... You mean EQ? Lol

All amps are the same when power is equal, and eq'd to match (assuming you get one of the very few with an EQ curve built in). If you think you need to buy an amp with an eq curve that you like instead of just buying an eq and learning how to implement it, then I don't know what to tell you.

Besides audible noise (should never be the amp unless it's broken, or truly designed poorly), "Modified FR" otherwise known as EQ, some phase change, or some crossover applied, what differences do you think you're hearing? 

Other than noise (which should be easy to choose an amp with no noise, being that the vast majority 99%+ emit no noise of their own.) the remaining things can be accounted for and adjusted for, so why not choose from the thousands of competently designed amps that have a flat FR? 

Amps do one thing, take an input signal and make it bigger, they should add nor subtract anything from the signal. 99%+ do exactly that, and the remaining flawed amps can easily be avoided. 

No need to talk about which amps "sound better", or which amps are "more musical" or are "warmer" or "more detailed" or whatever other BS term you want to use. It's all hogwash designed to sell more amps and perpetuate ignorance in our hobby. 


Wake up people.


----------



## Victor_inox

You should just add one more disclaimer: in theory all amps designed to do one thing-amplify signal, therefore theoretically they all do the same thing. 
Unfortunately on practice they just don`t. 
I hoped Boss amp just as good as Brax.


----------



## ChrisB

WRX/Z28 said:


> Lol, significant flaw = being broken, or having an eq curve built in, or some abnormal noise.
> 
> Most competently designed amps emit no noise of their own. If your amp has a muting plug in it's input, and connected to the speaker, it makes noise. Get rid of it immediately, it's broken.
> 
> If it has an eq curve, it doesn't really sound different than any other amp with the same equalization applied.
> 
> Keep propogating bs though... It's hilarious to watch. Its sad to think how how much time energy and money you spend chasing sq in amps though... results are much greater in drivers/placement/eq/TA/Phase/environmental changes than in any typical amp.


Some people will learn, some people won't. When I started treating car audio purchases like business decisions, it all became clear. 

For example: let's assume amplifier B costs $1,000 more than amplifier A. The first thing I ask myself is "Will it sound $1,000 better?" If yes, why? 

Then again, I'm from the school of thought where I believe high dollar car audio is an exercise in futility due to the fact that high dollar products are wasted in a hostile environment that offers little to no control.


----------



## Jesus Christ

WRX/Z28 said:


> Other than noise (which should be easy to choose an amp with no noise, being that the vast majority 99%+ emit no noise of their own.)


Noise is the one area where I've found most amps to perform poorly. Not really much of an issue when using conventional drivers but when using drivers with a sensitivity in the high 90's or above the majority of amps are noisy.


----------



## Victor_inox

Price should not take a place in this discussion, business approach is not what I'd take while making that decision. Take two nice systems, one cost 3000 bucks, another 10000 .which one is better? will it be 7000 dollars better? `most likely it will be better, what that 9000 means to you is only you can decide. Do you have to skip on life necessities to afford it?


----------



## ChrisB

Victor_inox said:


> Price should not take a place in this discussion, business approach is not what I'd take while making that decision. Take two nice systems, one cost 3000 bucks, another 10000 .which one is better? will it be 7000 dollars better? `most likely it will be better, what that 9000 means to you is only you can decide. Do you have to skip on life necessities to afford it?


I'm a CPA by day, so of course price factors in. Furthermore, enjoyment for my money spent factors in too. I once purchased amplifiers on whims chasing that SQ pipe dream only to realize that I was just wasting my money! If spending more money won't give me an exponentially equal enjoyment factor, I see it as a waste of money. Even in this hobby called car audio!

For example, my last dilemma when my Boston Acoustics G3 sub was discovered to be damaged beyond hope was to purchase a Type R 10 or a 10w6v3. I listened to both sealed in demo rooms and a couple of cars. I then concluded that the Type R 10 that I purchased for $104 was the better route to go because the 10w6v3 @ $400 wouldn't give me an additional $296 of enjoyment.

For the record, I drive my wife nuts with my cost/benefit analysis these days.


----------



## Victor_inox

Make more money! only than you don`t have to be boring as hell analyzing every possible scenario in cost vs benefit realm. At some point you just buy the best available product and call it a day. but then where is fun in that?


----------



## ChrisB

Victor_inox said:


> Make more money! only than you don`t have to be boring as hell analyzing every possible scenario in cost vs benefit realm. At some point you just buy the best available product and call it a day. but then where is fun in that?


Making money isn't the issue, spending it is. While I admit that I was a tad bit reckless with prior purchases, that is a mistake that won't be repeated. In other words, you won't see me getting all nostalgic and purchasing 50 amplifiers in a 2 year time frame any time soon.


----------



## WestCo

Jesus Christ said:


> Noise is the one area where I've found most amps to perform poorly. Not really much of an issue when using conventional drivers but when using drivers with a sensitivity in the high 90's or above the majority of amps are noisy.


Agreed.
[/Thread]


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> You should just add one more disclaimer: in theory all amps designed to do one thing-amplify signal, therefore theoretically they all do the same thing.
> Unfortunately on practice they just don`t.
> I hoped Boss amp just as good as Brax.


LOL, Zed audio made some Boss Rev amps back in the day, they were rated double the power they actually made, but were otherwise fine. 

The reality is, amps from most reputable manufacturers all simply amplify signal. If they do anything else, they're not doing their job. 



ChrisB said:


> Some people will learn, some people won't. When I started treating car audio purchases like business decisions, it all became clear.
> 
> For example: let's assume amplifier B costs $1,000 more than amplifier A. The first thing I ask myself is "Will it sound $1,000 better?" If yes, why?
> 
> Then again, I'm from the school of thought where I believe high dollar car audio is an exercise in futility due to the fact that high dollar products are wasted in a hostile environment that offers little to no control.


Truth. Some people just believe that $$$$ = SQ. They believe it with all their heart. Unfortunately, these people all tend to have only a simple grasp of car audio. They tend to know little to nothing about tuning, and ask/discuss nothing about how to get good sound in a car. They simply believe buying more expensive (supposedly better) gear is all you need to do to get to SQ nirvana. 

Here is what I've learned about people that drivel on about amps sounding different with no measurements proving they do, no scientific basis other than "I use my ears" and no real understanding of why this is simply not the case. 

* They tend to be the same people that think sound deadener needs to coat the whole panel (obviously not true), and that deadener blocks noise. They almost never invest in any noise barrier.

* They understand very little about time alignment, phase, acoustics or sound interaction in a vehicle. They never experiment with T/A, or ask questions about how to utilize it best. 

* They take no active part in any truly technical discussion on this forum. 

* They never experiment with drivers, placement, EQ or active crossovers. 

* They are technologically stuck around 20 years ago. 

* Their belief stems from a poor understanding of sound, and how to get their car to sound good to them. 



Jesus Christ said:


> Noise is the one area where I've found most amps to perform poorly. Not really much of an issue when using conventional drivers but when using drivers with a sensitivity in the high 90's or above the majority of amps are noisy.


What noise have you measured? and from what amplifiers? Was the noise induced from the source, or did the amplifier itself generate audible noise with no source connected? At what gain level was the noise present? Did you figure out which amp makes the least noise, and purchase that one? If so, which amp was that? 



Victor_inox said:


> Make more money! only than you don`t have to be boring as hell analyzing every possible scenario in cost vs benefit realm. At some point you just buy the best available product and call it a day. but then where is fun in that?


So what is THE best amplifier, the one unequivocal best, that everyone will agree on as the best, and go out and buy tomorrow? :laugh: 

What made it THE best?


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> Noise is the one area where I've found most amps to perform poorly. Not really much of an issue when using conventional drivers but when using drivers with a sensitivity in the high 90's or above the majority of amps are noisy.


 You feed that noisy signal to the amp and expect dead quiet noise floor?


----------



## WRX/Z28

WestCo said:


> Agreed.
> [/Thread]


Oh, ok, so all amps are noisy to an audible degree? Guess that settles it then, just purchase cheap power, cause they all make noise. 


[/Thread] lol


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> LOL,
> 
> So what is THE best amplifier, the one unequivocal best, that everyone will agree on as the best, and go out and buy tomorrow? :laugh:
> 
> What made it THE best?


 Each person has it`s own definition of "the best" Sadly for most it became price per watt. 
I`m gonna play your game and say that it depends on many factors.
In each particular setup that is. depends on the goals, car, drivers used. install, tuning, etc.etc...You`ll have to find what best for your particular setup.
I found mine for my current situation. 
I don`t feel like repeating same thing for another 63 pages.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Each person has it`s own definition of "the best" Sadly for most it became price per watt.
> I`m gonna play your game and say that it depends on many factors.
> In each particular setup that is. depends on the goals, car, drivers used. install, tuning, etc.etc...You`ll have to find what best for your particular setup.
> I found mine for my current situation.
> I don`t feel like repeating same thing for another 63 pages.



There should be one "Best Sounding" amp, at least if you're to believe those that think amps all have some unique sound that can't be duplicated with an EQ. 

You can repeat nonsense for infinite pages, but with no quantification, it's simply that. 

If there was the huge difference that many claim there is, this discussion would have been over ages ago, since everyone would be able to simply purchase that one best amp. 

There is no game, there is no "best for situation" other than power level, and size/feature constraints. 

Those that believe amps all sound different can never tell you specifically what measures different, or why, or elaborate on anything other than "my ears say so" or "the parts are BETTER". It's always some vague notion of a magical difference that no one can quite explain.


----------



## Victor_inox

Who ever said in that thread anything about EQ? I don`t remember anyone saying that sound signature of an amp can`t be duplicated. you just pulling it out of your ass.

What I Was saying is that amps sounds different, I have 30 years experience to say that.
I will not be drugged into pointless discussion of why is that true.
As for measurements- every amp measured slightly different from same model assembled on the same line by the same people using the same parts. 1% difference is surely audible if you know what listen for.


----------



## Jesus Christ

WRX/Z28 said:


> What noise have you measured? and from what amplifiers? Was the noise induced from the source, or did the amplifier itself generate audible noise with no source connected? At what gain level was the noise present? Did you figure out which amp makes the least noise, and purchase that one? If so, which amp was that?


I test them on the bench, no source connected, with and without shorting plugs and a BMS compression driver with a 113db/1w sensitivity. No measurements, just testing by ear. Some amps the noise increases with gain, some are the same regardless of where the gain is. These are all amps I already own, have owned hundreds, still own 80 or 90 give or take a few. Have had everything from Boss and Pyramid to Mcintosh, Sony XES, Monolithic etc. I've tested so many I don't have a list of the best and worst but I remember the Audio Art I tested doing well, low noise and no increase with gain.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Who ever said in that thread anything about EQ? I don`t remember anyone saying that sound signature of an amp can`t be duplicated. you just pulling it out of your ass.
> 
> What I Was saying is that amps sounds different, I have 30 years experience to say that.
> I will not be drugged into pointless discussion of why is that true.
> As for measurements- every amp measured slightly different from same model assembled on the same line by the same people using the same parts. 1% difference is surely audible if you know what listen for.


At least one of you said "modified FR". What exactly do you think that means? LOL So what am I "pulling out of my ass"? 

So what about them sounds different if the "sound signature" as you put it, can be duplicated? Let me guess, oh they image differently, or theres a airiness or some other BS cop out description that is meaningless. 

30 Years experience? What do you think I fell off the turnip truck yesterday? Trust me friend, I started off believing as you do that amps make some huge difference in SQ, then through careful testing for myself, quickly determined that not to be the case. 

This discussion IS pointless for you, as I don't expect to convince you. You hear differences friend, I believe that, but you don't know why, and you attribute it to the amp blindly. If this wasn't the case, you'd be able to concisely explain what the differences are, and what causes them. 

I'm simply looking to help others understand that the differences are not in the amp, or how much was spent on it, or the supposed unexplainable SQ merits of the amp, and are simply in power level and tuning when swapping from one amp to another. 

So of the supposed 1%, what measured differently if not FR/EQ? What measurement change made a 1% sound difference without altering FR at all? I'd love to hear this, since you "know what to listen for". That's always one of my favorite lines in this debate. :laugh: You guys always insinuate that you need "Golden Ears" to hear the difference, which only further weakens your argument. 

You could take two identical amps from the same line (see my favorite sig quote from a guy smarter than both of us put together. An OG that explained over and over that competently designed amps all sound identical since they neither add nor subtract from the signal), adjust the gain 1% different, and hear a difference. Does this mean the amps sound different? No, the SETTINGS sound different. Nobody is saying you can't hear a difference in how your amp IS SET, just that it's not some intangible benefit that one amp has over another when set identically. 

The reality is 99% of users couldn't set the same amp identically twice. They simply lack the measuring equipment to do so, or the desire/understanding that it's important if insisting their amp is making some large sonic difference.


----------



## Orion525iT

WRX/Z28 said:


> So of the supposed 1%, what measured differently if not FR/EQ? What measurement change made a 1% sound difference without altering FR at all? I'd love to hear this, since you "know what to listen for". That's always one of my favorite lines in this debate. :laugh: You guys always insinuate that you need "Golden Ears" to hear the difference, which only further weakens your argument.


It's called appeal to authority, or argument from authority. Which is basically where someone argues that the statement is correct because it comes from an authoritative source (Golden Ears). Yet, there is little to none actual objective, quantifiable evidence to support the claim. It is a _logical fallacy_, it is a _non sequitur_. 

You see this type of failure of inductive reasoning all the time on this forum, and very few seem to recognize it.


----------



## SAudio

WRX/Z28 said:


> * They take no active part in any truly technical discussion on this forum.
> 
> * They never experiment with drivers, placement, EQ or active crossovers.
> 
> * They are technologically stuck around 20 years ago.
> 
> * Their belief stems from a poor understanding of sound, and how to get their car to sound good to them.


Measurements will only take you so far. You can not build a good system without a good set of ears.

In cars, it is as difficult to position everything as it is to get correct measurements. 

And that has nothing to do with the quality of an amplifier. The amplifier either is good or it isn't. 

People today tend to over use TA and eqs and all sorts of digital enhancements they can think of. There is a group of people who think that you can setup almost any kind of drivers and any kind of amplification because in the end, they will be capable to "correct" everything that is "wrong" with the use of a sound processor or the tools the H units provide.

On units TA is limited and EQs are crap.

Besides what if I decide to use a Nakamitchi, or a Mcintosh, or a Denon, does this mean that because they have no tools you will end up with bad sound quality ?

I have heard cars lately that sound atrocious, because of TA and eqs and everything else.

Those things should only be used only to fine tune a system that already sounds good. And people do not understand that. A lot of people do not even know that a parametric equalizer with as many bands as possible is the only way to go.

And again, a class A amp will not sound the same as a icepower or a AB, or a B or a tube etc.

All amps sound different some a lot some a little. The design and the components are not exactly the same on every amp, and every car amp has a small usually crappy preamp/freq devider on the imput.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> At least one of you said "modified FR". What exactly do you think that means? LOL So what am I "pulling out of my ass"?
> 
> So what about them sounds different if the "sound signature" as you put it, can be duplicated? Let me guess, oh they image differently, or theres a airiness or some other BS cop out description that is meaningless.
> 
> 30 Years experience? What do you think I fell off the turnip truck yesterday? Trust me friend, I started off believing as you do that amps make some huge difference in SQ, then through careful testing for myself, quickly determined that not to be the case.
> 
> This discussion IS pointless for you, as I don't expect to convince you. You hear differences friend, I believe that, but you don't know why, and you attribute it to the amp blindly. If this wasn't the case, you'd be able to concisely explain what the differences are, and what causes them.
> 
> I'm simply looking to help others understand that the differences are not in the amp, or how much was spent on it, or the supposed unexplainable SQ merits of the amp, and are simply in power level and tuning when swapping from one amp to another.
> 
> So of the supposed 1%, what measured differently if not FR/EQ? What measurement change made a 1% sound difference without altering FR at all? I'd love to hear this, since you "know what to listen for". That's always one of my favorite lines in this debate. :laugh: You guys always insinuate that you need "Golden Ears" to hear the difference, which only further weakens your argument.
> 
> You could take two identical amps from the same line (see my favorite sig quote from a guy smarter than both of us put together. An OG that explained over and over that competently designed amps all sound identical since they neither add nor subtract from the signal), adjust the gain 1% different, and hear a difference. Does this mean the amps sound different? No, the SETTINGS sound different. Nobody is saying you can't hear a difference in how your amp IS SET, just that it's not some intangible benefit that one amp has over another when set identically.
> 
> The reality is 99% of users couldn't set the same amp identically twice. They simply lack the measuring equipment to do so, or the desire/understanding that it's important if insisting their amp is making some large sonic difference.


 You can keep talking down to me but you right, you will not convince me.
read that quote one you are so fond off and tell me where it contradicts anything I said? 
So whatever... you do what you believe in I`ll do as I pleased.


----------



## papasin

SAudio said:


> A lot of people do not even know that a parametric equalizer with as many bands as possible is the only way to go.



It's astonishing to me how people make blanket statements like this. While not the topic of this thread, some of the recent posts like this (and others on this forum) have been a bit discouraging. I used to come here to learn and threads like this that are supposed to demystify the "myths and dogma" have become nothing more than a battle of religion.

Let me ask this, so if one doesn't use any parametric eq, are you suggesting that it's not possible or more difficult to make that vehicle "sound good"?


----------



## SAudio

Have a look at this interview with Peter Qvortrup of Audio Note 

Pay attention to what he said regarding transformers. (they measure exactly the same but they sound different)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtperKH7XsU


Just an example of how your ears can help. You do not listen with your ears, you use your brain. Mics have no brain. And they will never ear the same things people do.

Another example that if it measures "well" it may sound like crap is the NS10s


----------



## WRX/Z28

Orion525iT said:


> It's called appeal to authority, or argument from authority. Which is basically where someone argues that the statement is correct because it comes from an authoritative source (Golden Ears). Yet, there is little to none actual objective, quantifiable evidence to support the claim. It is a _logical fallacy_, it is a _non sequitur_.
> 
> You see this type of failure of inductive reasoning all the time on this forum, and very few seem to recognize it.


It's hilarious to watch, and the author always seems so smug in his statement that "I can hear it, so if you can't, you or your hearing must be inferior" 

People just can't accept the fact that they don't understand where the differences are, and that they are from setup/tuning differences, and not the amp's themselves. 




SAudio said:


> Measurements will only take you so far. You can not build a good system without a good set of ears.
> 
> In cars, it is as difficult to position everything as it is to measure it.
> 
> And that has nothing to do with the quality of an amplifier. The amplifier either is good or it isn't.
> 
> People today tend to overuse TA and eqs and all sorts of digital enhancements they can think of. There is a group of people who think that you can setup almost any kind of drivers and any kind of amplification because in the end, they will be capable to "correct" everything that is "wrong" with the use of a sound processor or the tools the H units provide.



If you believe that, I think you may be on the wrong forum. It's this kind of thinking that prevents advance in our hobby, and keeps you in the dark ages. 

Measurements tell you what is actually changing when you are hearing a difference. Otherwise, you are taking an educated (or uneducated) guess at best. 

TA and EQ account for environment and listening position. Listen to any good set of properly set up monitors while in the sweet spot, equal distance from the speaker. Then move to the left. If you hear a difference, you would benefit from even basic time alignment. 

Now add a set of speakers behind you, and a move your sub further back than that. Hear a difference? You would benefit from more advanced time alignment. 

Now remove the tweeters from your monitors, and aim them at each other about 18-24" above the rest of the monitor. Hear a difference? You would benefit from active crossovers and time alignment




SAudio said:


> On units TA is limited and EQs are crap.



Which units are you talking about? Almost all current decks have T/A and some form of EQ built in, unless they are very basic. I'm sensing you are very uneducated on this subject.



SAudio said:


> Besides what if I decide to use a Nakamit?chi, or a Mcintosh, or a Denon, does this mean that because they have no tools you will end up with bad sound quality ?



Bad sound quality? No. Mediocre at best? Yes. Can you add a processor to those decks and get better results? Absolutely. I don't think anyone with any real experience with these processors would argue otherwise.



SAudio said:


> I have heard cars lately that sound atrocious, because of TA and eqs and everything else.



Very possible. It's easy to misunderstand how they function and end up with poor results. Experimentation will get you where you need to be. You can't just plug in some tuning numbers and cross your fingers, only to throw your hands in the air if they don't perform like you expected. 




SAudio said:


> Those things should only be used only to fine tune a system that already sounds good. And people do not understand that. A lot of people do not even know that a parametric equalizer with as many bands as possible is the only way to go.
> 
> And again, a class A amp will not sound the same as a icepower or a AB, or a B or a tube etc.



Really? Why not? What does it alter from input to output? Or what do you think an AB or D amp does? 



SAudio said:


> All amps sound different some a lot some a little. The design and the components are not exactly the same on every amp, and every car amp has a small usually crappy preamp/freq devider on the imput.


No logical argument from you here. More of the "They sound different, I said so, so that's it." type of arguing. 

I can tell that none of you have PROPERLY tested any of this for yourselves or you would have arrived at the same conclusion I did. I used to believe as you do. It was only when I objectively tested for myself and others that I found that "SQ" was not magically increased by an amplifier change. In fact, there was no audible difference when I couldn't see what was changed. 

You guys really don't belong on this forum, at least not in it's heyday. Maybe things have changed now, and we've devolved into the myths and misnomers of car audio. 

Keep up with the mindset that audio is all voodoo and magic, and science and measuring are for idiots. You'll go far with your setup this way.


----------



## SAudio

papasin said:


> Let me ask this, so if one doesn't use any parametric eq, are you suggesting that it's not possible or more difficult to make that vehicle "sound good"?


No, what I am saying is that the small crappy eqs in car units do more damage than good. Because if you try to correct one freq you are dragging the below and above frequencies along. 

I thought that was obvious to everyone.










The picture is just to help understand, could not find anything better in 1 sec


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> You can keep talking down to me but you right, you will not convince me.
> read that quote one you are so fond off and tell me where it contradicts anything I said?
> So whatever... you do what you believe in I`ll do as I pleased.


Sounds good. Keep your head stuck in the sand. People that don't learn for themselves are doomed to be stuck at the level they're at forever. 



papasin said:


> It's astonishing to me how people make blanket statements like this. While not the topic of this thread, some of the recent posts like this (and others on this forum) have been a bit discouraging. I used to come here to learn and threads like this that are supposed to demystify the "myths and dogma" have become nothing more than a battle of religion.
> 
> Let me ask this, so if one doesn't use any parametric eq, are you suggesting that it's not possible or more difficult to make that vehicle "sound good"?


I'm not even sure what his point was with that one. Apparently he doesn't understand how much T/A can change FR at the drivers listening position. 

These guys refuse to learn, and instead are stuck perpetuating myths to enable themselves to stagnate at their current level of development. I'm glad I wasn't that hard headed, although it took a lot of convincing to test for myself, and a good amount of understanding to do it properly. 



SAudio said:


> Have a look at this interview with Peter Qvortrup of Audio Note
> 
> Pay attention to what he said regarding transformers. (they measure exactly the same but they sound different)
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtperKH7XsU
> 
> 
> Just an example of how your ears can help. You do not listen with your ears, you use your brain. Mics have no brain. And they will never ear the same things people do.
> 
> Another example that if it measures "well" it may sound like crap is the NS10s


Don't even want to watch anyone that will tell you two things that measure the same will sound different. Sounds like an audiophool... 


If only you guys could accept the truth, you'd be much better off, and you'd advance so much further in this hobby.


----------



## WRX/Z28

SAudio said:


> No, what I am saying is that the small crappy eqs in car units do more damage than good. Because if you try to correct one freq you are dragging the below and above frequencies along.
> 
> I thought that was obvious to everyone.


I think it was obvious to no one. 

Suckout of surrounding frequencies is commonly understood when regarding EQ, but it has nothing to do with it being a "small crappy eqs"  

Have you tried adjusting your Q?


----------



## SAudio

WRX/Z28 said:


> Sounds good. Keep your head stuck in the sand. People that don't learn for themselves are doomed to be stuck at the level they're at forever.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not even sure what his point was with that one. Apparently he doesn't understand how much T/A can change FR at the drivers listening position.
> 
> These guys refuse to learn, and instead are stuck perpetuating myths to enable themselves to stagnate at their current level of development. I'm glad I wasn't that hard headed, although it took a lot of convincing to test for myself, and a good amount of understanding to do it properly.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even want to watch anyone that will tell you two things that measure the same will sound different. Sounds like an audiophool...
> 
> 
> If only you guys could accept the truth, you'd be much better off, and you'd advance so much further in this hobby.


I did not say you should not measure. I said you should not rely on measurements alone. I also did not say you should not use a processor. I said you should only use it to complement and help out.


----------



## SAudio

WRX/Z28 said:


> I think it was obvious to no one.
> 
> Suckout of surrounding frequencies is commonly understood when regarding EQ, but it has nothing to do with it being a "small crappy eqs"
> 
> Have you tried adjusting your Q?


Most car units have limited band eqs.


----------



## WRX/Z28

SAudio said:


> Most car units have limited band eqs.


Time to look at some new units, instead of the old skool stuff. 

Most new units have fairly flexible 5+ band eq's with adjustable Q and center point. If you need more than that, you are probably doing something wrong, and at the very least, over adjusting via EQ.


----------



## SAudio

WRX/Z28 said:


> Time to look at some new units, instead of the old skool stuff.
> 
> Most new units have *fairly* flexible 5+ band eq's with adjustable Q and center point. If you need more than that, you are probably doing something wrong, and at the very least, over adjusting via EQ.


It is, as you said a *fairly* good solution. Not a good one.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Sounds good. Keep your head stuck in the sand. People that don't learn for themselves are doomed to be stuck at the level they're at forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even want to watch anyone that will tell you two things that measure the same will sound different. Sounds like an audiophool...
> 
> 
> If only you guys could accept the truth, you'd be much better off, and you'd advance so much further in this hobby.


 You sounds like you are the only one knowing the truth when in fact you full of yourself, close minded individual. You stuck in what you believe, throwing pseudo scientific research like final proven knowledge. 
There is no science that can`t be improved. 

Once you decided that you measuring every parameter that can be measured you close your mind and not considering for a second that there could be parameters we can`t measure.
SAudio example just one of many.


----------



## WRX/Z28

SAudio said:


> It is, as you said a *fairly* good solution. Not a good one.


That's not what I said at all. I said they were fairly flexible, as in: you can't choose frequency down to the individual digits. 

They're as good or better than most outboard EQ's.

I like how you picked out that one word to try to grasp on to it like a life preserver...


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> You sounds like you are the only one knowing the truth when in fact you full of yourself, close minded individual. You stuck in what you believe, throwing pseudo scientific research like final proven knowledge.
> There is no science that can`t be improved.
> 
> Once you decided that you measuring every parameter that can be measured you close your mind and not considering for a second that there could be parameters we can`t measure.
> SAudio example just one of many.


How am I closed minded? I clearly explained that I used to have the same belief as you until I tested for myself. Sounds pretty open minded to me... :laugh:

Pseudo Science huh? 

Measuring is how we learn. Insisting on voodoo and magic is how we don't. '

What example? He explained how EQ affects bands around the center point, but failed to mention that the Q adjustment changes exactly how much...


----------



## Orion525iT

papasin said:


> It's astonishing to me how people make blanket statements like this. While not the topic of this thread, some of the recent posts like this (and others on this forum) have been a bit discouraging. I used to come here to learn and threads like this that are supposed to demystify the "myths and dogma" *have become nothing more than a battle of religion*.
> 
> Let me ask this, so if one doesn't use any parametric eq, are you suggesting that it's not possible or more difficult to make that vehicle "sound good"?


It is very much a battle of religion. It's like an argument between two people of different religious convictions who are completely convinced that their religion is the correct religion. Yet, evidence does not support either one, and in fact contradicts both. Which is why there is constant injection of logical fallacies in one form or another in an attempt to prove the other religion false.


----------



## papasin

SAudio said:


> No, what I am saying is that the small crappy eqs in car units do more damage than good. Because if you try to correct one freq you are dragging the below and above frequencies along.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was obvious to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The picture is just to help understand, could not find anything better in 1 sec



I guess it must not be obvious to me and I must not know what I'm doing with the small crappy eq in my car :shrug:. Carry on, you obviously are the expert as many seem to be these days.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> How am I closed minded? I clearly explained that I used to have the same belief as you until I tested for myself. Sounds pretty open minded to me... :laugh:
> 
> Pseudo Science huh?
> 
> Measuring is how we learn. Insisting on voodoo and magic is how we don't. '
> 
> What example? He explained how EQ affects bands around the center point, but failed to mention that the Q adjustment changes exactly how much...



I`m not even sure anymore what we are arguing about, I said amps sounds different and you said it all in the equalisation...
how is those two statements contradict each other?
Explain to me why people choosing JL HD amps over JL XD amps. they all sounds the same, two from the same manufacturer surely should be as well.


----------



## JVD240

All you golden ears need to join that blind test Skizer was organizing.

My bet is it will be as conclusive as captainobvious' test.

Also, LOL @ small crappy car EQs. Wasn't aware 31 bands of PEQ will do more harm than good.


----------



## Victor_inox

JVD240 said:


> All you golden ears need to join that blind test Skizer was organizing.
> 
> My bet is it will be as conclusive as captainobvious' test.
> 
> Also, LOL @ small crappy car EQs. Wasn't aware 31 bands of PEQ will do more harm than good.


People of Canada thinking that everything in US just a driving distance?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I`m not even sure anymore what we are arguing about, I said amps sounds different and you said it all in the equalisation...
> how is those two statements contradict each other?
> Explain to me why people choosing JL HD amps over JL XD amps and why. they all sounds the same, two from the same manufacturer surely should be as well.


Let me clarify. Competently designed amps sound the same, as most have a ruler flat FR. The few with an EQ curve built in can be accounted for, and easily made to sound the same. 

Therefore, your amp is not where you should be searching for "SQ", nor should you purchase an expensive amp in the hopes that "SQ" will improve. 

HD amps have a few benefits over XD: R.I.P.S. system, 12/24db selectable crossovers on all models, higher power output per size of the amp. That being said, if you don't use these features in the amp, they sound the same within the unclipped power levels of the weaker amp.


----------



## Victor_inox

Orion525iT said:


> It is very much a battle of religion. It's like an argument between two people of different religious convictions who are completely convinced that their religion is the correct religion. Yet, evidence does not support either one, and in fact contradicts both. Which is why there is constant injection of logical fallacies in one form or another in an attempt to prove the other religion false.


 Sig worthy.


----------



## JVD240

Victor_inox said:


> People of Canada thinking that everything in US just a driving distance?


Well worth the travels to put this thing to rest, right? This could be the FIRST ever conclusive blind test. No more of these threads required. Isn't that worth the trip?


----------



## WRX/Z28

JVD240 said:


> Well worth the travels to put this thing to rest, right? This could be the FIRST ever conclusive blind test. No more of these threads required. Isn't that worth the trip?


Where the hell is the thumbs up button? :laugh:


I took this test expecting to be able to pick out the better amp, I failed and it opened my eyes. 


That was quite a few years ago now, but I still have my huge amp collection. It needs to be scaled back at this point...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Where the hell is the thumbs up button? :laugh:
> 
> 
> I took this test expecting to be able to pick out the better amp, I failed and it opened my eyes.


So to this day your eyes stuck open? Shouldn`t that be your ears instead?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> So to this day your eyes stuck open? Shouldn`t that be your ears instead?


hahahah... my ears are always open. :laugh:


----------



## Victor_inox

JVD240 said:


> Well worth the travels to put this thing to rest, right? This could be the FIRST ever conclusive blind test. No more of these threads required. Isn't that worth the trip?


I participated in many of such tests, some of them Isetup myself most of them by someone else, every single time I could tell the difference between components but power cables and interconnects. 
I`m more interested in why do they sound different, different or not has been settled for me.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> hahahah... my ears are always open. :laugh:


I`m glad you can take a joke.
have you been cleaning your ears with q tips or professionally?
Trust me there is huge difference.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I participated in many of such tests, some of them Isetup myself most of them by someone else, every single time I could tell the difference between components but power cables and interconnects.
> I`m more interested in why do they sound different, different or not has been settled for me.


I know you don't want to believe it, but if you heard a difference, the test wasn't performed properly. Levels weren't matched, test wasn't blind... so on.


----------



## palldat

Victor_inox said:


> I`m not even sure anymore what we are arguing about, I said amps sounds different and you said it all in the equalisation...
> how is those two statements contradict each other?
> Explain to me why people choosing JL HD amps over JL XD amps. they all sounds the same, two from the same manufacturer surely should be as well.


I didn't want to get in this but I did have both of those amps and there was a difference. I am thinking it was the power supply but the HD did sound more open. The xd sounded good. :shrug


----------



## Coppertone

Ok here is where I jump into the deep end of the pool lol. I am in no way nearly as experienced or as involved as most of you guys. I can only speak from my own personal opinion and that is I also feel higher end amps don't make a difference. Don't get me wrong, I've always used quality amps, but at some point and time I've come to realize the amp can only do what it was designed for and for me to expect more from that was just me trying to justify my expense. Does this mean that I'm dumping my Brax amps, heck no as they are paid for lol. What it means is that if I were to buy more amps. I would gladly buy a HD amp and with the proper tuning achieve to me with my hearing, the same results.


----------



## plushterry

Well there surely can't be MUCH of a difference otherwise we would all be able to hear it?


----------



## 1styearsi

i have not read the 65 pages in this thread. when amp guts was free i saw that a lot of amp's from various names used the same board this is gonna happen when you have china building your amps then throwing you name on it.the components soldered on the board may be better or worse quality but they still are basically the same.i don't have a golden ear but i do have a RF 500a2 from the 90's in my car working great on my MB Quarts pre buyout German made,an i also have a PPI powerclass 2100 from the 90's as-well and there is a difference in sq from the fosgate to the PPI.the PPI is 100 watts a channel and the RF is 125 watts a channel.i'm telling you the PPI is crisper and cleaner it has a better "slew rate" in the reviews when bench tested in the car audio mag's that is what they attribute the the better sound to i can't say i really hear it on the sub's but i do on my highs. 
Slew rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
but mot many bass heads will hear it and really for the most part it not going to matter to your average joe. but i bereave you get what you pay for.yes you can get a boss amp and boss subs and they will boom for dirt cheap.
that being said i was low on cash for a amp so i was told to get the biggest 2 channel la sound amp i could find by my installer back in the 90's.we put it on my highs and it was crisper and cleaner then the pioneer premier amp i had and that LA sound was half the price.
i had a mtx thunder 280 on my RF 10's and the LA sound on my mid's and tweets(it sucked on bass)and i was LOVING IT i got many compliments.
the biggest improvement i got was from not using the crossovers in the amp's and getting a active crossover.


----------



## plushterry

Saying that, I could definitely hear the difference between my class D Pioneer amp and my Hertz HE4


----------



## Victor_inox

plushterry said:


> Saying that, I could definitely hear the difference between my class D Pioneer amp and my Hertz HE4


Must be setup differently, levels not matched, etc...


----------



## WRX/Z28

palldat said:


> I didn't want to get in this but I did have both of those amps and there was a difference. I am thinking it was the power supply but the HD did sound more open. The xd sounded good. :shrug


The HD sounded "more open" because it made more power than the XD. Note I said they sound the same when used within the clipping limits of the weaker amp. 

People ears interpret small volume changes as a difference in sound quality instead volume.


----------



## Victor_inox

plushterry said:


> Well there surely can't be MUCH of a difference otherwise we would all be able to hear it?


NO one were saying about night and day difference, but there is difference.


----------



## WRX/Z28

plushterry said:


> Saying that, I could definitely hear the difference between my class D Pioneer amp and my Hertz HE4


What were the power levels? What did you use to level match. How quickly did you change from one amp to the other? 

I already know the answer, you changed amps and heard a difference, so it must have been the amp. 



Victor_inox said:


> Must be setup differently, levels not matched, etc...


100%


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> The HD sounded "more open" because it made more power than the XD. Note I said they sound the same when used within the clipping limits of the weaker amp.
> 
> People ears interpret small volume changes as a difference in sound quality instead volume.


 You can`t possible know that power was different at the time of testing.
So you were saying that anyone who spent more money on HD vs XD just idiots? XD is more desirable because they smaller, size most important feature of modern car amplifier.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> You can`t possible know that power was different at the time of testing.
> So you were saying that anyone who spent more money on HD vs XD just idiots? XD is more desirable because they smaller, size most important feature of modern car amplifier.


How can I not possibly know that? If it were matched 100% he would have said so since doing so is an extremely important detail. 

HD amps make more power model for model than XD. Assuming he chose a more powerful HD amp only makes sense.

HD's also make power more consistently, across a wider range of impedances and voltages.

XD amps are larger for the same or more power output than HD, so... huh?


Compare XD1000/1v2 and HD1200/1, then XD700/5 and HD900/5 size and power wise. HD's are slightly wider, but much shorter. Put the two side by side, and the HD is clearly smaller.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> How can I not possibly know that. If it were matched 100% he would have said so.
> 
> HD amps make more power model for model than XD. Assuming he chose a more powerful HD amp only makes sense.
> 
> XD amps are larger for the same power output than HD, so... huh?


So people paying more money because HD is slightly smaller and make slightly more power but otherwise sounding the same?


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> So people paying more money because HD is slightly smaller and make slightly more power but otherwise sounding the same?


What's wrong with that? I'd pay more for an amp that made more power in a smaller footprint.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> So people paying more money because HD is slightly smaller and make slightly more power but otherwise sounding the same?


Yes, along with the more flexible crossovers, and the extra power, and more uniform power output along more ranges of use. 

You think the HD's have better sound quality at the same power level? I'll tell you that of the thousands I've installed/tuned, this is not the case when all is equal.

In fact, i'll go so far as to say the XD1000/1 would "sound better" run full tilt than an HD750/1. I attribute it to the extra power.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Yes, along with the more flexible crossovers, and the extra power, and more uniform power output along more ranges of use.
> 
> You think the HD's have better sound quality at the same power level? I'll tell you that of the thousands I've installed/tuned, this is not the case when all is equal.


who said anything about sound quality? I surely haven`t. I said sounds different, don`t put words into my mouth.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Yes, along with the more flexible crossovers, and the extra power, and more uniform power output along more ranges of use.
> 
> You think the HD's have better sound quality at the same power level? I'll tell you that of the thousands I've installed/tuned, this is not the case when all is equal.
> 
> In fact, i'll go so far as to say the XD1000/1 would "sound better" run full tilt than an HD750/1. I attribute it to the extra power.



With what, Subwoofer? Sure.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> who said anything about sound quality? I surely haven`t. I said sounds different, don`t put words into my mouth.


LOL. Ok, so what are you saying when you say it sounds different? Was I wrong to think you were insinuating that the HD's sound better due to greater expense?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> With what, Subwoofer? Sure.


With any 2 ohm subwoofer that can make use of 1000rms...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> LOL. Ok, so what are you saying when you say it sounds different? Was I wrong to think you were insinuating that the HD's sound better due to greater expense?


 You were insinuating yes. Sound different meaning distinguishable from each other.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> You were insinuating yes. Sound different meaning distinguishable from each other.


I was insinuating what? Distinguishable how?

So you were saying people purchase HD's at greater expense because they sound different, but not necessarily better? I don't get it...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> I was insinuating what? Distinguishable how?
> 
> So you were saying people purchase HD's at greater expense because they sound different, but not necessarily better? I don't get it...


I was hoping you tell me why anyone will choose HD over XD?
Idiots?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I was hoping you tell me why anyone will choose HD over XD?
> Idiots?


Now you are backpedaling. 

I already told you why... 

More power in a smaller package with greater consistency/flexibility (RIPS) and a more flexible crossover.

You're still insinuating that there is a different reason...


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> I was hoping you tell me why anyone will choose HD over XD?
> Idiots?


Already been answered, power, size, features.


----------



## CDT FAN

WRX/Z28 said:


> It's hilarious to watch, and the author always seems so smug in his statement that "I can hear it, so if you can't, you or your hearing must be inferior"
> 
> People just can't accept the fact that they don't understand where the differences are, and that they are from setup/tuning differences, and not the amp's themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that, I think you may be on the wrong forum. It's this kind of thinking that prevents advance in our hobby, and keeps you in the dark ages.
> 
> Measurements tell you what is actually changing when you are hearing a difference. Otherwise, you are taking an educated (or uneducated) guess at best.
> 
> TA and EQ account for environment and listening position. Listen to any good set of properly set up monitors while in the sweet spot, equal distance from the speaker. Then move to the left. If you hear a difference, you would benefit from even basic time alignment.
> 
> Now add a set of speakers behind you, and a move your sub further back than that. Hear a difference? You would benefit from more advanced time alignment.
> 
> Now remove the tweeters from your monitors, and aim them at each other about 18-24" above the rest of the monitor. Hear a difference? You would benefit from active crossovers and time alignment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which units are you talking about? Almost all current decks have T/A and some form of EQ built in, unless they are very basic. I'm sensing you are very uneducated on this subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bad sound quality? No. Mediocre at best? Yes. Can you add a processor to those decks and get better results? Absolutely. I don't think anyone with any real experience with these processors would argue otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very possible. It's easy to misunderstand how they function and end up with poor results. Experimentation will get you where you need to be. You can't just plug in some tuning numbers and cross your fingers, only to throw your hands in the air if they don't perform like you expected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Why not? What does it alter from input to output? Or what do you think an AB or D amp does?
> 
> 
> 
> No logical argument from you here. More of the "They sound different, I said so, so that's it." type of arguing.
> 
> I can tell that none of you have PROPERLY tested any of this for yourselves or you would have arrived at the same conclusion I did. I used to believe as you do. It was only when I objectively tested for myself and others that I found that "SQ" was not magically increased by an amplifier change. In fact, there was no audible difference when I couldn't see what was changed.
> 
> You guys really don't belong on this forum, at least not in it's heyday. Maybe things have changed now, and we've devolved into the myths and misnomers of car audio.
> 
> Keep up with the mindset that audio is all voodoo and magic, and science and measuring are for idiots. You'll go far with your setup this way.


You may be Mr, Smartypants, but who the hell pissed in your Wheaties? Try not to be such an arrogant know-it-all.


----------



## WRX/Z28

CDT FAN said:


> You may be Mr, Smartypants, but who the hell pissed in your Wheaties? Try not to be such an arrogant know-it-all.



Spreading misinformation is a peeve of mine. My intention is not to be "an arrogant know-it-all." It's simply to explain things as they are, and prevent people from subscribing to, and perpetuating the audio myths out there. 

If it comes across as negative, my apologies.


----------



## Victor_inox

Arrogance compensating for ignorance explains a lot.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Arrogance compensating for ignorance explains a lot.


Yes it does.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Yes it does.


That`s exactly how your statements came across.
people select certain things based on many things, not necessarily sound quality alone, that makes statements like whoever buying high end amplifiers just a moron who wasted his/her money nothing more than arrogant remark.


----------



## CDT FAN

WRX/Z28 said:


> Spreading misinformation is a peeve of mine. My intention is not to be "an arrogant know-it-all." It's simply to explain things as they are, and prevent people from subscribing to, and perpetuating the audio myths out there.
> 
> If it comes across as negative, my apologies.


Maybe I was a bit harsh.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> That`s exactly how your statements came across.
> people select certain things based on many things, not necessarily sound quality alone, that makes statements like whoever buying high end amplifiers just a moron who wasted his/her money nothing more than arrogant remark.


My statements are based in fact, with scientific testing backing them up over and over and over again. There was even a contest, where you could win $10,000. No one ever collected. 

Please show me where I said "whoever buying high end amplifiers just a moron who wasted his/her money "


----------



## 1styearsi

in my case i have a 4 volt out deck and the RF 500a2 had the gain's just cracked open and the same for the PPI.I tried to keep them as close as i could because i wanted to keep my driveway test as true as possible.the RF has rt+left separate gains and the PPI has 1 gain for both channel's.
like the man said it was not "day and night".but there was a audible difference.


----------



## WRX/Z28

CDT FAN said:


> Maybe I was a bit harsh.


No, I understand where I can come across like that. Unfortunately, encountering stout ignorance makes me reply that way.


----------



## Victor_inox

I love it like it`s always "all other things remain equal"......
other things never equal, different cars, different HU, different processors or luck of them, different requirements to appearance/ size, etc etc.... no complete system sounds the same regardless of equipment used. 
Did I ever said that for great sounding system one must use highest quality amplifier? 
Yes, one can build great system without spending fortune on highest quality equipment, that is true. it`s just easier to make great system with great equipment.


----------



## WRX/Z28

1styearsi said:


> in my case i have a 4 volt out deck and the RF 500a2 had the gain's just cracked open and the same for the PPI.I tried to keep them as close as i could because i wanted to keep my driveway test as true as possible.the RF has rt+left separate gains and the PPI has 1 gain for both channel's.
> like the man said it was not "day and night".but there was a audible difference.


The problem is, both amps could have the gain turned all the way up, all the way down, or halfway up, and still be set differently due to differences in design. This is one of the things people don't follow.

You need to level match by metering the output at the very least, you really should use an oscilloscope to ensure neither is clipping.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I love it like it`s always "all other things remain equal"......
> other things never equal, different cars, different HU, different processors or luck of them, different requirements to appearance/ size, etc etc.... no complete system sounds the same regardless of equipment used.
> Did I ever said that for great sounding system one must use highest quality amplifier?
> Yes, one can build great system without spending fortune on highest quality equipment, that is true. it`s just easier to make great system with great equipment.


This is true, and the differences you just went through cause the differences in sound, not some magic in the amp.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> This is true, and the differences you just went through cause the differences in sound, not some magic in the amp.


 You really should stop reading between lines especially if there nothing written between them.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> The problem is, both amps could have the gain turned all the way up, all the way down, or halfway up, and still be set differently due to differences in design. This is one of the things people don't follow.
> 
> You need to level match by metering the output at the very least, you really should use an oscilloscope to ensure neither is clipping.


 What he is saying here is that even when gains set to the same degree pots are never linear and output differ, without oscilloscope is not possible to evaluate correctly.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> You really should stop reading between lines especially if there nothing written between them.


LOL, there's definitely nothing written on them. Nothing of consequence anyway. :laugh:



Please understand: I am not saying that if you swap amps you won't hear a difference. I'm saying that the difference is not in the amp, but the swap, and the inadvertent change in settings/power as a consequence.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> What he is saying here is that even when gains set to the same degree pots are never linear and output differ, without oscilloscope is not possible to evaluate correctly.


Precisely.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> LOL, there's definitely nothing written on them. Nothing of consequence anyway. :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> Please understand: I am not saying that if you swap amps you won't hear a difference. I'm saying that the difference is not in the amp, but the swap, and the inadvertent change in settings/power as a consequence.



I hear what you saying I just disagree that`s all what matters. amp react differently depending on load, drivers impedance curves, inductance, etc.
Like you noted before it`s science not some magic, problem is that science is not fully understood.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I hear what you saying I just disagree that`s all what matters. amp react differently depending on load, drivers impedance curves, inductance, etc.
> Like you noted before it`s science not some magic, problem is that science is not fully understood.


React differently how? Different FR? Different power output? The science here is not all that difficult...


----------



## palldat

WRX/Z28 said:


> How can I not possibly know that? If it were matched 100% he would have said so since doing so is an extremely important detail.
> 
> HD amps make more power model for model than XD. Assuming he chose a more powerful HD amp only makes sense.
> 
> HD's also make power more consistently, across a wider range of impedances and voltages.
> 
> XD amps are larger for the same or more power output than HD, so... huh?
> 
> 
> Compare XD1000/1v2 and HD1200/1, then XD700/5 and HD900/5 size and power wise. HD's are slightly wider, but much shorter. Put the two side by side, and the HD is clearly smaller.



Yes the power was different but the levels were set the same. Went from the XD700-5 to the HD900-5

So the question was...did it sound different? Could I notice the difference? Yes to both. Does not mean that the 700-5 was a bad choice. I prefered the sound of the HD.
Coke? Pepsi? well even they taste different to each other year to year.

In the end what do you like best? Doesn't matter what others think. We all hear things differently.

Probably all mental as someone stated earlier.

I am out of the conversation now. All the real pros may continue.


----------



## WRX/Z28

palldat said:


> Yes the power was different but the levels were set the same. Went from the XD700-5 to the HD900-5



How were they set the same? The 900/5 makes 25 watts more per channel on the 4 channel section, and 200-300 watts more on the sub section. You're telling me you swapped amps, and dropped the 900/5 down to the 700/5's output? Why would you do this? 




palldat said:


> So the question was...did it sound different? Could I notice the difference? Yes to both. Does not mean that the 700-5 was a bad choice. I prefered the sound of the HD.
> Coke? Pepsi? well even they taste different to each other year to year.
> 
> In the end what do you like best? Doesn't matter what others think. We all hear things differently.
> 
> Probably all mental as someone stated earlier.
> 
> I am out of the conversation now. All the real pros may continue.


The 900/5 simply makes more power, so it will sound "better".


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> React differently how? Different FR? Different power output? The science here is not all that difficult...


 Sadly it`s more difficult that you set to believe.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Sadly it`s more difficult that you set to believe.


It's really not.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> It's really not.


 I suggest we agree to disagree....


----------



## SAudio

Victor_inox said:


> I suggest we agree to disagree....


No! I would put it this way:










And, of course...


----------



## Victor_inox

SAudio said:


> No! I would put it this way:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course...


 DAmn right!


----------



## subwoofery

WRX/Z28 said:


> React differently how? Different FR? Different power output? The science here is not all that difficult...


You've quoted my signature and I'm quite sure you agree with Lycan. 
He stated many times that amps sounded different if one of the following were different: 
* gain 
* distortion 
* noise 
* freq response 
* power

See my post below (yes I know, I've posted it many times but everyone likes to ignore it )



subwoofery said:


> Buy looking at some tests done on some amps, I've noticed a trend - the warm sound we hear from some amps doesn't come from the freq response but from the distorsion figures over the whole spectrum (usually above 1kHz). Here are a few examples:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also want to point out that the distorsion figures we see doesn't necessarily mean that "warm" amps have the highest "Total Harmonic Distorsion" numbers.
> "Warm" amps:
> Audison - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.138%
> DLS Ref - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.029%
> Mosconi - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.07%
> Sinfoni - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.02%
> 
> "Clinical" amps:
> Brax X2 - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.44% (not a mistake)
> DLS TA2 - yes, this hybrid tube amp actually exhibits more of a clinical sound. It's THD @ 4 ohm is 0.046%
> Focal - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.028%
> Zapco - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.005%
> 
> Let's discuss
> 
> Kelvin


Every amp has a different distortion profile when playing a 1kHz tone. 

Building a wire with a gain - if only it was that simple... 

Ohh, and regarding the $10,000 challenge, you did not understand the concept very well... It's not that amps sound identical, it's that amps can be made to sound identical with precision tools that modify the gain, phase and distortion <-- no car audio processor can do that as far as I know. 

Kelvin 

PS: my scientific approach


----------



## tjswarbrick

subwoofery said:


> Building a wire with a gain - if only it was that simple...


Thank you.


----------



## Victor_inox

Good one, again!


----------



## SAudio

subwoofery said:


> You've quoted my signature and I'm quite sure you agree with Lycan.
> He stated many times that amps sounded different if one of the following were different:
> * gain
> * distortion
> * noise
> * freq response
> * power
> 
> See my post below (yes I know, I've posted it many times but everyone likes to ignore it )
> 
> 
> 
> Every amp has a different distortion profile when playing a 1kHz tone.
> 
> Building a wire with a gain - if only it was that simple...
> 
> Ohh, and regarding the $10,000 challenge, you did not understand the concept very well... It's not that amps sound identical, it's that amps can be made to sound identical with precision tools that modify the gain, phase and distortion <-- no car audio processor can do that as far as I know.
> 
> Kelvin
> 
> PS: my scientific approach


Good one. And as I said before, they sound different, you can even find differences between channels (reason why Mark Levison matches components on each side and other few manufacturers do too)

There is one thing do. The fact that the amplifier is more expensive, does not really mean it will be better (although 99,99% of the time they are)

I recall back in the day, an amp everyone talked about. I think Nelson Pass was involved at some time with its development. But unfortunately the amp was not as good as it was supposed to be. Not even as good as it looked. But there are few amps expensive amps that will not sound better than others.

I am talking about this one:










If you measure it, you will be amazed with the response (not a straight line) not really as good as expected. But, at the time, it was stunning and with all its channels it was also revolutionary. Not to talk about the Balanced connection between the source and it.

On another note, higher end SQ amps can outperform even good powerful things like earthkwakes.

I should know. I went into contest with a friend with two Audison Trenta Thesis, two dual coil DLS 500W subs (1 amp per sub) and won first prize with almost 170dbs (169,2) on that stupid sound pressure contest everyone loves so much.

We did it to prove a point, and the point was, if an amp is good, it is good for anything. And we were right 

https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...dSeccao=838&Action=noticia&edit-text=&act=url


----------



## cajunner

guys, guys...

I've already solved this mystery, eons ago.

the thing to remember, is that all amps that are commercially successful, usually have circuits that are sufficiently low noise, low distortion, and can add gain to a signal within a low tolerance window, usually no more than plus or minus 1 db from 20 hz to 20 khz.

this makes it very hard to distinguish between amps operating inside their unclipped envelope of power, when they are set to the same input gain.

amps that can make more power than their ratings, will naturally sound cleaner when compared with amps that make less than their ratings, but only if you push them to outside of the linear operation envelope.

amps at clipping, display various quirks and some are very audible, some not so much.

the whole "amps can be made to sound the same" argument, should be thrown out as ********, or complete myth, since nobody except Bob Carver and Richard Clark, has the necessary audio shaping tools hanging around to adjust one amp (or both) to sound the same.

you pay for the circuit, and if the circuit is good, the designer can make money.

why else would there be "knowns" in the industry, like Nelson Pass or Carver or Zeff or Mantz, if what they did didn't matter?

Fosgate designed the Punch circuit, and it changed the status quo for a while, decades...

now the emphasis is on zero coloration, flat FR from 0 hz to infinity, unlimited power reserves, etc. but back in the day, these were simple designs, look at Linear Power's first PC boards, how much simpler can it get?

the thing I see most important about an amp's eventual "sound" or sonic standing, in the marketplace is that the more complex amps usually get the most praise. 

Look at the PPI F2500 or whatever that thing is called, it's a wonder... and the Sony 2000 model, that is also a lot of amp...

heck, even the Crown/JBL big boys, were pretty special.

but is a Luxman, really the sum of it's parts, or is it just about as complicated as an old Art Series PPI, in prettier dress?

the circuit, makes the sound.

if the designer of the amp has a relatively known name, chances are good that he created a circuit somewhere, that impressed at one time or another...


I guess what I'm trying to say is higher end amps sound better than cheap, mass-produced offshore product, and yet it's going to be hard to tell the difference if you match the gains on similarly powered product.

all that writing and I didn't solve anything, then...


----------



## quality_sound

WRX/Z28 said:


> How were they set the same? The 900/5 makes 25 watts more per channel on the 4 channel section, and 200-300 watts more on the sub section. You're telling me you swapped amps, and dropped the 900/5 down to the 700/5's output? Why would you do this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 900/5 simply makes more power, so it will sound "better".



If the levels are matched it isn't making more power, it just has the capability. If you drive an F-150 and an M3 at 65 MPH is one faster? Of course not. Same thing here. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WRX/Z28

quality_sound said:


> If the levels are matched it isn't making more power, it just has the capability. If you drive an F-150 and an M3 at 65 MPH is one faster? Of course not. Same thing here.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That was my point, no one would match the levels, it would defeat the point of going to the more powerful amp.


----------



## WRX/Z28

subwoofery said:


> You've quoted my signature and I'm quite sure you agree with Lycan.
> He stated many times that amps sounded different if one of the following were different:
> * gain
> * distortion
> * noise
> * freq response
> * power
> 
> See my post below (yes I know, I've posted it many times but everyone likes to ignore it )


No, I quoted Lycan's post, the one you blatantly use out of context, purposely leaving out the vital middle of his explanation. It's very deceptive, and I'm not the only one that noticed, and call you out on it... 

He's also said that distortion and noise are so low in amps that they are inaudible, and that FR in most amps are ruler flat, and the few that aren't can be corrected for via EQ easily, or avoided altogether. 




subwoofery said:


> Every amp has a different distortion profile when playing a 1kHz tone.
> 
> Building a wire with a gain - if only it was that simple...
> 
> Ohh, and regarding the $10,000 challenge, you did not understand the concept very well... It's not that amps sound identical, it's that amps can be made to sound identical with precision tools that modify the gain, phase and distortion <-- no car audio processor can do that as far as I know.
> 
> Kelvin
> 
> PS: my scientific approach


I think you misunderstood the challenge, or are attempting to spin it to mean something it didn't. RC explained that there was no magic in amplifiers, and that FR variances were very easy to account for. Once FR was taken out of the equation, amps were indistinguishable from one another when used within the clipping limits of the weaker amp. Precision tools are not used, but rather a simple EQ. 

He also went on to say that the vast majority of amps have a flat FR, and needed no EQ to sound indistinguishable from one another. He also said that it was relatively easy to build an amp that accomplished the single task of taking an input signal and making it bigger...


----------



## WRX/Z28

"Richard Clark $10,000 Amplifier Challenge FAQ 

by Tom Morrow 

Written 6/2006 

The Richard Clark Amp Challenge is a listening test intended to show that as long as a modern audio amplifier is operated within its linear range (below clipping), the differences between amps are inaudible to the human ear. Because thousands of people have taken the test, the test is significant to the audiophile debate over audibility of amplifier differences. This document was written to summarize what the test is, and answer common questions about the test. Richard Clark was not involved in writing this document. 

The challenge 

Richard Clark is an audio professional. Like many audiophiles, he originally believed the magazines and marketing materials that different amplifier topologies and components colored the sound in unique, clearly audible ways. He later did experiments to quantify and qualify these effects, and was surprised to find them inaudible when volume and other factors were matched. 

His challenge is an offer of $10,000 of his own money to anyone who could identify which of two amplifiers was which, by listening only, under a set of rules that he conceived to make sure they both measure “good enough” and are set up the same. Reports are that thousands of people have taken the test, and none has passed the test. Nobody has been able to show an audible difference between two amps under the test rules. 

This article will attempt to summarize the important rules and ramifications of the test, but for clarity and brevity some uncontroversial, obvious, or inconsequential rules are left out of this article. The full rules, from which much of this article was derived, are available here and a collection of Richard's comments are available here. 

Testing procedure 

The testing uses an ABX test device where the listener can switch between hearing amplifier A, amplifier B, and a randomly generated amplifier X which is either A or B. The listener's job is to decide whether source X sounds like A or B. The listener inputs their guess into a computerized scoring system, and they go on to the next identification. The listener can control the volume, within the linear (non-clipped) range of the amps. The listener has full control over the CD player as well. The listener can take as long as they want to switch back and forth between A, B, and X at will. 

Passing the test requires two sets of 12 correct identifications, for a total of 24 correct identifications. To speed things up, a preliminary round of 8 identifications, sometimes done without levels or other parameters perfectly matched, is a prerequisite. 

Richard Clark normally has CD source, amplifiers, high quality home audio speakers, and listening environment set up in advance. But if the listener requests, they can substitute whatever source, source material, amplifiers, speakers (even headphones), and listening environment they prefer, within stipulated practical limits. The source material must be commercially available music, not test signals. Richard Clark stipulates that the amplifiers must be brand name, standard production, linear voltage amplifiers, and they must not fail (e.g. thermal shutdown) during the test. 

Amplifier requirements 

The amplifiers in the test must be operated within their linear power capacity. Power capacity is defined as clipping or 2% THD 20Hz to 10kHz, whichever is less. This means that if one amplifier has more power (Watts) than the other, the amplifiers will be judged within the power range of the least powerful amplifier . 

The levels of both left and right channels will be adjusted to match to within .05 dB. Polarity of connections must be maintained so that the signal is not inverted. Left and Right cannot be reversed. Neither amplifier can exhibit excessive noise. Channel separation of the amps must be at least 30 dB from 20Hz to 20kHz. 

All signal processing circuitry (e.g. bass boost, filters) must be turned off, and if the amplifier still exhibits nonlinear frequency response, an equalizer will be set by Richard Clark and inserted inline with one of the amps so that they both exhibit identical frequency response. The listener can choose which amplifier gets the equalizer . 

FAQs: 

How many people have taken the challenge? 

Richard Clark says over a couple thousand people have taken the test, and nobody has passed. He used to do the test for large groups of people at various audio seminars, and didn't charge individuals to do the test, which accounted for the vast majority of the people who did the test. Around 1996 was the last of the big tests, and since then he has done the test for small numbers of people on request, for a charge ($200 for unaffiliated individuals, $500 for people representing companies).

When did the challenge start?

Sometime around the year 1990. Richard Clark says in a post on 7/2004 that the test with the $10,000 prize started about 15 years ago. 

What were the results of the test? 

Nobody has ever successfully passed the test. Richard Clark says that generally the number of correct responses was about the same as the number of incorrect responses, which would be consistent with random guessing. He says in large groups he never observed variation more than 51/49%, but for smaller groups it might vary as much as 60/40%. He doesn't keep detailed logs of the responses because he said they always show random responses. 

Is two sets of 12 correct responses a stringent requirement? 

Yes. Richard Clark intentionally made the requirements strict because with thousands of people taking the test, even random guessing would eventually cause someone to pass the test if the bar was set low. Since he is offering his own $10,000 to anyone who will pass the test, he wants to protect against the possibility of losing it to random guessing. 

However, if the listener is willing to put up their own money for the test as a bet, he will lower the requirements from 12 correct down to as low as 6 correct. 

Richard Clark has said “22 out of 24 would be statistically significant. In fact it would prove that the results were audible. Any AVERAGE score more than 65% would do so. But no one has even done that”.” 

Do most commercially available amplifiers qualify for this test, even tube amplifiers and class D amplifiers? 

Yes. Nearly all currently available amplifiers have specs better than what are required for the test. Tube amplifiers generally qualify, as do full range class D amplifiers. It is not clear whether Richard Clark would allow sub amplifiers with a limited frequency response. 

Besides taking Richard Clark's word, how can the results of the test be verified? 

Many car audio professionals have taken the test and/or witnessed the test being taken in audio seminars, so there isn't much doubt that the test actually existed and was taken by many people. One respected professional who has taken and witnessed the test is Mark Eldridge. Because the test has been discussed widely on audio internet forums, if there were people who passed the test it seems likely that we would have heard about it. Sometimes there are reports of people who believe they passed the test, but upon further examination it turns out that they only passed the preliminary round of 8 tests, where levels were not matched as closely as for the final test. 

How can audio consumers use the results of this test? 

When purchasing an amplifier, they can ignore the subjective sound quality claims of marketers. Many amplifier marketers will claim or imply that their amplifiers have some special topology, materials, or magic that makes the sound clearly superior to other amps at all volume levels. Many consumers pay several times more than they otherwise would for that intangible sound quality they think they are getting. This test indicates that the main determinant of sound quality is the amount of power the amplifier can deliver. When played at 150W, an expensive 100W measured amplifier will clip and sound worse than a cheap 200W measured amp. 

Does this mean all amps sound the same in a normal install? 

No. Richard Clark is very careful to say that amps usually do not sound the same in the real world. The gain setting of an amplifier can make huge differences in how an amplifier sounds, as can details like how crossovers or other filters are set. When played very loud (into clipping), the amplifier with more power will generally sound better than a lower powered amp. 

Most people perceive slight differences in amplitude as quality differences rather than loudness. The louder component sounds “faster, more detailed, more full”, not just louder. This perceptual phenomenon is responsible for many people thinking they liked the sound of a component when really they just liked the way it was set up. 

I changed amps in my system to another one with the same measured power and I hear a sound quality difference. Does this show that the test results are invalid? 

No. Installing a new amplifier involves setting the gains and crossovers, and any slight change you make to those settings is going to affect how things sound. 

Is adding an equalizer just a way of “dumbing down” the better amplifier ? 

Richard Clark allows the equalizer to be added to whichever amplifier the listener wants. It can be added to the amplifier that the listener perceives as the weaker amplifier . The EQ is most likely to be used when comparing a tube amplifier (which exhibits slight high frequency rolloff) to a solid state amplifier . In that case Richard Clark says he can usually fashion an equalizer out of just a resistor and/or capacitor which for just a few dollars makes the solid state amplifier exhibit the same rolloff as the tube amplifier, and therefore sound the same. If the tube amplifier really sounded better, then modifying the solid state amplifier to sound indistinguishable from it for a few bucks should be a great improvement. 

How might allowing clipping in the test affect the results? 

It's impossible to know for sure because that would be a different test that has not been done. But Richard Clark seems to think that in clipping, conventional amplifiers would sound about the same, and tube amplifiers would sound different from solid state amplifiers. 

Richard Clark reported that he did some preliminary experiments to determine how clipping sounds on different amplifiers . He recorded the amplifier output using special equipment at clipping, 12db over clipping, 18db over clipping, and 24db over clipping. Then he normalized the levels and listened. His perception was that with the same amount of overdrive, the conventional amplifiers sounded the same. With the same amount of overdrive the tube amplifiers sounded worse than the conventional amplifiers . On the basis of that experiment, he said “I believe I am willing to modify my amplifier challenge to allow any amount of clipping as long as the amplifiers have power ratings (actual not advertised) within 10% of each other. This would have to exclude tube amplifiers as they seem to sound much worse and it is obvious” 

If a manufacturer reports false power ratings, will that interfere with the test? 

No. The test is based on measured power, not rated power .

Does this mean that there is no audible difference between sources, or between speakers? 

No. There are listening tests that show small but significant differences among some sources (for instance early CD players versus modern CD players). And speakers typically have 25% or more harmonic distortion. Most everyone agrees that differences among speakers are audible.

Does the phrase "a watt is a watt" convey what this test is about?

Not quite but close. Richard Clark has stated that some amplifiers (such as tubes) have nonlinear frequency response, so a watt from them would not be the same as a watt from an amplifier with flat frequency response.

Do the results indicate I should buy the cheapest amp? 

No. You should buy the best amplifier for your purpose. Some of the factors to consider are: reliability, build quality, cooling performance, flexibility, quality of mechanical connections, reputation of manufacturer, special features, size, weight, aesthetics, and cost. Buying the cheapest amplifier will likely get you an unreliable amplifier that is difficult to use and might not have the needed features. The only factor that this test indicates you can ignore is sound quality below clipping. 

If you have a choice between a well built reliable low cost amp, and an expensive amplifier that isn't reliable but has a better reputation for sound quality, it can be inferred from this test that you would get more sound for your money by choosing the former.

Do home audio amps qualify for the test? 

Yes. In the 2005 version of the test rules, Richard explicitly allows 120V amplifiers in a note at the end. 

How can people take the test? 

They should contact Richard Clark for the details. As of 2006 Richard Clark is reported to not have a public email account, and David Navone handles technical inquiries for him. Most likely they will need to pay a testing fee and get themselves to his east coast facility. 

Is this test still ongoing? 

As of early 2006 , there have not been any recent reports of people taking the test, but it appears to still be open to people who take the initiative to get tested. 

Do the results prove inaudibility of amplifier differences below clipping? 

It's impossible to scientifically prove the lack of something. You cannot prove that there is no Bigfoot monster, because no matter how hard you look, it is always possible that Bigfoot is in the place you didn't look. Similarly, there could always be a amplifier combination or listener for which the test would show an audible difference. So from a scientific point of view, the word “prove” should not be used in reference to the results of this test. 

What the test does do is give a degree of certainty that such an audible difference does not exist. 

What do people who disagree with the test say? 

Some objections that have been raised about the test: 
•Richard Clark has a strong opinion on this issue and therefore might bias his reports. 
•In the real world people use amps in the clipping zone, and the test does not cover that situation. 
•Some audible artifacts are undetectable individually, but when combined with other artifacts they may become audible as a whole. For instance cutting a single graphic EQ level by one db may not be audible, but cutting lots of different EQ levels by the same amount may be audible. Maybe the amps have defects that are only audible when combined with the defects from a particular source, speaker, or system. 
•Some listeners feel that they can't relax enough to notice subtle differences when they have to make a large number of choices such as in this test. 
•There is a lack of organized results. Richard Clark only reports his general impressions of the results, but did not keep track of all the scores. He does not know exactly how many people have taken the test, or how many of the people scored “better than average”. 
•If someone scored significantly better than average, which might mean that they heard audible differences, it is not clear whether Richard Clark followed up and repeated the test enough times with them to verify that the score was not statistically significant. 

Is there one sentence that can describe what the test is designed to show? 

When compared evenly, the sonic differences between amplifiers operated below clipping are below the audible threshold of human hearing."

For those that need a refresher on the test.


----------



## cajunner

very nice.

I could amend the "one sentence" to state that the capacity for human hearing is fixed, and hundreds of people who believe they could beat the test, and therefore had some skin in the game, could not discern the better amp.


that falls into the threshold of human hearing, but this seems to be where most "golden ears" hinge on, whether or not the test is valid and there isn't small differences that are escaping these tester's control group, some variable that isn't accounted for in scientific methods that would appear time and again, in the "I don't know what to call it, but I heard it" category.

it's a scary thought that the Chinese mass produced, lowest price denominator, hunks of cheap aluminum glued to cheap PC boards, will give you good enough response that you can't fish out the McIntosh or the Threshold from a panel of selector buttons.


----------



## 1styearsi

Victor_inox said:


> I love it like it`s always "all other things remain equal"......
> other things never equal, different cars, different HU, different processors or luck of them, different requirements to appearance/ size, etc etc.... no complete system sounds the same regardless of equipment used.
> Did I ever said that for great sounding system one must use highest quality amplifier?
> Yes, one can build great system without spending fortune on highest quality equipment, that is true. it`s just easier to make great system with great equipment.


you are right ya you can get lucky and rock a complete BOSS system and possibly sound good.but you still have **** equipment.
kinda like you could put a turbo in a ford tempo and it may be fast.
but no matter what you do you have a ford tempo.


----------



## Jesus Christ

1styearsi said:


> you are right ya you can get lucky and rock a complete BOSS system and possibly sound good.but you still have **** equipment.


How can something sound good and still be considered ****? It's audio, the only thing that matters is how it sounds.


----------



## WRX/Z28

1styearsi said:


> you are right ya you can get lucky and rock a complete BOSS system and possibly sound good.but you still have **** equipment.
> kinda like you could put a turbo in a ford tempo and it may be fast.
> but no matter what you do you have a ford tempo.





Jesus Christ said:


> How can something sound good and still be considered ****? It's audio, the only thing that matters is how it sounds.


Just shows that some dolts would buy the more expensive, and more prestigious product, even if it was proven to perform no better than the cheaper one...


----------



## Victor_inox

NEw page yay!
People who thinks all amps sounds the same should buy cheapest, ****tiest amplifiers Peoples Republic of China has to offer and leave high quality equipment to those who can appreciate engineering and craftsmanship behind it.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> How can something sound good and still be considered ****? It's audio, the only thing that matters is how it sounds.


Not for everyone. It`s also matters how well it build, how long it will last, how it looks, how much space it takes. 
For some of us how well it`s engineered is more important than price per watt.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> NEw page yay!
> People who thinks all amps sounds the same should buy cheapest, ****tiest amplifiers Peoples Republic of China has to offer and leave high quality equipment to those who can appreciate engineering and craftsmanship behind it.


"Is there one sentence that can describe what the test is designed to show? 

When compared evenly, the sonic differences between amplifiers operated below clipping are below the audible threshold of human hearing."


----------



## 1styearsi

Victor_inox said:


> NEw page yay!
> People who thinks all amps sounds the same should buy cheapest, ****tiest amplifiers Peoples Republic of China has to offer and leave high quality equipment to those who can appreciate engineering and craftsmanship behind it.


:bowdown: thank you!


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> "Is there one sentence that can describe what the test is designed to show?
> 
> When compared evenly, the sonic differences between amplifiers operated below clipping are below the audible threshold of human hearing."


 I don`t care who do you quote, why the hell I have to respect their opinion?
I have my own settled by education experience and my own hearing.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I don`t care who do you quote, why the hell I have to respect their opinion?
> I have my own settled by education experience and my own hearing.


LOL, sounds like you already know... you're just too proud.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> "Is there one sentence that can describe what the test is designed to show?
> 
> When compared evenly, the sonic differences between amplifiers operated below clipping are below the audible threshold of human hearing."


Do you have your own opinion?
How many amplifiers you personally designed? 
I`d love to see that wire with gain you were talking about.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Do you have your own opinion?
> How many amplifiers you personally designed?
> I`d love to see that wire with gain you were talking about.


I've built an amplifier before, in high school as a matter of fact.  I wonder if it's still at my parents house. 

Reverting to ignoring the reality, and changing the subject? 

This was a well known test, and results were pretty conclusive...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> LOL, sounds like you already know... you're just too proud.


You know


----------



## WRX/Z28

Read it, learn it, understand it: 

"Richard Clark $10,000 Amplifier Challenge FAQ 

by Tom Morrow 

Written 6/2006 

The Richard Clark Amp Challenge is a listening test intended to show that as long as a modern audio amplifier is operated within its linear range (below clipping), the differences between amps are inaudible to the human ear. Because thousands of people have taken the test, the test is significant to the audiophile debate over audibility of amplifier differences. This document was written to summarize what the test is, and answer common questions about the test. Richard Clark was not involved in writing this document. 

The challenge 

Richard Clark is an audio professional. Like many audiophiles, he originally believed the magazines and marketing materials that different amplifier topologies and components colored the sound in unique, clearly audible ways. He later did experiments to quantify and qualify these effects, and was surprised to find them inaudible when volume and other factors were matched. 

His challenge is an offer of $10,000 of his own money to anyone who could identify which of two amplifiers was which, by listening only, under a set of rules that he conceived to make sure they both measure “good enough” and are set up the same. Reports are that thousands of people have taken the test, and none has passed the test. Nobody has been able to show an audible difference between two amps under the test rules. 

This article will attempt to summarize the important rules and ramifications of the test, but for clarity and brevity some uncontroversial, obvious, or inconsequential rules are left out of this article. The full rules, from which much of this article was derived, are available here and a collection of Richard's comments are available here. 

Testing procedure 

The testing uses an ABX test device where the listener can switch between hearing amplifier A, amplifier B, and a randomly generated amplifier X which is either A or B. The listener's job is to decide whether source X sounds like A or B. The listener inputs their guess into a computerized scoring system, and they go on to the next identification. The listener can control the volume, within the linear (non-clipped) range of the amps. The listener has full control over the CD player as well. The listener can take as long as they want to switch back and forth between A, B, and X at will. 

Passing the test requires two sets of 12 correct identifications, for a total of 24 correct identifications. To speed things up, a preliminary round of 8 identifications, sometimes done without levels or other parameters perfectly matched, is a prerequisite. 

Richard Clark normally has CD source, amplifiers, high quality home audio speakers, and listening environment set up in advance. But if the listener requests, they can substitute whatever source, source material, amplifiers, speakers (even headphones), and listening environment they prefer, within stipulated practical limits. The source material must be commercially available music, not test signals. Richard Clark stipulates that the amplifiers must be brand name, standard production, linear voltage amplifiers, and they must not fail (e.g. thermal shutdown) during the test. 

Amplifier requirements 

The amplifiers in the test must be operated within their linear power capacity. Power capacity is defined as clipping or 2% THD 20Hz to 10kHz, whichever is less. This means that if one amplifier has more power (Watts) than the other, the amplifiers will be judged within the power range of the least powerful amplifier . 

The levels of both left and right channels will be adjusted to match to within .05 dB. Polarity of connections must be maintained so that the signal is not inverted. Left and Right cannot be reversed. Neither amplifier can exhibit excessive noise. Channel separation of the amps must be at least 30 dB from 20Hz to 20kHz. 

All signal processing circuitry (e.g. bass boost, filters) must be turned off, and if the amplifier still exhibits nonlinear frequency response, an equalizer will be set by Richard Clark and inserted inline with one of the amps so that they both exhibit identical frequency response. The listener can choose which amplifier gets the equalizer . 

FAQs: 

How many people have taken the challenge? 

Richard Clark says over a couple thousand people have taken the test, and nobody has passed. He used to do the test for large groups of people at various audio seminars, and didn't charge individuals to do the test, which accounted for the vast majority of the people who did the test. Around 1996 was the last of the big tests, and since then he has done the test for small numbers of people on request, for a charge ($200 for unaffiliated individuals, $500 for people representing companies).

When did the challenge start?

Sometime around the year 1990. Richard Clark says in a post on 7/2004 that the test with the $10,000 prize started about 15 years ago. 

What were the results of the test? 

Nobody has ever successfully passed the test. Richard Clark says that generally the number of correct responses was about the same as the number of incorrect responses, which would be consistent with random guessing. He says in large groups he never observed variation more than 51/49%, but for smaller groups it might vary as much as 60/40%. He doesn't keep detailed logs of the responses because he said they always show random responses. 

Is two sets of 12 correct responses a stringent requirement? 

Yes. Richard Clark intentionally made the requirements strict because with thousands of people taking the test, even random guessing would eventually cause someone to pass the test if the bar was set low. Since he is offering his own $10,000 to anyone who will pass the test, he wants to protect against the possibility of losing it to random guessing. 

However, if the listener is willing to put up their own money for the test as a bet, he will lower the requirements from 12 correct down to as low as 6 correct. 

Richard Clark has said “22 out of 24 would be statistically significant. In fact it would prove that the results were audible. Any AVERAGE score more than 65% would do so. But no one has even done that”.” 

Do most commercially available amplifiers qualify for this test, even tube amplifiers and class D amplifiers? 

Yes. Nearly all currently available amplifiers have specs better than what are required for the test. Tube amplifiers generally qualify, as do full range class D amplifiers. It is not clear whether Richard Clark would allow sub amplifiers with a limited frequency response. 

Besides taking Richard Clark's word, how can the results of the test be verified? 

Many car audio professionals have taken the test and/or witnessed the test being taken in audio seminars, so there isn't much doubt that the test actually existed and was taken by many people. One respected professional who has taken and witnessed the test is Mark Eldridge. Because the test has been discussed widely on audio internet forums, if there were people who passed the test it seems likely that we would have heard about it. Sometimes there are reports of people who believe they passed the test, but upon further examination it turns out that they only passed the preliminary round of 8 tests, where levels were not matched as closely as for the final test. 

How can audio consumers use the results of this test? 

When purchasing an amplifier, they can ignore the subjective sound quality claims of marketers. Many amplifier marketers will claim or imply that their amplifiers have some special topology, materials, or magic that makes the sound clearly superior to other amps at all volume levels. Many consumers pay several times more than they otherwise would for that intangible sound quality they think they are getting. This test indicates that the main determinant of sound quality is the amount of power the amplifier can deliver. When played at 150W, an expensive 100W measured amplifier will clip and sound worse than a cheap 200W measured amp. 

Does this mean all amps sound the same in a normal install? 

No. Richard Clark is very careful to say that amps usually do not sound the same in the real world. The gain setting of an amplifier can make huge differences in how an amplifier sounds, as can details like how crossovers or other filters are set. When played very loud (into clipping), the amplifier with more power will generally sound better than a lower powered amp. 

Most people perceive slight differences in amplitude as quality differences rather than loudness. The louder component sounds “faster, more detailed, more full”, not just louder. This perceptual phenomenon is responsible for many people thinking they liked the sound of a component when really they just liked the way it was set up. 

I changed amps in my system to another one with the same measured power and I hear a sound quality difference. Does this show that the test results are invalid? 

No. Installing a new amplifier involves setting the gains and crossovers, and any slight change you make to those settings is going to affect how things sound. 

Is adding an equalizer just a way of “dumbing down” the better amplifier ? 

Richard Clark allows the equalizer to be added to whichever amplifier the listener wants. It can be added to the amplifier that the listener perceives as the weaker amplifier . The EQ is most likely to be used when comparing a tube amplifier (which exhibits slight high frequency rolloff) to a solid state amplifier . In that case Richard Clark says he can usually fashion an equalizer out of just a resistor and/or capacitor which for just a few dollars makes the solid state amplifier exhibit the same rolloff as the tube amplifier, and therefore sound the same. If the tube amplifier really sounded better, then modifying the solid state amplifier to sound indistinguishable from it for a few bucks should be a great improvement. 

How might allowing clipping in the test affect the results? 

It's impossible to know for sure because that would be a different test that has not been done. But Richard Clark seems to think that in clipping, conventional amplifiers would sound about the same, and tube amplifiers would sound different from solid state amplifiers. 

Richard Clark reported that he did some preliminary experiments to determine how clipping sounds on different amplifiers . He recorded the amplifier output using special equipment at clipping, 12db over clipping, 18db over clipping, and 24db over clipping. Then he normalized the levels and listened. His perception was that with the same amount of overdrive, the conventional amplifiers sounded the same. With the same amount of overdrive the tube amplifiers sounded worse than the conventional amplifiers . On the basis of that experiment, he said “I believe I am willing to modify my amplifier challenge to allow any amount of clipping as long as the amplifiers have power ratings (actual not advertised) within 10% of each other. This would have to exclude tube amplifiers as they seem to sound much worse and it is obvious” 

If a manufacturer reports false power ratings, will that interfere with the test? 

No. The test is based on measured power, not rated power .

Does this mean that there is no audible difference between sources, or between speakers? 

No. There are listening tests that show small but significant differences among some sources (for instance early CD players versus modern CD players). And speakers typically have 25% or more harmonic distortion. Most everyone agrees that differences among speakers are audible.

Does the phrase "a watt is a watt" convey what this test is about?

Not quite but close. Richard Clark has stated that some amplifiers (such as tubes) have nonlinear frequency response, so a watt from them would not be the same as a watt from an amplifier with flat frequency response.

Do the results indicate I should buy the cheapest amp? 

No. You should buy the best amplifier for your purpose. Some of the factors to consider are: reliability, build quality, cooling performance, flexibility, quality of mechanical connections, reputation of manufacturer, special features, size, weight, aesthetics, and cost. Buying the cheapest amplifier will likely get you an unreliable amplifier that is difficult to use and might not have the needed features. The only factor that this test indicates you can ignore is sound quality below clipping. 

If you have a choice between a well built reliable low cost amp, and an expensive amplifier that isn't reliable but has a better reputation for sound quality, it can be inferred from this test that you would get more sound for your money by choosing the former.

Do home audio amps qualify for the test? 

Yes. In the 2005 version of the test rules, Richard explicitly allows 120V amplifiers in a note at the end. 

How can people take the test? 

They should contact Richard Clark for the details. As of 2006 Richard Clark is reported to not have a public email account, and David Navone handles technical inquiries for him. Most likely they will need to pay a testing fee and get themselves to his east coast facility. 

Is this test still ongoing? 

As of early 2006 , there have not been any recent reports of people taking the test, but it appears to still be open to people who take the initiative to get tested. 

Do the results prove inaudibility of amplifier differences below clipping? 

It's impossible to scientifically prove the lack of something. You cannot prove that there is no Bigfoot monster, because no matter how hard you look, it is always possible that Bigfoot is in the place you didn't look. Similarly, there could always be a amplifier combination or listener for which the test would show an audible difference. So from a scientific point of view, the word “prove” should not be used in reference to the results of this test. 

What the test does do is give a degree of certainty that such an audible difference does not exist. 

What do people who disagree with the test say? 

Some objections that have been raised about the test: 
•Richard Clark has a strong opinion on this issue and therefore might bias his reports. 
•In the real world people use amps in the clipping zone, and the test does not cover that situation. 
•Some audible artifacts are undetectable individually, but when combined with other artifacts they may become audible as a whole. For instance cutting a single graphic EQ level by one db may not be audible, but cutting lots of different EQ levels by the same amount may be audible. Maybe the amps have defects that are only audible when combined with the defects from a particular source, speaker, or system. 
•Some listeners feel that they can't relax enough to notice subtle differences when they have to make a large number of choices such as in this test. 
•There is a lack of organized results. Richard Clark only reports his general impressions of the results, but did not keep track of all the scores. He does not know exactly how many people have taken the test, or how many of the people scored “better than average”. 
•If someone scored significantly better than average, which might mean that they heard audible differences, it is not clear whether Richard Clark followed up and repeated the test enough times with them to verify that the score was not statistically significant. 

Is there one sentence that can describe what the test is designed to show? 

When compared evenly, the sonic differences between amplifiers operated below clipping are below the audible threshold of human hearing.
"


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> I've built an amplifier before, in high school as a matter of fact.  I wonder if it's still at my parents house.
> 
> Reverting to ignoring the reality, and changing the subject?
> 
> This was a well known test, and results were pretty conclusive...


reality is that you lost this argument and too proud to admit it.

So you build an amplifier you found in some magazine, great!


So to have a respected test you have to publish it in meaningless magazine or something? 
I suspect your hearing is not as good as you think.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> reality is that you lost this argument and too proud to admit it.
> 
> So you build an amplifier you found in some magazine, great!
> 
> 
> So to have a respected test you have to publish it in meaningless magazine or something?
> I suspect your hearing is not as good as you think.


Delusional much? I'm not going to bother to respond to any more of your drivel unless you attempt to make a valid logical point.

I think anyone that bothers to learn how to properly test for themselves will quickly learn... 

I'm not interested in winning or losing an argument, simply educating others as to what truly matters in car audio.


I do like how you repackaged what I said to you, and attempted to say it back to me. Very high school like...


----------



## Victor_inox

Clarks test is as far from scientific as test can be, you can repost that long ass report as many times as you want, it will not change that fact.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Clarks test is as far from scientific as test can be, you can repost that long ass report as many times as you want, it will not change that fact.


Ok.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Delusional much? I'm not going to bother to respond to any more of your drivel unless you attempt to make a valid logical point.
> 
> I think anyone that bothers to learn how to properly test for themselves will quickly learn...
> 
> I'm not interested in winning or losing an argument, simply educating others as to what truly matters in car audio.
> 
> 
> I do like how you repackaged what I said to you, and attempted to say it back to me. Very high school like...



Hopefully people will listen with their ears and not some pseudo scientific tests of biased individuals.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Ok.


 whatever


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> I'm not interested in winning or losing an argument, simply educating others as to what truly matters in car audio.


No one in this thread said amplifiers are most important in car audio. Importance of quality amplifier was not even discussed here.
So what is truly matters? Educate me, please


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Hopefully people will listen with their ears and not some pseudo scientific tests of biased individuals.


Hopefully people will properly test for themselves, and focus their energy on understanding and utilizing Time Alignment, EQ, installation methods, sound deadening and environmental changes and proper gain setup instead of believing in amplifier magic...  

People that have tin ears can hear the difference between these things... No golden ears required. :laugh:


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> No one in this thread said amplifiers are most important in car audio. Importance of quality amplifier was not even discussed here.
> So what is truly matters? Educate me, please


It's amplifiers. Your Avatar and intense involvement in this thread say to everyone that that's what you believe...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Hopefully people will properly test for themselves, and focus their energy on understanding and utilizing Time Alignment, EQ, installation methods, sound deadening and environmental changes and proper gain setup instead of believing in amplifier magic...
> 
> People that have tin ears can hear the difference between these things... No golden ears required. :laugh:


Fair enough. No one were arguing any magic in amplifiers, purely the fact that not all amps created equal.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Fair enough. No one were arguing any magic in amplifiers, purely the fact that not all amps created equal.


...but the majority of them are. And the ones that aren't can easily be avoided as inferior products.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> It's amplifiers. Your Avatar and intense involvement in this thread say to everyone that that's what you believe...


You have strong tendency to overthink things, maybe making less ASSumptions and actually trying to understand what people saying will help? 
Like I said before try not to read between lines every time.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> ...but the majority of them are. And the ones that aren't can easily be avoided as inferior products.


 That is your opinion, you're entitled to have it.
You have no clue how majority of amplifiers designed, topology alone means nothing.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Hopefully people will listen with their ears and not some pseudo scientific tests of biased individuals.


and when (not if) they do and can't tell the expensive handmade custom-modded hot rod from the off the shelf, straight out of the box chinese chromed junk with pieces of iron bolted inside, to add authenticity, what then?


is it their fault, is their hearing simply not good enough?

snobby, then?


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> and when (not if) they do and can't tell the expensive handmade custom-modded hot rod from the off the shelf, straight out of the box chinese chromed junk with pieces of iron bolted inside, to add authenticity, what then?
> 
> 
> is it their fault, is their hearing simply not good enough?
> 
> snobby, then?


 Touche!  BUt until you find me one that sounds the same as one I designed myself then I`ll agree.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> You have strong tendency to overthink things, maybe making less ASSumptions and actually trying to understand what people saying will help?
> Like I said before try not to read between lines every time.


 You backpedal a lot, like a really lot. You don't hold fast to the opinions you have, you kind of wank around them stating that you never said certain things, and that's because you never really say anything. You simply insinuate things. 

Put it out there once and for all. Do you think amps make a larger audible difference than even the most basic tuning adjustments? If not, why bother to say they sound different, when clearly a quick tuning adjustment undoes any difference by exceeding it. 

Make your statement, no matter how wrong it is, and stick by it please. 



Victor_inox said:


> That is your opinion, you're entitled to have it.
> You have no clue how majority of amplifiers designed, topology alone means nothing.


I don't? Explain to me how you came to this conclusion. 



cajunner said:


> and when (not if) they do and can't tell the expensive handmade custom-modded hot rod from the off the shelf, straight out of the box chinese chromed junk with pieces of iron bolted inside, to add authenticity, what then?
> 
> 
> is it their fault, is their hearing simply not good enough?
> 
> snobby, then?


That's what it always goes back to. "Your hearing isn't good enough, and mine is. That's why amps make a difference to me, and not you." Meanwhile, any minor EQ or TA adjustment can EASILY be heard by ANYONE. Thereby nullifying any (real or imaginary) difference between amps the very minute you make the adjustment.


----------



## Victor_inox

I backpedal out of nothing, I Always was saying that amps sounds different. Period, end of sentence. Nowhere i said that amps make a larger audible difference, That was you insinuating things, not me. 
Why bother they sounds different ? because they are, that is simple fact has nothing to do with tuning eq, etc...
You don`t know that amps designed differently? You don`t because it`s nonsense, not all amps designed the same, your statement blatantly shows your arrogance .


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I backpedal out of nothing, I Always was saying that amps sounds different. Period, end of sentence. Nowhere i said that amps make a larger audible difference, That was you insinuating things, not me.
> Why bother they sounds different ? because they are, that is simple fact has nothing to do with tuning eq, etc...
> You don`t know that amps designed differently? You don`t because it`s nonsense, not all amps designed the same, your statement blatantly shows your arrogance on the subject.


 What? Of course I understand amplifier topology and that they are designed differently. What exactly are you saying here?


Let me ask you this: 


#1 Do amps make a large enough difference to be audibly different to everyone? Yes/No

#2 Does tuning (via Time Alignment/EQ) make a large enough difference to be audible to everyone? Yes/No

#3 What is the point in insisting that amps sound different, if they don't sound different enough to be audibly different to everyone?


----------



## Victor_inox

I`m tired repeating it for 15th time, read my previous posts more carefully if you care.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I`m tired repeating it for 15th time, read my previous posts more carefully if you care.


I see you can't answer my questions.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> I see you can't answer my questions.


 can`t and won`t two different things. 
I said not all amps created equal.
You said:but the majority of them are. And the ones that aren't can easily be avoided as inferior products.

What is that as not arrogance?
i read your message Majority of amplifiers created equal. 
was i wrong interpreting your statement? Outstanding amplifiers inferior products? Isn`t that what you said?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> can`t and won`t two different things.
> I said not all amps created equal.
> You said:but the majority of them are. And the ones that aren't can easily be avoided as inferior products.
> 
> What is that as not arrogance?
> i read your message Majority of amplifiers created equal.
> was i wrong interpreting your statement? Outstanding amplifiers inferior products? Isn`t that what you said?


So why won't you? I believe it's because it weakens your position, and makes it pointless. 

I said exactly that. The majority of amplifiers are indistinguishable from each other when driven before the onset of clipping. The few that have inherently audible noise can easily be avoided. The few that have an EQ curve built in can be compensated for or avoided. 

The remaining competently built amplifiers will all serve the same purpose. There is no audible difference between this vast majority of remaining amps without these flaws. 

So #4, this all being the case, Which amps sound different? Should we not avoid them since they are the deviation to the norm, and are inherently flawed? or are they not different enough to make any real impact. Therefore nullifying this whole argument?


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> So why won't you? I believe it's because it weakens your position, and makes it pointless.
> 
> I said exactly that. The majority of amplifiers are indistinguishable from each other when driven before the onset of clipping. The few that have inherently audible noise can easily be avoided. The few that have an EQ curve built in can be compensated for or avoided.
> 
> The remaining competently built amplifiers will all serve the same purpose. There is no audible difference between this vast majority of remaining amps without these flaws.
> 
> So #4, this all being the case, Which amps sound different? Should we not avoid them since they are the deviation to the norm, and are inherently flawed? or are they not different enough to make any real impact. Therefore nullifying this whole argument?


 You conveniently forgetting things, lovely! 
Because i answered many times and last time few posts back. you can`t keep attention for 20 minutes, not my problem. 
Do you think if you ask same question over and over again I might give up and accept your opinion?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> You conveniently forgetting things, lovely!
> Because i answered many times and last time few posts back. you can`t keep attention for 20 minutes, not my problem.
> Do you think if you ask same question over and over again I might give up and accept your opinion?


Wow, ok. Nice attempt to skirt answering. More backpedaling.

I think we now see the light here. 

Any difference (real or imaginary) in the vast majority of amplifiers is so minor, that most people can not hear it, therefore there is no point in even entertaining the idea that there is a difference. You would be better served in exploring the differences that Time Alignment, EQ and Positioning (among other things) make since they make clearly audible results that EVERYONE can hear.


----------



## Victor_inox

No I answered exactly what I stated before, you keep saying I`m backpedalling it will not change the fact that I`m not. 
You keep preaching unimportance of amplifiers design saying that they all designed equally.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> No I answered exactly what I stated before, you keep saying I`m backpedalling it will not change the fact that I`m not.
> You keep preaching unimportance of amplifiers design saying that they all designed equally.


You're apparently preaching the unimportance of amplifiers yourself... :laugh:

but where did I say they are designed equally?


----------



## Jesus Christ

My dad can beat up your dad.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Jesus Christ said:


> My dad can beat up your dad.


Nuh uh! My dad knows karate!


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> You're apparently preaching the unimportance of amplifiers yourself... :laugh:
> 
> but where did I say they are designed equally?


right here:

I said not all amps created equal.
You said:but the majority of them are. And the ones that aren't can easily be avoided as inferior products.

I read your message Majority of amplifiers created equal. 
was i wrong interpreting your statement? Outstanding amplifiers inferior products? Isn`t that what you said?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> right here:
> 
> I said not all amps created equal.
> You said:but the majority of them are. And the ones that aren't can easily be avoided as inferior products.
> 
> I read your message Majority of amplifiers created equal.
> was i wrong interpreting your statement? Outstanding amplifiers inferior products? Isn`t that what you said?



Designed equally and perform equal are two different things friend.


----------



## XSIV SPL

captainobvious said:


> This is the opinion of many people who have never *actually *blind evaluated amplifiers properly, yet who continue to regurgitate the same things without experiencing and knowing for themselves. Hell, this thread is chock full of 'em. I'd be very interested to hear from someone- anyone here who has actually done this and believes it.


Nice to make your acquaintance, Captain Obvious-

I suppose you've assumed that you are vastly more knowledgeable than myself because of my low post count here. I read and re-read this a few times, and it was incoherent at best.

If I ever decided to follow you here, regurgitation might become a daily ritual for me...

The only thing which is obvious to me in this thread is that you appear to spend much more time talking than doing, Captain Obvious.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Designed equally and perform equal are two different things friend.


who is backpedalling now?  
You said what you said and that is recorded.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> who is backpedalling now?
> You said what you said and that is recorded.


Still you. lol

That's absolutely what I said, no backpedaling, just correcting you... 



Victor_inox said:


> You keep preaching unimportance of amplifiers design saying that they all designed equally.


I said they perform equally, nothing about how they're designed.



Victor_inox said:


> was i wrong interpreting your statement?


Yes, you were.


----------



## chithead

XSIV SPL said:


> Nice to make your acquaintance, Captain Obvious-
> 
> I suppose you've assumed that you are vastly more knowledgeable than myself because of my low post count here. I read and re-read this a few times, and it was incoherent at best.
> 
> The only thing which is obvious to me in this thread is that you appear to spend much more time talking than doing, Captain Obvious.


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

Full results.pdf


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Still you. lol
> 
> That's absolutely what I said, no backpedaling, just correcting you...
> 
> 
> 
> I said they perform equally, nothing about how they're designed.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you were.


no you did not said that, I said not every amp designed equally,you said majority of them designed equally. Nothing was said about performance. grow a pair stand behind your words.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> no you did not said that, I said not every amp designed equally,you said majority of them designed equally. Nothing was said about performance. grow a pair stand behind your words.



I never said they were designed equally. Not once did I discuss design at all. :laugh: I am standing behind my words, you just need to comprehend them. 

Answer my questions. 

#1 Do amps make a large enough difference to be audibly different to everyone? Yes/No

#2 Does tuning (via Time Alignment/EQ) make a large enough difference to be audible to everyone? Yes/No

#3 What is the point in insisting that amps sound different, if they don't sound different enough to be audibly different to everyone? 

#4, this all being the case, Which amps sound different? Should we not avoid them since they are the deviation to the norm, and are inherently flawed? or are they not different enough to make any real impact. Therefore nullifying this whole argument?


----------



## XSIV SPL

chithead said:


> A/B Blind tests on amplifiers- Time to hear for myself
> 
> Full results.pdf


So... This gives him license to say whatever he wants to folks he doesn't know... Is that what I can gather from this?

Thanks for the links, Chithead


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> I never said they were designed equally. Not once did I discuss design at all. :laugh: I am standing behind my words, you just need to comprehend them.
> 
> Answer my questions.
> 
> #1 Do amps make a large enough difference to be audibly different to everyone? Yes/No
> 
> #2 Does tuning (via Time Alignment/EQ) make a large enough difference to be audible to everyone? Yes/No
> 
> #3 What is the point in insisting that amps sound different, if they don't sound different enough to be audibly different to everyone?
> 
> #4, this all being the case, Which amps sound different? Should we not avoid them since they are the deviation to the norm, and are inherently flawed? or are they not different enough to make any real impact. Therefore nullifying this whole argument?



I came to simple conclusion when reading your words I should not believe my eyes. 

You interpret my answer any way you pleased therefore I`ll stopped answering them.
Argument was never about if they different enough to make any real impact.
Any difference is for end user, generalisation is for dummies.
tuning via TA/EQ make a large enough difference to be audible Yes. again it`s audible to me, I can`t speak for everyone.

Every amp sound different, you just have to learn how to listen for differences.
Problem is that once you believe that equal power sounds the same you will never admit that you hear any difference even when you hear that difference.

Did I answered all your questions? Again?


----------



## Victor_inox

Point of that discussion for me at least to convince end user to listen for themselves not what self proclaimed gurus like yourself telling them.

Just so you know not everyone installing active system with 15 amplifiers for every speaker in their car. in fact majority of users doing simple installs where carefully selected equipment is what they rely on.


----------



## quality_sound

WRX/Z28 said:


> That was my point, no one would match the levels, it would defeat the point of going to the more powerful amp.



If they were comparing output. We're not. That would be like testing top sped on a dyno. Wrong test. In this instance were not looking at volume, so the power difference is irrelevant. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I came to simple conclusion when reading your words I should not believe my eyes.
> 
> You interpret my answer any way you pleased therefore I`ll stopped answering them.
> Argument was never about if they different enough to make any real impact.
> Any difference is for end user, generalisation is for dummies.
> tuning via TA/EQ make a large enough difference to be audible Yes. again it`s audible to me, I can`t speak for everyone.
> 
> Every amp sound different, you just have to learn how to listen for differences.
> Problem is that once you believe that equal power sounds the same you will never admit that you hear any difference even when you hear that difference.
> 
> Did I answered all your questions? Again?


So, since you skirted around answering yes or no: You are saying you have to learn to hear differences between amps because it's not audible to everyone, but you do not have to learn to hear differences in tuning which are clearly audible to everyone. Is this correct? 

If every amp sounds different, how do you pick one? Which one is best? What is the point in insisting they sound different, if different is not necessarily better? 

Why would I not admit they sound different if they do? I've already went from insisting in the past that I thought there had to be a difference, and then once I tested for myself properly, I found out that neither I, nor any of my other "Golden Ears" equipped friends could hear it. Even the ones that wanted to hear it guessed wrong when I switched back and forth, even so far as to say they heard a difference when I switched nothing. 



Victor_inox said:


> Point of that discussion for me at least to convince end user to listen for themselves not what self proclaimed gurus like yourself telling them.
> 
> Just so you know not everyone installing active system with 15 amplifiers for every speaker in their car. in fact majority of users doing simple installs where carefully selected equipment is what they rely on.


Am I not an end user? Do I not have ears? You are insinuating that my hearing is not good enough to hear the differences, or that my ears are not trained to hear them. However, I can hear the smallest differences in phase, EQ, Time Alignment, and so on very easily. 

If they are so small that I can not hear them without training, (Which could very easily be misconstrued as attempting to convince myself there is a difference.) assuming these differences are there, why would I bother to stress about them? Why would I not simply choose an amp, and make my sound differences with tuning since they are clearly greater. 



quality_sound said:


> If they were comparing output. We're not. That would be like testing top sped on a dyno. Wrong test. In this instance were not looking at volume, so the power difference is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What are you talking about? Nobody is comparing output. I'm saying he didn't level match the amplifiers. That's like comparing one dyno sheet with another when they're two separate dyno's (like Mustang vs. Dynojet) on two separate days. IE: the testing is different, and therefore flawed.


----------



## Victor_inox

I`m lost you your multiquotes.

answer me this Do you believe that any 2 guitars sounds the same?
not in studio or stage where they can be tuned and processed to sound the same but unplugged?


----------



## cajunner

okay guys.


this is multiple choice logic, versus fill-in-the-blank.


if you can pick out an amplifier from a crowd, then we can say that amp has a sonic signature that is discernible.

you just did multiple choice.

if you can find Waldo as YOUR amplifier, from a grouping of usual suspects, then you filled in the ****ing blank.

nobody fills in the ****ing blank, see...

when you can fill in the blank, then everything else will magically correct itself and the world will seem like it should, where when you buy expensive ****, you know it wasn't any placebo effect, conformation bias, confirmation bias, what the perception does to the cure, is it ****ing skews it, geezum piece!


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I`m lost you your multiquotes.
> 
> answer me this Do you believe that any 2 guitars sounds the same?
> not in studio or stage where they can be tuned and processed to sound the same but unplugged?


Guitars, no, they produce music, not reproduce music. The produce an audible sound, not reproduce an electrical signal. 

I don't think any of what I'm saying is that hard to follow. I simply quoted both of your posts and answered them. I know it's easier to say you're lost in the quotes (your quotes by the way) than to argue the point...


I know it's hard to argue that amps have their own signature sound, and that they are important, while admitting that "if" they do sound different, the difference is so little that you need to be born with golden ears, or train your ears to hear it.


----------



## WRX/Z28

cajunner said:


> okay guys.
> 
> 
> this is multiple choice logic, versus fill-in-the-blank.
> 
> 
> if you can pick out an amplifier from a crowd, then we can say that amp has a sonic signature that is discernible.
> 
> you just did multiple choice.
> 
> if you can find Waldo as YOUR amplifier, from a grouping of usual suspects, then you filled in the ****ing blank.
> 
> nobody fills in the ****ing blank, see...
> 
> when you can fill in the blank, then everything else will magically correct itself and the world will seem like it should, where when you buy expensive ****, you know it wasn't any placebo effect, conformation bias, confirmation bias, what the perception does to the cure, is it ****ing skews it, geezum piece!


Exactly. You could listen to your amp for a year, and then I could play it back to back with 5 other amps, and you could not pick yours out. 

Well said.


----------



## subwoofery

WRX/Z28 said:


> So, since you skirted around answering yes or no: You are saying you have to learn to hear differences between amps because it's not audible to everyone, but you do not have to learn to hear differences in tuning which are clearly audible to everyone. Is this correct?
> 
> If every amp sounds different, how do you pick one? Which one is best? What is the point in insisting they sound different, if different is not necessarily better?
> 
> Why would I not admit they sound different if they do? I've already went from insisting in the past that I thought there had to be a difference, and then once I tested for myself properly, I found out that neither I, nor any of my other "Golden Ears" equipped friends could hear it. Even the ones that wanted to hear it guessed wrong when I switched back and forth, even so far as to say they heard a difference when I switched nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Am I not an end user? Do I not have ears? You are insinuating that my hearing is not good enough to hear the differences, or that my ears are not trained to hear them. However, I can hear the smallest differences in phase, EQ, Time Alignment, and so on very easily.
> 
> If they are so small that I can not hear them without training, (Which could very easily be misconstrued as attempting to convince myself there is a difference.) assuming these differences are there, why would I bother to stress about them? Why would I not simply choose an amp, and make my sound differences with tuning since they are clearly greater.
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? Nobody is comparing output. I'm saying he didn't level match the amplifiers. That's like comparing one dyno sheet with another when they're two separate dyno's (like Mustang vs. Dynojet) on two separate days. IE: the testing is different, and therefore flawed.


It's always easier to fool somebody and prove them wrong than doing the opposite... that's just life. <-- not only talking about audio here 

Kelvin


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Guitars, no, they produce music, not reproduce music. The produce an audible sound, not reproduce an electrical signal.
> 
> I don't think any of what I'm saying is that hard to follow. I simply quoted both of your posts and answered them. I know it's easier to say you're lost in the quotes (your quotes by the way) than to argue the point...
> 
> 
> I know it's hard to argue that amps have their own signature sound, and that they are important, while admitting that "if" they do sound different, the difference is so little that you need to be born with golden ears, or train your ears to hear it.



Say electric guitars to throw out your argument about acoustic instruments. Now what? electric signal from different guitars suppose to be identical yet musicians can hear the difference. what different laws of physics at work here?
Why Chinese made counterfeit Gibson sounds different from Memphis made one? Electrically not acoustically?
Imagine that for Listeners of said musician they all sounds the same,should we disregard the truth and say that they all sounds the same in concert hall for 5000 listeners?


----------



## jdigital

There is a program called audio diffmaker that can compare the input and output signals of various sources and show you exactly how much each unit affects the signal. That is a very simple way to put this silly debate to rest.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Say electric guitars to throw out your argument about acoustic instruments. Now what? electric signal from different guitars suppose to be identical yet musicians can hear the difference. what different laws of physics at work here?
> 
> Why Chinese made counterfeit Gibson sounds different from Memphis made one? Electrically not acoustically?
> Imagine that for Listeners of said musician they all sounds the same,should we disregard the truth and say that they all sounds the same in concert hall for 5000 listeners?


Who said acoustic? Not me. Time for some lessons in reading comprehension. 

Electric still creates sound, it does not simply reproduce it. If you unplug an electric guitar, do you not still hear the sound it makes when you play? (albeit at a lower volume, and no effects added in)

Sound is made by the strings, and the sound of the guitars body. This is music production, not reproduction, they are not the same. An amps job is not to sound different from other amps, but to produce the same sound as the original signal/recording.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Say electric guitars to throw out your argument about acoustic instruments. Now what? electric signal from different guitars suppose to be identical yet musicians can hear the difference. what different laws of physics at work here?
> Why Chinese made counterfeit Gibson sounds different from Memphis made one? Electrically not acoustically?
> Imagine that for Listeners of said musician they all sounds the same,should we disregard the truth and say that they all sounds the same in concert hall for 5000 listeners?


now you're hitting on something.

naturally, we could get into wood density and the qualities of various pick-up winding stock, or other mundane **** like porosity and glue, or whatever, but you have a point.


when an amp designer is building a circuit, they are so into it, that we don't even know the details.

we don't know what the **** they are doing, we can only guess from the marketing materials and what the amp designer is saying (true or not) about their circuit.

the only thing we have, really, is the ability to measure output and noise. FR is a hardly encountered abnormality, so it goes right into the column checked off as "same ****"


if the amp makes noise, then ****. That sucks, high noise floor is a deal breaker for me, I had my share of crap product and I won't keep an amp for my own use if I can hear it "shhhhh" in the background.

If the amp is strong, nothing wrong with it's output at all, then it's all that you need.

you may want "special" and you may pay for special, and the designer might build in "special" freaking awesome, but none of that is going to be able to allow the average guy on the street the ability to go to a sound board and switch between 10 amps and find one he "likes" more than the rest.

not willingly, not unaided by some unseen villain...


but I agree, amp designers are doing things that they want credit for, and those things may or may not advance the state of the art but the current state of mobile amplification is that it's damn hard to justify paying a grand for a 150W X 4 amp, when the 300 dollar one is doing it just as good...


so that's my treatise on things, this thread is fun, more people should use it to vent, free therapy and all.


----------



## Victor_inox

You can skirt you way out of inconvenient questions, that is not changing the facts.
Time to stop communicate with your preset mindset. Peace brother!


----------



## gckless

cajunner said:


> the current state of mobile amplification is that it's damn hard to justify paying a grand for a 150W X 4 amp, when the 300 dollar one is doing it just as good...


I tend to agree with this, strictly looking at sonic performance. 

Of course, there may be other things to consider such as aesthetics, build quality, warranty, who you know, etc. But those are (or should be) outside of the scope of this conversation.


----------



## cajunner

what happened when we mixed up 3 separate 'factoids' of amplifier differences, is the truth is only partially revealed by any single one, but it's out there...

what I'm saying, is we have Bob Carver, and his null difference amp cloning, which says there is a guy out there with the know how to make an amp sonically indistinguishable from any other, given a few whiz-bang circuits.


then there's the Clark showdown, where it is proved that within human audible limits, any amp can go toe to toe with any other, in a blind test after a few things are 'verified'


and last but not least, is the double blind study, either done informally here by forum members, or within testing by Harman Labs, by people like Toole, or whatever... or that guy who made the Imprint curve for Alpine, he used a few test groups too...


well, maybe too much coffee, but this is how I'm seeing it.

If we take the 4th dimension into account, then it all makes sense.

you see, time is the constant. I came into my audio knowledge when people swore by magazine writing audiophiles, and their thick, thiefing tongues. Working on me are old vestiges of a marketing ghost, things like "blackness" and "air" and "vibrant" or "cold" and "warm" or any number of pseudo-science babble, and it is my burden to bear, being raised in the eighties where things like "audible differences" were actually happening, you didn't have to imagine it, or have someone disprove it. The stuff was new, the build quality and the parts, not so homogenized that there wasn't audible differences...


but today, we don't really have that, right?


Even a low tolerance capacitor is using a state of the art electrolyte formula, the machines that press out the foil, are all making tolerance, the mosfet silicon is more evenly placed inside the metal package, whatever...

so part of the problem is people remember that things used to sound different, and it was because they were different, because the parts were so different, and the circuits weren't all mature where ground paths are optimized and RF radiation/reception wasn't an issue, or whatever...


but today, it's really all high quality once you pass a certain level, and that level isn't very high.

many people think of planned obsolescence, and end of life, and Chinese domination of electronic bits production, and think that we are getting less amp for more money, but I think it's like cars, we get more value in a car than the dollar's value has eroded, more or less...


okay, rambling. 


isn't the fourth dimension, cool?


----------



## DBlevel

Can't believe this thread is still going. We all know there is a difference .............


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> You can skirt you way out of inconvenient questions, that is not changing the facts.
> Time to stop communicate with your preset mindset. Peace brother!


Not sure who you're talking to, but you stopped making sense, or valid arguments a long time ago. 


In the event that amplifiers of identical power sound different (I maintain that they don't), it has been admitted by you that it is so minor that you need trained ears to hear it. Therefore there is no point to examining it, when all other things such as driver choice, EQ, Time alignment, phase, and positioning all make large differences to even the most untrained ear. 

That being said, what is the point to your insistence that amps sound different? Do we all need to purchase expensive amplifiers because that's the only way to good sound? Do we need to audition multiple amps in our car through our speakers with identical tuning, back to back playing the same song until we can hear a difference?

If for the sake of argument, you are all right, and amps sound some miniscule amount different, does it matter once all the other larger differences are factored in (drivers/placement/time alignment/eq/phase)? If you think it does matter, what testing do you perform, and on how many amps until you come up with the one you're running? 

You all know the answers to this. Everyone wants to maintain that their educated guess is the best one. Everyone wants to insist that they made a good choice based on sound when purchasing any piece of sound gear. No one wants to believe that the device responsible for making their music loud enough to enjoy does the same job as any other one that makes the same power. 

Unfortunately it's all the case...


----------



## Hanatsu

I actually felt an urge to post something constructive on DIYMA, then I remembered this thread...

The amount of illogical thinking some of the people present here is astounding. Present something that adds to the discussion (like proof...?) if you want to keep argue. The "objective camp" does that. The "subjective camp" keep arguing that our methods are flawed. If the differences is so evident that some people insists it is, why does people fail controlled blind-tests? In my world, an evident difference would have 100% accuracy in every blind listening test. 

The only interest I have in this if someone would pass a blind AX/ABX and then do measurements on the amp to correlate what's different. For most people this isn't at all interesting, they are just happy that something is different for better or worse. Truth is that all FR deviations built in on purpose in an amp can easily be replicated with an EQ. The rest of the audible possible differences are non-linear distortion (which isn't an issue unless it's abnormally high (as it would be during clipping for example).


----------



## Hanatsu

WRX/Z28 said:


> Not sure who you're talking to, but you stopped making sense, or valid arguments a long time ago.
> 
> 
> In the event that amplifiers of identical power sound different (I maintain that they don't), it has been admitted by you that it is so minor that you need trained ears to hear it. Therefore there is no point to examining it, when all other things such as driver choice, EQ, Time alignment, phase, and positioning all make large differences to even the most untrained ear.
> 
> That being said, what is the point to your insistence that amps sound different? Do we all need to purchase expensive amplifiers because that's the only way to good sound? Do we need to audition multiple amps in our car through our speakers with identical tuning, back to back playing the same song until we can hear a difference?
> 
> If for the sake of argument, you are all right, and amps sound some miniscule amount different, does it matter once all the other larger differences are factored in (drivers/placement/time alignment/eq/phase)? If you think it does matter, what testing do you perform, and on how many amps until you come up with the one you're running?
> 
> You all know the answers to this. Everyone wants to maintain that their educated guess is the best one. Everyone wants to insist that they made a good choice based on sound when purchasing any piece of sound gear. No one wants to believe that the device responsible for making their music loud enough to enjoy does the same job as any other one that makes the same power.
> 
> Unfortunately it's all the case...


Having almost 10 years experience with electronics, speaker building and car audio, this is exactly what I feel about the entire discussion. The difference is so small in most cases that it doesn't matter in the end. There are a ton of things that are far more important in terms of getting a system to sound good than buying expensive amps. Having an adequate amount of power is important but some of the claims I've read about what an amp does and doesn't is simply outrageous.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Hanatsu said:


> Having almost 10 years experience with electronics, speaker building and car audio, this is exactly what I feel about the entire discussion. The difference is so small in most cases that it doesn't matter in the end. There are a ton of things that are far more important in terms of getting a system to sound good than buying expensive amps. Having an adequate amount of power is important but some of the claims I've read about what an amp does and doesn't is simply outrageous.



The claims are often unreal, and beyond the difference of tuning/gain differences. They typically are nothing more than complete BS, and use words that mean nothing, but convey imagery such as "Airiness" "Open-ness" "Detailed" "Warm" "Cold" and so on. They are easy words to use as a description, because they mean nothing, and thus are impossible to refute. 

I will continue to evolve my understanding of tuning, driver choice, environmental changes, along with Time Alignment and Phase. 

You believers can continue to search for satisfaction in your amp instead... if that's what truly makes sense to you.


----------



## Victor_inox

what is point of science? IMO is to find the truth and the truth is no circuit perform the same, miniscule or huge differences is irrelevant to the truth. It might be minimal or not its up for user to decide. That is the point and that`s what I`m saying , nothing more, nothing less. 
Say one car faster 0.001 of a second then another, how much more engineering went into that thousand of a second? How much does it worth? what if it burn less fuel to accomplish that difference? 
Say one track motorcycle 100 grams lighter than another, does it matter? Making the same power. which one going to be faster? it`s miniscule difference but it`s still different.
And that manufacturer winning competition on Sunday and selling ****load of bikes on Monday.

If that`s doesn`t make sense to you, then nothing will.


----------



## TrickyRicky

Vic just leave this thread alone....one reason I didn't want to be a part of this conflict was because there is no right.


If a person wants to believe that all amps sound the same then let them.him run/install/use Pyle, Boss, Pyramid, Dual brands which am pretty sure they WON'T or even dare use them and if they do then more power to them..that simple.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> The claims are often unreal, and beyond the difference of tuning/gain differences. They typically are nothing more than complete BS, and use words that mean nothing, but convey imagery such as "Airiness" "Open-ness" "Detailed" "Warm" "Cold" and so on. They are easy words to use as a description, because they mean nothing, and thus are impossible to refute.
> 
> I will continue to evolve my understanding of tuning, driver choice, environmental changes, along with Time Alignment and Phase.
> 
> You believers can continue to search for satisfaction in your amp instead... if that's what truly makes sense to you.


 amen!


----------



## Victor_inox

TrickyRicky said:


> Vic just leave this thread alone....one reason I didn't want to be a part of this conflict was because there is no right.
> 
> 
> If a person wants to believe that all amps sound the same then let them.him run/install/use Pyle, Boss, Pyramid, Dual brands which am pretty sure they WON'T or even dare use them and if they do then more power to them..that simple.


ohh I`m done until " next resident audio geek" jump on my nerve.
Interestingly it`s always a person who has vested interest in the argument.


----------



## rton20s

Victor_inox said:


> Interestingly it`s always a person who has vested interest in the argument.












I guess I'm not seeing the vested interest on the opposing views part. 

vest·ed in·ter·est
vestəd ˈint(ə)rəst/
noun
noun: vested interest; plural noun: vested interests

a personal stake or involvement in an undertaking or state of affairs, especially one with an expectation of financial gain.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> ohh I`m done until " next resident audio geek" jump on my nerve.
> Interestingly it`s always a person who has vested interest in the argument.


I have a vested interest?  Don't you produce your own amplifier/preamplifier? 

If anything, I have a vested interest in stating the opposite of my belief, being that I sell and install amps... 

My vested interest is in the truth, and learning/evolving. As I said before, I used to think they had to sound different because they are audio equipment. Now I know better...


----------



## WRX/Z28

TrickyRicky said:


> Vic just leave this thread alone....one reason I didn't want to be a part of this conflict was because there is no right.
> 
> 
> If a person wants to believe that all amps sound the same then let them.him run/install/use Pyle, Boss, Pyramid, Dual brands which am pretty sure they WON'T or even dare use them and if they do then more power to them..that simple.


I would use any of those brands if I thought they were reliable.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> I have a vested interest?  Don't you produce your own amplifier/preamplifier?
> 
> If anything, I have a vested interest in stating the opposite of my belief, being that I sell and install amps...
> 
> My vested interest is in the truth, and learning/evolving. As I said before, I used to think they had to sound different because they are audio equipment. Now I know better...


 I`m sure you do, don`t lie to yourself at least. as person involved in audio shop you know that you make most money on installation/tuning not gear. 
I produce preamps, so what they are not part of that discussion. 
people who wants tube gear will buy tube gear regardless of gurus like yourself thinking they all sounds the same.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I`m sure you do, don`t lie to yourself at least. as person involved in audio shop you know that you make most money on installation/tuning not gear.
> I produce preamps, so what they are not part of that discussion.
> people who wants tube gear will buy tube gear regardless of gurus like yourself thinking they all sounds the same.


Our installation cost is the same regardless of what we're installing, so try that one again? 

Why would I not push the more expensive product if my ethics didn't prevent me from doing so?

Your vested interest is to lead people to believe that electronics sound tremendously different, as you produce tube pieces yourself. That is the definition of vested interest...


----------



## Victor_inox

More expensive product no necessarily most profitable, quite the opposite, every business person can confirm that. 

My vested interest? I suggest listening for themselves without all surrounding BS. where is vested interest in that? Electronics do sounds different


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> More expensive product no necessarily most profitable, quite the opposite, every business person can confirm that.
> 
> My vested interest? I suggest listening for themselves without all surrounding BS. where is vested interest in that? Electronics do sounds different


Wait, so we make less on more expensive things? I can tell you for certain that's not the case...  Anyone else here taken economics? 

I explain that most (if not all) tubes are adding their own FR and distortion, and therefore failing in their only job of reproducing only what they're sent. :laugh:

I'm sure you think that's a benefit though...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Wait, so we make less on more expensive things? I can tell you for certain that's not the case...
> 
> I explain that most (if not all) tubes are adding their own FR and distortion, and therefore failing in their only job of reproducing only what they're sent. :laugh:
> 
> I'm sure you think that's a benefit though...


Me and couple hundreds of my customers, you keep talking, more you talk more preamps i sell. whatever it does to signal people loving it, don`t believe me go read reviews on this very site.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Me and couple hundreds of my customers, you keep talking, more you talk more preamps i sell. whatever it does to signal people loving it, don`t believe me go read reviews on this very site.



Hey, people love McDonalds too, I wouldn't call it good food. 


I like how you don't deny that it changes FR and adds distortion, at least your not completely FOS.


----------



## 4thseason

I think where this thread fails is there are two different questions/answers being argued at any one time and people are arguing back and forth between them without making the distinction.

Some may not even see the difference in the questions which is even worse than having the convictions and standing on your side of the argument.

1. Do amplifiers sound different?

2. In your experience with amplifiers can you hear a difference in them?

Here's another problem totally related as I see it in the above arguments. interchanging the word fact and the word truth..May seem however were talking about a subjective term-TRUTH vs. an objective term-FACT. 

A truth may be a fact but certainly the truth is not always a fact....


I could probably write an 10 pages about this argument but won't I know the answers to the above questions and they're not the same but regardless of which side of the fence your'e standing on if you don't have the ability to take a step back and see things from your opponents point of view then you're probably not seeing the whole picture let alone where they're coming from. 

B~


----------



## WhereAmEye?

The truth is not always a fact? Please give an example where truth isn't a fact. That's interesting.

Edit: I'm not being sarcastic, I'm legitimately curious.


----------



## cajunner

I have to remark on the "listen for yourself" tack, in that the most common experiment outcome is "no change" and that is the truth for 99% of the viewing public. If the test is set up properly, and the equipment isn't malfunctioning, "no change" is 99% reliable.

Which really sucks, right?

I mean, "change!" is what we all want to hear.


We want to know we have pressed the issue and some precious metal falls from the crucible of truth, into our hands like we knew it should, like we know it will, like it must, because so many out there have said it is so...

but it's just a flash, a glint. A trick of the mind, since the anomaly has not appeared, the enigma of the superhuman golden ear will not find itself in the tester's chair, time and time again...


and it's okay!


yes, friends. It's perfectly okay to believe in science, and yet hold stubbornly to an ideal that is your own, even if there are imperfections because your faith holds you to it, your humanity demands it, you need that amp to be better than some other one in the audio store and why, why then...


I'll tell you why. It's because you spent money on a luxury item like it was a necessity, you wasted half your budget based on the prodding of a salesman who likely gets a slightly fatter commission based on which amp he can push harder, you got played and nobody plays you, you artful beggar, you rube...


----------



## WRX/Z28

cajunner said:


> I have to remark on the "listen for yourself" tack, in that the most common experiment outcome is "no change" and that is the truth for 99% of the viewing public. If the test is set up properly, and the equipment isn't malfunctioning, "no change" is 99% reliable.
> 
> Which really sucks, right?
> 
> I mean, "change!" is what we all want to hear.
> 
> 
> We want to know we have pressed the issue and some precious metal falls from the crucible of truth, into our hands like we knew it should, like we know it will, like it must, because so many out there have said it is so...
> 
> but it's just a flash, a glint. A trick of the mind, since the anomaly has not appeared, the enigma of the superhuman golden ear will not find itself in the tester's chair, time and time again...
> 
> 
> and it's okay!
> 
> 
> yes, friends. It's perfectly okay to believe in science, and yet hold stubbornly to an ideal that is your own, even if there are imperfections because your faith holds you to it, your humanity demands it, you need that amp to be better than some other one in the audio store and why, why then...
> 
> 
> I'll tell you why. It's because you spent money on a luxury item like it was a necessity, you wasted half your budget based on the prodding of a salesman who likely gets a slightly fatter commission based on which amp he can push harder, you got played and nobody plays you, you artful beggar, you rube...


Greatest thing I've read in a long time...


----------



## 4thseason

WhereAmEye? said:


> The truth is not always a fact? Please give an example where truth isn't a fact. That's interesting.
> 
> Edit: I'm not being sarcastic, I'm legitimately curious.


Seriously??


----------



## WRX/Z28

"A fact is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or rejected. If I say "fire is hot," I don't care how great your reasoning skills are, if you touch fire your skin will burn (and don't give me that "but people can walk on hot coals!" bull. There's a difference between the transfer of heat through conduction and training one's body to deal with the agonizing pain of said conduction). Now when I say this, I am not speaking a truth, I am speaking a fact. If you say "fire is not hot," you are not lying, you are incorrect. Facts are concrete realities that no amount of reasoning will change. When one acknowledges a fact, they are doing just that. Facts are not discovered, facts are not created, facts are simply acknowledged.

A truth on the other hand, is almost the opposite. Truths are those things that are not simply acknowledged, but must be discovered, or created. If I say "God exists," and I possess strong reasoning for the affirmative of that statement, then God really does exist, that is a reality. However, if another individual possesses strong reasoning for the negative, and because of this reasoning they believe that God does not exist, then that is also a reality. If we were to debate our ideologies, and my reasoning appeared stronger than theirs, they may choose to adopt my belief that God does exist. If they do, then the existence of God is just as true as the nonexistence of God which they believed a week ago. Truths, as opposed to fact, are much more fluid and malleable than their empirical counterparts."


----------



## cajunner

4thseason said:


> Seriously??


at age 19, thoughts arrive like butterflies...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Hey, people love McDonalds too, I wouldn't call it good food.
> 
> 
> I like how you don't deny that it changes FR and adds distortion, at least your not completely FOS.


If anything Mc Donald just as good as your mass produced amplifier you so fond off, Do that means that Mc Donald not as good for starving person like say chicken Salad? I`d say that is debatable at best. It`s cheap and it gets job done.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> "A fact is a reality that cannot be logically disputed or rejected. If I say "fire is hot," I don't care how great your reasoning skills are, if you touch fire your skin will burn (and don't give me that "but people can walk on hot coals!" bull. There's a difference between the transfer of heat through conduction and training one's body to deal with the agonizing pain of said conduction). Now when I say this, I am not speaking a truth, I am speaking a fact. If you say "fire is not hot," you are not lying, you are incorrect. Facts are concrete realities that no amount of reasoning will change. When one acknowledges a fact, they are doing just that. Facts are not discovered, facts are not created, facts are simply acknowledged.
> 
> A truth on the other hand, is almost the opposite. Truths are those things that are not simply acknowledged, but must be discovered, or created. If I say "God exists," and I possess strong reasoning for the affirmative of that statement, then God really does exist, that is a reality. However, if another individual possesses strong reasoning for the negative, and because of this reasoning they believe that God does not exist, then that is also a reality. If we were to debate our ideologies, and my reasoning appeared stronger than theirs, they may choose to adopt my belief that God does exist. If they do, then the existence of God is just as true as the nonexistence of God which they believed a week ago. Truths, as opposed to fact, are much more fluid and malleable than their empirical counterparts."


 What a load of crap, seriously.


----------



## rton20s

Without delving too deep into the amplifier argument, I'll toss my 2 cents in again. 

Focusing this time on fact vs truth. What is sad is that in our culture we have twisted what "true" actually means and made it a term that is now relative. Sadly, WRX/Z28 I think your "fact" about fire/heat is actually a poor example. Your scenario is something that could be considered relative. "Fire is hot" is to general a statement. What type of fire? Compared to what? See where I am going? 

Now, if we fall back to an accepted definition (Merriam-Webster) for both "true" and "fact," I think you'll understand why WhereAmEye? raised the question. 

truth
noun \ˈtrüth\

the truth : the real facts about something : the things that are true

: the quality or state of being true

: a statement or idea that is true or accepted as true


fact
noun \ˈfakt\

: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information


Sorry, the twisting of the "truth" to be something relative is a pet peeve of mine. And that's the truth.


----------



## WRX/Z28

rton20s said:


> Without delving too deep into the amplifier argument, I'll toss my 2 cents in again.
> 
> Focusing this time on fact vs truth. What is sad is that in our culture we have twisted what "true" actually means and made it a term that is now relative. Sadly, WRX/Z28 I think your "fact" about fire/heat is actually a poor example. Your scenario is something that could be considered relative. "Fire is hot" is to general a statement. What type of fire? Compared to what? See where I am going?
> 
> Now, if we fall back to an accepted definition (Merriam-Webster) for both "true" and "fact," I think you'll understand why WhereAmEye? raised the question.
> 
> truth
> noun \ˈtrüth\
> 
> the truth : the real facts about something : the things that are true
> 
> : the quality or state of being true
> 
> : a statement or idea that is true or accepted as true
> 
> 
> fact
> noun \ˈfakt\
> 
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> 
> Sorry, the twisting of the "truth" to be something relative is a pet peeve of mine. And that's the truth.


Not my statement, notice the quotation marks. Just figured it would help shed some light on the differences. Didn't say it was perfect, but illustrates the difference pretty well.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> If anything Mc Donald just as good as your mass produced amplifier you so fond off, Do that means that Mc Donald not as good for starving person like say chicken Salad? I`d say that is debatable at best. It`s cheap and it gets job done.


My mass produced amplifier? You assume that you know what I own/use. You know what they say about assumptions. I own more amplifiers than 99% of the people on this forum. 



Victor_inox said:


> What a load of crap, seriously.


I didn't write it, but I'll pass it along to the philosophy professor author for you... :laugh:


----------



## cajunner

a wire with gain, does not describe all amps.

the truth, is that an amp with a linear circuit path will increase gain, as the input increases.

an amp without a linear circuit path, like a Bose AdaptiQ or whatever, dynamic signal processing, is in a different category.

most car amps are linear gain, straight wire devices.

the future of DSP, to me, is where the designer can create a DSP solution that adapts in real time, for everything extraneous to the input signal.

in a car, that's a lot of correction, and so far most people can tell when they are being "fooled" by processing.


that's not the fault of a linear amp, though.

the only valid test of a linear amp is with no extraneous environment to overcome, because the need for a completely blank test pattern, is what everyone feels will give the most true result, and by most true, the result that can be ascertained as fact.

but when we drive our cars, the noise floor is at least 50 db, I'd say in even the most deadened road-legal automobiles, and almost every amp can do 70 db, signal, to noise.


that leaves 20 db of dynamic range. Double double, not a lot in the scheme of audio things, not a bonus, but enough that within that envelope, dynamics are easily sussed out, nuances, variations....

in other words, in a vehicle with a 50 db noise floor, one amp is hard to pick out from another, unless it's got dynamic processing circuits that actually shape the response based on volume and environmental noise input.


that is a fact.

the truth, is that at rest, in a quiet home, using extremely precise source and speaker equipment, there can be variables that relate to audiophile significant terms, you will hear a noise floor, you will notice dynamics, micro-detail, weird **** like veils and their lifting up, or sliding over your test equipment...


at least, I believe it is so.

and that is a truth, I cannot say for sure is a fact, haha...


----------



## rton20s

WRX/Z28 said:


> I didn't write it, but I'll pass it along to the philosophy professor author for you... :laugh:


This philosophy professor?


----------



## Hanatsu

cajunner said:


> I have to remark on the "listen for yourself" tack, in that the most common experiment outcome is "no change" and that is the truth for 99% of the viewing public. If the test is set up properly, and the equipment isn't malfunctioning, "no change" is 99% reliable.
> 
> Which really sucks, right?
> 
> I mean, "change!" is what we all want to hear.
> 
> 
> We want to know we have pressed the issue and some precious metal falls from the crucible of truth, into our hands like we knew it should, like we know it will, like it must, because so many out there have said it is so...
> 
> but it's just a flash, a glint. A trick of the mind, since the anomaly has not appeared, the enigma of the superhuman golden ear will not find itself in the tester's chair, time and time again...
> 
> 
> and it's okay!
> 
> 
> yes, friends. It's perfectly okay to believe in science, and yet hold stubbornly to an ideal that is your own, even if there are imperfections because your faith holds you to it, your humanity demands it, you need that amp to be better than some other one in the audio store and why, why then...
> 
> 
> I'll tell you why. It's because you spent money on a luxury item like it was a necessity, you wasted half your budget based on the prodding of a salesman who likely gets a slightly fatter commission based on which amp he can push harder, you got played and nobody plays you, you artful beggar, you rube...


Poetry, period.



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> My mass produced amplifier? You assume that you know what I own/use. You know what they say about assumptions. I own more amplifiers than 99% of the people on this forum.
> 
> You forgot what you has been preaching here? why would you own anything but cheap amps if they all sounds the same. Why would you waste your money on anything insignificant?
> I highly doubt that you ever owned more amps than me but we will leave dick measurements for another occasion.
> 
> I didn't write it, but I'll pass it along to the philosophy professor author for you... :laugh:


 Maybe it`s time for you to say something quote worthy for a change.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Nevermind, I see now that you just can't figure out multi-quote. I thought you were changing what I said in your quote of me...


And about the amplifiers, almost guaranteed I do...


----------



## lizardking

Are people still arguing they can hear differences in amps??


----------



## WRX/Z28

rton20s said:


> This philosophy professor?


You know, the author? As in, the guy that wrote it.


----------



## WRX/Z28

lizardking said:


> Are people still arguing they can hear differences in amps??


Yes, yes they are. Golden Ears, Golden Ears everywhere...


----------



## schmiddr2

I can hear my engine running and wind noise. It adds quite a bit, sounds warm to me, except on a cold day.

Maybe one of these terms, I couldn't really decide: Describing Sound A Glossary - Head-Fi.org Community


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Nevermind, I see now that you just can't figure out multi-quote. I thought you were changing what I said in your quote of me...
> 
> 
> And about the amplifiers, almost guaranteed I do...


 I haven`t changed a single quote. Every email update with what you posted saved on email server just so you know.... 

Lets talk about what else I can`t do milti quotes, etc... etc..wonderful way to change a subject.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Yes, yes they are. Golden Ears, Golden Ears everywhere...


You talk about yourself in 3rd person?


----------



## tjswarbrick

The fact that nobody has won Richard Clark's challenge does not make it a truth that nobody can hear a difference.

The fact that EQ and T/A will have a much larger effect on the sound than any difference between amps does not mean one should not seek out the best quality amplifier for their situation.

The consensus that vehicle and road noise outweigh the likely differences does not nullify the differences - though it may make them inconsequential to many listeners.

The fact that "everybody" can hear differences in tuning and "not everybody" can hear differences in amplifiers has no bearing whatsoever on my amplifier selection. 
The Ford Escort was a very popular vehicle in its day. That in no way made it a good one. I do my best to avoid lowest-common-denominator products, and have been known to not think like most people. And I sure don't spend my money and use my time to please "everybody."


----------



## Victor_inox

schmiddr2 said:


> I can hear my engine running and wind noise. It adds quite a bit, sounds warm to me, except on a cold day.
> 
> Maybe one of these terms, I couldn't really decide: Describing Sound A Glossary - Head-Fi.org Community



So, none of those exist in reality?


----------



## schmiddr2

To use subjective terms like that really is not that much based in reality (when using the word reality as a truth for everyone). Plus it depends on so many factors, which probably don't originate in the amplifier.


----------



## cajunner

schmiddr2 said:


> To use subjective terms like that really is not that much based in reality (when using the word reality as a truth for everyone). Plus it depends on so many factors, which probably don't originate in the amplifier.



this is important.


the fact that our own hearing is variable, and one day can be felled by a virus and a sinus discharge, or a wax build on the ear drum, or just natural age devolving our senses by way of neural networks dying off, cilia falling out, basic equilibrium unsettled by moving off dry land, etc. means that we aren't the best test indicators, not by a long shot.


this simple truth, becomes the anvil on which all scientific testing is pounded by the unreasonable assumption that what we hear is perfect, but what we are hearing, are differences.

if a scientific test product, like noise, FR, distortion, etc., is not the only way to understand the differences in electronic circuit variability, then surely something better than double blind is out there, some other way...


but first, we must beat that. We must expose the double blind as unreliable, we must indicate with significant factors, orders of magnitude ****, that the science is not up to snuff.


and after all the hand-holding and the walking through, and the decrying of truth and evidence and pseudo babble ********, has not once peered through the mask of illusory self-protective deception, not once has the man who walked on water arrived to save the sound of one hand clapping, virtually in a black canvas of a singular night, three stars arise one upon the other in the omen of a new era, an enlightenment that will forever mark this period as one of the ages...

haha...


----------



## cajunner

I'm sorry guys.

this thread is blown, I mean we did a real good handy on it, I mean if I offend anyone it's not because I really care, I don't...

it's just that it's entertainment value is all that I want from it now, so excuse me if you would, then...


----------



## WhereAmEye?

rton20s said:


> Sorry, the twisting of the "truth" to be something relative is a pet peeve of mine. And that's the truth.


Hey look, someone with a good mind. I was worried this forum didn't have any of those.


----------



## Jesus Christ

TrickyRicky said:


> Vic just leave this thread alone....one reason I didn't want to be a part of this conflict was because there is no right.
> 
> 
> If a person wants to believe that all amps sound the same then let them.him run/install/use Pyle, Boss, Pyramid, Dual brands which am pretty sure they WON'T or even dare use them and if they do then more power to them..that simple.


I'm pretty happy with my Dual headunit and Lanzar amp. Of the three different branded amps in my car the worst one is the one most would consider to be the highest quality, noise floor is so high I can hear it while standing behind my car and that's with the gain all the way down.


----------



## lizardking

Jesus Christ said:


> I'm pretty happy with my Dual headunit and Lanzar amp. Of the three different branded amps in my car the worst one is the one most would consider to be the highest quality, noise floor is so high I can hear it while standing behind my car and that's with the gain all the way down.


So says the Son of God who's really him...... Couldn't resist.


----------



## WhereAmEye?

4thseason said:


> Seriously??


If everything you know is a malleable truth than why believe it at all? And of course you can't know facts, because the brain (in a relative world) is merely a crazy combination of atoms that came from nothing, a big bang. And of course, according to science (the religion of many people on this forum), order cannot come from chaos, so your chaoticly made brain cannot know order (fact) so is it believable?

Oh wait, this thread is about amps sounding the same. Sorry, butterflies just hit me


----------



## Orion525iT

WhereAmEye? said:


> And of course, according to science (the religion of many people on this forum),


Science is _not_ religion, it is a process. A process by which we examine the natural world. Science, unlike religion, is not predetermined.

*I will remind everybody, as I have here and in other threads. The onus is on the person(s) making the positive claim! Period, end of discussion.
*

The positive claim is that there is a difference. It is not the duty of anybody to prove that there is _not_ a difference. The default position is always the negative.

So, has the positive claim (that there is a difference) been adequately proven? No! In fact, not even close. As far as I can tell, all evidence offered to support the positive claim have been fallacious by their very nature (appeal to authority for one). Therefor, we *must, must, must* assume the default position. That's it! No further discussion. So to all those who are so convinced that there is a difference, the burden is on *you* to prove it! Until you provide data to support your claim, we must assume the default position. This is how evidence based investigation works.


----------



## WhereAmEye?

Orion525iT said:


> Science is _not_ religion, it is a process. A process by which we examine the natural world. Science, unlike religion, is not predetermined.


Except for the first few moments of the cosmos' existence, and then it turns into religion. Predetermined religion I might add.


----------



## captainobvious

JVD240 said:


> Well worth the travels to put this thing to rest, right? This could be the FIRST ever conclusive blind test. No more of these threads required. Isn't that worth the trip?


I'd argue that these threads will always exist- because there will always be people who have not done proper blind evaluations to determine for themselves.

That's the key here. I won't tell anyone "you're wrong" in what you believe with this amplifier sq argument, but I DO encourage people to try to do some proper blind evaluations to learn and *experience for themselves* what they do and do not hear. If for nothing else, to be a more informed consumer and to further their knowledge on the subject. I had the same experience as WRX in that it was eye-opening for me. I would have sworn up and down that amplifiers sounded different and made a significant impact on the sound of the overall system. I found that it was simply not the case, for me. In a proper controlled test, you remove those other external variables that _can_ absolutely make you hear differences, and leave it up to just the amplifiers to reveal any audible differences.

I think that's where many peoples experiences run into a problem when used to make a statement about the differences in sound between amplifiers- that there was *not *a proper controlled test to eliminate those variables external to the amplifiers themselves and that is a sticking point.


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> NEw page yay!
> People who thinks all amps sounds the same should buy cheapest, ****tiest amplifiers Peoples Republic of China has to offer and leave high quality equipment to those who can appreciate engineering and craftsmanship behind it.


There are more differences in amplifiers than simply the sound.

Despite my conclusions through experience, I still use amplifiers that are not "cheap" in my systems. The reasoning is that I find value in things like:

Craftsmanship
Aesthetics
Quality
Reliability
Size/Footprint
Customer Service


----------



## schmiddr2

captainobvious said:


> There are more differences in amplifiers than simply the sound.
> 
> Craftsmanship
> Aesthetics
> Quality
> Reliability
> Size/Footprint
> Customer Service


That is very true. But to strengthen their argument these points are bundled with "sound signature", hence a 72 page debate.


----------



## cajunner

captainobvious said:


> There are more differences in amplifiers than simply the sound.
> 
> Despite my conclusions through experience, I still use amplifiers that are not "cheap" in my systems. The reasoning is that I find value in things like:
> 
> Craftsmanship
> Aesthetics
> Quality
> Reliability
> Size/Footprint
> Customer Service



I'd offer the value of credibility, even unsupported by factual analysis.


because let's face it, you have to push really freaking hard against the innate bias to look down on someone's system, if they are using amplification that falls short of a median we seem to agree upon, even if we're being gullible sheep and relying on marketing and price bias to settle our minds.

we (or I, who knows?) see a system with some Lanzar or Hifonics or lower-line MB Quart amps, and we see a bunch of high cost drivers, and something clicks in our heads:

"if only they had gone with Zapco or Mosconi, I mean the rest of the build shines" and that's hard, hard, hard...


to not only acknowledge, but to actively fight discrimination since it pervades and influences people from the very mildly interested all the way to the top, with so many actual shop owners here displaying their builds, it's built an unreasonable expectation I think would do good for the industry to take down a couple notches...


I mean, my amps are like, 12 years old or more... I don't want people to look down on me because I choose to use stuff that is bought and paid for, haha...


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> There are more differences in amplifiers than simply the sound.
> 
> Despite my conclusions through experience, I still use amplifiers that are not "cheap" in my systems. The reasoning is that I find value in things like:
> 
> Craftsmanship
> Aesthetics
> Quality
> Reliability
> Size/Footprint
> Customer Service


I tried to make this point from the beginning of that thread along with Amps do sound different, amount of such difference or tunability is absolutely irrelevant.

I`d like to see who else thinks that 30W of pure class A Single Ended tube amp sound indistinguishable from Class D JL Audio?


----------



## legend94

Victor_inox said:


> I`d like to see who else thinks that 30W of pure class A Single Ended tube amp sound indistinguishable from Class D JL Audio?


30 watts of jl?


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> 30 watts of jl?


watt is a watt, right?


----------



## rton20s

Victor_inox said:


> I`d like to see who else thinks that 30W of pure class A Single Ended tube amp sound indistinguishable from Class D JL Audio?


I don't think the argument from "the other side" is that a pure class A single ended tube amp and a JL Class D sound indistinguishable. I think the argument is that they _can be made_ to sound indistinguishable. The chances of these two amps sounding the same "out of the box" with gains set appropriately and uniquely to each amplifier is slim to none. The chances of these two amps sounding indistinguishable in a blind test after they have been level matched with gain, EQ (to compensate for built in EQ or "coloration"), etc., I would say is pretty good.


----------



## Victor_inox

rton20s said:


> I don't think the argument from "the other side" is that a pure class A single ended tube amp and a JL Class D sound indistinguishable. I think the argument is that they _can be made_ to sound indistinguishable. The chances of these two amps sounding the same "out of the box" with gains set appropriately and uniquely to each amplifier is slim to none. The chances of these two amps sounding indistinguishable in a blind test after they have been level matched with gain, EQ (to compensate for built in EQ or "coloration"), etc., I would say is pretty good.


 Eq was not part of the deal, only power, of course you guys may dance out of the simple watt to watt comparison by creating broader disclaimers but that would not change the fact that amps sound different out of the box, making them sound the same will not change that fact.
I can go even further insisting that mosconi Class A ( not really class A at that)
sound different as well. 
I only make that comparison because it`s obvious to anyone difference, no Golden ears required.
Of course modern DSP could mimic pretty much everything. that was never a question.


----------



## cubdenno

Victor_inox said:


> watt is a watt, right?


As long as the frequency response is 20-20000 hertz +/- .25 db

any THD is below our hearing threshhold...

Sure.


----------



## Victor_inox

cubdenno said:


> As long as the frequency response is 20-20000 hertz +/- .25 db
> 
> any THD is below our hearing threshhold...
> 
> Sure.



One more disclaimer? Sure!


----------



## cajunner

*"Does the phrase "a watt is a watt" convey what this test is about?

Not quite but close. Richard Clark has stated that some amplifiers (such as tubes) have nonlinear frequency response, so a watt from them would not be the same as a watt from an amplifier with flat frequency response."
*

I guess they covered that too.


look, if you are pushing the iron around with back EMF, aren't you operating outside of the linear region, in a tube amp?

the transformer will color the sound, and you will notice it, but it's still going to be in mild clipping at least, which is not part of the discussion.

amps that you drive hard, will show differences and nobody I know of, is defending that or disputing that.


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> Hopefully people will listen with their ears and not some pseudo scientific tests of biased individuals.



In case you had missed the details of the RC test, they did, in fact, use their ears.


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> In case you had missed the details of the RC test, they did, in fact, use their ears.


 Just answer the question watt for watt Class A tube sounds the same as Class D?no EQ, processing, anything of that nature.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> *"Does the phrase "a watt is a watt" convey what this test is about?
> 
> Not quite but close. Richard Clark has stated that some amplifiers (such as tubes) have nonlinear frequency response, so a watt from them would not be the same as a watt from an amplifier with flat frequency response."
> *
> 
> I guess they covered that too.
> 
> 
> look, if you are pushing the iron around with back EMF, aren't you operating outside of the linear region, in a tube amp?
> 
> the transformer will color the sound, and you will notice it, but it's still going to be in mild clipping at least, which is not part of the discussion.
> 
> amps that you drive hard, will show differences and nobody I know of, is defending that or disputing that.


 Discussion was watt for watt, in ultra linear mode A class still sounds different.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Discussion was watt for watt, in ultra linear mode A class still sounds different.



but does it sound statistically significant different?


are you willing to bet that the average Joe will find Waldo, in a field of 10 amplifiers?

every time?

I understand that you have been hemmed in so hard in this discussion that you have to approach it from a near, all or nothing perspective, but nobody is really saying amplifiers sound the same out of the box.

matching gains, it's hard to distinguish between amps, that are only operated in their linear regions.

that would go for the super class A tuber, as well as a funny little Lepai.

can you do it 100%, maybe so, huh?



are you willing to bet on the average Joe?


maybe not...


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> but does it sound statistically significant different?
> 
> 
> are you willing to bet that the average Joe will find Waldo, in a field of 10 amplifiers?
> 
> every time?
> 
> I understand that you have been hemmed in so hard in this discussion that you have to approach it from a near, all or nothing perspective, but nobody is really saying amplifiers sound the same out of the box.
> 
> matching gains, it's hard to distinguish between amps, that are only operated in their linear regions.
> 
> that would go for the super class A tuber, as well as a funny little Lepai.
> 
> can you do it 100%, maybe so, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> are you willing to bet on the average Joe?
> 
> 
> maybe not...


 Average Joe can`t tell cello vs violin apart, should I count him in?


----------



## captainobvious

XSIV SPL said:


> Nice to make your acquaintance, Captain Obvious-
> 
> _*I suppose you've assumed that you are vastly more knowledgeable than myself because of my low post count here*._  I read and re-read this a few times, and it was incoherent at best.
> 
> If I ever decided to follow you here, regurgitation might become a daily ritual for me...
> 
> The only thing which is obvious to me in this thread is that you appear to spend much more time talking than doing, Captain Obvious.


I've never made such a claim and certainly never would. What about the information provided in Chithead's link was unclear or incoherent? I'd be happy to elaborate on any of the testing methods, equipment, results, etc if you have questions and if I'm able to answer them.
The bolded point I find very interesting, considering I didn't just come into a thread spouting "I'm right and you're wrong" based on regurgitation. I actually hosted controlled blind evaluations. I went the extra mile to *learn for myself*. So your point about my talking and not doing seems...misguided.

Unless it was something else you were referring to?

I'll further that by saying my point was not directed at you specifically. If you took it as a personal slight, that was not it's intent so my apologies.




chithead said:


> A/B Blind tests on amplifiers- Time to hear for myself
> 
> Full results.pdf


Thank you for providing the link. 




Victor_inox said:


> Just answer the question watt for watt Class A tube sounds the same as Class D?no EQ, processing, anything of that nature.


Bring both amps to me and I will set them up, level match and have you determine for yourself through some blind evaluations whether you hear the difference for yourself. Arguing over what you *believe *you can hear is pointless when you can determine that by actually trying. I'm not saying you'll hear one thing or another, simply that you do yourself a dis-service by not finding out for yourself.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Average Joe can`t tell cello vs violin apart, should I count him in?


yes, by all means!

since this is about whether or not there are statistical significant variables, not whether or not you have .01% better hearing than someone who just walked in off the street.

you may find it is about whether or not amps can be infinitesimally better, by approaching the exercise based on technique or execution, since amplifier circuits are closer to art, than anything at the very top tiers.

You profess to know of the art, and we are saying the **** is color on canvas, man..

it all looks the same for the most part.


and it sounds the same too, mostly...


----------



## Victor_inox

Significant statiatical variables? Whats that if not another disclaimer? Variable still a variable regardless how statiatically significant that is. 
Mostly is a key word and im not opposed to that. Tell that to any guitar player that line 6 solid state modelling amp mostly the same as classic british tube amp or incert you fav one here and listen to his reasoning.


----------



## rton20s

Victor_inox said:


> Eq was not part of the deal, only power, of course you guys may dance out of the simple watt to watt comparison by creating broader disclaimers but that would not change the fact that amps sound different out of the box, making them sound the same will not change that fact.
> I can go even further insisting that mosconi Class A ( not really class A at that)
> sound different as well.
> I only make that comparison because it`s obvious to anyone difference, no Golden ears required.
> Of course modern DSP could mimic pretty much everything. that was never a question.


The only reason I mentioned EQ was because of the fact that you mentioned using tube amplification. Is it not pretty commonly accepted that tubes color the sound by modifying the frequency response/distortion? (I'm no amp designer and don't pretend to be an expert. This is just what I have picked up on in my time during the hobby.) If this is the case, then wouldn't it be a requirement to allow EQ to match the linear amp to the non-linear amp? 

If that class A tube amp is shown to be linear, then I still think with proper level matching and legitimate blind A/B comparison you would be hard pressed to tell which is which. I also have no doubt that if you swapped one for the other in a car with each having their gains set appropriately and uniquely to each amp you would be able to tell a difference. 30W of tube Class A vs 150w of solid state class D? Yeah, there will be a difference there.


----------



## cajunner

guitar amp coloration, is part of the reason people select one amp over another, because guitar amps are supposed to color the sound!

that is exactly opposite of the reproduction variety of amplifier, which is supposed to allow the musical content to pass through without anything added but gain...


you know this.

you also know that some people like the coloration that tube amps produce, there are several brands or clubs that cater to the tube driven listeners, like high-efficiency speakers, they also color the sound...

but that is not what this discussion is about.

that is not 99.9% of car amps, the token class A (tube or not) to be found in the mobile variation, is not indicative of what's available as representative of the medium.

so, sure.

we can agree that a Marshall built before 1985 is going to sound different from a Vox from 1963, or whatever, but that's the freaking point!

you are a tube guy, don't make it look like you don't know what you are talking about here. You know, man...


----------



## Victor_inox

You right this discussion is about car amplifiers. Incorrect analogy perhaps.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> You right this discussion is about car amplifiers. Incorrect analogy perhaps.


there is a parallel, but it is not statistically significant, haha...

say a guy wants to pair a speaker system with an amplifier, so that their synergy is additive, or brings the result closer to the system designer's goals.

like, we are supposed to believe Zapco is precise, and Audison is warm, and Mosconi is powerful, and Brax is more clinical than Genesis, or Tru, but we know Seas Excel drivers are sterile, and can be brittle sounding, so we pair those up with a warm amp design, and Dynaudio can work with Mosconi, since they need the extra drive current in those massive voice coils, and the Linear Power amps, will make the best of Focal's brightly colored midranges, and...


haha...


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> there is a parallel, but it is not statistically significant, haha...
> 
> say a guy wants to pair a speaker system with an amplifier, so that their synergy is additive, or brings the result closer to the system designer's goals.
> 
> like, we are supposed to believe Zapco is precise, and Audison is warm, and Mosconi is powerful, and Brax is more clinical than Genesis, or Tru, but we know Seas Excel drivers are sterile, and can be brittle sounding, so we pair those up with a warm amp design, and Dynaudio can work with Mosconi, since they need the extra drive current in those massive voice coils, and the Linear Power amps, will make the best of Focal's brightly colored midranges, and...
> 
> 
> haha...


 Speakers by big margin is most important component in any system.
Speakers most distortion producers in every audio system, start with best speakers you can afford and go down the chain, yet I lot of people spent a fortune on exotic HU and whatever left on everything else.

Amplifier to speakers matching is another art itself.


----------



## cubdenno

Sounds like a LOT of voodoo and hocus pocus. 

Hell why use science at all. Let me call Harry Potter to put together an audio system.


----------



## Victor_inox

cubdenno said:


> Sounds like a LOT of voodoo and hocus pocus.
> 
> Hell why use science at all. Let me call Harry Potter to put together an audio system.


 I bet it will sounds magical!
Using science it`s easiest way to prove that every amp is different, every amp measured different, can it be made to sounds the same for majority of users is not science.


----------



## legend94

Victor_inox said:


> watt is a watt, right?


Agreed. 

They might not all sound the same oke:


----------



## cubdenno

Victor_inox said:


> I bet it will sounds magical!
> Using science it`s easiest way to prove that every amp is different, every amp measured different, can it be made to sounds the same for majority of users is not science.


every amp does measure different. That has never been the arguement. Hell each amp channel of the same amp will measure different. 

The argument has been: "If you remove human bias and correctly level match amplifiers that have similar (+/- .25db 20-20000 hertz) frequency responses, not being driven to clipping and inaudible distortion and noise, will they sound different?" 

One side says yes.

the other side of which I happen to believe says no. 


Double blind tests, ABX tests etc have shown to many times that we can't tell. Obviously we get a lot of audiophile words thrown in or the argument turns to the lowest common denominator amplifiers but in all the tests where "sighted" was not allowed, People could not tell them apart.

We can argue all day and you won't change my mind and i won't change yours and that's cool and perfectly fine. But it amazes me that some will put down religion and claim science and then post science can't explain what audiophiles can hear. Seems a lot like faith or religious yammering. 

In the end, spend your (universal "your") money how you want. If your preference for music is warm or clinical or airy, all buzzwords for a non-flat FR or an audible distortion level, then great!! But now the results are subjective opinions based on personal preferences. people seem to forget that.


----------



## lizardking

We need people willing to believe in false claims and exaggerations. It's helps to keep the Economy and Capitalism alive. You know those people...the ones out buying Diet pills and the latest exercise gadget.


----------



## Victor_inox

lizardking said:


> We need people willing to believe in false claims and exaggerations. It's helps to keep the Economy and Capitalism alive. You know those people...the ones out buying Diet pills and the latest exercise gadget.


No we need people to be all the same, boring crowd or mediocrity


----------



## lizardking

Victor_inox said:


> No we need people to be all the same, boring crowd or mediocrity


We already celebrate mediocrity in this Country. Just look around at any child being raised in the past 20yrs. Nobody is allowed to fail. Everyone wins! Everyone gets a trophy. Everyone gets invited to the birthday party. Instead of looking a child in the eyes and saying you lost, we tell them everyone wins there are no losers. 

Then....we see them on Youtube or Facebook in tears because they were bullied.....then they hang themselves in closets. 

****ING PUSSYS


----------



## lizardking

If they don't hang themselves.......then we owe them. Yes, everyone is owed something these days. Nobody earns it......its expected. I call them the "Takers".


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> I bet it will sounds magical!
> Using science it`s easiest way to prove that every amp is different, every amp measured different, can it be made to sounds the same for majority of users is not science.


You're absolutely right that if you measure over enough decimal places that every piece of equipment will measure differently, even consecutive pieces off the assembly line, but the only thing we're concerned with here is whether those differences are enough to be audible and no matter how golden your ears are you're not going to hear a difference between .001% thd and .002% thd. I don't think anyone here has said that every single amp ever made sounds exactly the same, only that if there is a difference which is rare that whatever that difference is can be measured.


----------



## xxx_busa

Higher End Amp, Truly far, far from Hi End, Mid grade Fi products is all I've seen mentioned here.


----------



## Victor_inox

xxx_busa said:


> Higher End Amp, Truly far, far from Hi End, Mid grade Fi products is all I've seen mentioned here.


Would you name a few?


----------



## durwood

Victor_inox said:


> Speakers by big margin is most important component in any system.
> Speakers most distortion producers in every audio system, start with best speakers you can afford and go down the chain, yet I lot of people spent a fortune on exotic HU and whatever left on everything else.
> 
> Amplifier to speakers matching is another art itself.


Not quite true either. But it is so much more satisfying to buy a shiny piece of gear.

Room acoustics trump all.
1) Room
2) System design to deal with room acoustics
3) construction/install (proper methods to net best acoustics)
4) Component selection based on constraints and requirements from 2 and 3a) Speakers (desired output, freq range, and space to work with)
b) Power (how much power needed to reach desired output)
c) Speaker management (does not need to be DSP but can be)
c) source (favorite user interface)​This is too hard though or people do not look at it from this angle. Instead it is easier or self gratifying to whip out thy wallet or refer to sexual terms to describe their pleasure upon seeing the shiny new toy...e.g. "that amp is pure sex."


----------



## Hanatsu

durwood said:


> Not quite true either. But it is so much more satisfying to buy a shiny piece of gear.
> 
> Room acoustics trump all.
> 1) Room
> 2) System design to deal with room acoustics
> 3) construction/install (proper methods to net best acoustics)
> 4) Component selection based on constraints and requirements from 2 and 3a) Speakers (desired output, freq range, and space to work with)
> b) Power (how much power needed to reach desired output)
> c) Speaker management (does not need to be DSP but can be)
> c) source (favorite user interface)​This is too hard though or people do not look at it from this angle. Instead it is easier or self gratifying to whip out thy wallet or refer to sexual terms to describe their pleasure upon seeing the shiny new toy...e.g. "that amp is pure sex."


1. Environment (In home audio)
2. Processing (In car-audio this is #1)
3. Speakers

IMO

Well, looks like we are in agreement


----------



## Def!ant

I think in this respect, ignorance is bliss. I think I'd rather be the guy who thinks all amps sound the same, because 2 things would be true: 

1) I save lots of money. 
2) I'm happy.

I find once you acquire "the ear" for what IS good sounding music, you'll never be satisfied. You can always find better, or tune better.


----------



## cajunner

the path to intimacy, audio is.

higher end audio is supposed to bring you that intimacy, circuits and processors and tubes and beryllium and neodymium and permendur and silver litz and whatever, are sold on the promises of intimacy.


how intimate can someone be, sitting in a quiet room, listening to his electronics?


hahahaha..


----------



## Victor_inox

Endless Persuit of perfection.


----------



## Victor_inox

I love audio because that path is endless, I lost interest when there no challenge.


----------



## Jesus Christ

xxx_busa said:


> Higher End Amp, Truly far, far from Hi End, Mid grade Fi products is all I've seen mentioned here.


Besides price and marketing what exactly makes an item "Hi End"?


----------



## tjswarbrick

Jesus Christ said:


> Besides price and marketing what exactly makes an item "Hi End"?


It's a state of mind. Did a designer select components and design layout for best sound, reliability, performance or other priority of his choosing at a given price point? Vs a committee or bean counter coming up with the cheapest way to make x power output.


----------



## Jesus Christ

tjswarbrick said:


> It's a state of mind. Did a designer select components and design layout for best sound, reliability, performance or other priority of his choosing at a given price point? Vs a committee or bean counter coming up with the cheapest way to make x power output.


Do you have any specific examples of a "Hi End" circuit layout and how the circuit layout and components used audibly effect the performance of the piece of equipment compared to a lower end product?


----------



## lizardking

Jesus Christ said:


> Do you have any specific examples of a "Hi End" circuit layout and how the circuit layout and components used audibly effect the performance of the piece of equipment compared to a lower end product?





Bueler....Bueler?


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> Besides price and marketing what exactly makes an item "Hi End"?


What makes Hi end car?


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> What makes Hi end car?


A factory.


----------



## tjswarbrick

Jesus Christ said:


> Do you have any specific examples of a "Hi End" circuit layout and how the circuit layout and components used audibly effect the performance of the piece of equipment compared to a lower end product?


None that I've A/B/X tested...


----------



## Jesus Christ

tjswarbrick said:


> None that I've A/B/X tested...


So if you don't know how the circuit design and parts used affect the item then how do you know if it's "Hi End" or not?


----------



## WhereAmEye?

Jesus Christ said:


> So if you don't know how the circuit design and parts used affect the item then how do you know if it's "Hi End" or not?


It costs more than the other amp...duhh


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> A factory.


 funny...


----------



## Victor_inox

High End anything is for dummies Isn`t that what you guys saying?


----------



## JPOSEY

......................and the debate goes on!


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> High End anything is for dummies Isn`t that what you guys saying?


I've never said that. This thread is about higher end amps having an effect on sq. I'm just trying to figure out what makes an amp high end, how it effects the sq and why these differences are desirable.


----------



## Victor_inox

I`ll bite, proven circuit design, uncompromised engineering, best parts available, outstanding craftsmanship, no cut corners. to be accepted as High End all of the above must be true. Often all of the above raising price to untouchable level for most people.


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> I`ll bite, proven circuit design, uncompromised engineering, best parts available, outstanding craftsmanship, no cut corners. to be accepted as High End all of the above must be true. Often all of the above raising price to untouchable level for most people.


As far as this thread goes, how do all of these things affect sq?


----------



## cajunner

Jesus Christ said:


> I've never said that. This thread is about higher end amps having an effect on sq. I'm just trying to figure out what makes an amp high end, how it effects the sq and why these differences are desirable.


you want to lift the veil, huh?

considering the notion that it is possible a talented circuit designer from Chow-Ping, hits on a circuit that is remarkably low-noise, high tolerance, low parts count and exemplary in all respects, and by all accounts his circuit turns all American designed product into paperweights...

no, let's not consider that. 

that there might be a circuit circulating in mass-production facilities like a sleeper cell, ready at any moment to be populated by higher end parts and simply trounce the competition...


or is it really that important? I have read where the amplifier designers themselves believe it is the circuit that makes the most difference, and if the build process for all the parts is homogenized to the point where you can't really find fault with the tolerances, then it must be the circuit?

so, let's lift that veil. 

let's get a real amplifier designer's opinion... wait.


I bet there are dozens of interviews available online that does just that, I'm sure amplifier designers are a chatty bunch, what with the narcissism and the bennies that come from being handy with the breadboard....



hahaha..


----------



## lizardking

It doesn't ^^^^^ just cost more giving you the illusion of better.


----------



## Victor_inox

lizardking said:


> It doesn't ^^^^^ just cost more giving you the illusion of better.


 Illusion? You obviously never owned anything High End.


----------



## WhereAmEye?

There's more to a company then their products. But most people only care about money anyway so keep arguing to your grave about cheap always being better. Cheap cheap. No one cares about quality anymore.


----------



## Victor_inox

WhereAmEye? said:


> There's more to a company then their products. But most people only care about money anyway so keep arguing to your grave about cheap always being better. Cheap cheap. No one cares about quality anymore.


Mediocrity in everything- New American way!


----------



## Jesus Christ

WhereAmEye? said:


> There's more to a company then their products. But most people only care about money anyway so keep arguing to your grave about cheap always being better. Cheap cheap. No one cares about quality anymore.


I have no problem paying more for better performance but I do have a problem with paying more for identical performance.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> I have no problem paying more for better performance but I do have a problem with paying more for identical performance.



How about HU upgrades some people here raving about? or opamps replacements in amps? does that means it`s wasted money and those upgrades not really working?


----------



## pjc

I have looked at thread a good amount. But I'm not jumping in. Just have a question. Out of the "high end" amps... What are the cheapest ones? Best bang for the buck?


----------



## cajunner

but there's always a grade higher, I don't know that many millionaires but it seems that high end, is a scale and just when you thought you reached the finest, acquiring the very best, someone comes along and says, "you call that a knife?" and proceeds to whip out some custom jobber that you have to admit to yourself, you now want instead of what you already have...

so high end is really not a destination, it's a journey.


I wanted what I thought was high end sunglasses, so I bought Serengeti Drivers. Why, why would I think that Serengeti was the best? And I realized that those magazine advertisements I read in my youth, led me to believe it was so.

Now, I'm sure some of you out there can name me some new sunglass company that makes the view out of the Serengeti, simply atrocious in comparison, but I never fail to enjoy putting on my Serengeti as the glare creeps up off the windshield angle from the sun.

So, I need something better, right? Serengeti is just mid grade, I'm obviously deluded in my comfort as the filtering from Serengeti is not even 10% the quality of these new lenses, so much sharper, so much more contrast, so much detail...


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> How about HU upgrades some people here raving about? or opamps replacements in amps? does that means it`s wasted money and those upgrades not really working?


As long as these upgrades make an audible improvement then it's not necessarily wasted. I've swapped opamps and noticed an effect on noise and with high efficiency drivers it's money well spent.


----------



## WhereAmEye?

There's a difference in paying 500% more for glasses for a name and spending more for a quality product that someone put blood sweat and tears into designing and making. As a machinist I know the effort needed just for a simple part and because of that effort, I'm proud of the part and think it's worth more than maybe an identical part made in a casting.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> As long as these upgrades make an audible improvement then it's not necessarily wasted. I've swapped opamps and noticed an effect on noise and with high efficiency drivers it's money well spent.


THat is a Heresy right here, That oppose whole idea of all amps sounds the same.
Also if you don`t mind me asking how high efficiency drivers affected by opamps change?


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> THat is a Heresy right here, That oppose whole idea of all amps sounds the same.
> Also if you don`t mind me asking how high efficiency drivers affected by opamps change?


Any noise an amp has is much more noticeable with high efficiency drivers so anything that can lower the noise helps.


----------



## TrickyRicky

This will probably the only thread that reaches the 500pg club.


----------



## Victor_inox

TrickyRicky said:


> This will probably the only thread that reaches the 500pg club.


Highly unlikely it will reach 100 pages. It seems that both parties running out of steam.


----------



## TrickyRicky

Victor_inox said:


> Highly unlikely it will reach 100 pages. It seems that both parties running out of steam.


Trust me after you guys are finished, there will be a few more to come along for the ride..


----------



## Def!ant

WhereAmEye? said:


> There's more to a company then their products. But most people only care about money anyway so keep arguing to your grave about cheap always being better. Cheap cheap. No one cares about quality anymore.


I think it's more about value. In the amp game, it's hard to explain the value of a ,say, $1000 500 watt amps vs. a $200 500 watts amp. Especially since sound quality, for the most part, is subjective. I can almost guarantee that if I sit in any of your "sound quality" cars that I won't like it. Does that mean it sounds bad? No. 

Fundamentally, this is why I don't buy true high end car audio. I mean I don't buy garbage (Pyle, Jensen, Boss..etc), but I can say with certainty that I will never pay retail for an Audison amplifier. I'm not being cheap; I just don't see the value in it.


----------



## WhereAmEye?

Def!ant said:


> I think it's more about value. In the amp game, it's hard to explain the value of a ,say, $1000 500 watt amps vs. a $200 500 watts amp. Especially since sound quality, for the most part, is subjective. I can almost guarantee that if I sit in any of your "sound quality" cars that I won't like it. Does that mean it sounds bad? No.
> 
> Fundamentally, this is why I don't buy true high end car audio. I mean I don't buy garbage (Pyle, Jensen, Boss..etc), but I can say with certainty that I will never pay retail for an Audison amplifier. I'm not being cheap; I just don't see the value in it.


I don't disagree with anything you just said. I'm not gona pay a big bill for just a name, but I'm not gona spend $20 on a boss amp just to say I have an amp because I care about the quality of the build and company.


----------



## Victor_inox

Nothing about Audison is High End.maybe their 6 to 8 but certainly not amplifiers.
Not circuitry, nor engineering or craftsmanship. If anything they just a bit better then Pyle,Jensen, BOSS, etc. If anything JL is better than Audison but JL is too mainstream for
"upscale" customer, everyone thinking highly of themselves, most of the time that thought is unfounded and they `d be perfectly fine with Pyle,Jensen,Boss or whatever puke of the day on sale at Sonic.


----------



## subwoofery

pjc said:


> I have looked at thread a good amount. But I'm not jumping in. Just have a question. Out of the "high end" amps... What are the cheapest ones? Best bang for the buck?


I'd say Arc Audio SE and Helix Competition A line  

Kelvin


----------



## Def!ant

Victor_inox said:


> Nothing about Audison is High End.maybe their 6 to 8 but certainly not amplifiers.
> Not circuitry, nor engineering or craftsmanship. If anything they just a bit better then Pyle,Jensen, BOSS, etc. If anything JL is better than Audison but JL is too mainstream for
> "upscale" customer, everyone thinking highly of themselves, most of the time that thought is unfounded and they `d be perfectly fine with Pyle,Jensen,Boss or whatever puke of the day on sale at Sonic.


Semantics. 

Audison was merely an example. I have no idea where their quality ranking sits, nor do I care. I'll never own their product.

I was simply trying to make a point about value.


----------



## Victor_inox

don`t mind me I`m not pointing on you, just general observation. Semantics if you will.
What is value? desire to spent as little as possible at cost of people who designed, produced and marketed their brains for self important ****s who thinks that they deserve better value. what is more disturbing is that slightly above minimum wage job make you money more important than money of overpaid ****s who attended school for 20 years to make your music more enjoyable.


----------



## Def!ant

Victor_inox said:


> don`t mind me I`m not pointing on you, just general observation. Semantics if you will.
> What is value? desire to spent as little as possible at cost of people who designed, produced and marketed their brains for self important ****s who thinks that they deserve better value. what is more disturbing is that slightly above minimum wage job make you money more important than money of overpaid ****s who attended school for 20 years to make your music more enjoyable.


I don't know about all that, so how about I just answer your question; at least as far as what I consider value to be..

To me "value" isn't trying to get a $200,000 Ferrari for the price of a $75,000 Corvette. That's called being an *******.

I feel most people don't have a problem spending the money on something as long as they feel they are getting what they paid for. I'm sure we all know what a Nissan GTR is. And if you know what a GTR is, then you know that car essentially has set the benchmark in performance that A LOT of hyper car companies can't achieve. 

Example:

A stock GTR has a sub 3 second 0-60 time. You know what other car shares the same 0-60 time? The 1.4 million dollar Bugatti Veyron. Like high end amps, the Bugatti has a lot more refinements; it's had built; employs the use of much luxurious materials. However, in regards to getting your ass from 0-60, the GTR is the better value. You're getting the same performance at a fraction of the cost. 

I think it is inherent in all of us that we don't want to be taken advantage of. We don't want to pay 1.2 million dollars for a GTR with a Bugatti emblem. I'm convinced that's the case, more often that not.


----------



## Victor_inox

That`s fair,still None of them appeared to me as value purchase though.
A lot of people would pick hood ornament over value or we would be all driving Hyundai, KIA or VW despite that fact that VW owns Bugatti, Audi, Bentley and bunch of others.
How boring this world would be if we all buy the same ****?! Isn`t that awesome that some could afford 2 million dollar cars or have huge garage filled with rare vehicles.


----------



## Def!ant

Victor_inox said:


> That`s fair,still None of them appeared to me as value purchase though.


Neither do they to me. I'd NEVER spend million dollars on a car. Correction: I would never spend $1,000,000 on a Bugatti. Even if it was built by magical unicorns, I still wouldn't buy a Bugatti, but hey.. that's just me. 

To each their own.


----------



## Victor_inox

right, you don`t have a reason to avoid certain products at least not logical one.


----------



## legend94

pjc said:


> I have looked at thread a good amount. But I'm not jumping in. Just have a question. Out of the "high end" amps... What are the cheapest ones? Best bang for the buck?


This was a damn good post.

How about both sides of this debate try to find a common ground? Or are both sides too stubborn?

What I mean by this is what amps have better than average design and components and are in reachable price range for most. 

Let's stay with class ab to start.....

Kelvin mentioned arc se and helix. Anything close to them at a lower price?


----------



## TrickyRicky

I find it funny how kia hyndai and Chrysler borrow the looks of Mercedes, Jaguar and Bentley...


----------



## DBlevel

pjc said:


> I have looked at thread a good amount. But I'm not jumping in. Just have a question. Out of the "high end" amps... What are the cheapest ones? Best bang for the buck?



Lots of old school amps out there I'd rather run versus the newer "high end" amps.....


----------



## ou812

DBlevel said:


> Lots of old school amps out there I'd rather run versus the newer "high end" amps.....


I'll drink to that.


----------



## DBlevel

ou812 said:


> I'll drink to that.



One day I'd like to hear those ESX amps! Bet that is an amazing sounding setup!


----------



## legend94

Name the brand and model numbers of said amps!


----------



## DBlevel

legend94 said:


> Name the brand and model numbers of said amps!



Who you speaking to?


----------



## legend94

DBlevel said:


> Who you speaking to?


Maybe


----------



## legend94

DBlevel said:


> One day I'd like to hear those ESX amps! Bet that is an amazing sounding setup!


No matter which side of this debate you are on you can't debate their power! And they look sweet....


----------



## DBlevel

legend94 said:


> Maybe



Lol


----------



## Victor_inox

TrickyRicky said:


> I find it funny how kia hyndai and Chrysler borrow the looks of Mercedes, Jaguar and Bentley...


I have a close friend who would not seat in the car if it`s not sporting at least BMW badge. I offered her following scenario.
You come to the BMW dealer and decided to buy their most expensive car.
After you selected what you want you paid for it and was about to leave when GM of that dealership stepped out of his office and broke the news that Hyundai just bought BMW and they have to rebadge every vehicle leaving dealership.
what would you do?


----------



## Victor_inox

ou812 said:


> I'll drink to that.


 cheers!


----------



## ou812

DBlevel said:


> One day I'd like to hear those ESX amps! Bet that is an amazing sounding setup!


well my sig isn't accurate anymore. I upgraded my tweets to scan 3004's. that was one of the biggest improvements in my system. before the esx I ran usacoustics usa series. the ones that sell dirt cheap. I honestly don't think my sytem sounded any different going to esx aside from the ability to play louder. even if I hooked up an esx on my right channel and usacoustics on the left and level matched the channels I highly doubt I could hear a difference. then again I severely abused my hearing in the 80's and 90's at live shows.


----------



## legend94

DBlevel said:


> Lol


Give some examples!

I'll start....I really like the arc xxk series and they can be had cheaply now.


----------



## legend94

ou812 said:


> well my sig isn't accurate anymore. I upgraded my tweets to scan 3004's.


Tell me more about the tweeter switch. Getting ready to make a raw driver order soon.


----------



## legend94

Victor_inox said:


> I have a close friend who would not seat in the car if it`s not sporting at least BMW badge. I offered her following scenario.
> You come to the BMW dealer and decided to buy their most expensive car.
> After you selected what you want you paid for it and was about to leave when GM of that dealership stepped out of his office and broke the news that Hyundai just bought BMW and they have to rebadge every vehicle leaving dealership.
> what would you do?



I also want some amp choices from you! What's the lowest priced amp you could live with now? Being totally serious. 

And since you are hanging out in this thread I'll save myself texting you. I always run a capacitor inline with my tweeter when going full active. Are the solen Metalized Polypropylene Fast Capacitor 400V a decent choice?


----------



## DBlevel

legend94 said:


> Give some examples!
> 
> I'll start....I really like the arc xxk series and they can be had cheaply now.


US Acoustics usa & usx series
Lanzar Opti Blues or black/gold
Planet Audio p & HVT series
ESX q series

All are excellent buys for the money!


----------



## ou812

legend94 said:


> Tell me more about the tweeter switch. Getting ready to make a raw driver order soon.


I don't want to derail the thread but oh well. I had Vifa xt 25's for a few years mated to Image dynamics oem mids. I get a pretty bad sound in the ID's when I cross them higher than 3k. Backing them off to 2.5 18db sounded much better and tamed them a bit. The vifa tweets IMO struggle to play that low. The lowest I could cross them and still play loud was 4k. Even then they sounded like they were straining. I switched to these and it was a whole new world.

https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...luminator-d3004/6020-00-tweeter-textile-dome/

I dropped my mids down to I think 1.7k and the scans to 2.5. It's amazing how clear and realistic they sound even crossed that low and they're on 2 channels of my 120.4 playing really loud. no straining or fatigue at all. I will say above 5k the Vifa and scans are both incredible performers. And the Vifa are dirt cheap as opposed to the scans.


----------



## Victor_inox

Justin,Price never has anything to do with my amp choices I own 4 brax amps as we speak. I owned about 200 to 300 amplifiers, car amps, pro audio, home. maybe more I never really counted. design,parts used and craftsmanship only parameters I`m interested in. If I base my amp choices on price I`d be sporting critical mass joke of an amplifier. 

As of using Solen Metalized Polypropylene Fast Capacitor 400V for tweeter protection- sure why not, it`s not affect sound quality in range you passing to it out of your dsp in active setup. in this regard any cap with proper parameters will do just as good.
cheap mylar cap will do just fine. $3 generic ebay special works just fine for intended purpose. Would I use mylar caps or God forbid electrolytic cap in real crossovers? no way.
Mundorf silvers would be my choice if budget is not a limiting factor. Parts price is not that high, mundorf silvers cost $30 to 200 a piece and that is top shelf caps.
if I were to build nice towers for home audio I`d use just that. I rebuild crossovers for home audio speakers and use mundorf silvers if customer is up to it, IMHO make huge difference. I calculate how much my tube preamps will cost if I only use top grade parts in it. less than a grand in part alone and I`m talking highest quality parts money can buy.
Would it make a difference in sound? yes it will but I`ll sell none. it doesn`t matter if I`ll have no customers to enjoy uncompromised parts selection and sound quality.
not in this hobby. but you can bet your everything that for my personal units I`ll have no compromises.


----------



## Victor_inox

DBlevel said:


> US Acoustics usa & usx series
> Lanzar Opti Blues or black/gold
> Planet Audio p & HVT series
> ESX q series
> 
> All are excellent buys for the money!


 True that.


----------



## legend94

DBlevel said:


> US Acoustics usa & usx series
> Lanzar Opti Blues or black/gold
> Planet Audio p & HVT series
> ESX q series
> 
> All are excellent buys for the money!


Those planet audio were some of my favorite! 



ou812 said:


> I don't want to derail the thread but oh well. I had Vifa xt 25's for a few years mated to Image dynamics oem mids. I get a pretty bad sound in the ID's when I cross them higher than 3k. Backing them off to 2.5 18db sounded much better and tamed them a bit. The vifa tweets IMO struggle to play that low. The lowest I could cross them and still play loud was 4k. Even then they sounded like they were straining. I switched to these and it was a whole new world.
> 
> https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...luminator-d3004/6020-00-tweeter-textile-dome/
> 
> I dropped my mids down to I think 1.7k and the scans to 2.5. It's amazing how clear and realistic they sound even crossed that low and they're on 2 channels of my 120.4 playing really loud. no straining or fatigue at all. I will say above 5k the Vifa and scans are both incredible performers. And the Vifa are dirt cheap as opposed to the scans.


Derail this thread? Lol. It needs just that!

Thanks for your detailed explanation on your tweeter explanation. Those tweets you have are perfect in my experience. For the price they can be had not much can touch them. 



Victor_inox said:


> Justin,Price never has anything to do with my amp choices I own 4 brax amps as we speak. I owned about 200 to 300 amplifiers, car amps, pro audio, home. maybe more I never really counted. design,parts used and craftsmanship only parameters I`m interested in. If I base my amp choices on price I`d be sporting critical mass joke of an amplifier.
> 
> As of using Solen Metalized Polypropylene Fast Capacitor 400V for tweeter protection- sure why not, it`s not affect sound quality in range you passing to it out of your dsp in active setup. in this regard any cap with proper parameters will do just as good.
> cheap mylar cap will do just fine. $3 generic ebay special works just fine for intended purpose. Would I use mylar caps or God forbid electrolytic cap in real crossovers? no way.
> Mundorf silvers would be my choice if budget is not a limiting factor. Parts price is not that high, mundorf silvers cost $30 to 200 a piece and that is top shelf caps.
> if I were to build nice towers for home audio I`d use just that. I rebuild crossovers for home audio speakers and use mundorf silvers if customer is up to it, IMHO make huge difference. I calculate how much my tube preamps will cost if I only use top grade parts in it. less than a grand in part alone and I`m talking highest quality parts money can buy.
> Would it make a difference in sound? yes it will but I`ll sell none. it doesn`t matter if I`ll have no customers to enjoy uncompromised parts selection and sound quality.
> not in this hobby. but you can bet your everything that for my personal units I`ll have no compromises.


thanks bud!

So besides brax what amp would you enjoy?


----------



## ou812

I can accept that an individual may or may not be able to hear a difference in sound from one amp to another. I happen to be a person that can't hear a difference. Like I said before it may in fact be due to abuse to my hearing over the yrs. I only bring this up because of the mention of planet audio HVT amps. 

My son and I conducted a very non scientific experiment a few yrs ago. We took a planet audio HVT754 and hooked it up to the right side mid and tweet in his jeep. The left side we hooked up an ESX Q120.4. they were getting a signal via a DRZ. tweets were Scan 3004 and I can't remember the mids. We tried to level match them from left to right as best we could to accommodate for the big difference in power. 

We played at least a dozen tracks there was only the very slightest of difference. My son's hearing has got to be much better than mine and he could barely hear a difference. 


So riddle me this....Why am I becoming more compelled to try a Victory Sonics tube pre amp?


----------



## legend94

ou812 said:


> So riddle me this....Why am I becoming more compelled to try a Victory Sonics tube pre amp?


You should! You WILL hear a difference.


----------



## ou812

legend94 said:


> You should! You WILL hear a difference.


I'm going to re-install my equipment in my new truck in the spring. I'm seriously thinking about getting one but I'm kinda hesitant. hearing loss ya know...Do you own one?


----------



## Victor_inox

ou812 said:


> I can accept that an individual may or may not be able to hear a difference in sound from one amp to another. I happen to be a person that can't hear a difference. Like I said before it may in fact be due to abuse to my hearing over the yrs. I only bring this up because of the mention of planet audio HVT amps.
> 
> My son and I conducted a very non scientific experiment a few yrs ago. We took a planet audio HVT754 and hooked it up to the right side mid and tweet in his jeep. The left side we hooked up an ESX Q120.4. they were getting a signal via a DRZ. tweets were Scan 3004 and I can't remember the mids. We tried to level match them from left to right as best we could to accommodate for the big difference in power.
> 
> We played at least a dozen tracks there was only the very slightest of difference. My son's hearing has got to be much better than mine and he could barely hear a difference.
> 
> 
> So riddle me this....Why am I becoming more compelled to try a Victory Sonics tube pre amp?


In home audio High End slight difference could mean 200 000 dollars price tag. 
I`m right here just quick PM away.  in any case you`ll have nothing to lose but return shipping if you decide so for whatever reason, I think I`m pretty safe saying that because since introduction of first units I have zero returns, you welcome to be first if you`d feel like it after trying it. 100% success rate to me means one thing I priced them too low. there is no competition as of today no one produce tube preamplifiers for mobile audio. Don`t ask me why, perhaps market of true enthusiasts is too small. If anything 22 DB of signal gain will help compensating hearing loss.


----------



## ou812

Victor_inox said:


> In home audio High End slight difference could mean 200 000 dollars price tag.
> I`m right here just quick PM away.  in any case you`ll have nothing to lose but return shipping if you decide so for whatever reason, I think I`m pretty safe saying that because since introduction of first units I have zero returns, you welcome to be first if you`d feel like it after trying it. 100% success rate to me means one thing I priced them too low. there is no competition as of today no one produce tube preamplifiers for mobile audio. Don`t ask me why, perhaps market of true enthusiasts is too small. If anything 22 DB of signal gain will help compensating hearing loss.


 I'm going to pull the back seat out in spring and start figuring out where and how to mount my amps. When I figure out what kind of room I'm left with I'll get in touch with you.


----------



## Victor_inox

ou812 said:


> I'm going to pull the back seat out in spring and start figuring out where and how to mount my amps. When I figure out what kind of room I'm left with I'll get in touch with you.


 sure thing I`m not going anywhere. 2ch preamp is about the size of two packs of smokes.


----------



## XSIV SPL

It seems that a good percentage of folks jumping into this discussion wouldn't know how to discern nor appreciate the difference between "high end" and junk when it comes to amplification.

There is a difference, and it's not small-

The main thing most folks in this discussion seem to ignore (or are more likely unaware of) is the fact that one will never realize the difference in the true fidelity delivered by an amplifier until they have connected a highly accurate loudspeaker to the business end of that amp, or, at least a loudspeaker which is accurate enough to reveal the difference.

If, for example, you are running a pair of Alpine speakers and A-B evaluating let's say the Crutchfield amplifier special of the week vs. Audison or Sinfoni, etc., you will be hard pressed to hear the difference.

On the other hand, if you are connecting these same amps to more accurate loudspeakers- (Dynaudio, Focal, etc.) properly enclosed- your experience will be MUCH different.

Amps do sound vastly different-

You cannot just upgrade to a "better amp" and hear much difference, if any, unless you pursue several other things first:

Things such as stiffening your power supply, shortening/improving your signal source path/accuracy, building proper enclosures for your loudspeakers, investing in highly accurate loudspeakers, tuning and becoming an educated listener will ALL take place before this argument will ever go away...

The biggest issue here as I see it is this:

The folks who claim that high end amp SQ is a myth have (IMO) probably either never owned one nor have properly paired one with loudspeakers, power supply, signal processing, etc. worthy of delivering its benefits.

To me, this entire thread looks like a childish and uneducated argument, and I'm a bit astounded by how many folks here have demonstrated just how little they know about audio with the multitude of erroneous claims made herein.

Sorry, but I'd rather see photos of your cats....


----------



## Jesus Christ

XSIV SPL said:


> The folks who claim that high end amp SQ is a myth have (IMO) probably either never owned one nor have properly paired one with loudspeakers, power supply, signal processing, etc. worthy of delivering its benefits.


The folks who claim that high end amp SQ isn't a myth have (IMO) probably never done a proper blind listening test.


> To me, this entire thread looks like a childish and uneducated argument, and I'm a bit astounded by how many folks here have demonstrated just how little they know about audio with the multitude of erroneous claims made herein.
> 
> Sorry, but I'd rather see photos of your cats....


So where's the picture of your cat?


----------



## Victor_inox

speakers importance was preached from the beginning.
Also nobody thinks of how their dsp works,it converts signal to digital, TA,EQ, etc and then convert it back to analog. I bet you 100 bucks that ADC DACs used in those DSP is not best known to man.


----------



## squeak9798

XSIV SPL said:


> To me, this entire thread looks like a childish and uneducated argument, and I'm a bit astounded by how many folks here have demonstrated just how little they know about audio with the multitude of erroneous claims made herein.


What is most humorous to me is that this statement applies directly to the drivel you posted just before it.


----------



## WRX/Z28

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zqe4ZV9LDs


Wait till it get's to the banana taste test. This is you "Amp SQ" believers in a nutshell...


----------



## WRX/Z28

squeak9798 said:


> What is most humorous to me is that this statement applies directly to the drivel you posted just before it.


I was dying when I read that... :laugh:


----------



## WRX/Z28

http://youtu.be/YFKT4jvN4OE



More of you amp's all sound different guys shown here...


----------



## Orion525iT

XSIV SPL said:


> Amps do sound vastly different-
> 
> The biggest issue here as I see it is this:
> 
> The folks who claim that high end amp SQ is a myth have (IMO) probably either never owned one nor have properly paired one with loudspeakers, power supply, signal processing, etc. worthy of delivering its benefits.
> 
> To me, this entire thread looks like a childish and uneducated argument, and I'm a bit astounded by how many folks here have demonstrated just how little they know about audio with the multitude of erroneous claims made herein.
> 
> Sorry, but I'd rather see photos of your cats....


I am actually agnostic about the subject at hand. But, for the tenth time, the people making the positive claim (that there is a difference) have the burden to PROVE IT! Or at least provide evidence to the claim. So far, none have done that, and so the default position must be that there is no difference. It is the height of ignorance to not understand this basic concept.

So far, the pro high end amp camp has only provided fallacious arguments. These arguments are full of personal testimony, appeal to authority, and straw man arguments. Arguments like; you're not Golden Eared enough, you haven't heard the best of the best, everything else in your chain is subpar, ect. All that amounts to is a a slag pile of BS.

So until one of you comes up with some research, or study that shows statistically that there is an audible difference, you need to stop with your endless fallacies.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Orion525iT said:


> I am actually agnostic about the subject at hand. But, for the tenth time, the people making the positive claim (that there is a difference) have the burden to PROVE IT! Or at least provide evidence to the claim. So far, none have done that, and so the default position must be that there is no difference. It is the height of ignorance to not understand this basic concept.
> 
> So far, the pro high end amp camp has only provided fallacious arguments. These arguments are full of personal testimony, appeal to authority, and straw man arguments. Arguments like; you're not Golden Eared enough, you haven't heard the best of the best, everything else in your chain is subpar, ect. All that amounts to is a a slag pile of BS.
> 
> So until one of you comes up with some research, or study that shows statistically that there is an audible difference, you need to stop with your endless fallacies.


^^^^ This


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zqe4ZV9LDs
> 
> 
> Wait till it get's to the banana taste test. This is you "Amp SQ" believers in a nutshell...


 Funny but completely irrelevant.Organic food is not about taste.


----------



## rxonmymind

What? You guys can't hear in ULF? Hurmph! Feel sorry for you. Now to get those atoms in line and stop vibrating.... what sound deadener is there that will work?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjLTqZfxXyQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## Victor_inox

Youtube to the rescue, pathetic!


----------



## rxonmymind

Lol....


----------



## legend94

squeak9798 said:


> What is most humorous to me is that this statement applies directly to the drivel you posted just before it.



Lol. Certainly an oops moment.


----------



## legend94

Victor_inox said:


> Funny but completely irrelevant.Organic food is not about taste.


It might be that the non organic food producers have made their product sweeter and thus more appealing


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> It might be that the non organic food producers have made their product sweeter and thus more appealing


 genetically modified corn certainly is.


----------



## schmiddr2

legend94 said:


> It might be that the non organic food producers have made their product sweeter and thus more appealing


lol.:laugh:


----------



## TrickyRicky

Every organism is a GMO's, including us.


----------



## WRX/Z28

WRX/Z28 said:


> http://youtu.be/YFKT4jvN4OE
> 
> 
> 
> More of you amp's all sound different guys shown here...





Victor_inox said:


> Funny but completely irrelevant.Organic food is not about taste.


You didn't even watch the banana video did you? lol


How about the water video, these are both certainly you guys...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> You didn't even watch the banana video did you? lol
> 
> 
> How about the water video, these are both certainly you guys...


Pathetic attempt to discredit audio guys with food testing failure. 
Are you really that desperate?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Pathetic attempt to discredit audio guys with food testing failure.
> Are you really that desperate?


Desperate? lol. No, just showing that people can claim differences even when there is no difference due to psychology and suggestion... these people were not BS artists, they truly believed they tasted a difference because the selling/labels and expectations told them there was a difference, so their brain made up a difference.

Pathetic attempt? You crack me up. 

Your reply indicates that you see some of this in your own belief. Keep insisting though, maybe one day you'll be saved from yourself...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Desperate? lol. No, just showing that people can claim differences even when there is no difference due to psychology and suggestion... these people were not BS artists, they truly believed they tasted a difference because the selling/labels and expectations told them there was a difference, so their brain made up a difference.
> 
> Pathetic attempt? Your reply indicates that you see some of this in your own belief. Keep insisting though, maybe one day you'll be saved from yourself...


Yet scientific test will show difference between organic/non organic produce, care to explain why Lord savior?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Yet scientific test will show difference between organic/non organic produce, care to explain why Lord savior?


Like I said, you didn't watch it. 

The gave the same banana to a bunch of people, and they all claimed to taste a difference, some of the words were extremely similar to what you audiophools use when describing the difference between amps. 

Same went for the water video.

Watch what I posted before you open your mouth next time, it will prevent your foot from flying into it...


----------



## legend94

WRX/Z28 said:


> http://youtu.be/YFKT4jvN4OE
> 
> 
> 
> More of you amp's all sound different guys shown here...


I will say consider the crowd in this one. 

Also, not all but some bottled water there is a noticeable difference in taste.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Like I said, you didn't watch it.
> 
> The gave the same banana to a bunch of people, and they all claimed to taste a difference, some of the words were extremely similar to what you audiophools use when describing the difference between amps.
> 
> Same went for the water video.
> 
> Watch what I posted before you open your mouth next time, it will prevent your foot from flying into it...


I watched it, there was not only same to same comparison. 
You started being rude you little bitter man. I suggest you to stop.


----------



## WRX/Z28

legend94 said:


> I will say consider the crowd in this one.
> 
> Also, not all but some bottled water there is a noticeable difference in taste.


Testing can easily be flawed if: A, the water was a different temperature. B, you drank right from the bottle, as bottle shapes and materials can affect how the water hits your palate and with what o2 mixed in. C, if you didn't drink them back to back. 


If you put them all in the same glass, let them all warm up to room temp, and tried them back to back in a double blind situation, I doubt you would be able to tell a difference, most people can't even do it with macro beers or coke/pepsi nevermind water. Then if you mixed in some Tang into the water (similar to adding the variation of speakers/tuning) it would be completely impossible. 

This is similar to amps. As I've said: Even if there is a difference, it's so small that once you factor in everything else like speakers, eq/ta settings, gain settings, crossover settings. It's pretty impossible to hear a difference that can be attributed to the amp itself with ANY degree of certainty.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I watched it, there was not only same to same comparison.
> You started being rude you little bitter man. I suggest you to stop.


As I said, watch the banana part, that's the direct correlation as the banana was the same, and people claimed differences. Just like you with amps... :laugh:

The water video was equally telling of how people can react to the same exact thing...

Don't see where I was rude, and certainly not bitter... care to explain that accusation?


----------



## Victor_inox

You position on the matter well understood, you driving in circles. Is that explanation good enough for you or you`ll go to youtube to supply "evidence" that you not bitter?
"Audiofools" is not rude, just stupid, my bad.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> You position on the matter well understood, you driving in circles. Is that explanation good enough for you or you`ll go to youtube to supply "evidence" that you not bitter?
> "Audiofools" is not rude, just stupid, my bad.


So I provided concrete evidence that something can be identical, and people claim to sense differences, but that is just "driving in circles". Amazing! 

Audiophools is the technical term for those the believe that $$$ spent = performance. People the believe in high end amps tend to fall into this category. They believe that you can not assemble an audio component worth listening to without great expense. That's why they thumb their nose at brands like Pyle, Dual, audiopipe and so on. They never thumb their nose at these for something concrete like reliability issues that can be proven in numbers, but simply "SQ" or lack thereof, which is entirely not provable, and subjective at best, imaginary at worst. 


I wasn't specifically meaning you, but generally just meaning people that refuse to learn, and just stick with the mentality that you have to spend to get... This really is the wrong forum for that, or at least in it's roots, it is. Maybe not anymore. But there I'm repeating myself...


----------



## Victor_inox

People will answer what they think is expected from them.
Lying is easier than truth, no explanation required. Testers manipulated them by implying that there is the difference in the first place, people answered what they thought was expected from them.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> People will answer what they think is expected from them.
> Lying is easier than truth, no explanation required. Testers manipulated them by implying that there is the difference in the first place, people answered what they thought was expected from them.


BINGO!


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> So I provided concrete evidence that something can be identical, and people claim to sense differences, but that is just "driving in circles". Amazing!
> 
> Audiophools is the technical term for those the believe that $$$ spent = performance. People the believe in high end amps tend to fall into this category. They believe that you can not assemble an audio component worth listening to without great expense. That's why they thumb their nose at brands like Pyle, Dual, audiopipe and so on. They never thumb their nose at these for something concrete like reliability issues that can be proven in numbers, but simply "SQ" or lack thereof.
> 
> 
> I wasn't specifically meaning you, but generally just meaning people that refuse to learn, and just stick with the mentality that you have to spend to get... This really is the wrong forum for that, or at least in it's roots, it is. Maybe not anymore. But there I'm repeating myself...



Money spent in most cases directly correlate with quality. Disagree?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Money spent in most cases directly correlate with quality. Disagree?


100% disagree, as would most sane rational individuals...


----------



## Victor_inox

you get what you pay for is incorrect in 100% cases then?


----------



## WhereAmEye?

Victor_inox said:


> you get what you pay for is incorrect in most cases then?


New age American dream


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> you get what you pay for is incorrect in most cases then?


Are you serious, or trying to set up some misguided comeback? You do realize what forum you're on right?


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Are you serious, or trying to set up some misguided comeback? You do realize what forum you're on right?


I`m glad your attacks guided well. I know what forum I`m on and I was not talking about extreme cases like Criticall Mass.

 You think that anyone trying to sell something is there to get ya. therefore your reaction to protect yourself.


----------



## Victor_inox

WhereAmEye? said:


> New age American dream



Not specific to America only to be fair.
Growing desire,population getting dumber as perfectly demonstrated in this very thread.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I`m glad your attacks guided well. I know what forum I`m on and I was not talking about extreme cases like Criticall Mass.
> 
> You certainly think that anyone trying to sell something is there to get ya. therefore your reaction to protect yourself.


Way to change the subject...


You see people, this is where his mentality comes from. 

The belief that quality and cost are in direct correlation (or mostly as you put it). They clearly are not, or everyone here would simply buy the most expensive of anything they buy. 

This forum's premise was exactly that, that you can do it yourself, and spend much less to get the same quality (whether we're referring to sound quality, or reliability). 

Somewhere along the way, this became a haven for SQ guys seeking refuge from the guys at CA.com and the likes. Along with these "SQ" guys came the guys that think that upper echelon equipment is the only path to phenomenal sound, and this is where the divides between guys like Victor and guys like myself come from. 

I believe that science, tuning, measurement, careful driver selection and learning are the path to phenomenal sound. He believes that money spent, and amplifier quality are the path. 

Choose for yourself who you think is closer to the truth. Choose whether you would rather learn what makes the difference by spending time experimenting and reading, or choose to simply spend money on equipment, crossing your fingers that if you spend enough, it will sound good.


----------



## KingJames

In the ear of the beholder? Everything about car audio is situational. Apologies if i re-iterated someone else post somewhere in the last 50 pages


----------



## Victor_inox

I`m feeding a troll I understand that, I should stop.

Show me where I said that if you get expensive equipment you shouldn`t learn how to use it. You just twisting the truth, according to you quality of equipment is unimportant, every idiot who spent 1500 on components is a moron who should invest more time to making theirs buyouts sounds great.
How about not everyone has time to learn things, they rely on accumulated knowledge of others and their time cost more than speakers they buy.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I`m feeding a troll I understand that, I should stop.
> 
> Show me where I said that if you get expensive equipment you shouldn`t learn how to use it. You just twisting the truth, according to you quality of equipment is unimportant, every idiot who spent 1500 on components is a moron who should invest more time to making theirs buyouts sounds great.
> How about not everyone has time to learn things, they rely on accumulated knowledge of others and their time cost more than speakers they buy.


One of my favorite lines about to be used here: 

Troll: I do not think it means what you think it means.

Victor, neither of us are trolls, as we both believe what we are saying. 

You unfortunately already admitted that you think cost and quality have a direct correlation. That said enough for me.


----------



## Victor_inox

You can`t make quality amp 3 times cheaper and that is perfectly demonstrated by chinese trying hard. it doesn`t mean that there is no chinese amps sounded good, their upper price amps is somewhat decent. You can use bottom shelf things and get result you want. I`d not use chinese equipment until I no longer have a choice. Right now I still do and will stick to it. I`d use german or italian or japanese equipment instead, I`ve seen too many chinese internals to believe in it. 
What truth did I twisted?


----------



## squeak9798

Victor_inox said:


> ,population getting dumber as perfectly demonstrated in this very thread.


Yes, you and those in your camp demonstrate that point exactly.


----------



## Victor_inox

squeak9798 said:


> Yes, you and those in your camp demonstrate that point exactly.


 I know it`s easier to take something out of context. attention span of a fly is demonstrating that point exactly.


----------



## schmiddr2

"Quality", again, is being tossed around without it just meaning SQ, and that is wrong in this thread. Quality can mean more than SQ, but to use it to heighten your argument against another in this thread is like needing 3 legs to stand.


----------



## Victor_inox

SQ is impossible without overall quality of the unit. Quality of the unit correlate with price. Of course there is best, average and poor values in everything including car audio.
and that parameter correlates with price but that is non linear, often cheapest units has poor value despite the price. Better?


----------



## squeak9798

Victor_inox said:


> SQ is impossible without overall quality of the unit. Quality of the unit correlate with price. Of course there is best, average and poor values in everything including car audio.
> and that parameter correlates with price but that is non linear, often cheapest units has poor value despite the price. Better?


All of that is just more subjective conjecture


----------



## Victor_inox

squeak9798 said:


> All of that is just more subjective conjecture


quality of parts and circuit is not subjective, any audio engineer will tell you that.
quality of chassis and assembly even non professional can tell after visual inspection.


----------



## schmiddr2

Victor_inox said:


> quality of parts and circuit is not subjective, any audio engineer will tell you that.
> quality of chassis and assembly even non professional can tell after visual inspection.


*It is subjective* because you are addressing the build quality as if it makes the SQ better. Just address the SQ.


----------



## squeak9798

Victor_inox said:


> quality of parts and circuit is not subjective, any audio engineer will tell you that.
> quality of chassis and assembly even non professional can tell after visual inspection.


The subjective conjecture was 1) that the more expensive amplifier necessarily has better quality design and/or parts, 2) that the design and parts of the more expensive amplifier necessarily has lower failure rates or better longevity, 3) that any of this has any audible affect on the output of the amplifier, and 4) that the design and parts of the more expensive amplifier necessarily make the less expensive amplifier a worse value.

Yes, your entire post was meaningless subjective conjecture as you do not possibly have sufficient objective data to support every one of those points.

At this point, I'm convinced you're the troll


----------



## Victor_inox

SQ is subjective by definition some can`t tell difference between chip amps and 8 transistors per side per channel. 95% driving around with chip amp sound and quite happy about it. does it makes their system as good as custom install? SQ wise?


----------



## Victor_inox

squeak9798 said:


> The subjective conjecture was 1) that the more expensive amplifier necessarily has better quality design and/or parts, 2) that the design and parts of the more expensive amplifier necessarily has lower failure rates or better longevity, 3) that any of this has any audible affect on the output of the amplifier, and 4) that the design and parts of the more expensive amplifier necessarily make the less expensive amplifier a worse value.
> 
> Yes, your entire post was meaningless subjective conjecture as you do not possibly have sufficient objective data to support every one of those points.
> 
> At this point, I'm convinced you're the troll


Let me guess you are 17y/o, correct? Just wondering what part of my post said that cheaper amp is necessarily worse value ?You came to that conclusion based on this:
"Of course there is best, average and poor values in everything including car audio.
and that parameter correlates with price but that is non linear, often cheapest units has poor value despite the price."
Where does it said "that the design and parts of the more expensive amplifier necessarily make the less expensive amplifier a worse value". Apparently I`m failing making my point.


----------



## pjc

I don't understand why that would make him come across as a 17yo?


----------



## Victor_inox

luck of attention to what exactly written. quick and aggressive approach to peaceful discussion before he jumped in.


----------



## DBlevel

I think quality would help contribute to the SQ with quality parts and design used to build it. Not sure if you could find a good SQ amp without having a quality built amplifier.


----------



## DBlevel

schmiddr2 said:


> *It is subjective* because you are addressing the build quality as if it makes the SQ better. Just address the SQ.



Can you have a good SQ amp without a quality built amp?


----------



## Jesus Christ

So what are the desirable characteristics of an "SQ" amp? What characteristics make an amp a non "SQ" amp?


----------



## WhereAmEye?

Victor_inox said:


> luck of attention to what exactly written. quick and aggressive approach to peaceful discussion before he jumped in.


He could probably spell lack correctly. Being under 20 doesn't automatically make you stupid, sir.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Let me guess you are 17y/o, correct? Just wondering what part of my post said that cheaper amp is necessarily worse value ?You came to that conclusion based on this:
> "Of course there is best, average and poor values in everything including car audio.
> and that parameter correlates with price but that is non linear, often cheapest units has poor value despite the price."
> Where does it said "that the design and parts of the more expensive amplifier necessarily make the less expensive amplifier a worse value". Apparently I`m failing making my point.


Are you stupid, or you can't read. See under his name where it says he's been coming here since 2005? That's about 3 years earlier than me, and about 7 years earlier than you. That would mean he was coming to this car stereo forum when he was 7. :laugh:

You 100% are failing to make your point because your point makes no sense. You said that quality and cost directly correlate, when they in fact do not. 





pjc said:


> I don't understand why that would make him come across as a 17yo?


Thank you! I'm sure he can defend himself, but blatant/intentional stupidity drives me nuts.



DBlevel said:


> Can you have a good SQ amp without a quality built amp?


Absolutely. There are ton's of "SQ" amps that come from "high end" manufacturers that have horrid reliability. 



DBlevel said:


> I think quality would help contribute to the SQ with quality parts and design used to build it. Not sure if you could find a good SQ amp without having a quality built amplifier.


And you think this because? What correlation is there, and please be VERY specific.


----------



## WhereAmEye?

I'm sure since you're an electrical engineer that knows everything you could tell us EXACTLY what makes an amp sound the same as another amp? This is a religious debate right now, and those never end because they're are no hard facts. Let an amp designer join the party and this debate might have some meaning.


----------



## Jesus Christ

WhereAmEye? said:


> what makes an amp sound the same as another amp?


Frequency response, distortion, power and noise.



> This is a religious debate right now


If only Jesus were here to settle this...


----------



## pjc

Victor_inox said:


> luck of attention to what exactly written. quick and aggressive approach to peaceful discussion before he jumped in.


You come across as aggressive a lot on here. For claiming that someone has a lack of attention, you fail to punctuate and form complete sentences many times. 

I've tried to hold back a lot when I read a lot of your posts. But you always seem to add fuel to the fire and come across as a troll on many threads.


----------



## WhereAmEye?

Jesus Christ said:


> If only Jesus were here to settle this...


This debate would be the least of His worries


----------



## pjc

And what just occurred to me is this: does this debate even matter? Each of us runs the amps we each want. And that's all that matters. If I'm happy running my amps and each other person is happy running theirs, than why should we care. If someone wants to run a "higher end" amp that's fine. I'm happy with mine. 
But I guess there are some people have to run the "best" and to them that means more expensive.


----------



## legend94

Anyone watching the super bowl?


----------



## Jesus Christ

pjc said:


> does this debate even matter?


----------



## pjc

legend94 said:


> Anyone watching the super bowl?


Ha. Yeah. This debate had my attention more than half time.


----------



## WRX/Z28

WhereAmEye? said:


> I'm sure since you're an electrical engineer that knows everything you could tell us EXACTLY what makes an amp sound the same as another amp? This is a religious debate right now, and those never end because they're are no hard facts. Let an amp designer join the party and this debate might have some meaning.


To elaborate on what jesus said, circuits do. Individual components do not affect things like complete circuits do. The sooner you guys realize that you are not listening to one part, and the sum of parts as a whole, the better off you'll be...

There are even modern amps with comparator circuits built in that ensure that the output is identical to the input, they do this several thousand times a second. Look up Patent #6,084,450 You'll like it.


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> Anyone watching the super bowl?


I do but the rest can kill each other trying to resolve that question.


----------



## DBlevel

WRX/Z28 said:


> And you think this because? What correlation is there, and please be VERY specific.



Not going to waste my time, enjoy your discussion. I said what I thought about .....enjoy


----------



## DBlevel

legend94 said:


> Anyone watching the super bowl?


I'm watching.........


----------



## ou812

DBlevel said:


> I'm watching.........


That halftime show seemed like a bad dream I used to have when I was a kid.....:worried:


----------



## WRX/Z28

DBlevel said:


> Not going to waste my time, enjoy your discussion. I said what I thought about .....enjoy


Thank you for confirming that you have no basis for your thoughts. 

Carry on with the lack of coherence...


----------



## DBlevel

ou812 said:


> That halftime show seemed like a bad dream I used to have when I was a kid.....:worried:



Agreed, I stopped watching it


----------



## DBlevel

WRX/Z28 said:


> Thank you for confirming that you have no basis for your thoughts.
> 
> Carry on with the lack of coherence...



Your welcome, keep wasting your time


----------



## WRX/Z28

DBlevel said:


> Not going to waste my time, enjoy your discussion. I said what I thought about .....enjoy





DBlevel said:


> Your welcome, keep wasting your time


----------



## WestCo

The hate in this thread... so much of it... 

BTW, do you guys think all decks sound the same as well?
Maybe I should go iphone direct into a processor via 3.5mm because that will be "good enough" with my low bitrate mp3's

Or KNU rca's which aren't shielded vs some straightwire's?

At least we are all passionate about audio, let's try to get along.


----------



## Hanatsu

OMG.

Some the posts here are hilarious beyond measure. I've been building electronic circuits for almost 10 years now and tested over 50 different drivers on a technical basis, I've found that good performance do not equal high price. There are speakers (take Vifa XT25 for example) that are dirt cheap, I tested a $10 driver that outperformed a $200 driver in almost every aspect. The cheap speaker FELT cheap though. Lightweight, small, plastic, flismsy... sure - but PERFORMANCE-wise were better than the robust, nice looking, heavy, sturdy driver. Do NOT confuse build quality with performance - it has a weak correlation in most cases. 

Same with amplifiers, source units etc. Among the cleanest HUs I've tested extensively was a $80 Sony HU, it had a noise floor that capped my measurement setup. It even outperformed my Pioneer P99RS in one or two tests. Does it have "better" components? Don't think so.

Everyone that works with electronics design knows that it is fact THE DESIGN - the circuit as a whole that matters - NOT individual components. There is no use going into a pre-existing design and start swapping lower tolerance components if the design doesn't benefit from it. When you buy a cheap piece of equipment, chances are that components have a more limited lifespan than if you bought a reputable-brand, more expensive piece of equipment. Especially electrolytic capacitors. It does not however, necessarily impact the performance of the design. 

Is high-end amp SQ a myth? No, most likely not - but I rather say that "low-end amps SQ is not a myth", as many cheaper amps performs just as good as the more expensive (given actual power output is the same). I started off my car audio interest with super expensive stuff, Brax - Sinfoni etc and after 10 years of projects I use "standard" $300-range amps because I find no reason whatsoever to pay more than that. The design is adequately good, they have a noise floor below the audible threshold and for all that I care they do not add or remove anything from the sound quality - as it should be. It was a long time ago since I started to put most of my efforts into install, speakers and processing instead of going crazy about cables, source units, DACs, amps and stuff. 

Another funny example; I use $15 fullrange speakers (TB w3-871) on my computer desk (logitech z5500). It sounds ok... I guess. About a year back, I wanted to improve the system and get it sound more transparent and stuff and I started to mess with different speakers, modifying the built in crossovers and it didn't really get as good as I wanted it to be. So, I borrowed a miniDigi (digital DSP) and fixed the response with FIR-filters and holy crap it staged better and sounded more transparent than some $50000-100000 rigs I've listened to on HiFi seminars. 

*I'm convinced that price has very little to do with performance.
*I'm convinced that you often DON'T get what you pay for.
*I'm convinced that a logical approach and science can debunk every single audiophile "power-word" and it's this DIY stands for. If something sounds different = FIND OUT WHY. Do not jump to illogical conclusions too quick.


----------



## Victor_inox

DBlevel said:


> Not going to waste my time, enjoy your discussion. I said what I thought about .....enjoy


 I`ll follow your lead , you people enjoy your discussion, I have nothing more to contribute.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I`ll follow your lead , you people enjoy your discussion, I have nothing more to contribute.


What do you mean nothing _MORE_... :laugh:


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> What do you mean nothing *MORE*... :laugh:


 maximum anyone contributed here is personal opinion. yourself included.:laugh:


----------



## Victor_inox

WestCo said:


> The hate in this thread... so much of it...
> 
> BTW, do you guys think all decks sound the same as well?
> Maybe I should go iphone direct into a processor via 3.5mm because that will be "good enough" with my low bitrate mp3's
> 
> Or KNU rca's which aren't shielded vs some straightwire's?
> 
> At least we are all passionate about audio, let's try to get along.


Joe,why wouldn`t that be the case? Of course if they measured the same they will sound the same.Anyone paying for their deck upgrade is an idiot.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> maximum anyone contributed here is personal opinion. yourself included.:laugh:


Really, so contributing the Amp Challenge rules and results, and video's showing people tasting identical things and claiming differences was all personal opinion huh?   

How about that patent? Did you happen to look it up? 

How delusional are you?


----------



## Bayboy

Hanatsu said:


> OMG.
> 
> Some the posts here are hilarious beyond measure. I've been building electronic circuits for almost 10 years now and tested over 50 different drivers on a technical basis, I've found that good performance do not equal high price. There are speakers (take Vifa XT25 for example) that are dirt cheap, I tested a $10 driver that outperformed a $200 driver in almost every aspect. The cheap speaker FELT cheap though. Lightweight, small, plastic, flismsy... sure - but PERFORMANCE-wise were better than the robust, nice looking, heavy, sturdy driver. Do NOT confuse build quality with performance - it has a weak correlation in most cases.
> 
> Same with amplifiers, source units etc. Among the cleanest HUs I've tested extensively was a $80 Sony HU, it had a noise floor that capped my measurement setup. It even outperformed my Pioneer P99RS in one or two tests. Does it have "better" components? Don't think so.
> 
> Everyone that works with electronics design knows that it is fact THE DESIGN - the circuit as a whole that matters - NOT individual components. There is no use going into a pre-existing design and start swapping lower tolerance components if the design doesn't benefit from it. When you buy a cheap piece of equipment, chances are that components have a more limited lifespan than if you bought a reputable-brand, more expensive piece of equipment. Especially electrolytic capacitors. It does not however, necessarily impact the performance of the design.
> 
> Is high-end amp SQ a myth? No, most likely not - but I rather say that "low-end amps SQ is not a myth", as many cheaper amps performs just as good as the more expensive (given actual power output is the same). I started off my car audio interest with super expensive stuff, Brax - Sinfoni etc and after 10 years of projects I use "standard" $300-range amps because I find no reason whatsoever to pay more than that. The design is adequately good, they have a noise floor below the audible threshold and for all that I care they do not add or remove anything from the sound quality - as it should be. It was a long time ago since I started to put most of my efforts into install, speakers and processing instead of going crazy about cables, source units, DACs, amps and stuff.
> 
> Another funny example; I use $15 fullrange speakers (TB w3-871) on my computer desk (logitech z5500). It sounds ok... I guess. About a year back, I wanted to improve the system and get it sound more transparent and stuff and I started to mess with different speakers, modifying the built in crossovers and it didn't really get as good as I wanted it to be. So, I borrowed a miniDigi (digital DSP) and fixed the response with FIR-filters and holy crap it staged better and sounded more transparent than some $50000-100000 rigs I've listened to on HiFi seminars.
> 
> *I'm convinced that price has very little to do with performance.
> *I'm convinced that you often DON'T get what you pay for.
> *I'm convinced that a logical approach and science can debunk every single audiophile "power-word" and it's this DIY stands for. If something sounds different = FIND OUT WHY. Do not jump to illogical conclusions too quick.


:2thumbsup:


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Really, so contributing the Amp Challenge rules and results, and video's showing people tasting identical things and claiming differences was all personal opinion huh?
> 
> How about that patent? Did you happen to look it up?
> 
> How delusional are you?


 whatever, bite me. i don`t want to talk to you, you twisted every word I said here.


----------



## ou812

Victor_inox said:


> whatever, bite me. i don`t want to talk to you, you twisted every word I said here.


I'm really not taking a side here but it has come down to BITE ME.......:laugh:


----------



## Victor_inox

ou812 said:


> I'm really not taking a side here but it has come down to BITE ME.......:laugh:


 I`m glad it make you laugh.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> whatever, bite me. i don`t want to talk to you, you twisted every word I said here.


I don't have to twist anything. You have foot in mouth disease on half your posts... :laugh:


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> I don't have to twist anything. You have foot in mouth disease on half your posts... :laugh:


 I do? what do I have to do for you to stop talking to me?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I do? what do I have to do for you to stop talking to me?


The answer to that should be glaringly obvious...


----------



## hurrication

Hanatsu said:


> Among the cleanest HUs I've tested extensively was a $80 Sony HU


Which model are we talking about here?


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> The answer to that should be glaringly obvious...


Say it.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Say it.


Come on man, you know...


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> I`ll follow your lead , you people enjoy your discussion,* I have nothing more to contribute*.


I see you're a man of your word...


Victor_inox said:


> maximum anyone contributed here is personal opinion. yourself included.:laugh:





Victor_inox said:


> Joe,why wouldn`t that be the case? Of course if they measured the same they will sound the same.Anyone paying for their deck upgrade is an idiot.





Victor_inox said:


> whatever, bite me. i don`t want to talk to you, you twisted every word I said here.


----------



## cajunner

I believe, subconsciously, many people aren't making this debate about the changes in electronics design/execution, as they should.

many of the amps today, have surface mount, machine tested and populated boards. This is perhaps, more significant than some other arguments going on.

nano architecture, is there anyone who makes especiale, expensive amps using the diminution or is this all about companies making discrete level builds a reality in today's higher end?

is there the same bitter argument like when op amps were discrete, and going to an IC-based architecture considered a negative in high end circles, but you can't deny the stellar performance of the modern IC?

when it's useful, like populating a board filled with audio filters, people look to the 5532 for it's audio performance, but in a small headphone amplifier they want more esoteric stuffing?

and how about the old through-hole, with massive real estate requirements, are those production lines as completely tested as a computer that auto-tests SMD bits as they are put placed?

I don't know how much the various differences in build architecture actually dip into "audible" performance, but the lack of miniaturized, SMD boards in any so-called "higher end" amplifiers, could mean correlation is screwing with causation...


anyways, there were times when people said silicon-based amplifiers were hard, brittle, strident, whatever in comparison to tube amps of the day...


I think we need to be fair, and make a concession that even if there are uber-work animals out there, the trend has been towards smaller, more homogenized amp designs that can be placed easily inside the car compartment.

reconciling that actuality, with the through-hole design premise, that of matched parts and solid, reliable build parts that have the weight of 40 years of incremental improvement behind them, along with the rest of the amp commensurate with quality, means that some people will have to relinquish. Losing their religion...


hahaha..


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Come on man, you know...


I don`t.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> I see you're a man of your word...


I only answer to personal attacks, audio part of that discussion hit the wall a while ago.


----------



## Coppertone

hurrication said:


> Which model are we talking about here?


I also would love to see the answer to this question please.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> I believe, subconsciously, many people aren't making this debate about the changes in electronics design/execution, as they should.
> 
> many of the amps today, have surface mount, machine tested and populated boards. This is perhaps, more significant than some other arguments going on.
> 
> nano architecture, is there anyone who makes especiale, expensive amps using the diminution or is this all about companies making discrete level builds a reality in today's higher end?
> 
> is there the same bitter argument like when op amps were discrete, and going to an IC-based architecture considered a negative in high end circles, but you can't deny the stellar performance of the modern IC?
> 
> when it's useful, like populating a board filled with audio filters, people look to the 5532 for it's audio performance, but in a small headphone amplifier they want more esoteric stuffing?
> 
> and how about the old through-hole, with massive real estate requirements, are those production lines as completely tested as a computer that auto-tests SMD bits as they are put placed?
> 
> I don't know how much the various differences in build architecture actually dip into "audible" performance, but the lack of miniaturized, SMD boards in any so-called "higher end" amplifiers, could mean correlation is screwing with causation...
> 
> 
> anyways, there were times when people said silicon-based amplifiers were hard, brittle, strident, whatever in comparison to tube amps of the day...
> 
> 
> I think we need to be fair, and make a concession that even if there are uber-work animals out there, the trend has been towards smaller, more homogenized amp designs that can be placed easily inside the car compartment.
> 
> reconciling that actuality, with the through-hole design premise, that of matched parts and solid, reliable build parts that have the weight of 40 years of incremental improvement behind them, along with the rest of the amp commensurate with quality, means that some people will have to relinquish. Losing their religion...
> 
> 
> hahaha..


Plenty SMD in High end amps these days.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Plenty SMD in High end amps these days.


a Japanese pic of a German amp?

so just because it has BRAX on the nameplate and a comma in the price tag, it qualifies for high end?

admittedly, I wouldn't mind owning an amp like that posted, but it could just as easily have been populated in a Chinese sweat factory using computerized automation, as it might have in a German build house.

part of the discussion about parts quality, being significant towards sound quality is the discussion of using Chinese-designed, built amps vs. the American/European designs.


if you can't tell what you have, because all of the parts are SMD and you can't tell if the board is populated by .01% tolerance parts or 10% tolerance parts, how is it that you can compare their audibility?

I read here time and again, that the SMD, small chassis product is not performing up to snuff.

maybe the Hypex module Biketronics is an exception?

in the interest of moving this debate forward, let's investigate what it is that separates a high end amp from their low cost examples.


----------



## TrickyRicky

Where's Jesus Christ when you need him, lol... at this point this thread has become pointless. Two parties going back and forward over and over with the same arguements....Vic and WRX need to take a break from this thread....lol.


----------



## Jesus Christ

TrickyRicky said:


> Where's Jesus Christ when you need him


I've been here the whole time.


----------



## TrickyRicky

cajunner said:


> a Japanese pic of a German amp?
> 
> so just because it has BRAX on the nameplate and a comma in the price tag, it qualifies for high end?
> 
> admittedly, I wouldn't mind owning an amp like that posted, but it could just as easily have been populated in a Chinese sweat factory using computerized automation, as it might have in a German build house.
> 
> part of the discussion about parts quality, being significant towards sound quality is the discussion of using Chinese-designed, built amps vs. the American/European designs.
> 
> 
> if you can't tell what you have, because all of the parts are SMD and you can't tell if the board is populated by .01% tolerance parts or 10% tolerance parts, how is it that you can compare their audibility?
> 
> I read here time and again, that the SMD, small chassis product is not performing up to snuff.
> 
> maybe the Hypex module Biketronics is an exception?
> 
> in the interest of moving this debate forward, let's investigate what it is that separates a high end amp from their low cost examples.


I sort of agree with you over SMD...but SMD is the future hell its been around for over 30 years now. It will clearly take over 90% of the through hole components but not 100%. SMD can also be more fun to work with, especially your first couple of tries. 

Since now components are smaller you can fit more which means more complex circuits (harder to diagnose/repair...so pretty much disposable electronics, check out were all the e-waste goes to...NOT PRETTY).


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> a Japanese pic of a German amp?
> 
> so just because it has BRAX on the nameplate and a comma in the price tag, it qualifies for high end?
> 
> admittedly, I wouldn't mind owning an amp like that posted, but it could just as easily have been populated in a Chinese sweat factory using computerized automation, as it might have in a German build house.
> 
> part of the discussion about parts quality, being significant towards sound quality is the discussion of using Chinese-designed, built amps vs. the American/European designs.
> 
> 
> if you can't tell what you have, because all of the parts are SMD and you can't tell if the board is populated by .01% tolerance parts or 10% tolerance parts, how is it that you can compare their audibility?
> 
> I read here time and again, that the SMD, small chassis product is not performing up to snuff.
> 
> maybe the Hypex module Biketronics is an exception?
> 
> in the interest of moving this debate forward, let's investigate what it is that separates a high end amp from their low cost examples.


Japs care about quality more than any other people, I thought you know that.
Let`s wait until you own one and form your own opinion based on ownership instead of person you don`t know on the net. 
small chassis product performs as designed, JL HD/XD series would be good example.. I personally won`t own JL for unrelated reasons.
Bikertronic is interesting product, perhaps I should get a few Hypex modules for evaluations I have no experience with them yet. 
Ground zero stuff is good despite chinese assembly, plenty of SMD there as well. quality control makes all the difference and design team in Germany.


----------



## Victor_inox

TrickyRicky said:


> Where's Jesus Christ when you need him, lol... at this point this thread has become pointless. Two parties going back and forward over and over with the same arguements....Vic and WRX need to take a break from this thread....lol.


I tried but I consider it impolite to leave when people addressing their posts at me.


----------



## WhereAmEye?

That Seahawks offensive coordinator though...


----------



## hurrication

WhereAmEye? said:


> That Seahawks offensive coordinator though...


Are you lost?


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Japs care about quality more than any other people, I thought you know that.
> Let`s wait until you own one and form your own opinion based on ownership instead of person you don`t know on the net.
> small chassis product performs as designed, JL HD/XD series would be good example.. I personally won`t own JL for unrelated reasons.
> Bikertronic is interesting product, perhaps I should get a few Hypex modules for evaluations I have no experience with them yet.
> Ground zero stuff is good despite chinese assembly, plenty of SMD there as well. quality control makes all the difference and design team in Germany.


what I'm trying to show, is that when people try to distinguish between amplifiers, in the old days you could look at the guts and identify high-grade vs. low grade.

nowadays, it's a lot harder to know if you have good bits in your purchase price.

so, with that change, comes the correlation argument, and the idea that a circuit designed in China has to automatically be inferior in performance to an amp circuit designed in Germany.

if the amps basically look the same, were made with the same machines, what is there that speaks to quality?

we have to trust the company nameplate, instead of being able to tell with a little research.


if it says BRAX on the front, then the stuff inside is worth the cost, but if it's got SoundStream on the front, it's cookie-cutter nano build design?


I don't know if people debating high end today, are able to even identify the quality of parts populating the boards, and that's a concession.


----------



## WhereAmEye?

hurrication said:


> Are you lost?


Nahh, I've been here a while. We got on a tangent about the superbowl a page or two back, where were you?


----------



## DBlevel

WhereAmEye? said:


> Nahh, I've been here a while. We got on a tangent about the superbowl a page or two back, where were you?


Hate Seattle lost......... Well not really. 

There's always next year


----------



## Victor_inox

Chinese designs, I`m not sure I`ve seen one, mostly cloned from amps they were assembling. or same build houses for many brands. more brands of the same **** more they will sell at the end until there is newer design to clone.
i`ve seen enough counterfeit products looks alike but perform poorly, speakers, amps, household appliances. I`m not saying there is no good chinese designers, in fact probably more than rest of the world combined. it`s just easier and cost effective to clone design or made few thousands more of the Sound stream boards and rebadge them.
If it says Brax and genuine it cost more for a lot of reasons, quality being main of them.
I`d buy US made amps if only anything comparable were still made in US. Customers demanding cheapest **** possible made it happens, manufacturers care about bottom line forced to move production to PRC. people who cares only about specs of their amp will buy chinese made product, but their more to that than price alone. I`m in minority here but I`d rather use old US made amp before spending on chinese equipment.


----------



## legend94

Hanatsu said:


> OMG.
> 
> Some the posts here are hilarious beyond measure. I've been building electronic circuits for almost 10 years now and tested over 50 different drivers on a technical basis, I've found that good performance do not equal high price. There are speakers (take Vifa XT25 for example) that are dirt cheap, I tested a $10 driver that outperformed a $200 driver in almost every aspect. The cheap speaker FELT cheap though. Lightweight, small, plastic, flismsy... sure - but PERFORMANCE-wise were better than the robust, nice looking, heavy, sturdy driver. Do NOT confuse build quality with performance - it has a weak correlation in most cases.
> 
> Same with amplifiers, source units etc. Among the cleanest HUs I've tested extensively was a $80 Sony HU, it had a noise floor that capped my measurement setup. It even outperformed my Pioneer P99RS in one or two tests. Does it have "better" components? Don't think so.
> 
> Everyone that works with electronics design knows that it is fact THE DESIGN - the circuit as a whole that matters - NOT individual components. There is no use going into a pre-existing design and start swapping lower tolerance components if the design doesn't benefit from it. When you buy a cheap piece of equipment, chances are that components have a more limited lifespan than if you bought a reputable-brand, more expensive piece of equipment. Especially electrolytic capacitors. It does not however, necessarily impact the performance of the design.
> 
> Is high-end amp SQ a myth? No, most likely not - but I rather say that "low-end amps SQ is not a myth", as many cheaper amps performs just as good as the more expensive (given actual power output is the same). I started off my car audio interest with super expensive stuff, Brax - Sinfoni etc and after 10 years of projects I use "standard" $300-range amps because I find no reason whatsoever to pay more than that. The design is adequately good, they have a noise floor below the audible threshold and for all that I care they do not add or remove anything from the sound quality - as it should be. It was a long time ago since I started to put most of my efforts into install, speakers and processing instead of going crazy about cables, source units, DACs, amps and stuff.
> 
> Another funny example; I use $15 fullrange speakers (TB w3-871) on my computer desk (logitech z5500). It sounds ok... I guess. About a year back, I wanted to improve the system and get it sound more transparent and stuff and I started to mess with different speakers, modifying the built in crossovers and it didn't really get as good as I wanted it to be. So, I borrowed a miniDigi (digital DSP) and fixed the response with FIR-filters and holy crap it staged better and sounded more transparent than some $50000-100000 rigs I've listened to on HiFi seminars.
> 
> *I'm convinced that price has very little to do with performance.
> *I'm convinced that you often DON'T get what you pay for.
> *I'm convinced that a logical approach and science can debunk every single audiophile "power-word" and it's this DIY stands for. If something sounds different = FIND OUT WHY. Do not jump to illogical conclusions too quick.


I have to ask which Sony deck? Also, which amps in the 300 range do you like?


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Chinese designs, I`m not sure I`ve seen one, mostly cloned from amps they were assembling. or same build houses for many brands. more brands of the same **** more they will sell at the end until there is newer design to clone.
> i`ve seen enough counterfeit products looks alike but perform poorly, speakers, amps, household appliances. I`m not saying there is no good chinese designers, in fact probably more than rest of the world combined. it`s just easier and cost effective to clone design or made few thousands more of the Sound stream boards and rebadge them.
> If it says Brax and genuine it cost more for a lot of reasons, quality being main of them.
> I`d buy US made amps if only anything comparable were still made in US. Customers demanding cheapest **** possible made it happens, manufacturers care about bottom line forced to move production to PRC. people who cares only about specs of their amp will buy chinese made product, but their more to that than price alone. I`m in minority here but I`d rather use old US made amp before spending on chinese equipment.


it's been shown that high end amp manufacturers are getting their product built in China?

once you reach a certain number of units sold, it's inevitable that corporate management will let the bean counters win.

that's been proven true, most of the time, the rest of the time the companies simply get bought out.

so what you consider noteworthy high end, today, is probably not far from being built in China, and circuit copying and cloning is probably more straw man, since there are very few amps on the market that aren't the same, anyway.

Rockford's boosted rail, Peavey's IPR series, the IcePower/Hypex modular designs...

but most amps follow the same circuit design, and when something like faster transistors makes Class D amplifiers good, all ships rise on that tide.


----------



## legend94

WRX/Z28 said:


> Testing can easily be flawed if: A, the water was a different temperature. B, you drank right from the bottle, as bottle shapes and materials can affect how the water hits your palate and with what o2 mixed in. C, if you didn't drink them back to back.
> 
> 
> If you put them all in the same glass, let them all warm up to room temp, and tried them back to back in a double blind situation, I doubt you would be able to tell a difference, most people can't even do it with macro beers or coke/pepsi nevermind water. Then if you mixed in some Tang into the water (similar to adding the variation of speakers/tuning) it would be completely impossible.


You have really thought this through! My personal preference with any water is after it's been cooled in a glass container. 

I can and have done tests with Pepsi/Coke with a 100 percent success rate 

Water is more tough but can be done. Probably not with tang added 

Which is why I have different vodkas, some for straight occasions and some for mixing(lower price usually).


----------



## legend94

WhereAmEye? said:


> That Seahawks offensive coordinator though...


Wtf was he thinking? He has the best running back not qb.


----------



## legend94

hurrication said:


> Which model are we talking about here?





Coppertone said:


> I also would love to see the answer to this question please.


It's going to be the new forum boner when we find out


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> You have really thought this through! My personal preference with any water is after it's been cooled in a glass container.
> 
> I can and have done tests with Pepsi/Coke with a 100 percent success rate
> 
> Water is more tough but can be done. Probably not with tang added
> 
> Which is why I have different vodkas, some for straight occasions and some for mixing(lower price usually).


damn it Justin I need a drink now.


----------



## WRX/Z28

legend94 said:


> You have really thought this through! My personal preference with any water is after it's been cooled in a glass container.
> 
> I can and have done tests with Pepsi/Coke with a 100 percent success rate
> 
> Water is more tough but can be done. Probably not with tang added
> 
> Which is why I have different vodkas, some for straight occasions and some for mixing(lower price usually).


hahahah... yes I did. 

Tang and Vodka added sounds like a win!


----------



## legend94

ou812 said:


> I'm going to re-install my equipment in my new truck in the spring. I'm seriously thinking about getting one but I'm kinda hesitant. hearing loss ya know...Do you own one?


I sure do and I approached it with skepticism which proved wrong.

It has made me think I can get by with about any amps in my upcoming build.

My review here:

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...risons/168939-victory-sonic-tube-pre-amp.html


----------



## legend94

Victor_inox said:


> damn it Justin I need a drink now.





WRX/Z28 said:


> hahahah... yes I did.
> 
> Tang and Vodka added sounds like a win!



See it all comes down to vodka after a good debate. I know I needed some after reading this.


----------



## legend94

It didn't escape me that you have Russian vodka :surprised:

Very nice vodka. One I have found to be reasonably priced and good is vikingfjord.


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> It didn't escape me that you have Russian vodka :surprised:
> 
> Very nice vodka. One I have found to be reasonably priced and good is vikingfjord.


That bottle was bought in Russia, as real as it gets. 
But who cares all vodkas taste the same or at least has same effect on people.
If you ever want to visit I owe you a drink.


----------



## hurrication

WhereAmEye? said:


> Nahh, I've been here a while. We got on a tangent about the superbowl a page or two back, where were you?


I must have picked up on the thread after that derailment. I just read the last couple of pages.


----------



## hurrication

legend94 said:


> It's going to be the new forum boner when we find out


I'm hoping it's the cdx-gs500r, because I have a brand new one sitting on my shelf of "gear I probably won't ever use unless it turns out to have tested really awesome". :laugh:


----------



## Victor_inox

hurrication said:


> I'm hoping it's the cdx-gs500r, because I have a brand new one sitting on my shelf of "gear I probably won't ever use unless it turns out to have tested really awesome". :laugh:


 thats funny, I have a few shelves like that.


----------



## Hanatsu

hurrication said:


> Which model are we talking about here?


IIRC Sony Mex-2600bt

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk

Edit: Here's a comparison vs a 2DIN Pioneer unit.


----------



## el_bob-o

WestCo said:


> BTW, do you guys think all decks sound the same as well?
> Maybe I should go iphone direct into a processor via 3.5mm because that will be "good enough" with my low bitrate mp3's


 A long while ago you made a couple of 3.5mm to rca cables for me and my purpose was to test my, new at the time, LG G2 with its fancy DAC. My stereo has been in such sad shape I've never been able to do the test. I run an alpine PXA-H701 so I could just run a quick test that route. This would be somewhat of a flawed test to me because if I'm going into a DSP I would just assume go with a digital output from the phone since it seems it can be done (at least I think it can, it has been a while since I checked).

My intended test was an all analog setup using something along the lines of this.









The goal was to compare a few different phones and tablets just to see what differences were noticed and to see if anything performed well enough to even consider using an analog output. This is still something I would like to do but unfortunately it is difficult to find the time to do something like this. 

As an aside the cables are very well built and I plan to continue buying my RCA cables from Westco because of the build quality and it's always great working with someone within the community. He also sent me two splitters because he wasn't happy with the design of the first one, the second one was to his satisfaction and he just sent both. They both look great to me and it was an incredible gesture, the kind of gesture that makes me happy to spend my money on a quality cable with great service and active representation within the audio community. 

To bring this rambling post on topic I have poor hearing due to childhood eardrum damage and 10 years working in a brewery so I am very prone to miss things that others pick up very easily. So while I can't personally tell a difference between amplifiers that have a similarly low noise floor and make roughly the same power I understand that my diminished hearing definitely isn't helping my cause (I still have a hole in one ear drum). My audio decisions are heavily skewed by a companies reputation and their service record. The interactions of industry experts on the forums means a lot to me as do the reviews and impressions that are so often shared on this forum. In summation I don't mind spending a bit extra for a product but my reasons for spending more aren't necessarily to achieve better SQ over an inexpensive product but my extra money goes to post sale support and interactions, not to mention I like dealing with the smaller companies and the startups.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> That bottle was bought in Russia, as real as it gets.
> But who cares all vodkas taste the same or at least has same effect on people.
> If you ever want to visit I owe you a drink.



supposedly, you've got the real Russian artesian water in that bottle, and here in the states we get Latvian water.

I'm glad good vodka is easy to find, I like vodka very much...


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> supposedly, you've got the real Russian artesian water in that bottle, and here in the states we get Latvian water.
> 
> I'm glad good vodka is easy to find, I like vodka very much...


Stop by I`ll pour you a drink or few.


----------



## rton20s

I'm still waiting for the conversation to turn back to people giving their recommendations for amps that "punch above their weight class." While this debate rages, for the general car audio buying public there is an assumption that a higher cost piece of equipment will sound better, perform better, last longer, etc. We could keep chasing our tail in debating whether or not that is true, or we could get into something meaningful. 

For a site like DIYMA, the meat of this conversation should be about which mid tier and lower tier options can hang with the big boys. Which models do rated power (and then some) with zero floor noise, good build quality and high reliability. Then again, we can't even come to a consensus as to what "higher end" means. 

Come on people, lets get a new forum boner!


----------



## legend94

rton20s said:


> I'm still waiting for the conversation to turn back to people giving their recommendations for amps that "punch above their weight class." While this debate rages, for the general car audio buying public there is an assumption that a higher cost piece of equipment will sound better, perform better, last longer, etc. We could keep chasing our tail in debating whether or not that is true, or we could get into something meaningful.
> 
> For a site like DIYMA, the meat of this conversation should be about which mid tier and lower tier options can hang with the big boys. Which models do rated power (and then some) with zero floor noise, good build quality and high reliability. Then again, we can't even come to a consensus as to what "higher end" means.
> 
> Come on people, lets get a new forum boner!


agreed

or be like me and just keep trying amps until you find one you like all the features on 

for some reason i keep missing the monitor 1 amps


----------



## pjc

That's what I was wanting to see. A few people replied to my question. Here's my opinion at this point in time... Pioneer Stage 4. Close out at $399 on the PRS-A900. Suppose to be clean power. No crossovers. I have mine but don't have the time to install.


----------



## Bayboy

The days of that have long gone. Yes, there's an underground existence to some extent, but it tends to get ignored simply due to brand snobbery. 

One instance, the Cadence Flash amps were being blown out. I researched & found out that it was a mere cosmetic upgrade of the former all black model that used to be quite popular on here some years ago. That was even through the words of a company rep (what the amp was). Looking back in the archives revealed the popular use. Of course it went ignored somewhat. No biggie, I got good use out of it and 5 channels for a measly $150 shipped with no noise issues, ran strong, never shutdown running at over 80% volume on a 6 hour drive. I'd say it was well worth it. 

Could I have afforded something more "high end"? Sure. Would it have made a major difference? Perhaps in some ways, perhaps not. Was I satisfied enough to leave it be? Yep, until I desired something more flexible crossover-wise & smaller footprint. Other than that I would still be using it.


----------



## rton20s

pjc said:


> That's what I was wanting to see. A few people replied to my question. Here's my opinion at this point in time... Pioneer Stage 4. Close out at $399 on the PRS-A900. Suppose to be clean power. No crossovers. I have mine but don't have the time to install.


I'm still kind of kicking myself for not having the discretionary funds to get in on the gradual clearance of Stage 4 gear by Crutchfield. I've had a bit of a fascination with Pioneer for a while and have been curious about the Stage 4 stuff since it was released. The 6" component set is now long gone, as is the subwoofer, and the other amps. They are down to the venerable P99, the 5" components, the 2.625" mids and the A900 amp. 

I've also been curious about the little 2 channel PRS amp they have. They are about as simple as they come, but apparently not all that special on the inside. Regardless, if they had a matching monoblock with decent power, and possibly a four channel, they would probably already be in my car.


----------



## Huckleberry Sound

MMMMMMMM


----------



## legend94

pjc said:


> That's what I was wanting to see. A few people replied to my question. Here's my opinion at this point in time... Pioneer Stage 4. Close out at $399 on the PRS-A900. Suppose to be clean power. No crossovers. I have mine but don't have the time to install.


surely that puts out more than 50x4

i was reading a review on the jbl ms1004 and it doubled its power at 2ohm which it's not rated for. also did almost 125x4 at 14.4 volts.


----------



## rton20s

Huckleberry Sound said:


> OHMMMMMMMM


----------



## Bayboy

Always going to be blowouts of stale gear. I suppose planning ahead by stashing money could help, but surely can wind up with a closet full of unused gear like that. Don't want to go through that again.


----------



## legend94

rton20s said:


>


hahahahhahahah that made my day!


----------



## rton20s

legend94 said:


> surely that puts out more than 50x4





pjc said:


> Pioneer Stage 4. Close out at $399 on the PRS-A900. Suppose to be clean power. No crossovers. I have mine but don't have the time to install.


It would be interesting to see how something like the Stage 4 stacks up in CEA2006 output on an AD-1.


----------



## pjc

I'm with you brotha... Pioneer has always interested me. I was first getting audio back when the Kevlar prs stuff was around. So that's what started my Pioneer addiction. 
I currently own an entire Stage 4 setup but have yet to even take the stuff out of the box. I think I'll grab another 4ch at that price. Just to have. 





rton20s said:


> I'm still kind of kicking myself for not having the discretionary funds to get in on the gradual clearance of Stage 4 gear by Crutchfield. I've had a bit of a fascination with Pioneer for a while and have been curious about the Stage 4 stuff since it was released. The 6" component set is now long gone, as is the subwoofer, and the other amps. They are down to the venerable P99, the 5" components, the 2.625" mids and the A900 amp.
> 
> I've also been curious about the little 2 channel PRS amp they have. They are about as simple as they come, but apparently not all that special on the inside. Regardless, if they had a matching monoblock with decent power, and possibly a four channel, they would probably already be in my car.


----------



## legend94

pjc said:


> I think I'll grab another 4ch at that price. Just to have.


you're back in deep aren't you?


----------



## pjc

legend94 said:


> you're back in deep aren't you?


Ha. I would not put it that way. 
I actually have everything I need for my personal install and that's it. Nothing extra at all. I'd only be buying another 4ch just to keep because I know they won't be available much longer.


----------



## Victor_inox

pjc said:


> Ha. I would not put it that way.
> I actually have everything I need for my personal install and that's it. Nothing extra at all. I'd only be buying another 4ch just to keep because I know they won't be available much longer.


 set of components dropped in price to 299 before it sold out. 
monitor closely, it might drop some more before it`s gone.


----------



## rton20s

Victor_inox said:


> set of components dropped in price to 299 before it sold out.
> monitor closely, it might drop some more before it`s gone.


Yep. I recommended them to a couple people on here as recent as a few days ago. For the price, I don't know if you could find much better for a complete component system. Seems like this might be the final price cut for the Stage 4 gear from Crutchfield (likely, the last retailer). 

You can watch for a price drop, but chances are it will be gone before there is another one. The only saving grace might be the fairly low power rating would steer a lot of people in a different direction.


----------



## Victor_inox

I hope you enjoy this article
Single-Ended Class A 
(c) Nelson Pass, Pass Labs
Single-Ended Class A amplifiers have certainly hit it big in the four years since we began testing the first Aleph 0. So is this just another audio fad, or is there something fundamental about this kind of design, justifying a revival of the old approaches to amplification?
When I started designing amplifiers twenty-five years ago, solid state amplifiers had just achieved a firm grasp on the market. Power and harmonic distortion numbers were the important thing, and the largest audio magazine said that amplifiers with the same specs sounded the same.
We have heard Triodes, Pentodes, Bipolar, VFET, Mosfet, TFET valves, IGBT, Hybrids, THD distortion, IM distortion, TIM distortion, phase distortion, quantization, feedback, nested feedback, no feedback, feed forward, Stasis, harmonic time alignment, high slew, Class AB, Class A, Pure Class A, Class AA, Class A/AB, Class D, Class H, Constant bias, dynamic bias, optical bias, Real Life Bias, Sustained Plateau Bias, big supplies, smart supplies, regulated supplies, separate supplies, switching supplies, dynamic headroom, high current, balanced inputs and balanced outputs.
I have to admit that I’m responsible for a couple of these myself.
Apart from digitally recorded source material though, things have not changed very much. Solid state amplifiers still dominate the market, the largest audio magazine still doesn't hear the difference, and many audiophiles are still hanging on to their tubes. Leaving aside the examples of marketing hype, we have a large number of attempts to improve the sound of amplifiers, each attempting to address a hypothesized flaw in the performance.
There has been a failure in the attempt to use specifications to characterize the subtleties of sonic performance. Amplifiers with similar measurements are not equal, and products with higher power, wider bandwidth, and lower distortion do not necessarily sound better. Historically, that amplifier offering the most power, or the lowest IM distortion, or the lowest THD, or the highest slew rate, or the lowest noise, has not become a classic or even been more than a modest success. For a long time there has been faith in the technical community that eventually some objective analysis would reconcile critical listener's subjective experience with laboratory measurement. Perhaps this will occur, but in the meantime, audiophiles largely reject bench specifications as an indicator of audio quality. This is appropriate. Appreciation of audio is a completely subjective human experience. We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we would let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines. Measurements can provide a measure of insight, but are no substitute for human judgment.
Why are we looking to reduce a subjective experience to objective criteria anyway? The subtleties of music and audio reproduction are for those who appreciate it. Differentiation by numbers is for those who do not.
As in art, classic audio components are the results of individual efforts and reflect a coherent underlying philosophy. They make a subjective and an objective statement of quality which is meant to be appreciated. It is essential that the circuitry of an audio component reflects a philosophy which address the subjective nature of its performance first and foremost.
Lacking an ability to completely characterize performance in an objective manner, we should take a step back from the resulting waveform and take into account the process by which it has been achieved. The history of what has been done to the music is important and must be considered a part of the result. Everything that has been done to the signal is embedded in it, however subtly.
Experience correlating what sounds good to knowledge of component design yields some general guidelines as to what will sound good and what will not.
Simplicity and a minimum number of components is a key element, and is well reflected in the quality of tube designs. The fewer pieces in series with the signal path, the better. This generally true even if adding just one more gain stage will improve the measured specs.
The characteristic of gain devices and their specific use is important. Individual variations in performance between like devices is important, as are differences in topological usage. All signal bearing devices contribute to the degradation, but there are some different characteristics worth attention. Low order nonlinearities are largely additive in quality, bringing false warmth and coloration, while abrupt high order nonlinearities are additive and subtractive, adding harshness while losing information to intermodulation.
Maximum intrinsic linearity is desired. This is the performance of the gain stages before feedback is applied. Experience suggests that feedback is a subtractive process; it removes distortion from the signal, but apparently some information as well. In many older designs, poor intrinsic linearity has been corrected out by large application of feedback, resulting in loss of warmth, space, and detail.
High idle current, or bias, is very desirable as a means of maximizing linearity, and gives an effect which is not only easily measured, but easily demonstrated: Take a Class A or other high bias amplifier and compare the sound with full bias and with bias reduced. (Bias adjustment is easily accomplished, as virtually every amplifier has a bias adjustment pot, but it should be done very carefully). As an experiment it has the virtue of only changing the bias and the expectations of the experimenter.
As the bias is reduced the perception of stage depth and ambiance will generally decrease. This perception of depth is influenced by the raw quantity of bias current.
If you continue to increase the bias current far beyond the operating point, it appears that improvements are made with bias currents which are much greater than the signal level. Typically the levels involved in most critical listening are only a few watts, but an amplifier biased for ten times that amount will generally sound better than one biased for the few watts.
For this reason, designs which operate in what has been referred to as "pure" Class A are preferred because their bias currents are much larger than the signal most of the time. As mentioned, preamp gain stages and the front ends of power amplifiers are routinely single-ended "pure" Class A, and because the signal levels are at small fractions of a watt, the efficiency of the circuit is not important.
The "purity" of Class A designs has been at issue in the last few years, with "pure" Class A being loosely defined as an idling heat dissipation of more than twice the maximum amplifier output. For a 100 watt amplifier, this would be 200 watts out of the wall on a constant basis. Designs which vary the bias against the musical signal will generally have bias currents at or below the signal level. This is certainly an improvement from the viewpoint of energy efficiency, but the sound reflects the lesser bias point.
Given the assumption that every process that we perform on the signal will be heard, the finest amplifiers must employ those processes which are most natural.
There is one element in the chain which we cannot alter or improve upon, and that is the air. Air defines sound, and serves as a natural benchmark.
Virtually all the amplifiers on the market are based on a push-pull symmetry model. The push-pull symmetry topology has no particular basis in nature.
Is it valid to use air's characteristic as a model for designing an amplifier? If you accept that all processing leaves its signature on the music, the answer is yes.
One of the most interesting characteristics of air is its single-ended nature. Sound traveling through air is the result of the gas equation:
PV1.4 = 1.26 X 104
where P is pressure and V is volume. The small nonlinearity which is the result of air's characteristic is not generally judged to be significant at normal sound levels, and is comparable to the distortion numbers of fine amplifiers. This distortion generally only becomes a concern in the throats of horns, where the intense pressure levels are many times those at the mouth, and where the harmonic component can reach several per cent.
We can push on air and raise the pressure an arbitrary amount, but we cannot pull on it. We can only let it relax and fill a space as it will, and the pressure will never go below "0". As we push on air, the increase in pressure is greater than the corresponding decrease when we allow air to expand. This means that for a given motion of a diaphragm acting on air, the positive pressure perturbations will be slightly greater than the negative. From this we see that air is phase sensitive.
As a result of its single-ended nature, the harmonic content of air is primarily 2nd order, and most of the distortion of a single tone is second harmonic. Air's distortion characteristic is monotonic, which is to say its distortion products decrease smoothly as the acoustic level decreases. This is an important element which has often been overlooked in audio design and is reflected in the poor quality of early solid state amplifiers and D/A and A/D converters. They are not monotonic: the distortion increases as the level decreases.
The usual electrical picture of an audio signal is as an AC waveform, without a DC component. Audio is represented as alternating voltage and current, where positive voltage and current alternates with negative in a reciprocal and symmetric fashion. This fiction is convenient because it lends itself to the use of an energy efficient design for amplifier power stages known as push-pull, where a "plus" side of an amplifier alternates operation with a "minus" side. Each side of a push-pull amplifier handles the audio signal alternately; the "plus" side supplying positive voltage and current to the loudspeaker, and the "minus" side supplying negative voltage and current.
Problems with push-pull amplifier designs associated with crossover distortion have been discussed elsewhere at length, and one of the primary results is non-monotonicity. Class B and many AB designs have distortion products which dramatically increase with decreasing signal. This is reduced greatly by Class A mode, but crossover distortion remains as a lower order discontinuity in the transfer curve.
For reproducing music as naturally as possible, push-pull symmetric operation is not the best approach. Air is not symmetric and does not have a push-pull characteristic. Sound in air is a perturbation around a positive pressure point. There is only positive pressure, more positive pressure, and less positive pressure.
Descriptions of push-pull often illustrate this type of operation with a picture of two men sawing a tree by hand, one on each side of the saw. Certainly this is an efficient way to cut down trees, but can you imagine two men playing a violin?
An analogy using a violin or similar stringed instrument illustrates singleended operation nicely and points out the control and finesse which can be achieved when only one gain device controls the performance of a gain stage.
By contrast, push pull Class A circuits have two opposing gain devices producing the output signal, and though it is industrially effective and efficient, it is not the most delicate way to amplify a signal. Push-pull circuits give rise to odd ordered harmonics, where the phase alignment reflects compression at both positive and negative peaks and crossover nonlinearity near the zero point.
Only one linear circuit topology delivers the appropriate characteristic, and that is the single- ended amplifier. Single ended amplification only comes in pure Class A, and is the least efficient form of power stage you can reasonably create, typically idling between three and five times the rated output power.
Single-ended operation is not new. It is routinely found in the low level circuitry of the finest preamplifying stages and in the front end circuits of the finest power amplifiers. The first tube power amplifiers were singleended circuits using a single tube driving the primary of a transformer.
In 1977 I designed and published in Audio Magazine a single-ended Class A amplifier using bipolar followers biased by a constant current source. A considerable number of amateurs have built the device, rated at 20 watts output, and many have commented on its unique sonic signature. It is one of the very few examples of a solid state singleended output stage available.
Single-ended Class A operation is less efficient than push-pull. Singleended amplifiers tend to be bigger and more expensive than push-pull, but they have a more natural transfer curve.
A very important consideration in attempting to create an amplifier with a natural characteristic is the selection of the gain devices. A singleended Class A topology is appropriate, and we want a characteristic where the positive amplitude is very, very slightly greater than the negative. For a current gain device, that would mean gain which smoothly increases with current, and for a tube or field effect device a transconductance which smoothly increases with current.
Triodes and Mosfets share a useful characteristic: their transconductance tends to increase with current. Bipolar power devices have a slight gain increase until they hit about an amp or so, and then they decline at higher currents. In general the use of bipolar in a singleended circuit is a poor fit.
Another performance advantage shared by Tubes and Fets is the high performance they deliver in simple Class A circuits. Bipolar designs on the market have between four and seven gain stages associated with the signal path, but with tubes and Mosfets good objective specifications are achievable with only 2 or 3 gain devices in the signal path.
Yet a third advantage tubes and Mosfets have over bipolar devices is their greater reliability at higher temperatures. Single-ended power amplifiers dissipate comparatively high wattages and run hot.
In a decision between Triodes and Mosfets, the Mosfet's advantage is in naturally operating at the voltages and currents we want to deliver to a loudspeaker. Efforts to create a direct coupled single-ended triode power amplifier have been severely limited by the high voltages and low plate currents that are the province of tubes.
Power Mosfets have an interesting character in that they have relatively high distortion until you run quite a large amount of current through them. This makes them very suitable for pure Class A operation, particularly single-ended. It also makes them far less suitable for Class B and AB operation where they become quite non-linear near their cutoff point, and require a large amount of negative feedback correction to deliver clean output.
Not all power Mosfets are the same, either. The early Mosfets had much lower transconductance and higher intrinsic resistance and distortion than the newer generations. They also were rather anemic in terms of their current, voltage, and wattage ratings.
On top of that, looking at the schematics of early and even contemporary Mosfet amplifier designs, we see that they usually have been simply dropped in as replacements for bipolar devices in Class B and AB designs, without regard for their particular linearity requirements, and without taking advantage of their unique characteristics.
Given the Mosfet characteristic, it is easy to understand why early and even contemporary amplifiers using them have not achieved the measure of sonic performance that the devices seemed to offer.
The promise of the transconductance characteristic in power amplifiers in providing the most realistic amplified representation of music is best fulfilled by Mosfets in single-ended Class A circuitry where it they be used very simply and biased to very high currents.
Last year I published a single-ended Class A power amplifier design in The Audio Amateur Magazine. It employs only one gain stage for the entire amplifier. Called the Zen amplifier (after all, what is the sound of one transistor clapping?) it illustrates the extremes of simplicity that can be achieved with Mosfets operated in single-ended Class A and high objective and subjective performance. More information on the Zen amplifier and its successor, the Son of Zen, is available from The Audio Amateur.
As yet, very few other single-ended solid state amplifiers are available on the market. This will change as the demand continues to increase and as other designers learn how to build them.
In the meantime, transformer coupled single-ended triode amplifiers are the alternative, using very large gapped-core transformers to avoid core saturation from the high DC current. These designs reflect more traditional thinking in single-ended amplification. They suffer the characteristic of a loosely coupled transformer, more limited wattage, and higher measured distortion than their solid state counterparts, however they still set the standard for midrange lucidity, and are not to be dismissed.
Besides being easier to use, the primary advantage of Mosfets over tubes is that they operate at voltages and currents appropriate to loudspeakers without conversion, and do not require an output transformer.
Regardless of the type of gain device, in systems where the utmost in natural reproduction is the goal, simple single-ended Class A circuits are the topologies of choice.


----------



## XSIV SPL

OK, this weekend I did a proper A-B between Audison and Sinfoni... Both playing through Dynaudio Esotar with some very stiff power supplies... Both tuned well... My car sounded better than the other previously with nearly identical configuration.

With amp changes alone, the Sinfoni system murdered my Audison system, much to my dismay... I really didn't want to hear that much difference, nor spend more money. The difference was/is undeniable.

Argue amongst yourselves, but all the talk in the world won't make your audio any better...

Yes, there is a difference, huge...

My next install is a Sinfoni...


----------



## Jesus Christ

XSIV SPL said:


> OK, this weekend I did a proper A-B between Audison and Sinfoni... Both playing through Dynaudio Esotar with some very stiff power supplies... Both tuned well... My car sounded better than the other previously with nearly identical configuration.
> 
> With amp changes alone, the Sinfoni system murdered my Audison system, much to my dismay... I really didn't want to hear that much difference, nor spend more money. The difference was/is undeniable.
> 
> Argue amongst yourselves, but all the talk in the world won't make your audio any better...
> 
> Yes, there is a difference, huge...
> 
> My next install is a Sinfoni...


So you listened to two different cars and determined the difference was due to the amps? Seriously?


----------



## Victor_inox

Highlights in Nelson Pass article to those lazy who won`t read such a long piece but honestly all of it is equally important. How I missed that article no idea, Nelson Pass is one of most respected amplifier designers. Anyway, I just came across of it and decided to share.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> So you listened to two different cars and determined the difference was due to the amps? Seriously?


and you came to that conclusion how exactly?


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> and you came to that conclusion how exactly





XSIV SPL said:


> Both tuned well... *My car sounded better than the other previously* with nearly identical configuration.


----------



## Victor_inox

How about we summarize?shall we?


----------



## Jesus Christ

Ok, back to cat pics


----------



## Victor_inox

Compensating for the owner?


----------



## High Resolution Audio

pjc said:


> That's what I was wanting to see. A few people replied to my question. Here's my opinion at this point in time... Pioneer Stage 4. Close out at $399 on the PRS-A900. Suppose to be clean power. No crossovers. I have mine but don't have the time to install.


I tried two Pioneer Stage 4 amps. PRS-D1200SPL. I found them noisy and sent them back. Sounded like waterfall when hooking them up. Direct replacement connected to JL Audio Slash amps or PPI based amp yielded no "hiss". Maybe the PRS-A900 will be cleaner? I hope so, but try it out before your return window expires.


----------



## pjc

High Resolution Audio said:


> I tried two Pioneer Stage 4 amps. PRS-D1200SPL. I found them noisy and sent them back. Sounded like waterfall when hooking them up. Direct replacement connected to JL Audio Slash amps or PPI based amp yielded no "hiss". Maybe the PRS-A900 will be cleaner? I hope so, but try it out before your return window expires.


I've heard that before about the SPL1200. From what I was told, Pioneer took the mono directly from thier "SPL" line of amps and made it cosmetically match the A900. The A900 is a totally different animal... Supposedly. 
I'm hoping to try them real soon. Life is just kinda busy at the moment ha.


----------



## captainobvious

XSIV SPL said:


> OK, this weekend *I did a proper A-B* between Audison and Sinfoni... Both playing through Dynaudio Esotar with some very stiff power supplies... Both tuned well... My car sounded better than the other previously with nearly identical configuration.
> 
> With amp changes alone, the Sinfoni system murdered my Audison system, much to my dismay... I really didn't want to hear that much difference, nor spend more money. The difference was/is undeniable.
> 
> Argue amongst yourselves, but all the talk in the world won't make your audio any better...
> 
> Yes, there is a difference, huge...
> 
> My next install is a Sinfoni...



Please describe how you went about doing the proper AB comparison.


Thanks


----------



## thehatedguy

IT is just my personal opinion, but to hear differences in amplifiers you will need some extremely efficient speakers...like 105+ dB sensitivities, and 110 would be easier to hear differences.


----------



## Lycancatt

as a pro audio guy, I've listened to high efficiency stuff all my life and..your totally right.

Using a set of 15 inch coaxials in the home off several different amps, I could absolutely tell you which I preferred. Some were tube, most were solid state, one was fet.

In a car with the engine off and in a garage, with the average of 89 db efficiency we usually see, I do think we can hear some differences, but they will be a lot less noticeable than with high efficiency drivers.


----------



## Victor_inox

Who need high efficiency drivers when you can get 1000W amp with 76db/w drivers,right?

Lycan, what was that quote of yours, people were changing as they see fit?
post it again to put that controversy to rest.


----------



## Lycancatt

I much prefer the sound of high efficiency woofers, theres just something there that isn't with the low efficiency stuff that takes a lot of power.


----------



## thehatedguy

Vic, I think you might be thinking about Lycan aka werewolf.

But I agree with both of you.


----------



## Lycancatt

yep, I'm the lycan cat one not the dog one :3


----------



## Victor_inox

Lycancatt said:


> I much prefer the sound of high efficiency woofers, theres just something there that isn't with the low efficiency stuff that takes a lot of power.


Pro auduo experience, same here.you can make any inefficient turd voice coil moving by applying a lot of power.


----------



## Victor_inox

thehatedguy said:


> Vic, I think you might be thinking about Lycan aka werewolf.
> 
> But I agree with both of you.


Ohhhh. Ok


----------



## cajunner

so if high efficiency drivers are used, that normally precludes the use of an amplifier's higher output, making a comparison difficult.

if you drive a higher powered amp into real high efficiency drivers, you're probably getting into distortion from the speakers at the amp's ragged edge.

and our ears have issues defining "warmth" or "timbre" at ear-splitting levels.

some would say, "use low powered amps, then" but that's not apples to apples, is it?

and the applicability of a comparison using high efficiency drivers that you wouldn't normally see installed in the car, means that there is less validity to the exercise.


sure, 12" mid bass that have 102 db sensitivity are great, and all... but how many are you going to install in your rides, how many lend themselves as easy fitment?


so, we're back to the normal or slightly lowered efficiency schematic of the average upper tier extended definition drivers.


if you can't tell when a Nelson Pass circuit is being used, and Nelson Pass can, what does that say?

I want to know!


----------



## thehatedguy

I mean the test being referenced here used Martin Logans....how are you going to extend that to the car environment?

I can get some horns from Eric, some compression drivers, put some pro midbasses in like JBL 2118s, and some pro 15s in for the subs and have a system sitting around 96 dB pretty easy. No, still not 105+ dB but higher than "normal."

I can not put some electrostats in the car.


----------



## Hanatsu

thehatedguy said:


> IT is just my personal opinion, but to hear differences in amplifiers you will need some extremely efficient speakers...like 105+ dB sensitivities, and 110 would be easier to hear differences.


If anything I would think that this has some logical relevance. If an amplifier has a distortion profile that looks like this:










... then it's definitely more viable that differences could be heard at very low power since the non-linear distortion is at its highest point. If we assume that the THD here consist of _tall order products_ and we're using extremely efficient speakers listening at low/moderate volume then I actually believe that most people could hear a difference. These are very specific circumstances though and doesn't apply to the majority of system compositions. It's logical to assume that all audible differences can be broken down to linear and non-linear distortion, nothing will change that fact.


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> Who need high efficiency drivers when you can get 1000W amp with 76db/w drivers,right?
> 
> Lycan, what was that quote of yours, people were changing as they see fit?
> post it again to put that controversy to rest.


http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/1123347-post164.html


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/1123347-post164.html


ohh OK thanks!


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> if you can't tell when a Nelson Pass circuit is being used, and Nelson Pass can, what does that say?
> 
> I want to know!


 You can ask him yourself, he is frequent on diyaudio.
I`m not 10% of an engineer as he is, I absolutely love his amps especially what he does at first watt brand. crazy expensive for 99.9% of people but his schematics in public domain and can be build. check it out, listen to it and then tell me that it sounds just like any other amp at the same exact power.

Some years ago, reviewer Dick Olsher astutely commented that, “If the first watt of an amplifier doesn’t sound good, why would you want 199 more of them?”


----------



## rockytophigh

I'm about to buy a Pass Labs home amp....pretty darn excited to hear them on my Apogee Stages....or the Koss 1A electrostats


----------



## subwoofery

thehatedguy said:


> IT is just my personal opinion, but to hear differences in amplifiers you will need some extremely efficient speakers...like 105+ dB sensitivities, and 110 would be easier to hear differences.


Good post HE brother  

Kelvin


----------



## XSIV SPL

Jesus Christ said:


> So you listened to two different cars and determined the difference was due to the amps? Seriously?


Well, yes, Jesus, and let me clarify a bit for you-

These two systems were both previously Audison class A on the fronts. Both have Dynaudio Esotars in pods with nearly identical displacement. Both are using the same cables, signal processing, etc.

The reason mine sounded a bit better previously is strictly due to the fact that I've spent quite a bit more time tuning. However, tuning cannot make up for what is simply not there. These two cars were pretty much identical in terms of sound quality no matter what was played, and this was affirmed on numerous occasions, so this isn't just some Sinfoni system I ran across that sounded better than my Audison setup, it's a system I am very familiar with which has evolved pretty much parallel to my own, and I often compare it with my own as a reference...

So, what struck me the most was the Sinfoni's ability to reproduce some stringed passages with such striking detail as opposed to the Audison, one of which included a guy doing some pretty aggressive and raw-sounding cello playing. The difference made me want to add the words "crunchy" and "scratchy" to the list of adjectives which can describe amplifier fidelity. The same passages played on the Audison setup sounded like the Audison was "smoothing the edges" a bit by comparison.

However, I have a plan which should satisfy you:

Since the Audison amps will remain in my car and I'm merely disconnecting a few channels and adding a couple of Sinfoni amps-

For evaluation purposes, and in order to get a TRUE A-B comparison, I will make it a point to split the processed signal and wire in a speaker selector switch during the installation. I will also AC voltage match the outputs of the Sinfonis to the Audisons with calibrated test tones. At that point, I can literally flip a switch and do a true A-B comparison. That seems about as close as one can actually get to an accurate A-B, doesn't it? It's only good for Audison vs Sinfoni though, so take that at face value.

This install will happen this coming weekend, and I'll be sure to report back- even though I don't give a fraction of a F$&@ what you think, Jesus. 

EDIT: BTW- the last time I checked, I currently hold the highest MECA SQ score awarded in CA so far this season, and I had a phase issue at that time (fixed now). I also do all of my own tuning. Keep up the good work with the face-palms, Jesus! You're a funny guy


----------



## Jesus Christ

XSIV SPL said:


> Well, yes, Jesus, and let me clarify a bit for you-


No need to clarify, that already tells us everything we need to know about the validity of your "proper" test.


----------



## XSIV SPL

Jesus Christ said:


> No need to clarify, that already tells us everything we need to know about the validity of your "proper" test.


Jesus Christ! You obviously didn't read my entire post...

I'm setting up a TRUE A-B test, but only applicable to Audison and Sinfoni (both of which I suspect you've never owned nor even auditioned).

Please though, stop trying to solidify your opinions by saying "us" when it's just you doing all the hating.

May God bless you, Jesus... I admire your reckless arrogance! You've reminded me of myself at a time when I was about 12 years old and didn't know much of anything, and had no social skills. Life was easier then for sure- Thank you for that


----------



## Victor_inox

XSIV SPL said:


> Please though, don't try to make your opinions by saying "us" when it's just you doing all the hating.


I agree there is no us, every man for himself. Noticed there is not legible argument for a few days now, Jesus hating doesn`t count.


----------



## rton20s

XSIV SPL said:


> EDIT: BTW- the last time I checked, I currently hold the highest MECA SQ score awarded in CA so far this season, and I had a phase issue at that time (fixed now).


I guess it is a good thing that Papasin's 84.8 came from out of state? 

I look forward to hearing your vehicle at one of the upcoming shows.


----------



## papasin

^ Lol. Back to amps that maybe of interest, I saw these amps recently:

http://soundstream.com/store/car-audio/amplifiers/stealth.html

Quite intriguing...along with the "amp" below that I bet can be made to sound better than any "high end amp" in a car by itself.  

http://mosconi-system.it/product/gladen-d2-80-6-dsp/

But what do I know?


----------



## subwoofery

WRX/Z28 said:


> Testing can easily be flawed if: A, the water was a different temperature. B, you drank right from the bottle, as bottle shapes and materials can affect how the water hits your palate and with what o2 mixed in. C, if you didn't drink them back to back.
> 
> 
> If you put them all in the same glass, let them all warm up to room temp, and tried them back to back in a double blind situation, I doubt you would be able to tell a difference, most people can't even do it with macro beers or coke/pepsi nevermind water. Then if you mixed in some Tang into the water (similar to adding the variation of speakers/tuning) it would be completely impossible.
> 
> This is similar to amps. As I've said: Even if there is a difference, it's so small that once you factor in everything else like speakers, eq/ta settings, gain settings, crossover settings. It's pretty impossible to hear a difference that can be attributed to the amp itself with ANY degree of certainty.


And what is water really supposed to taste like? Is there a reference for the type of water taste which all others should be compared to? (<-- is that english? lol) 
Should it just taste plain, have some sort of natural magnesium added to it or just some added chlorine so that it tastes just like tap water... 

It's true that some people can't differenciate taste from Pepsi or Coke, a 1 year old wine VS a 20 year old one, so why is it so hard to believe that some people just can't hear a difference (plenty of explanation for that like some people that just don't care) 

Kelvin 

FYI, there's quite a few brands that taste differently from one another - same with electronics  It might be easier to differentiate with your tongue than with your ears though...


----------



## DLO13

rton20s said:


> I guess it is a good thing that Papasin's 84.8 came from out of state?
> 
> I look forward to hearing your vehicle at one of the upcoming shows.


----------



## rton20s

papasin said:


> ^ Lol. Back to amps that maybe of interest, I saw these amps recently:
> 
> http://soundstream.com/store/car-au...mosconi-system.it/product/gladen-d2-80-6-dsp/
> 
> But what do I know?


That's cheating.


----------



## Bayboy

No sir. Wasn't me that tried the Atom although I was interested at one time. I believe it was Hillbilly SQ IIRC. Don't think he liked it though.


----------



## rton20s

Bayboy said:


> No sir. Wasn't me that tried the Atom although I was interested at one time. I believe it was Hillbilly SQ IIRC. Don't think he liked it though.


You are absolutely correct. My apologies for misremembering, call me Brian Williams. Here was Hillbilly SQ's impressions of the Atom...



Hillbilly SQ said:


> They are indeed maxi fuses but for sure the smallest size they come in.
> 
> Anyway, the amp had a short residence in my truck due to its grainy sound. For the size it's a great option if space is hard to come by but just didn't cut the mustard for me. I'll put it up and keep it for a spare. In short, it's not good enough for my install but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its place in the "right" install.


----------



## XSIV SPL

rton20s said:


> I guess it is a good thing that Papasin's 84.8 came from out of state?
> 
> I look forward to hearing your vehicle at one of the upcoming shows.


Indeed it is!  

I was aware of and congratulated Papasin on his 84.8 within moments of its announcement (but is WAS Vegas  ) 84.0 in CA is still the high, though I expect it will soon push a bit higher, by more than one competitor 

I'm VERY impressed by how much the west coast group, overall, has been improving in SQ recently- it demonstrates a passion for excellence which makes this all a lot more enjoyable, and I'm proud to be a part of that

Planning to be in SLO on the 7th? I've been hoping to get a listen to yours also!

AND NOW: Back to our regularly scheduled programming...


----------



## rton20s

XSIV SPL said:


> Indeed it is!
> 
> I was aware of and congratulated Papasin on his 84.8 within moments of its announcement (but is WAS Vegas  ) 84.0 in CA is still the high, though I expect it will soon push a bit higher, by more than one competitor
> 
> I'm VERY impressed by how much the west coast group, overall, has been improving in SQ recently- it demonstrates a passion for excellence which makes this all a lot more enjoyable, and I'm proud to be a part of that
> 
> Planning to be in SLO on the 7th? I've been hoping to get a listen to yours also!
> 
> AND NOW: Back to our regularly scheduled programming...


I was encouraged during my first year of competition by all of the great sounding cars. It has definitely pushed me to try and make my own install and tune better. 

I'm not sure about the 7th yet. I am still up in the air on that one. Besides, my car is currently in a state of... *ahem*... flux. I hope to have it sorted and functioning again before the Papasin GTG. Though, more changes are sure to follow.


----------



## papasin

XSIV SPL said:


> I was aware of and congratulated Papasin on his 84.8 within moments of its announcement (but is WAS Vegas  )



I don't put too much stock in single scores...but to be accurate, the 84.8 that rton20s referred to was at a triple point event in AZ, where the score is an average across three judges. IME, triple point events with three judges tends to get a little better sense of how a vehicle stacks up and doesn't solely rely on the score of a single judge. For me, it helped getting perspectives from judges that never heard my car before which for me is MUCH more valuable than the score I received. Must have been the amps!  

Who knows, maybe your judge was a little generous since it was a December comp after all and the judge was in a generous mood.    (for those that weren't there at the December comp, this is an inside joke so don't read too much into this last bit)


----------



## palldat

papasin said:


> I don't put too much stock in single scores...but to be accurate, the 84.8 that rton20s referred to was at a triple point event in AZ, where the score is an average across three judges. IME, triple point events with three judges tends to get a little better sense of how a vehicle stacks up and doesn't solely rely on the score of a single judge. For me, it helped getting perspectives from judges that never heard my car before which for me is MUCH more valuable than the score I received. Must have been the amps!
> 
> Who knows, maybe your judge was a little generous since it was a December comp after all and the judge was in a generous mood.    (for those that weren't there at the December comp, this is an inside joke so don't read too much into this last bit)


Yes, the amps and tweets indeed....tune probably had a little to do with it


----------



## palldat

rton20s said:


> I was encouraged during my first year of competition by all of the great sounding cars. It has definitely pushed me to try and make my own install and tune better.
> 
> I'm not sure about the 7th yet. I am still up in the air on that one. Besides, my car is currently in a state of... *ahem*... flux. I hope to have it sorted and functioning again before the Papasin GTG. Though, more changes are sure to follow.


What are you doing to it now? I would be interested to hearing it again as well. Alas I will not be able to make it up to the GTG...maybe the next one up that way I can free myself.


----------



## rton20s

palldat said:


> What are you doing to it now? I would be interested to hearing it again as well. Alas I will not be able to make it up to the GTG...maybe the next one up that way I can free myself.


Just in flux.  There are some likely equipment changes coming, but I should remain in the same class. I think. Probably.  I'm currently working out the financial side of things.


----------



## Jepalan

WOW! I love it. I plan a project, buy a bunch of cool stuff, read a crud load of posts on tuning my new DEH-80PRS, then finally pop back into this thread weeks later to find it is still going strong with a finely balanced mix of intelligence, ego, testosterone, and utter incompetency. 

:inout:


----------



## rton20s

Jepalan said:


> WOW! I love it. I plan a project, buy a bunch of cool stuff, read a crud load of posts on tuning my new DEH-80PRS, then finally pop back into this thread weeks later to find it is still going strong with a finely balanced mix of intelligence, ego, testosterone, and utter incompetency.
> 
> :inout:


----------



## papasin

palldat said:


> What are you doing to it now? I would be interested to hearing it again as well. Alas I will not be able to make it up to the GTG...maybe the next one up that way I can free myself.





rton20s said:


> Just in flux.  There are some likely equipment changes coming, but I should remain in the same class. I think. Probably.  I'm currently working out the financial side of things.



If I had to guess, rton20s is upgrading to higher end sq amps. Isn't that why we are all in this thread?   :laugh:


----------



## papasin

palldat said:


> Yes, the amps and tweets indeed....tune probably had a little to do with it



Just a little on the tweets and tune...it's all about the amps.  (well, at least when it comes to this thread )


----------



## sqnut

rton20s said:


> Just in flux.  There are some likely equipment changes coming, but I should remain in the same class. I think. Probably.  I'm currently working out the financial side of things.


Just a thought but I would upgrade the dsp level before I went on an amp / speaker buying spree. Even if that changes your class. A full dsp would take the sound much further than fiddling with different amps.


----------



## papasin

sqnut said:


> Just a thought but I would upgrade the dsp level before I went on an amp / speaker buying spree. Even if that changes your class. A full dsp would take the sound much further than fiddling with different amps.



You sure? Biting tongue.


----------



## captainobvious

thehatedguy said:


> I mean the test being referenced here used Martin Logans....how are you going to extend that to the car environment?
> 
> I can get some horns from Eric, some compression drivers, put some pro midbasses in like JBL 2118s, and some pro 15s in for the subs and have a system sitting around 96 dB pretty easy. No, still not 105+ dB but higher than "normal."
> 
> I can not put some electrostats in the car.



As a heads up, my Martin Logan Aerius I speakers used in testing are 89db/2.83v, so not exactly "high efficiency".


----------



## sqnut

papasin said:


> You sure? Biting tongue.


How do I feel? :knife: close enough to a face palm, :z: burnt, :lipsrsealed:....................


----------



## rton20s

papasin said:


> If I had to guess, rton20s is upgrading to higher end sq amps. Isn't that why we are all in this thread?   :laugh:


Amp upgrade FTW! 

















Who needs DSP?


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> As a heads up, my Martin Logan Aerius I speakers used in testing are 89db/2.83v, so not exactly "high efficiency".


 see, I knew test is imperfect somewhere. difficult to drive speakers with low efficiency. 89db/at 2.83 V is about 86db with 1W/M.


----------



## Hanatsu

A friend of mine had a cheap Boss amp to drive his subs. Been working fine for three years now. I got it for free after he sold his car, so I decided to test it today. It says 3000W on the front cover, assuming it was BS, I measured it with a 2 ohm dummy load and an o-scope and clipping occurred at 30,8V - that means it got approximately 470W into a resistive load at 2ohms. In a "real-world example" where the load is somewhat reactive we probably get a little less than that. If they specced it at [email protected] it would be closer to the truth. If we disregard the false spec, the amp was/is? a bargain with the pricetag of $90+shipping (IIRC). It's a China made board, overall cheap stuff inside but it no worse than many other brands that got similar quality with much higher price.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> see, I knew test is imperfect somewhere. difficult to drive speakers with low efficiency. 89db/at 2.83 V is about 86db with 1W/M.


aren't these notoriously hard to drive, with impedance dipping into 2 ohms for a wide band of the FR?


that might mean 83 db/ 1W meter


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> see, I knew test is imperfect somewhere. difficult to drive speakers with low efficiency. 89db/at 2.83 V is about 86db with 1W/M.



How is it imperfect? They (amps) were all driving the same load.


----------



## rton20s

So I am trying to understand this. If the Martin Logans in ol' Cap's test are so "notoriously hard to drive" shouldn't that bode well for the "higher end" amps? And not so well for the lower end amps? Shouldn't a high end amp excel with a difficult load where a lower end amp wouldn't be up to the task? 

Or can you only hear the subtle nuances of a high end amp on easy to drive speakers?


----------



## captainobvious

cajunner said:


> aren't these notoriously hard to drive, with impedance dipping into 2 ohms for a wide band of the FR?


Its a narrow portion of the frequency spectrum, above 15K. The impedance begins to dip slightly below 2ohms around 15Khz to a minimum of 1.5ohms at 25khz, then back up.


----------



## captainobvious

rton20s said:


> So I am trying to understand this. If the Martin Logans in ol' Cap's test are so "notoriously hard to drive" shouldn't that bode well for the "higher end" amps? And not so well for the lower end amps? Shouldn't a high end amp excel with a difficult load where a lower end amp wouldn't be up to the task?
> 
> Or can you only hear the subtle nuances of a high end amp on easy to drive speakers?



Exactly where I was going with it after Victor responded. A tougher load to drive should have made differences MORE easily recognized, not less.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> aren't these notoriously hard to drive, with impedance dipping into 2 ohms for a wide band of the FR?
> 
> 
> that might mean 83 db/ 1W meter


impedances dipping into 1.7 is published numbers.
How car amplifiers behave with electrostats is another question.

Intentionally or unintentionally such load was used is another question. 

I smell another testing coming. who want to borrow my Magnepans to truly erase all differences between car amplifiers?


----------



## sqnut

A tougher load to drive would make the amps run hotter yes, but as long as the signal is not clipping why would you hear a difference?


----------



## Elektra

Imho... Amps don't sound the same.. How can they they have different OP amps , caps different quantity of caps.. Designs differ etc... 

I owned a 6 channel Brax Platinum amp like $5000.. Tested against my EOS 4 channel at $1000 retail... The EOS cleaned it up good and proper - I sold the Brax right after the test and continued with EOS. 

I now own 3 hybrid valve amps - which are leagues ahead of the EOS that smacked the Platinum Brax amp.. I could not be happier..

On a side note - I did a cable test today used Monster cable RCA (the good fancy stuff) and decent speaker cable - the kind an average installer would use in a shop. I connected it to the Tube amp and used a HRT Istreamer 12v as a source with the apple issue charge cable with my IPhone 6 listened to various track (all my music is recorded AAC) amp was connected to a set of Focal Utopia Kit 7's in a home cabinet..

To say that this setup sounded BAD!! I found the following:

1) system hiss was very prominent 
2) system sounded muddy 
3) lack of separation
4) audible distortion
5) dirty frequency response
6) lack of bass

System in all honesty sounded terrible...

I then changed the rca cable to the amp from Monster to AUDIOQUEST king cobra and replaced the Apple iPod cable to AUDIOQUEST coffee and changed the speaker cable to AUDIOQUEST Type 2 cable

This was my finding:

1) system hiss reduced by I would say 80%
2) no audible distortion
3) clear music
4) separation was night and day
5) bass was much better
6) all symbilance was gone

The system went from bad to incredible - just with cable changes...

People should invest more in proper cables..

Once you have sorted your cables and source - then test amps - the better amps respond well to sources and cables due to their components inside..

I have yet to hear a better sounding amp.. And I had them all Zapco to Brax.. 

Brax amps are dry clinical sounding amps - imho not worth the price tags - the VRX amp I had was a nicer sounding amp as well.. 

I would say from the EOS experience I would say get a GZ Ref 4 or 2 or 2T these amps are built in the same factory as EOS and share very similar components and board layouts.. Just that EOS will be 2-3 times cheaper..

For me quality components tells the story of the product..


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> Exactly where I was going with it after Victor responded. A tougher load to drive should have made differences MORE easily recognized, not less.


 If life was that straightforward..... but it`s not.


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> impedances dipping into 1.7 is published numbers.
> How car amplifiers behave with electrostats is another question.
> 
> Intentionally or unintentionally such load was used is another question.
> 
> I smell another testing coming. who want to borrow my Magnepans to truly erase all differences between car amplifiers?



Correct, and on the Aerius i, it was measured to be 1.5ohms at 25Khz by Stereophile.

How do you think a "car amplifier" will behave differently than a home amplifier with an electrostatic speaker?

Regardless, it doesn't matter when you get down to it. We're not comparing the speakers, but the amplifiers powering them. These speakers should have made differences more prevalent because of the difficult impedance load. So one could say that my test even gave a harder run on the amplifiers that typical car use would see. Yet still the results amounted to a coin flip. 

Sure more data would make them more _statistically_ significant, but it was eye opening for those of us who participated.


----------



## Victor_inox

sqnut said:


> A tougher load to drive would make the amps run hotter yes, but as long as the signal is not clipping why would you hear a difference?


Why? this question was answered many time in this 85 pages nonsense. 
one can only lead horse to the water..... 
because amps not designed and executed the same....


----------



## cajunner

captainobvious said:


> Its a narrow portion of the frequency spectrum, above 15K. The impedance begins to dip slightly below 2ohms around 15Khz to a minimum of 1.5ohms at 25khz, then back up.


would that be enough to trigger a RIPS circuit, or maybe a short-circuit protection scheme in some amplifiers?

probably not, I would think.

but, the nature of a panel drive is possibly so different from a conventional 2/3 way that it merits consideration.

maybe it would be possible to create a better spread of percentages if you had a second set of speakers to do a dual test against the same battery of amplifiers, so that if there are any differences that show up better against a cone/dome combo, they would reveal themselves.


but then, that's complicated.


----------



## sqnut

Victor_inox said:


> Why? this question was answered many time in this 85 pages nonsense.
> one can only lead horse to the water.....
> *because amps not designed and executed the same....*


and yet they measure the same. You don't have to scroll thru 85 pages to figure that out. I was hoping there was more to it than that.


----------



## Victor_inox

it`s complicated, fair enough.


----------



## Victor_inox

sqnut said:


> and yet they measure the same. You don't have to scroll thru 85 pages to figure that out. I was hoping there was more to it than that.


 That if you think that everything is measured....


----------



## Jesus Christ

XSIV SPL said:


> Jesus Christ! You obviously didn't read my entire post...


I did, there just wasn't anything of value in the post that made it worth commenting on.



> I'm setting up a TRUE A-B test, but only applicable to Audison and Sinfoni (both of which I suspect you've never owned nor even auditioned).


I would also suggest you have someone else control the selector switch so you don't know which amp is playing since you already have a bias towards the Sinfoni. As far as not having owned either, you're right, I haven't owned either brand. Whether or not I've heard cars running either doesn't really matter without doing a blind a/b/x test. How can you listen to a car and determine the way the system sounds is due to the amps and not the drivers, placement, tuning, the acoustics of that particular car etc.? It's possible that the Audison and Sinfoni sound different and if they did I'd want to measure both to determine which one is defective and altering the input signal so I could avoid that brand. 


Victor_inox said:


> Noticed there is not legible argument for a few days now


Don't be so hard on yourself. 


Elektra said:


> Imho... Amps don't sound the same.. How can they they have different OP amps , caps different quantity of caps.. Designs differ etc...


Lets say we have two different cars, both with a top speed of 200mph, how is that possible, they're different cars with different engines, tires, aerodynamics etc.?


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> Don't be so hard on yourself.


 Ha ha very funny.... but you have attention span problem, I quoted known authority in amplifiers design and in response got? nothing?!
Lets say we have two different cars, both with a top speed of 200mph, how is that possible, they're different cars with different engines, tires, aerodynamics etc.?[/QUOTE]
Assuming that all what you expect from a car is top speed.


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> Ha ha very funny.... but you have attention span problem, I quoted known authority in amplifiers design and in response got? nothing?!


It's been a long week, been driving 7hrs a day this week for work so I haven't had the chance to read the Nelson Pass quote yet but here's one from Lycan that sums up my point of view pretty well.


lycan said:


> some people buy corvettes _and_ Ferraris
> 
> Yes, amplifiers can & do sound different. But it's perfectly reasonable to understand that, given the state of electronic circuitry, it's not hard (like it was 50 years ago) to build an amplifier whose errors in gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion are all well below the limits of human hearing (this, i suspect, is behind the "competently designed" phrase).
> 
> So, if nothing else comes of this discussion, consider this when comparing ANY two amplifiers : there's a well-known list of things that can CAUSE one amplifer to sound different than another. These are :
> 
> 1. Gain difference by 0.25dB or more
> 2. Frequency response errors of 0.25dB or more
> 3. Power
> 4. Noise & distortion greater than, say, -80dB.
> 5. The psychology of knowing which brand name you're listening to
> 
> So consider these KNOWN things that cause amps to "sound" different. Wouldn't you like to know which one is causing the sonic difference you "heard"? *Most importantly, how much are you willing to PAY for a sonic difference due to one of these parameters?*
> 
> Trust me ... audio salesmen know these effects VERY well. Crank the gain on the brand you want to move by a quarter dB or so, crank the brightness on the TV brand you want to move ... all well known tricks.
> 
> You think you hear a difference? *ask WHY !!!!!* Hell, MEASURE the outputs of the two amps with an AC voltmeter at a few different frequencies  Fear not, you won't "spoil" the amplifier magic by putting a voltmeter across its output terminals.
> 
> Then, ask how much you're willing to pay for that tweak of the gain knob, or that slight bump in midrange frequency response ...


----------



## Victor_inox

You tired, take a rest after long week and don`t tell me how to measure things, I measured more circuits than you used rolls of toilet paper to wipe your behind. 
And tried to tell you here for weeks, there is not identical measurements.


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> You tired, take a rest after long week and don`t tell me how to measure things, I measured more circuits than you used rolls of toilet paper to wipe your behind.
> And tried to tell you here for weeks, there is not identical measurements.


Lycan knows a thing or two about circuit design himself.

I've already agreed that if you measure enough decimal places over every amp will measure differently, but it only matters if those differences are enough to be audible.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> Lycan knows a thing or two about circuit design himself.
> 
> I've already agreed that if you measure enough decimal places over every amp will measure differently, but it only matters if those differences are enough to be audible.


I`ve seen word science was brought here many times...
well science is above what matters and what not.... and the truth is they still sound different , perhaps we have to keep looking.


----------



## Hanatsu

Elektra said:


> Imho... Amps don't sound the same.. How can they they have different OP amps , caps different quantity of caps.. Designs differ etc...
> 
> I owned a 6 channel Brax Platinum amp like $5000.. Tested against my EOS 4 channel at $1000 retail... The EOS cleaned it up good and proper - I sold the Brax right after the test and continued with EOS.
> 
> I now own 3 hybrid valve amps - which are leagues ahead of the EOS that smacked the Platinum Brax amp.. I could not be happier..
> 
> On a side note - I did a cable test today used Monster cable RCA (the good fancy stuff) and decent speaker cable - the kind an average installer would use in a shop. I connected it to the Tube amp and used a HRT Istreamer 12v as a source with the apple issue charge cable with my IPhone 6 listened to various track (all my music is recorded AAC) amp was connected to a set of Focal Utopia Kit 7's in a home cabinet..
> 
> To say that this setup sounded BAD!! I found the following:
> 
> 1) system hiss was very prominent
> 2) system sounded muddy
> 3) lack of separation
> 4) audible distortion
> 5) dirty frequency response
> 6) lack of bass
> 
> System in all honesty sounded terrible...
> 
> I then changed the rca cable to the amp from Monster to AUDIOQUEST king cobra and replaced the Apple iPod cable to AUDIOQUEST coffee and changed the speaker cable to AUDIOQUEST Type 2 cable
> 
> This was my finding:
> 
> 1) system hiss reduced by I would say 80%
> 2) no audible distortion
> 3) clear music
> 4) separation was night and day
> 5) bass was much better
> 6) all symbilance was gone
> 
> The system went from bad to incredible - just with cable changes...
> 
> People should invest more in proper cables..
> 
> Once you have sorted your cables and source - then test amps - the better amps respond well to sources and cables due to their components inside..
> 
> I have yet to hear a better sounding amp.. And I had them all Zapco to Brax..
> 
> Brax amps are dry clinical sounding amps - imho not worth the price tags - the VRX amp I had was a nicer sounding amp as well..
> 
> I would say from the EOS experience I would say get a GZ Ref 4 or 2 or 2T these amps are built in the same factory as EOS and share very similar components and board layouts.. Just that EOS will be 2-3 times cheaper..
> 
> For me quality components tells the story of the product..


Hey, why don't you start a thread on how much differences there are in cables. I'm sure people find it interesting to discuss that 

Unless the old cables were broken I call complete BS on all of this. Sorry but talking about distortion in cables? I don't even know where to begin. System hiss reduced by 80% - What...? "Clear music" . What does this mean? "Bass was much better" - Ok...? How was it better exactly? What happened? Describe by not using vague subjective terms please? Separation, as in channel separation? In a car is HORRIBLE, the immense crosstalk of L/R channels by reflection in windows etc completely overshadow any electronics channel leakage and what does cables have to do with this...? Sibilance is a frequency response issue or excessive non-linear distortion. None of these can be traced back to cables. 

Fyi, I own the Audioquest type-2 and type-4. They are as good as any other cable on the market, the only difference is that they are overpriced compared to standard speaker cables that work just as fine. 

Imho, you are just another audiophile who likes to believe that money equal better sounding systems. Electronics is not described in subjective words, it's described in technical specifications. There are lots of research into psychoacoustics and it's pretty well understood what we hear and what we don't hear. If we can't hear noise and distortion due to masking effects as early as -40dB down, then all discussions regarding audible distortions in electronics and cables suddenly becomes rather unimportant. It would be lots more prudent to understand and improve upon the real source of distortion, the one that cannot be neglected - acoustic distortion. By this I mean speakers and the environment - it's here 99,9% of the audible distortion is created. I want to see a viable argument that I'm wrong here but so far I've not seen more than illogical viewpoints on seemingly logical ideas that hold little to none relevance to reality.


----------



## Hanatsu

captainobvious said:


> A tougher load to drive should have made differences MORE easily recognized, not less.


Low impedance loads combined with steep impedance phase angles (reactive loads) can drive amps into clipping lots earlier than if you would have driven a purely resistive load. 

If the speakers are difficult to drive a well designed amplifier will keep it's power output rather close to its resistive load output. A badly designed amplifier can on the other hand behave rather strange and drop it's unclipped power output significantly. Often this results in increased amount of transient non-linear distortion that can be audible if it reaches significant levels. All-in-all I agree that an amp test would reveal more their "flaws" if driven with speakers that got difficult load characteristics. Your point is valid.


----------



## Orion525iT

Hanatsu said:


> Imho, you are just another audiophile who likes to believe that money equal better sounding systems. Electronics is not described in subjective words, it's described in technical specifications. There are lots of research into psychoacoustics and it's pretty well understood what we hear and what we don't hear. If we can't hear noise and distortion due to masking effects as early as -40dB down, then all discussions regarding audible distortions in electronics and cables suddenly becomes rather unimportant. It would be lots more prudent to understand and improve upon the real source of distortion, the one that cannot be neglected - acoustic distortion. By this I mean speakers and the environment - it's here 99,9% of the audible distortion is created. I want to see a viable argument that I'm wrong here but so far I've not seen more than illogical viewpoints on seemingly logical ideas that hold little to none relevance to reality.


Give it up Han .

It's been brought up multiple times the logical fallacies and the lack of data that represents the SQ amp side of the debate. I have been waiting, asking, waiting, reminding, waiting for some sort of actual, verifiable evidence that supports the positive claim. But still the only response has been pychobabble scheisse. Got to wonder why that is .

But I will keep checking back to amuse myself with the mental contortions some people are intent to pursue.


----------



## Victor_inox

I`m just wondering who you guys talking to besides yourself?
That what seems mental to me.


----------



## Elektra

Hanatsu said:


> Hey, why don't you start a thread on how much differences there are in cables. I'm sure people find it interesting to discuss that
> 
> Unless the old cables were broken I call complete BS on all of this. Sorry but talking about distortion in cables? I don't even know where to begin. System hiss reduced by 80% - What...? "Clear music" . What does this mean? "Bass was much better" - Ok...? How was it better exactly? What happened? Describe by not using vague subjective terms please? Separation, as in channel separation? In a car is HORRIBLE, the immense crosstalk of L/R channels by reflection in windows etc completely overshadow any electronics channel leakage and what does cables have to do with this...? Sibilance is a frequency response issue or excessive non-linear distortion. None of these can be traced back to cables.
> 
> Fyi, I own the Audioquest type-2 and type-4. They are as good as any other cable on the market, the only difference is that they are overpriced compared to standard speaker cables that work just as fine.
> 
> Imho, you are just another audiophile who likes to believe that money equal better sounding systems. Electronics is not described in subjective words, it's described in technical specifications. There are lots of research into psychoacoustics and it's pretty well understood what we hear and what we don't hear. If we can't hear noise and distortion due to masking effects as early as -40dB down, then all discussions regarding audible distortions in electronics and cables suddenly becomes rather unimportant. It would be lots more prudent to understand and improve upon the real source of distortion, the one that cannot be neglected - acoustic distortion. By this I mean speakers and the environment - it's here 99,9% of the audible distortion is created. I want to see a viable argument that I'm wrong here but so far I've not seen more than illogical viewpoints on seemingly logical ideas that hold little to none relevance to reality.


I know this is a hot topic... Snake oil and all manner of descriptions I have read over the years...

BUT for me and my equipment I heard SIGNIFICANT gains by replacing 3 parts of my existing setup -namely the RCA cable from source to amp, signal cable from source to DAC and speaker cable. Whether gains are entirely relevant to source cable and not speaker cable - I didn't go that far in my test. 

I can tell you that the improvement was not minor are in my head - the system honestly did not sound that great with lower end cables.. The improvement was probably greater than changing speaker or source. I cannot quantify the improvement in percentage because for me it was so large to say it was a 10% or a 100% or more improvement was impossible.

I did the cable test because I recently acquired AQ Sky RCA at very good prices from our local agent - probably cheaper than one would get it off EBay - call it change of range or lack of market for Uber high end cables - don't really know.. But I do have a relationship with them over the years.

For me - I simply cannot understand why people would compare a $50 RCA to a $1000 RCA and say they cannot hear a difference? I will concede that Monster to King Cobra was massive Coffee 30pin compared to Apple lightning (I used an adaptor - thanks Apple for changing now I have a AQ 30 pin I can't really use) was massive - King Cobra to Sky the changes were subtle but still there... Diminishing returns? Probably but still a gain in my opinion. 

I tested all this with equipment I was going to use in my car - with my pioneer DSP (P90) i can use short runs of cable as I am using the optical cable from the front to rear - so it was a real world test not just plugging in different cable on a nice hifi system which may not do much to a car setup. 

Please believe me - if you could not come up with the same conclusion I came up with after the test - you have serious hearing issues. As it was not imagined...

Trust me if I could not hear any difference I would definitely cancel my order on the 4 sets of SKY that I have ordered and got a refund on the other SKY set which I paid a deposit on which I will be collecting shortly. I will concede when I am being silly with my money...

I took pics but not sure as to how to upload them...


----------



## JVD240

Elektra said:


> I know this is a hot topic... Snake oil and all manner of descriptions I have read over the years...
> 
> BUT for me and my equipment I heard SIGNIFICANT gains by replacing 3 parts of my existing setup -namely the RCA cable from source to amp, signal cable from source to DAC and speaker cable. Whether gains are entirely relevant to source cable and not speaker cable - I didn't go that far in my test.
> 
> I can tell you that the improvement was not minor are in my head - the system honestly did not sound that great with lower end cables.. The improvement was probably greater than changing speaker or source. I cannot quantify the improvement in percentage because for me it was so large to say it was a 10% or a 100% or more improvement was impossible.
> 
> I did the cable test because I recently acquired AQ Sky RCA at very good prices from our local agent - probably cheaper than one would get it off EBay - call it change of range or lack of market for Uber high end cables - don't really know.. But I do have a relationship with them over the years.
> 
> For me - I simply cannot understand why people would compare a $50 RCA to a $1000 RCA and say they cannot hear a difference? I will concede that Monster to King Cobra was massive Coffee 30pin compared to Apple lightning (I used an adaptor - thanks Apple for changing now I have a AQ 30 pin I can't really use) was massive - King Cobra to Sky the changes were subtle but still there... Diminishing returns? Probably but still a gain in my opinion.
> 
> I tested all this with equipment I was going to use in my car - with my pioneer DSP (P90) i can use short runs of cable as I am using the optical cable from the front to rear - so it was a real world test not just plugging in different cable on a nice hifi system which may not do much to a car setup.
> 
> Please believe me - if you could not come up with the same conclusion I came up with after the test - you have serious hearing issues. As it was not imagined...
> 
> Trust me if I could not hear any difference I would definitely cancel my order on the 4 sets of SKY that I have ordered and got a refund on the other SKY set which I paid a deposit on which I will be collecting shortly. I will concede when I am being silly with my money...
> 
> I took pics but not sure as to how to upload them...


Oh lawd.

Another one.

:laugh:


----------



## XSIV SPL

papasin said:


> I don't put too much stock in single scores...but to be accurate, the 84.8 that rton20s referred to was at a triple point event in AZ, where the score is an average across three judges. IME, triple point events with three judges tends to get a little better sense of how a vehicle stacks up and doesn't solely rely on the score of a single judge. For me, it helped getting perspectives from judges that never heard my car before which for me is MUCH more valuable than the score I received. Must have been the amps!
> 
> Who knows, maybe your judge was a little generous since it was a December comp after all and the judge was in a generous mood.    (for those that weren't there at the December comp, this is an inside joke so don't read too much into this last bit)


Don't give me that, Papasin . My judge at that event told me at the time that he was being quite critical  

But as it turns out, my system will be quite different from December, and my judge (and his better half) might actually be competing at SLO  It's always fun, and there really are no egos when we all get together.

Looking forward to seeing you all!


----------



## Elektra

JVD240 said:


> Oh lawd.
> 
> Another one.
> 
> :laugh:


Lol..

It is what it is..


----------



## XSIV SPL

OK, so I'm setting up the best possible true A-B comparison I can muster between Audison and Sinfoni in the AM. You'll only have my word on it, but if the Sinfonis don't kill my Audisons in a true A-B, they won't ride home in my car. I'll report on my current brand of amp tomorrow-


----------



## Elektra

XSIV SPL said:


> OK, so I'm setting up the best possible true A-B comparison I can muster between Audison and Sinfoni in the AM. You'll only have my word on it, but if the Sinfonis don't kill my Audisons in a true A-B, they won't ride home in my car. I'll report on my current brand of amp tomorrow-


This has probably been discussed earlier but to save me time going through all the posts - what model amps are you guys referring to?


----------



## Victor_inox

I can bet my left nut that 90% of "all amp measured the same" never used oscilloscope in their life nor understand numbers they read somewhere. usually from lower grade equipment manufacturers who promote that view, yet they talk down to other side of the debate like we a bunch of imbeciles. I`ll tell you what you can keep you precious money in your saving account and ***** about overpriced gear on internet forum, perhaps if you told 1000 times that speaker A sound just as good as speaker B ( or amp in that matter You would wholeheartedly believe that there is no difference.


----------



## XSIV SPL

Elektra said:


> This has probably been discussed earlier but to save me time going through all the posts - what model amps are you guys referring to?


Electra, I am currently running a pair of Audison 5.1k amps. They are running my entire system, but I intend to disconnect the 75w class A channels of these amps currently running my mid/tweeter pods and substitute a pair of Sinfoni Allegros in their place. For now, mid-bass and sub will still run on Audison.

If all goes the way I suspect after a critical A-B, I may have a couple of 5.1k Audison amps up for sale in the near future, but with a six-or-so week wait in order to finish out my system with a couple of Sinfoni amps which are built to order


----------



## Elektra

I think comparing 2 good quality amps assuming your not comparing the lower end Audisons - I think the difference will be neglible. As the both use similar components - bet they even using the same audio caps etc..

You will get more improvement from a source change, speakers and imho proper cabling...

Assuming your source is good like a P99 or HX-D2, Mac, Denon, Nak CD700, F1, ODR... You should not hear much difference 

I think your results will be six of one and half a dozen of the other really...

Now compare Sinfoni and Audison against other spectrum amps then you have a good test on your hands and you will probably find the Italian amps sound better...


----------



## Elektra

XSIV SPL said:


> Electra, I am currently running a pair of Audison 5.1k amps. They are running my entire system, but I intend to disconnect the 75w class A channels of these amps currently running my mid/tweeter pods and substitute a pair of Sinfoni Allegros in their place. For now, mid-bass and sub will still run on Audison.
> 
> If all goes the way I suspect after a critical A-B, I may have a couple of 5.1k Audison amps up for sale in the near future, but with a six-or-so week wait in order to finish out my system with a couple of Sinfoni amps which are built to order


If you said VRX ... I would say the test would be hard as both those amps are very nice.. I heard the 6 channel VRX when I tested it against my EOS - it was the only amp that sounded very close to the EOS - it lost out in the midbass and lower mid range - but it was tight.

Haven't heard the 5.1k and not the class A part either - but I suspect it isn't a true class A setup maybe higher biased - like what the GZ Ref amps and some EOS amps have which is adjustable. 

Let us know which sounds better - but I would say that the LRX amps are not in the same league as those Sinfonis - I had a Sinfoni 150x and LRX4.1 - upon board layout inspection the Sinfoni appeared to have the more higher end board layout - I never heard them as I sold it.. The new owner of the Sinfoni who was a friend of mine liked it a lot - he also bought the 4.1 and was disappointed with it..


----------



## XSIV SPL

Victor_inox said:


> I can bet my left nut that 90% of "all amp measured the same" never used oscilloscope in their life nor understand numbers they read somewhere. usually from lower grade equipment manufacturers who promote that view, yet they talk down to other side of the debate like we a bunch of imbeciles. I`ll tell you what you can keep you precious money in your saving account and ***** about overpriced gear on internet forum, perhaps if you told 1000 times that speaker A sound just as good as speaker B ( or amp in that matter You would wholeheartedly believe that there is no difference.


I agree wholeheartedly-

Frankly, there is no oscilloscope or other device which can rival the human ear. I stopped using analytical equipment for tuning several years ago, except for general gain-setting, etc.. No instrument can tune as well as an educated ear.

As well, you can run budget amps/loudspeakers through your setup until you're blue-in-the-face, and it won't sound any better.

If you rely solely on device specs and analytical equipment for tuning, you're not going to be satisfied with the end result.

What I see in overwhelming supply in this thread is that many folks seem to believe that amplifier performance hits a plateau somewhere around a buck-a-watt, and don't want to hear the real truth unless it means they can get great sound on-the-cheap, which, DUH, will never happen.


----------



## XSIV SPL

Elektra said:


> If you said VRX ... I would say the test would be hard as both those amps are very nice.. I heard the 6 channel VRX when I tested it against my EOS - it was the only amp that sounded very close to the EOS - it lost out in the midbass and lower mid range - but it was tight.
> 
> Haven't heard the 5.1k and not the class A part either - but I suspect it isn't a true class A setup maybe higher biased - like what the GZ Ref amps and some EOS amps have which is adjustable.
> 
> Let us know which sounds better - but I would say that the LRX amps are not in the same league as those Sinfonis - I had a Sinfoni 150x and LRX4.1 - upon board layout inspection the Sinfoni appeared to have the more higher end board layout - I never heard them as I sold it.. The new owner of the Sinfoni who was a friend of mine liked it a lot - he also bought the 4.1 and was disappointed with it..


That makes sense- (2 channels of the 5.1k are actually a true class A though, by spec and designation, but seemingly lacking in critical evaluation) and this helps to exemplify why sticking with one brand will limit your possibilities. I'm still (always) looking for the right combination, regardless of who built it. For me, if your audio can't convince you that you're hearing a real performance, something needs to be changed.


----------



## Elektra

XSIV SPL said:


> That makes sense though- and exemplifies why sticking with one brand will limit your possibilities, but I'm still (always) looking for the right combination, regardless of brand loyalties.


Being brand loyal - holds you back imho... Like Focal is a good example.. I run the Utopia kit 7's which for ME are the best speakers I have heard thus far - next would be the F1's 

But the Focal amps are rubbish... Focal make very speakers not amps - even the Focal agents here don't rate their own amps.. 

If you want the best you need to take the best from each manufacturer and find the right combination

BTW how are you conducting this test? What source, what speakers is it on a demo board or listening room? In a car?


----------



## Elektra

Hanatsu said:


> Hey, why don't you start a thread on how much differences there are in cables. I'm sure people find it interesting to discuss that
> 
> Unless the old cables were broken I call complete BS on all of this. Sorry but talking about distortion in cables? I don't even know where to begin. System hiss reduced by 80% - What...? "Clear music" . What does this mean? "Bass was much better" - Ok...? How was it better exactly? What happened? Describe by not using vague subjective terms please? Separation, as in channel separation? In a car is HORRIBLE, the immense crosstalk of L/R channels by reflection in windows etc completely overshadow any electronics channel leakage and what does cables have to do with this...? Sibilance is a frequency response issue or excessive non-linear distortion. None of these can be traced back to cables.
> 
> Fyi, I own the Audioquest type-2 and type-4. They are as good as any other cable on the market, the only difference is that they are overpriced compared to standard speaker cables that work just as fine.
> 
> Imho, you are just another audiophile who likes to believe that money equal better sounding systems. Electronics is not described in subjective words, it's described in technical specifications. There are lots of research into psychoacoustics and it's pretty well understood what we hear and what we don't hear. If we can't hear noise and distortion due to masking effects as early as -40dB down, then all discussions regarding audible distortions in electronics and cables suddenly becomes rather unimportant. It would be lots more prudent to understand and improve upon the real source of distortion, the one that cannot be neglected - acoustic distortion. By this I mean speakers and the environment - it's here 99,9% of the audible distortion is created. I want to see a viable argument that I'm wrong here but so far I've not seen more than illogical viewpoints on seemingly logical ideas that hold little to none relevance to reality.


Remember this test was not in a car...

So no external influences like reflections etc.. Just cold hard facts swopped cables and these were my findings - you don't have to agree with them - I only report what I heard...

This info can be used or not - it may be helpful or not but it is what it is...

Differences were night and day..

Obviously asking someone to pay $100's for long RCA cables x 4 if you run a P99 becomes VERY expensive. This is the reason why I will never buy a P99 - I would only look at HUs like F1 combos , ODR combos and P90 combos due to the DSP being of a high quality and a optical cable linking the 2 so no RCA is longer than 2m install depending 

This is my philosophy on obtaining the kind of sound I enjoy and the level detail - this may not be the philosophy of others who would rather buy other equipment and try to EQ and setup the system to obtain the desired SQ - when I used my equipment in my last car I hardly ever touched the EQ as the car sounded right first time after level matching etc

With my brothers car using a P99 and same speakers with basic cabling - he found setting up his car a lot harder and more EQ was used and still as good as his car sounded - it never sounded as good as mine... Which I told him on numerous occasions


----------



## subwoofery

Jesus Christ said:


> I did, there just wasn't anything of value in the post that made it worth commenting on.
> 
> 
> I would also suggest you have someone else control the selector switch so you don't know which amp is playing since you already have a bias towards the Sinfoni. As far as not having owned either, you're right, I haven't owned either brand. Whether or not I've heard cars running either doesn't really matter without doing a blind a/b/x test. How can you listen to a car and determine the way the system sounds is due to the amps and not the drivers, placement, tuning, the acoustics of that particular car etc.? It's possible that the Audison and Sinfoni sound different and if they did I'd want to measure both to determine which one is defective and altering the input signal so I could avoid that brand.
> 
> Don't be so hard on yourself.
> 
> Lets say we have two different cars, both with a top speed of 200mph, how is that possible, they're different cars with different engines, tires, aerodynamics etc.?


Posted many times the distortion profile of some of the most respected brands. 
Here's 1 of the Sinfoni and the Audison VRx: (test comes from a German magazine and there's heaps more)









Now, which one is the brand to avoid? 

Kelvin


----------



## Elektra

subwoofery said:


> Posted many times the distortion profile of some of the most respected brands.
> Here's 1 of the Sinfoni and the Audison VRx: (test comes from a German magazine and there's heaps more)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, which one is the brand to avoid?
> 
> Kelvin


I think going into a test with an open mind is sufficient - after all you want the product that sounds the best - pointless hoping for the Sinfoni to sound better than the Audison because you have already made up your mind to swop. 

I was involved in a ABX test - there were 10 people listening - test consisisted of 3 tests a soft listening test out of 10 (so 10 tracks) then a medium volume test which would be normal listening levels out of 10 and a loud listening test out of 10 - same music being played - the tester switched between speaker A and B both speakers were side by side - so effectively mono... I personally didn't agree with that style of testing as you could not tell how one amp presented a soundstage compared to another...

The test parameters was not explained properly as all the people who attended the test was not told it was a AB and X test. So in your mind you didn't consider that if you didn't hear a difference then it was the X part of the test. This info would be useful as when you could not hear a difference it was because there was no difference the tester was trying to fool you as in your mind it's yes or no.. 

Believe it or not only one person got 28/30 the only reason he didn't get 30/30 was because out of his own admission the first test was too soft at times so he could not hear it properly. 

Some people got 12/30 and 14/30... How can one person get almost 100% and others got 40%? 

Listening tests are worthless whether you can see or physically change between one product to the next makes little difference.. If you want to fool yourself into thinking there is a difference where there isn't then it's to your detriment.. As you will not be purchasing the correct product. If the differences are so small that you have to concentrate hard on the differences then I suggest keep what you have as the test is inconclusive. 

The difference between 2 products should be large enough to hear it immediately... Then you can validate your purchase either way. 

After all you don't test drive a car blind folded do you?


----------



## JVD240

Elektra said:


> Remember this test was not in a car...
> 
> So no external influences like reflections etc.. Just cold hard facts swopped cables and these were my findings - you don't have to agree with them - I only report what I heard...
> 
> This info can be used or not - it may be helpful or not but it is what it is...
> 
> Differences were night and day..
> 
> Obviously asking someone to pay $100's for long RCA cables x 4 if you run a P99 becomes VERY expensive. This is the reason why I will never buy a P99 - I would only look at HUs like F1 combos , ODR combos and P90 combos due to the DSP being of a high quality and a optical cable linking the 2 so no RCA is longer than 2m install depending
> 
> This is my philosophy on obtaining the kind of sound I enjoy and the level detail - this may not be the philosophy of others who would rather buy other equipment and try to EQ and setup the system to obtain the desired SQ - when I used my equipment in my last car I hardly ever touched the EQ as the car sounded right first time after level matching etc
> 
> With my brothers car using a P99 and same speakers with basic cabling - he found setting up his car a lot harder and more EQ was used and still as good as his car sounded - it never sounded as good as mine... Which I told him on numerous occasions


Again....

Have your brother change your cables for you. Record your findings with him telling you what cables are in use at what time. What the differences are.

Then do another test in which he swaps them without telling you what's currently in use. Record your findings.

Compare.

Or is this an unfair test to you?


----------



## Elektra

JVD240 said:


> Again....
> 
> Have your brother change your cables for you. Record your findings with him telling you what cables are in use at what time. What the differences are.
> 
> Then do another test in which he swaps them without telling you what's currently in use. Record your findings.
> 
> Compare.
> 
> Or is this an unfair test to you?


It's a bit hard the P99 requires 6m rca cables to be run from front to rear - he isn't willing to spend the $$ on 3 x 6m sets of King Cobra - my setup was P90 and DSP6 (Zapco) via symbilink cable then King Cobra from DSP to amp - my setup was different to his.. 

My new setup includes the p90 DSP run via optical... 

i personally don't rate the P99 that much - too much in one box leaves compromizes in certain areas.. As a SQ setup the P90 combo is much cleaner imho... Also better quality in the build - my brothers P99 is showing wear already - volume control knob is getting lose and if you turn it too quickly it doesn't register anything. Also the display isn't as easy to see as the P90's display. 

i have spent $$ where most won't - so my setup will always sound different to others - call it car, tuning whatever you like - I am not a believer of spending months tuning a car most of the times it a few hours then pack it up..

I know guys who have spend 100's of hours tuning looking for Ghosts...


----------



## XSIV SPL

Elektra said:


> Being brand loyal - holds you back imho... Like Focal is a good example.. I run the Utopia kit 7's which for ME are the best speakers I have heard thus far - next would be the F1's
> 
> But the Focal amps are rubbish... Focal make very speakers not amps - even the Focal agents here don't rate their own amps..
> 
> If you want the best you need to take the best from each manufacturer and find the right combination
> 
> BTW how are you conducting this test? What source, what speakers is it on a demo board or listening room? In a car?


In a car, and the testing is complete. I'll do my best to be accurate in describing the details.

Vehicle: Ford Edge Sport w/sync & my ford touch
Source: factory HU and Mosconi Bluetooth-to-Toslink for direct digital streaming to DSP
Processor: Alpine PXA-H800 w/RUX controller
Power Cable: 0 gauge OFC esoteric audio to distribution, 4 and 8 gauge out 
Source Cables: Mogami 2549
Power supply: 175 amp alternator, diehard platinum group 62 (Odyssey), Odyssey PC 1700, XS Power 750 (2) batt-caps (all AGM)
Speaker cable: Mesa 12 gauge to mid-tweet sats, Mesa 10 gauge to door midbass, 8 gauge to subs
Loudspeakers: (2) Dynaudio Esotar 110 tweeters and (2) Dynaudio Esotar 430 midrange (in sealed dash pods as near equal displacement as possible)

Speakers non-essential for this evaluation: (4) Dynaudio Esotar 650 midbass (2 each, sealed, front doors), (4) Audiomobile Elite 2112
Crossover points: sub: 80hz and below, midbass: 70-160hz, midrange: 160hz-4khz, tweeter: 4khz up- all at 24db/octave slope

Amplification: previously existing- Audison 5.1k (2) running active 3-way to Dynaudio pods and doors, mono sub. One 5.1k running left and right tweeters on A channel, the other running left and right midrange on A channel (class A- 75 wpc)

Amplification being evaluated: (2) Sinfoni Allegro (75 wpc @ 12 vdc, 93 wpc @ 14.4 vdc) in place of 75 wpc Audison A channels to mid-tweeter pods

I already knew there was a big difference, but for the sake of satisfying a TRUE A-B comparison of these amps, preparation was made to include the following:

AC voltage measured and matched between Audison and Sinfoni amps at calibrated tones of 500, 630 and 800 for midrange, 5k, 6.3k and 8 k for tweeters.

Processed signal was split to feed all amps involved.

A Speaker selector switch was temporarily wired in.

Provided the ability to directly switch the output of both methods of amplification, the fun begins!

The first A-B convinced me that there was really no need for the A-B speaker selector, and that I'd paid about an hour of labor @ $80 bucks just for the sake of being able to post this comparison. But I continued, for about 5 hours, listening to various tracks with a broad range of instrumentation, including:

Percussion: snares, toms, bass, cymbals, triangles, bells, etc.

Strings: guitar (electric, acoustic, steel, lead and rhythm, bass) violin, cello, floor standing bass, piano, etc.

Wind instruments: reeds including oboe, bassoon, flute, piccolo, saxophone (bass, tenor, alto and soprano), clarinet, brass including trombone, tuba, trumpet (including soprano) trombone, French horn, etc.

Although the Audison is a fairly highly-regarded amplifier, there was ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARISON to the Sinfoni.

I found absolutely NOTHING which the Sinfoni could not produce better than the Audison. I literally got goosebumps many times today listening to these Sinfonis. They actually startled me (as in flinching to the surprise attack of a snare in your face) a few times.

Additional observations:

My perception of the sound stage with the Sinfoni is also wider and deeper.

Power-wise: Either the Audison amps are overrated, or the Sinfoni amps are underrated, because the Sinfonis play it out even at high volume levels, where I was obviously running out of amplifier with the Audisons rated at equal power.

I will, as finances allow, be planning to purchase a pair of Sinfoni Graves for my midbass as well as looking for a new sub bass amplification solution.

In summary, the statement that "higher end amp SQ is a myth" has been COMPLETELY de-bunked for me. There are HUGE differences even amongst the high end products. I can't imagine that this is a deniable fact, and this should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has the opportunity to hear and compare for themselves.


----------



## Elektra

XSIV SPL said:


> In a car, and the testing is complete. I'll do my best to be accurate in describing the details.
> 
> Vehicle: Ford Edge Sport w/sync & my ford touch
> Source: factory HU and Mosconi Bluetooth-to-Toslink for direct digital streaming to DSP
> Processor: Alpine PXA-H800 w/RUX controller
> Power Cable: 0 gauge OFC esoteric audio to distribution, 4 and 8 gauge out
> Source Cables: Mogami 2549
> Power supply: 175 amp alternator, diehard platinum group 62 (Odyssey), Odyssey PC 1700, XS Power 750 (2) batt-caps (all AGM)
> Speaker cable: Mesa 12 gauge to mid-tweet sats, Mesa 10 gauge to door midbass, 8 gauge to subs
> Loudspeakers: (2) Dynaudio Esotar 110 tweeters and (2) Dynaudio Esotar 430 midrange (in sealed dash pods as near equal displacement as possible)
> 
> Speakers non-essential for this evaluation: (4) Dynaudio Esotar 650 midbass (2 each, sealed, front doors), (4) Audiomobile Elite 2112
> Crossover points: sub: 80hz and below, midbass: 70-160hz, midrange: 160hz-4khz, tweeter: 4khz up
> 
> Amplification: previously existing- Audison 5.1k (2) running active 3-way to Dynaudio pods and doors, mono sub. One 5.1k running left and right tweeters on A channel, the other running left and right midrange on A channel (class A- 75 wpc)
> 
> Amplification being evaluated: (2) Sinfoni Allegro (75 wpc @ 12 vdc, 93 wpc @ 14.4 vdc) in place of 75 wpc Audison A channels to mid-tweeter pods
> 
> I already knew there was a big difference, but for the sake of satisfying a TRUE A-B comparison of these amps, preparation was made to include the following:
> 
> AC voltage measured and matched between Audison and Sinfoni amps at calibrated tones of 500, 630 and 800 for midrange, 5k, 6.3k and 8 k for tweeters.
> 
> Processed signal was split to feed all amps involved.
> 
> A Speaker selector switch was temporarily wired in.
> 
> Provided the ability to directly switch the output of both methods of amplification, the fun begins!
> 
> The first A-B convinced me that there was really no need for the A-B speaker selector, and that I'd paid about an hour of labor @ $80 bucks just for the sake of being able to post this comparison. But I continued, for about 5 hours, listening to various tracks with a broad range of instrumentation, including:
> 
> Percussion: snares, toms, bass, cymbals, triangles, bells, etc.
> 
> Strings: guitar (electric, acoustic, steel, lead and rhythm, bass) violin, cello, floor standing bass, piano, etc.
> 
> Wind instruments: reeds including oboe, bassoon, flute, piccolo, saxophone (bass, tenor, alto and soprano), clarinet, brass including trombone, tuba, trumpet (including soprano) trombone, French horn, etc.
> 
> Although the Audison is a fairly highly-regarded amplifier, there was ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARISON to the Sinfoni.
> 
> I found absolutely NOTHING which the Sinfoni could not produce better than the Audison. I literally got goosebumps many times today listening to these Sinfonis. They actually startled me (as in flinching to the surprise attack of a snare in your face) a few times.
> 
> Additional observations:
> 
> My perception of the sound stage with the Sinfoni is also wider and deeper.
> 
> Power-wise: Either the Audison amps are overrated, or the Sinfoni amps are underrated, because the Sinfonis play it out even at high volume levels, where I was obviously running out of amplifier with the Audisons rated at equal power.
> 
> I will, as finances allow, be planning to purchase a pair of Sinfoni Graves for my midbass as well as looking for a new sub bass amplification solution.
> 
> In summary, the statement that "higher end amp SQ is a myth" has been COMPLETELY de-bunked for me. There are HUGE differences even amongst the high end products. I can't imagine that this is a deniable fact, and it should be blatantly obvious to anyone who has the opportunity to hear and compare for themselves.


I thought as much Sinfoni is high end product - Audison has high end products in their range but the LRX isn't their best product as its 2 levels behind Thesis...

What is the cost comparisons? How much for the Sinfoni and LRX?


----------



## XSIV SPL

Well, it's pretty huge... I'd be a bit embarrassed to say 

They spec similarly, but are worlds apart


----------



## Elektra

XSIV SPL said:


> Well, it's pretty huge... I'd be a bit embarrassed to say
> 
> They spec similarly, but are worlds apart


Sinfonis are not available here... So the guys who have them import them themselves.. I know they expensive...

Have you considered GZ Ref 4 and 2 and EOS? Those are top products as well - I run 3 EOS Verdi Tube amps - they have a Class A input stage with seriously high end Caps - like Mundorf, Elna etc... Heard many amps in my time - none as good as this amp..

If you looking at 2 channel amps - read up on the EOS AE-920T , EOS MOZART (tube) , EOS CLASSIC 50 & 100 

You might be able to get more product for your cash - the EOS products are top quality and very reasonable in price..

Pit: Progressive Innovative Technology - - use google translate from Russian to English to navigate


----------



## subwoofery

Elektra said:


> Sinfonis are not available here... So the guys who have them import them themselves.. I know they expensive...
> 
> Have you considered GZ Ref 4 and 2 and EOS? Those are top products as well - I run 3 EOS Verdi Tube amps - they have a Class A input stage with seriously high end Caps - like Mundorf, Elna etc... Heard many amps in my time - none as good as this amp..
> 
> If you looking at 2 channel amps - read up on the EOS AE-920T , EOS MOZART (tube) , EOS CLASSIC 50 & 100
> 
> You might be able to get more product for your cash - the EOS products are top quality and very reasonable in price..
> 
> Pit: Progressive Innovative Technology - - use google translate from Russian to English to navigate


EOS doesn't have a website? Did not manage to find it. 

Also, it seems like a lot of their design is based on DLS - I'm saying that coz the hybrid tube amp is using CV4010 exactly like the DLS TA2. 
The AE looks a lot like the A Competion series from DLS. 

Kelvin


----------



## Victor_inox

link to Russian site does not pointed to anything in particular, find what you need to know and I`ll translate it much better than google.


----------



## Elektra

subwoofery said:


> EOS doesn't have a website? Did not manage to find it.
> 
> Also, it seems like a lot of their design is based on DLS - I'm saying that coz the hybrid tube amp is using CV4010 exactly like the DLS TA2.
> The AE looks a lot like the A Competion series from DLS.
> 
> Kelvin


The EOS amp is made in the same factory in China that make GZ and probably DLS and SPL Dynamics Dream series.. Also Mercury and some other exotic brands which are Uber expensive like Harmotech H4.. You will notice that even though they look similar the board layouts are slightly different the really top end ones like Harmotech ($6000) and GZ Ref 4 and EOS (AE-980f LE and AE-920T) the DLS and The Dream series are lower spec boards Mercury K2 and K4 is the EOS 920/980 ... But look at the price difference!

The Mozart tube amp was originally made by Davitart.. The DLS TA2 isn't the Mozart amp they share the same tubes but I think the internals are different - I am using the Amadeus 21 as well - and let me tell you it was the best piece of kit I have ever bought.

I think I gave you guys the wrong email address - it's Pit: Progressive Innovative Technology - they have a lot of brands you have locate EOS and then look at the premium range of amps and speakers


----------



## Elektra

https://translate.googleusercontent...stige/&usg=ALkJrhg7xineZ_owEyMZCc6LyWrDbYM57Q

A link to the EOS prestige range - you can go to the Elite range as well

Hope it works!


----------



## Elektra

Review : HARMOTECH H4 test by SoundXtrememag | EMMA Global

Link to the Harmotech H4 which is identical to the EOS AE-980F LE which is half of the EOS AE-920T

If I recall this amp retails in Thailand for $6000...


----------



## RobERacer

So I guess after 87 pages we finally settled on the fact that different amps do sound different and that better amps make better sound or at least that we agree to disagree? I am just referring to the title of this thread and that comment is not directed at anyone specifically. 
I am looking for a 4 channel to do the mid/high’s in the front. It is now 2015 and every year new digital amps come out saying that they are now as good as or better than the best AB’s. Yes, well “the proof is in the pudding”. Also we see every year that new AB amps come out with better and better specs. Clearly there is ongoing development in both. AB’s are slowly getting smaller and digital amps are slowly getting better and better. Honestly, though. Are the digi amps there yet? It is an honest question. I am not trying to be derogatory in any way.
There is a problem with digi amps that we never discuss and I think we should make folks aware of this. All things are system effective. What I mean by that is that the system (rather it’s actual output) is only as good as the sum of all of it’s parts. This of course is nothing new and the very reason that we look at individual component’s specs. What we don’t tend to consider in car audio is that the sound (music) originates (to us listeners) on some sort of digital contrivance. There are only a few source units that output in digital and none of them actually send one that is listening level controlled so most folks don’t actually use the digital out even if they have it. Suffice it to say for the most part car audio doesn’t have all digital signal paths like hi spec home theatre does. Everything is converted to analogue to transport it from one piece to the next where it is then converted back to digital for that piece to do whatever it does with it. This is called “Resampling” as converting is in fact the process of “Sampling”. Resampling creates distortion (artifacts), limited bandwidth, introduces noise and reduces the dynamic range of the signal. Analogue signal paths do the same but typically to a much lesser degree and far differently digital. Consider, if we are running our rigs fully active and are processing (cross-over, eq, time alignment) with an external processor and running a digital amp. The signal is being converted 3 times plus the amps on and off process does the same thing (albeit typically even faster) so it is effectively 4 times. Every step mounts more distortion on top of the last. Does the amp by itself sound great sure but that changes when you add the rest of the system in. If we had an analogue (class AB,GH, A)there is one less conversion in the chain. Much less distortion is generated. NO?
Analogue amps: typically they are big. I need to fit my amp under my seat. Alas I am prepared to have to settle for a little less sonic performance. I need to measure but I don’t thing a Mosconi AS100.4 or Focal FPS 4160 will fit much less anything any better. Not that I have budget for a Brax or whatever anyway. I saw the above post for EOS and DLS. DLS makes a 4 channel AB that looks like it just might fit and has real nice specs (reference C-44). I emailed their US distributor and it just bounced back at me. That is nothing new lately. There are a lot of US companies going under these days. EOS, well I clicked the link, it took me to a generic site (in Russia I think) that wouldn’t take me anywhere. Suffice it to say I would be surprised if either were in reality anything more than “vaporware”. Great specs, maybe but at this point they seem like they are constructed of pure “unobtainium”. Moving on, I have really only found one choice and I am still unsure of it as it is in fact a “Class GH” design. Firstly class H has been around since DR. Heil in the 60’s. They are extremely efficient and for years for the #1 choice for powering subwoofers in large sound systems. That said the same systems also typically powered the top end with Class AB amps because of their far smoother sonic. Actually the H amps were so distorted on high frequencies they were prettimuch unlistenable. Class G is a bit of a new thing to me and I just skimmed through a white paper about it. Gonna take me a bit to wrap my head around as I am not an electronics engineer. That said it doesn’t sound like this is a design that is super high end either (Like a Class A). Combine the two and get a really high end amp? HMM... Just how do Arc KS’s stack up against the better AB designs? Let’s not go overboard in comparison. We can just use the Focal or the Mosconi (similar price/ specs between the two) as a reference. Price makes amps Brax out of reach for most of us as well. Never mind the size. Gary Springay seems to like the Arc’s.


----------



## Soundaddict

RobERacer said:


> So I guess after 87 pages we finally settled on the fact that different amps do sound different and that better amps make better sound or at least that we agree to disagree? I am just referring to the title of this thread and that comment is not directed at anyone specifically.
> I am looking for a 4 channel to do the mid/high’s in the front. It is now 2015 and every year new digital amps come out saying that they are now as good as or better than the best AB’s. Yes, well “the proof is in the pudding”. Also we see every year that new AB amps come out with better and better specs. Clearly there is ongoing development in both. AB’s are slowly getting smaller and digital amps are slowly getting better and better. Honestly, though. Are the digi amps there yet? It is an honest question. I am not trying to be derogatory in any way.
> There is a problem with digi amps that we never discuss and I think we should make folks aware of this. All things are system effective. What I mean by that is that the system (rather it’s actual output) is only as good as the sum of all of it’s parts. This of course is nothing new and the very reason that we look at individual component’s specs. What we don’t tend to consider in car audio is that the sound (music) originates (to us listeners) on some sort of digital contrivance. There are only a few source units that output in digital and none of them actually send one that is listening level controlled so most folks don’t actually use the digital out even if they have it. Suffice it to say for the most part car audio doesn’t have all digital signal paths like hi spec home theatre does. Everything is converted to analogue to transport it from one piece to the next where it is then converted back to digital for that piece to do whatever it does with it. This is called “Resampling” as converting is in fact the process of “Sampling”. Resampling creates distortion (artifacts), limited bandwidth, introduces noise and reduces the dynamic range of the signal. Analogue signal paths do the same but typically to a much lesser degree and far differently digital. Consider, if we are running our rigs fully active and are processing (cross-over, eq, time alignment) with an external processor and running a digital amp. The signal is being converted 3 times plus the amps on and off process does the same thing (albeit typically even faster) so it is effectively 4 times. Every step mounts more distortion on top of the last. Does the amp by itself sound great sure but that changes when you add the rest of the system in. If we had an analogue (class AB,GH, A)there is one less conversion in the chain. Much less distortion is generated. NO?
> Analogue amps: typically they are big. I need to fit my amp under my seat. Alas I am prepared to have to settle for a little less sonic performance. I need to measure but I don’t thing a Mosconi AS100.4 or Focal FPS 4160 will fit much less anything any better. Not that I have budget for a Brax or whatever anyway. I saw the above post for EOS and DLS. DLS makes a 4 channel AB that looks like it just might fit and has real nice specs (reference C-44). I emailed their US distributor and it just bounced back at me. That is nothing new lately. There are a lot of US companies going under these days. EOS, well I clicked the link, it took me to a generic site (in Russia I think) that wouldn’t take me anywhere. Suffice it to say I would be surprised if either were in reality anything more than “vaporware”. Great specs, maybe but at this point they seem like they are constructed of pure “unobtainium”. Moving on, I have really only found one choice and I am still unsure of it as it is in fact a “Class GH” design. Firstly class H has been around since DR. Heil in the 60’s. They are extremely efficient and for years for the #1 choice for powering subwoofers in large sound systems. That said the same systems also typically powered the top end with Class AB amps because of their far smoother sonic. Actually the H amps were so distorted on high frequencies they were prettimuch unlistenable. Class G is a bit of a new thing to me and I just skimmed through a white paper about it. Gonna take me a bit to wrap my head around as I am not an electronics engineer. That said it doesn’t sound like this is a design that is super high end either (Like a Class A). Combine the two and get a really high end amp? HMM... Just how do Arc KS’s stack up against the better AB designs? Let’s not go overboard in comparison. We can just use the Focal or the Mosconi (similar price/ specs between the two) as a reference. Price makes amps Brax out of reach for most of us as well. Never mind the size. Gary Springay seems to like the Arc’s.



Well thought out^


----------



## Guest

Sinfoni is available in the USA. Emilios of Audio Excellent is the US Distributor. 

Jerry Nieber of HDMA is a Sinfoni dealer and an active member here.


----------



## cubdenno

How many AD to DA or DA conversions are you counting?

Standard system without optical or coax will have a DA if you use CD or some sort of "storage drive" then IF you have a DSP you get a AD with a DA that outputs to the amps and there is no such thing as a digital amp, at least in the car audio world that I am aware of. 

AND if you use a head unit that has DSP or you happen to output digital to a DSP, you are removing more of the conversions.

I still think most people get hung up on the extreme price point comparisons or brands. taking a 40 dollar amp and comparing it against a 1000 dollar amp.

If you have a competent design and you level match them to within .25db, the frequency response is 20-20 within a quarter db and distortion/noise is inaudible... You are going to be hard pressed to tell amps apart within their linear threshold.


----------



## thehatedguy

Wait wait wait...when did Audison ever have anything that was really Class A?

75 or 50x2 in REAL class A? Yeah....no. That's not happening.


----------



## thehatedguy

You guys are going to really have to get some more sensitive speakers if you really want to listen to amps.


----------



## Lanson

IDK man, a few bucks in Gepco with some quality connectors isn't much to prove that cables don't make a system sound better. 



Elektra said:


> It's a bit hard the P99 requires 6m rca cables to be run from front to rear - he isn't willing to spend the $$ on 3 x 6m sets of King Cobra - my setup was P90 and DSP6 (Zapco) via symbilink cable then King Cobra from DSP to amp - my setup was different to his..
> 
> My new setup includes the p90 DSP run via optical...
> 
> i personally don't rate the P99 that much - too much in one box leaves compromizes in certain areas.. As a SQ setup the P90 combo is much cleaner imho... Also better quality in the build - my brothers P99 is showing wear already - volume control knob is getting lose and if you turn it too quickly it doesn't register anything. Also the display isn't as easy to see as the P90's display.
> 
> i have spent $$ where most won't - so my setup will always sound different to others - call it car, tuning whatever you like - I am not a believer of spending months tuning a car most of the times it a few hours then pack it up..
> 
> I know guys who have spend 100's of hours tuning looking for Ghosts...


----------



## Victor_inox

thehatedguy said:


> You guys are going to really have to get some more sensitive speakers if you really want to listen to amps.


 amen brother! I hope that driver maker will return to their senses and stop making low sensitive garbage in favor of sensitivity maybe then people will realize that to have deafening sound pressure 1000 watt is not required.


----------



## Victor_inox

How cables made it`s way into this thread?
But for what it worth.... I can bet on Joe`s (aka WestCo) made cables against any exotic brand given same electrical parameters( resistance, inductance) and I mean any.
i myself build interconnects out of pure silver wire, finest 999.9 silver and teflon insulation. used half a million dollar components to connect them with. No audible difference and I couldn`t hear it nobody can. because I do hear the difference in amplifiers, sample rates and bit depth. I still use silver wire in some custom tube gear I made but only because I already have it and customers willing to pay for it. capacitors in signal path do make a difference so is resistors, I don`t have equipment sensitive enough to measure that difference but it`s audible. more so than opamps replacement some people paying bigs bucks to do.


----------



## RobERacer

cubdenno said:


> How many AD to DA or DA conversions are you counting?
> 
> Standard system without optical or coax will have a DA if you use CD or some sort of "storage drive" then IF you have a DSP you get a AD with a DA that outputs to the amps and there is no such thing as a digital amp, at least in the car audio world that I am aware of.
> 
> AND if you use a head unit that has DSP or you happen to output digital to a DSP, you are removing more of the conversions.
> 
> I still think most people get hung up on the extreme price point comparisons or brands. taking a 40 dollar amp and comparing it against a 1000 dollar amp.
> 
> If you have a competent design and you level match them to within .25db, the frequency response is 20-20 within a quarter db and distortion/noise is inaudible... You are going to be hard pressed to tell amps apart within their linear threshold.


Firstly which head units do you know of that don't function internally digitally? Heck even my spouses cheap ass JVC is all digital. Turn the volume knob. Does it keep turning without ever stopping? It would be a little costly for the manufacturer to build their head units with a digitally controlled amplifier circuit to control the volume so it is likely that it is in fact digital till it is converted to put it through the amp section to send it to the speakers. Straight up, it is far cheaper to make a digital unit then it is to employ analog signal path any more than one has to. Yes, as far as I understand it all amps amplify analogue signals only. That said there are "amplifier units" that import digital signals direct so hey convert internally. Mosconi makes some. Outside of that Class "D" amps although they are not exactly "sampling" the signal actually switch the amplifier on and off again thousands of times a second. Sound familiar? Yes, this is in fact what is happening when we "sample" to record audio digitally. That is the frame rate or "Sample Rate" that is in all of the documentation that we read. In recording we often call then snap shots and that is in fact what they sound like. I alluded to that but didn't explain I realise. I felt like it was long discussion already. The kicker is that as we are not even sending any clock sync the samples don't even have a way of lining up. 

Consider this simple explanation. We have a light that turns on for a second then off for a second. Every single second on the second it changes. What if we were to take a camera and take videos with the same timing oscillation. What if the oscillation were on the opposite interval though? Yes, the opposite phase. If this was a light devoid place we just took videos of nothing. Unless the oscillations are dead on time accurate we are loosing valuable image stream. Worse then that in audio the oscillations also translate as vibrations. Sound is vibration. They become audible. We call those oscillation induced vibrations artifacts. More natural sound or rather pleasant sounds when viewed on a scope have a waveform that looks closer to a sign wave. When transistors distort the waveform looks much more square because it is physically chopped at the point where the transistor ran out of ability to output further. It is clipped hence the name clipping. If you look at the wave of a digital audio signal you will notice that the on / off segments are square cuts. Square waves are distortion. What does digital audio sound like? If we induce more chops we are in fact inducing more distortion and deleting more data. Off is off. Gone. Just gone.

With external DSP 3 actual conversions but also the digital amp switch which has the same effect as a conversion so I call it 4. That is a ton of lost data and a lot of distortion.


----------



## RobERacer

As far as the question do amps sound the same goes this thread is 2163 posts long now. It's been covered already and the understanding that I got from reading for hours was that the consensus was that it is true. They do in fact sound different. Only a very ****e tweeter would be sluggish enough to make the sonic difference between a really good amp and a cheap amp inaudible. No you might not hear notice it with lower pass band drivers. That said if a sub amp has a high enough damping factor the sub will be much more noticeably tighter. Better frequency response lower (if it is not an MP3 file). Detail is much more easily discernible with higher slew rate amps at higher frequencies in particular closer to 20k. Yes, That is another argument and no I am not interested in partaking. Suffice it do say that Dr. Heil and Mr Rupert Neve did tons of experiments and the evidence is anything but anecdotal as to whether or not we can discern the presence or lack thereof at frequencies outside of the measured human hearing range. It may actually be considered scientific law now as opposed to just a theory. Also the accepted 20-hz-20khz human hearing range is an average. I tested out to 24.5k when I was a teenager. Suffice it to say that anyone who belittles people for wanting to hear the full range of the recorded media unimpeded in their car is not someone worthy of speaking with regard to what is good sound in car audio amplifiers. That last bit of course is a personal opinion thing though.


----------



## pjc

Ok. I have a question. For everyone saying yes they do sound different.... What amps are y'all running personally? 
Just curious if some folks make these claims then run class D or something along those lines. 
I will be running Pioneer's Stage 4 amps. Mainly because I love the brand and at $400 I felt they were a good buy. Not because I think they will sound different. 

Soooooooo.... What are y'all guys that hear a difference using?


----------



## pjc

Ok. I have a question. For everyone saying yes they do sound different.... What amps are y'all running personally? 
Just curious if some folks make these claims then run class D or something along those lines. 
I will be running Pioneer's Stage 4 amps. Mainly because I love the brand and at $400 I felt they were a good buy. Not because I think they will sound different. 

Soooooooo.... What are y'all guys that hear a difference using?


----------



## Victor_inox

I used pretty much everything during the years. now I use brax and not just because it sounds better to my liking. another reason it`s great engineered product and no money spared from components selection or quality of manufacturing. there is too few manufacturers left who can afford making uncompromised quality product without moving it to china. 
Pioneer stage 4 amps is good for what they are, perhaps a bit on low power side but power is relative term. 400 is a good buy for that pioneer.
It seems that pioneer done with making car audio in japan and fading out production to make gears only in china.


----------



## pjc

Victor_inox said:


> I used pretty much everything during the years. now I use brax and not just because it sounds better to my liking. another reason it`s great engineered product and no money spared from components selection or quality of manufacturing. there is too few manufacturers left who can afford making uncompromised quality product without moving it to china.
> Pioneer stage 4 amps is good for what they are, perhaps a bit on low power side but power is relative term. 400 is a good buy for that pioneer.
> It seems that pioneer done with making car audio in japan and fading out production to make gears only in china.


Agreed its kinda low power. But I think all be happy. A pair of PRS-A900s will power a PRS 3way. So 50x4 and 200x2. 

Solid answer about what amps you run.


----------



## Victor_inox

THat`s plenty of power for that set. bridget for midbass and another one for mids and tweets. how many those 10" subs did you get? what gonna power them?


----------



## thehatedguy

I have used Brax, Linear Power, and JL HD amps. Currently I have a Zapco DC Ref and looking for another. Why? You get a lot of amp and processor for the money...otherwise I wouldn't have surfboard sized amps in m car.

Other amps that I have owned and used are Milbert, Monolithic, US Amp hybrids...I own a HSS Fidelity 230 all tube single ended class A amp that got played on my home horns.

But if I had the money, probably more JL HDs or even more money, Brax without a doubt.


----------



## Niebur3

SQ_TSX said:


> Sinfoni is available in the USA. Emilios of Audio Excellent is the US Distributor.
> 
> Jerry Nieber of HDMA is a Sinfoni dealer and an active member here.


I have owned many high end amp, before I became and dealer and after. I have to honestly say (take it for what you will), the Sinfoni amps are absolutely the most impressive I have hear to date. I couldn't be happier with the performance, small form factor, sound and power that the Tempo line does. They are absolutely stunning to look at and even better to listen to. If you get any chance, please audition these amps. They will make you a believer too!


----------



## RobERacer

Just on a lark I was looking at the Brax NOX-4B online. Looks like it might actually fit but when I was talking with Crutchfield last year I thought he gave me a price of some $3600 for a Brax. Of course I changed that topic pretty quick. The whole rig was only a little more than that installed so far. Not sure I could convince my spouse to let me do that. 
I come at this from a different part of the industry. In my world we would talk about Bryston for example. They run around $6k for a 4b I am told now. Years ago I bought a Hafler Transnova. Actually I have never looked back either. I have worked with plenty of 4 and 3B's over the years and I honestly like the Transnova more. I had the chance to directly A/B them. I could have bought either at the time from the same supplier. I made my decision solely on sonics and didn't care about the money. I still have it 13 years later. The Hafler was half the money though. The Bryston is built like a tank too. You pay for that. I didn't need that. It is not going on tour. My point is that I am certain this is not limited to studio amps. Home audio is the same as studio stuff. Different stuff, different price points. Ryan at Soundstream has convinced me to take a serious look at the Tarantula Nano series amps. They are digital but they won the IASCA Triple Crown last year with them. Is that SPl or SQ though? I asked him about SQ stuff so I am guessing that is what he meant. Of course the amps are only part of the equation but all of those guys are going to be guys who know what they are doing with the stuff so it should be a pretty tight competition. They are the same as the PPI Phantom from what I am gathering (waiting for Ryan to confirm or deny) which have reviewed very well as a cut above the average. Won't know till I hear it though. 
I am certain your Pioneer is better than a many out there. I haven't listened to a Boss Audio amp but I will bet they're not really all that great.


----------



## Guest

Very well said Jerry !!

Vehicles using Brax amps won both the IASCA and MECA World Finals this year and won the Champions Cup in MECA for Best SQ vehicle of the Year.


----------



## Victor_inox

thehatedguy said:


> I have used Brax, Linear Power, and JL HD amps. Currently I have a Zapco DC Ref and looking for another. Why? You get a lot of amp and processor for the money...otherwise I wouldn't have surfboard sized amps in m car.
> 
> Other amps that I have owned and used are Milbert, Monolithic, US Amp hybrids...I own a HSS Fidelity 230 all tube single ended class A amp that got played on my home horns.
> 
> But if I had the money, probably more JL HDs or even more money, Brax without a doubt.


 So why is that 6 thousand dollars HSS fidelity not playing in the car?
It looks so damn nice. pair KT-88 in what seems cathode follower config. per channel, 
30 watt is limited by transformer used would be my guess but I need to see schematics to be sure.


----------



## thehatedguy

Two reasons-

One, it is a LARGE amp. Finding room for it in my current car is tough to do...might be easier now that I don't have to worry about putting a stroller in the trunk .

Two...it's ungodly expensive, and god forbid if I was in a wreck or the car was broken into, I would never be able to replace it.

I had a near collision one night coming home from work with a couple of meth heads when I had a pair of Brax Platinum amps in the trunk...2 of 50 (or was it 500?) in the world. I about got sick thinking about something happening to them. How could you replace 2 of something there were only 50 of in the world that is worth more than your car and have no insurance policy on the system itself? 

Anyways, that's why I haven't ever put it in the car...though I am really thinking about it. Will be hard since the whole system is planned around using the DSP in the Zapco amps...but I guess I could passive biamp the speakers, run the Zapco full range and EQ it like that with the Zapco on the mids and HSS on the horns or compression drivers.

And the last system was a Logic 7 system with fronts and a center...no way to implement it that way.

But if you know how I could get single ended tube sound for less money, I am all ears


----------



## Victor_inox

You know that I know how to get single ended tube amp in your car for about 1/5 of the price of that HSS 230. right? and it will sounds better due to straight class A without double tubes in cathode follower config. of course if I made it look just as amazing as 230 it will cost more.


----------



## legend94

How many sound quality competitions do the judges not see the amps before judging?


----------



## Guest

Most


----------



## Elektra

I had the Brax Platinum 6 channel 4 channel and 2 channel under one ridiculously long chassis - it barely fitted in my 5 series.. In fact the rca ends got damaged due to the rca cables squeezing the ends of the boot..

These were graphic edition amps - I replaced a few leaking caps which I purchased from Brax themselves - I personally didn't think the board layout was anything special for a $3000 X2400 it had the same audio caps my $700 EOS amp had... In fact my 4 channel EOS had Elna, Mundorf etc which was even better than the Brax amp - and it showed in a listening test - the X2400 was smacked out the park..

For the price of one X2400 I can probably get 3 4 channel EOS amps and run my whole car - I also have Zapco DC ref amps and they too were no comparison to the EOS - I also tested the C2K amp against it and it went out my car as fast as it went in..

EOS make good products at a fraction of the price of the big name companies - and their products are virtually the same..

So why spend so much cash?


----------



## subwoofery

Using right now: DLS Ultimate in one car 
2 cars with no system yet 

Used: Genesis DMX, Sinfoni Prestigio (x2), Milbert, Brax GE, Audison SRx, LRx3.1k, Sinfoni 50.4, DLS Ultimate, Helix Competition, Arc Audio SE, JL XD600/6... some more but can't remember right now. 

Kelvin


----------



## Orion525iT

RobERacer said:


> As far as the question do amps sound the same goes this thread is 2163 posts long now. It's been covered already and the understanding that I got from reading for hours was that the consensus was that it is true. They do in fact sound different. Only a very ****e tweeter would be sluggish enough to make the sonic difference between a really good amp and a cheap amp inaudible.


Actually, nobody has proven a damn thing. Personal testimony does not equate to factual accuracy. The ease at which human perception can be fooled, through innate mechanism or biased dispositions, can not be underestimated. The power of the human mind to distort facts to suit a narrative is a persistent folly. This is why science and evidence based investigation is so critical to uncovering the truth.

But everybody will continue to believe in those who testify, because it legitimizes the thoughts they already hold. Presuppositions and confirmation biases are dangerous.


----------



## Victor_inox

debate was what to count as factual accuracy? Your dick is bigger than mine but girls like mine better? what is factual in that analogy? 
whatever make your pleasure is factual, everything else just number meaning NOTHING .


----------



## legend94

Victor_inox said:


> debate was what to count as factual accuracy? Your dick is bigger than mine but girls like mine better? what is factual in that analogy?
> whatever make your pleasure is factual, everything else just number meaning NOTHING .


Maybe because you leave the rubber off?


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> Maybe because you leave the rubber off?


 That`s awesome Justin! I spilled my drink on my computer.


----------



## legend94

Victor_inox said:


> That`s awesome Justin! I spilled my drink on my computer.


You can trade that computer to deepvaginadiver now!


----------



## legend94

Elektra said:


> I had the Brax Platinum 6 channel 4 channel and 2 channel under one ridiculously long chassis - it barely fitted in my 5 series.. In fact the rca ends got damaged due to the rca cables squeezing the ends of the boot..
> 
> These were graphic edition amps - I replaced a few leaking caps which I purchased from Brax themselves - I personally didn't think the board layout was anything special for a $3000 X2400 it had the same audio caps my $700 EOS amp had... In fact my 4 channel EOS had Elna, Mundorf etc which was even better than the Brax amp - and it showed in a listening test - the X2400 was smacked out the park..
> 
> For the price of one X2400 I can probably get 3 4 channel EOS amps and run my whole car - I also have Zapco DC ref amps and they too were no comparison to the EOS - I also tested the C2K amp against it and it went out my car as fast as it went in..
> 
> EOS make good products at a fraction of the price of the big name companies - and their products are virtually the same..
> 
> So why spend so much cash?


I need a link to these 700 eos wonder amps just to see what they look like.


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> You can trade that computer to deepvaginadiver now!



****, i`m sure Steve will be thrilled by that name. 
computer is OK no need to get rid of it, I`d never trade something i won`t keep for myself.


----------



## Elektra

legend94 said:


> I need a link to these 700 eos wonder amps just to see what they look like.


I did post a link to the Harmotech H4 - the EOS AE-980F LE amp is identical to that amp. 

Their are numerous reviews on these products on the net - in Russian which you will need to Google Translate back to English.

You can also Google the Mercury K2 and K4 - those amps are also the same board layout as the EOS amps..


----------



## Elektra

Niebur3 said:


> I have owned many high end amp, before I became and dealer and after. I have to honestly say (take it for what you will), the Sinfoni amps are absolutely the most impressive I have hear to date. I couldn't be happier with the performance, small form factor, sound and power that the Tempo line does. They are absolutely stunning to look at and even better to listen to. If you get any chance, please audition these amps. They will make you a believer too!


Have you listened to the Ground Zero Ref amps? - they are very expensive here so they not very common - it got 47/50 for SQ by the German Auto Hifi magazine not so long ago... I would say the EOS AE-980f LE is 99% the same amp aside from some additional parts used in the GZ amp like the silver power supply covers which the EOS amp does not have and the adjustable bias setting.. Aside from that they are pretty much the same amp...

If that is a reference to quality... According to the Germans then the Verdi tube amp is in another league altogether - as testing the Verdi to the 980. The Verdi was vastly superior...

If if my tests have confirmed anything to me - it's that the Verdi is the best sounding amp I can get hold of in my country without breaking the bank.. 

The Verdi is 95% similar to the GZ 2T tube amp - but in my opinion the Verdi is slightly better as it has more capacitance and all the parts were silver solded to the board... Superb amp!


----------



## Victor_inox

So what Elektra saying here is that GZ reference 2T is not original GZ but rather build by build house along "vastly superior" Verdi.... interesting. 
Funny fact that silver solder is in fact only 4% silver with higher temp melting point and that makes it close to impossible for SMD parts to solder.
After reading ( in original not translated version) i`d love to evaluate EOS amps myself but would not have opportunity most likely. one of my clients bought EOS and talking highly of it though. BUt he is in CA and I have no plans to go there in foreseen future. 
I found company in Ukraine who has those EOS in stock, with current exchange rate they quite inexpensive. Perhaps I should import a few.


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> So what Elektra saying here is that GZ reference 2T is not original GZ but rather build by build house along "vastly superior" Verdi.... interesting.
> Funny fact that silver solder is in fact only 4% silver with higher temp melting point and that makes it close to impossible for SMD parts to solder.
> After reading ( in original not translated version) i`d love to evaluate EOS amps myself but would not have opportunity most likely. one of my clients bought EOS and talking highly of it though. BUt he is in CA and I have no plans to go there in foreseen future.
> I found company in Ukraine who has those EOS in stock, with current exchange rate they quite inexpensive. Perhaps I should import a few.


They used a different solder for the Verdi amp.. Maybe you should try some.. Which ones would you be interested in?


----------



## Elektra

Verdi amps are very limited.. Not sure if they have any left.. Maybe if a supplier still has then try it out


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> So what Elektra saying here is that GZ reference 2T is not original GZ but rather build by build house along "vastly superior" Verdi.... interesting.
> Funny fact that silver solder is in fact only 4% silver with higher temp melting point and that makes it close to impossible for SMD parts to solder.
> After reading ( in original not translated version) i`d love to evaluate EOS amps myself but would not have opportunity most likely. one of my clients bought EOS and talking highly of it though. BUt he is in CA and I have no plans to go there in foreseen future.
> I found company in Ukraine who has those EOS in stock, with current exchange rate they quite inexpensive. Perhaps I should import a few.


Victor

I don't know what came first the Verdi or the 2T all I know is that they are remarkably similar with a few tweaks on the Verdi amp which makes it different - I think the tubes for one are different - these are installed in Russia - I have 3 Verdi amps - each one of them have different tubes in them - all of them are Russian and from the 1950's. Do they sound different? I don't really know as I have never tested them against each other...


----------



## Elektra

Guys ... What was the worst sounding amp you guys have ever tested/heard...

Mine is the new Zapco Z150.6 - horrible amp really... But I do have to thank the Zapco importers here for letting me try these 2 unknown amps from Russia... 

Installed the Zapco at the importers place drove home thinking something doesn't sound right with this amp... Spent 4 hours trying everything to get it to sound right... I just gave up - then I noticed the Russian amp on my back seat and thought to give it a try.. 

The rest was history - I gave the Zapco back and did a straight swop for the 2 Eos amps .... Never looked back really..


----------



## el_bob-o

When I was 16 I purchased a Profile California amplifier and that was pretty bad. I also had a Jensen amplifier that was pretty noisy as well. This was in 1995 and when I finally got the money together for a Kenwood and then an Alpine amplifier I was blown away at the difference. The Profile was rated to seem like a much more powerful amplifier than the Alpine (I believe the alpine was rated at about 50 watts per channel and the Profile at 200 per channel) and I was blown away by how much louder I could play my system without distortion when the Alpine was installed. The Profile amp had a very high noise floor and so did the Jensen, but then again they were both very cheap and I didn't know any better at the time.

I learned my lesson about not wasting money on the super cheap, gimmicky products at a very young age luckily. I also bought a Profile tape deck when I ordered the amplifier and it worked for all of about 15 minutes so I set up an RMA and sent it in for warranty repair and that was the end of that story. I never heard from them again and could not get in contact with anyone to check the status of the repair. 

Around the year 2000 I bought a lot of Soundstorm amplifiers from Ubuy.com I believe. I wasn't expecting anything out of them and just bought them to play around with and try to teach myself a bit about amplifier design (unsuccessfully) but they actually weren't bad. They had a low noise floor and were rated at 35x2 or 35x4 but weren't bridgeable. The best thing about them is they cost me $5.00 for the 2 channels and $7.00 for the 4 channels. I think there may still be one installed in my brothers Civic.


----------



## pjc

Victor_inox said:


> THat`s plenty of power for that set. bridget for midbass and another one for mids and tweets. how many those 10" subs did you get? what gonna power them?


I have a pair of the subs. Not sure if I will fit one or both. But I'll power the. With a SPL1200.


----------



## RobERacer

thehatedguy said:


> Two reasons-
> 
> One, it is a LARGE amp. Finding room for it in my current car is tough to do...might be easier now that I don't have to worry about putting a stroller in the trunk .
> 
> Two...it's ungodly expensive, and god forbid if I was in a wreck or the car was broken into, I would never be able to replace it.
> 
> I had a near collision one night coming home from work with a couple of meth heads when I had a pair of Brax Platinum amps in the trunk...2 of 50 (or was it 500?) in the world. I about got sick thinking about something happening to them. How could you replace 2 of something there were only 50 of in the world that is worth more than your car and have no insurance policy on the system itself?
> 
> Anyways, that's why I haven't ever put it in the car...though I am really thinking about it. Will be hard since the whole system is planned around using the DSP in the Zapco amps...but I guess I could passive biamp the speakers, run the Zapco full range and EQ it like that with the Zapco on the mids and HSS on the horns or compression drivers.
> 
> And the last system was a Logic 7 system with fronts and a center...no way to implement it that way.
> 
> But if you know how I could get single ended tube sound for less money, I am all ears


You have compression drivers in your car? I have heard of folks doing that. They are typically used in situations that demand extreme efficiency but they are not really thought of as fidelic and a means to an end in PA. I usually don't like the sound of compression drivers at 100' much less point blank. That said there have been some huge advances there. JBL came out with an interesting one a few years back that is in their VTX line array. The rig sounds great. Are they not harsh?


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> You know that I know how to get single ended tube amp in your car for about 1/5 of the price of that HSS 230. right? and it will sounds better due to straight class A without double tubes in cathode follower config. of course if I made it look just as amazing as 230 it will cost more.


What is the reliability factor like though. Tubes being frozen and turned on cold. It has been -20 here lately. My sub notice's it. LOL. Also tubes don't usually like to be bounced around much do they? I am interested though. That could sound really great if you can make it work.


----------



## RobERacer

SQ_TSX said:


> Very well said Jerry !!
> 
> Vehicles using Brax amps won both the IASCA and MECA World Finals this year and won the Champions Cup in MECA for Best SQ vehicle of the Year.


That makes sense but I was just telling you what Ryan told me. Soundstream's focus is on SPL stuff so I wonder what part they were competing in. Don't worry I am not deluded into thinking in any way that a $400 digital power amp is going to sound anywhere even close to as good as a $3000 AB design. I just got the idea that it is probably a decent sounding amp considering it's price point. If I had the money I'd be on a plane to audition a Brax already and probably end up stuffing it in there somehow. Maybe on the back seat? LOL. I have to say after looking the NOX4B though I think it will fit under the seat though. Just fit that is.


----------



## schmiddr2

Who cares what amps you run. What I want to know is, after all these pages and weeks, who has switched camps. Speak up. I don't think there are any.


----------



## RobERacer

Orion525iT said:


> Actually, nobody has proven a damn thing. Personal testimony does not equate to factual accuracy. The ease at which human perception can be fooled, through innate mechanism or biased dispositions, can not be underestimated. The power of the human mind to distort facts to suit a narrative is a persistent folly. This is why science and evidence based investigation is so critical to uncovering the truth.
> 
> But everybody will continue to believe in those who testify, because it legitimizes the thoughts they already hold. Presuppositions and confirmation biases are dangerous.


Yup, OR it could just be that some folks just want to believe that they are in fact smarter than oh.. everyone and tell themselves and everyone around precisely just what they want to hear. 
I am not talking about presumption and I am certain that there are certain characters on here that do presume. I will say it again car audio is plagued by an industry (that includes the dealers as well as the manufacturers) that generally: 
1. insists that people by without trying or even being able to check their products out. 
2. expects people to believe whatever they say 
3. are more than happy to take people's money even if they are selling them the exact wrong thing for the job.
My point is this. Telling folks there is no difference in sonics just proves ones lack of knowledge and understanding and is just another form of lying to or misleading people. That would make you just as guilty as the car audio industry itself sir. You might really believe that too but just know that you are so wrong my friend. Amplifier technology can be vastly different and just like in pro audio and home audio car audio has different designs and manufacture thereby creating different sounding amps. As much as car audio tries to discourage it there are places that will let you check it out for yourself. I invite you to do some research at your leisure. The only thing is you need to go with an open mind and if you read this stuff in these posts you will notice some clues as to where you should be looking.


----------



## thehatedguy

Compression drivers and horns can be very high fidelity.

I don't know about tubes not liking cold or whatever...that's all there was at one point (in general) in military air craft, tanks, etc and they worked then. If you are talking about cold...Victor is Russian, he might have been in the cold once or twice in his life. But I defer to him about tubes and the cold.


----------



## RobERacer

schmiddr2 said:


> Who cares what amps you run. What I want to know is, after all these pages and weeks, who has switched camps. Speak up. I don't think there are any.


Meaning decided for or against the original discussion of whether or not different amps have a different sound and can have positive or negative effects on the total sonic performance of your car audio system? I would be curious to know if someone changed thinking process too. I honestly believe that folks who think that it makes no difference are really don't like to listen in the first place. I am curious just how many of those are actually on here and more importantly why.


----------



## RobERacer

thehatedguy said:


> Compression drivers and horns can be very high fidelity.
> 
> I don't know about tubes not liking cold or whatever...that's all there was at one point (in general) in military air craft, tanks, etc and they worked then. If you are talking about cold...Victor is Russian, he might have been in the cold once or twice in his life. But I defer to him about tubes and the cold.


It's true. The entire military was originally built around them. I grew up after tubes and never became a tube lover but I have heard that some of the tube designs have at least rivaled some of the best solid state designs. I just preface this with I have heard units that I really liked and I also didn't really know what was in them so they could have been tubes as well. I am totally open to the idea. My concern is space. Now that I looked at EOS it is a common problem. Too big for my purposes. I have heard there are some good amps that are small. Just trying to find them.


----------



## sqnut

RobERacer said:


> Yup, OR it could just be that some folks just want to believe that they are in fact smarter than oh.. everyone and tell themselves and everyone around precisely just what they want to hear.
> I am not talking about presumption and I am certain that there are certain characters on here that do presume. I will say it again car audio is plagued by an industry (that includes the dealers as well as the manufacturers) that generally:
> 1. insists that people by without trying or even being able to check their products out.
> 2. expects people to believe whatever they say
> 3. are more than happy to take people's money even if they are selling them the exact wrong thing for the job.
> My point is this. Telling folks there is no difference in sonics just proves ones lack of knowledge and understanding and is just another form of lying to or misleading people. That would make you just as guilty as the car audio industry itself sir. You might really believe that too but just know that you are so wrong my friend. Amplifier technology can be vastly different and just like in pro audio and home audio car audio has different designs and manufacture thereby creating different sounding amps. As much as car audio tries to discourage it there are places that will let you check it out for yourself. I invite you to do some research at your leisure. The only thing is you need to go with an open mind and if you read this stuff in these posts you will notice some clues as to where you should be looking.





RobERacer said:


> Meaning decided for or against the original discussion of whether or not different amps have a different sound and can have positive or negative effects on the total sonic performance of your car audio system? I would be curious to know if someone changed thinking process too. I honestly believe that folks who think that it makes no difference are really don't like to listen in the first place. I am curious just how many of those are actually on here and more importantly why.





RobERacer said:


> It's true. The entire military was originally built around them. I grew up after tubes and never became a tube lover but I have heard that some of the tube designs have at least rivaled some of the best solid state designs. I just preface this with I have heard units that I really liked and I also didn't really know what was in them so they could have been tubes as well. I am totally open to the idea. My concern is space. Now that I looked at EOS it is a common problem. Too big for my purposes. I have heard there are some good amps that are small. Just trying to find them.












At least you're not writing walls of text.


----------



## thehatedguy

Space is a concern...output transformers are (can be) large and heavy.

I love tubes, but not of the mindset that just because an amp has tubes that it is some how superior to SS. The quality of the steel in the transformers and quality of the transformers have a lot to do with how a tube amp sounds.

I built some Nelson Pass inspired Aleph Minis that sounded as good or better than my Milbert. One class A solid state and the other an A/B (mainly B biased) all tube amp. Not that the Milbert was bad in any aspects.

But that was listening on my home horn system that was only 100 dB/1w/1m.


----------



## Victor_inox

thehatedguy said:


> Compression drivers and horns can be very high fidelity.
> 
> I don't know about tubes not liking cold or whatever...that's all there was at one point (in general) in military air craft, tanks, etc and they worked then. If you are talking about cold...Victor is Russian, he might have been in the cold once or twice in his life. But I defer to him about tubes and the cold.


 agreed, horns can be very high Q. Klipsch La Scala is among most respected.
It`s amazing how 5 watt of power can sound. 
There is only one caveat and that is not cold, tubes need time to heat up to transconductance point to start making sound, at room temperature it takes 10-15 seconds, at -20 it might take 30 seconds. reliability is always concern with glass bulb with filament inside. lower heater voltage just a fraction of the volt and reliability goes up exponentially. I can only make it sound and select military grade tubes , chassis can be mounted on vibration proof bumpers.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

RobERacer said:


> Meaning decided for or against the original discussion of whether or not different amps have a different sound and can have positive or negative effects on the total sonic performance of your car audio system? I would be curious to know if someone changed thinking process too. *I honestly believe that folks who think that it makes no difference are really don't like to listen in the first place.* I am curious just how many of those are actually on here and more importantly why.


*This is the by far one of the most asinine statements that I have seen in this thread.*


----------



## Elektra

schmiddr2 said:


> Who cares what amps you run. What I want to know is, after all these pages and weeks, who has switched camps. Speak up. I don't think there are any.


Probably none.... Because their is always a reason why one car sounds better than another - tuning, car type etc 

It's never because one had better equipment than the other...


----------



## Elektra

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> *This is the by far one of the most asinine statements that I have seen in this thread.*


So true... I asked the guy who performed so well in the blind listening test and asked him why he did so well when everyone else did so poorly. He said he has learnt to listen! 

Which in my opinion sums up the car audio scene all over the world. If you can't listen to every note hear the whole voice,tone - listen to the timbre of a instrument - then you most probably don't listen properly to good recordings...

You probably won't hear the differences between 2 amps, cables, CD players - your opinions cloud topics like these. 

Lots of people can hear the differences and appreciate it...


----------



## legend94

Elektra said:


> I did post a link to the Harmotech H4 - the EOS AE-980F LE amp is identical to that amp.
> 
> Their are numerous reviews on these products on the net - in Russian which you will need to Google Translate back to English.
> 
> You can also Google the Mercury K2 and K4 - those amps are also the same board layout as the EOS amps..



Thank you! I must have missed the link in all these pages. 

This amp looks stunning


----------



## legend94

Victor_inox said:


> I found company in Ukraine who has those EOS in stock, with current exchange rate they quite inexpensive. Perhaps I should import a few.


Define inexpensive!?


----------



## Victor_inox

thehatedguy said:


> Space is a concern...output transformers are (can be) large and heavy.
> 
> I love tubes, but not of the mindset that just because an amp has tubes that it is some how superior to SS. The quality of the steel in the transformers and quality of the transformers have a lot to do with how a tube amp sounds.
> 
> I built some Nelson Pass inspired Aleph Minis that sounded as good or better than my Milbert. One class A solid state and the other an A/B (mainly B biased) all tube amp. Not that the Milbert was bad in any aspects.
> 
> But that was listening on my home horn system that was only 100 dB/1w/1m.


too bad Mr. Pass not making any for car use. they are sounds great. 
BTW every amp produced by First Watt made by Nelson himself. with his sons making assembly.


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> Define inexpensive!?


As soon as I know more I`ll let you know.


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> They used a different solder for the Verdi amp.. Maybe you should try some.. Which ones would you be interested in?



Different how? I use Cardas silver http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KCTRYGC/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_5?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A1O44Z2C3OZAM9


----------



## shibbydevil

Seriously guys, build a little enclosure, stick a midrange in it, and then back to back test two amps. I just did this with audison, dls, and arc on an 8" and all three sounded very different from one another. Which is better is subjective, but they all sound very different. There is a lot of personal opinion in what sounds right.


----------



## thehatedguy

I love Pass amps. I actually used the power supplies in the Monolithics to power the mini Alephs so I could eventually use them in the car. But there was no filtering in the power supply from Monolithic (was on the amp board) and none on the amp boards for the mini A's (they do it in the power supply)...so I got incredible noise. But on the home power supply, it was a very nice 20 watts of single ended class A= really way too much for the tiny Monolithic heatsinks to handle.

I need to find someone to put the Monolithics back together so I can use them again one day. They are through hole, but I don't have the time or the workstation anymore to put them back together myself- power supplies need to be put back to stock, and wires soldered back to the Monolithic amp boards, the amp boards probably should be recapped with new electrolytics, and new nuts and bolts for the heatsinks and TO3s...right now I have a bag of parts and some heatsinks. But I digress.

I wanted to modify them to be mini Aleph Js with the Jfets. But this is all old news/stuff from NP...he's gone on to mess with SIT devices which really operate much like triodes provided you have the voltage to get the transconductance curves in their sweet spot.

So to keep the thread on topic...yes, I believe amps sound different. However I know that if amps measure the same (more than just FR) they will sound the same. And in the car we have challenges that are more important than worrying about amps right off of the bat. And you really need something really efficient to hear differences be it super sensitive speakers or some really good headphones. And good class D amps can sound really good...even on horns. Like I said earlier, I am planning on using older Zapco DC Reference amps because there is a lot of value there with the amount of power you get and the processing for the money...which is important to me at this time because I am working with a show string budget with no real money for an external processor and 6-10 channels of amplification.


----------



## thehatedguy

I still have nearly a whole pound spool of the Cardas quad solder left...must have bought it 12 years a go. Easiest solder back then that I found to use. Tried some high silver content solder and didn't like the way to worked...took too much to get it to flow too.



Victor_inox said:


> Different how? I use Cardas silver http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KCTRYGC/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_5?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A1O44Z2C3OZAM9


----------



## Victor_inox

thehatedguy said:


> I still have nearly a whole pound spool of the Cardas quad solder left...must have bought it 12 years a go. Easiest solder back then that I found to use. Tried some high silver content solder and didn't like the way to worked...took too much to get it to flow too.


 sell it to me. I`ll pay full price. 
silver melting point is higher, i don`t run smd soldering machines so i can`t be certain but i doubt they use any silver in what they use . Perhaps someone who run them will chime in.


----------



## Elektra

legend94 said:


> Thank you! I must have missed the link in all these pages.
> 
> This amp looks stunning


It's beautifully made - top quality internals - it has a good weight as well. Remember this amp is the Premium range which not their top line products - the Elite range is their top line products... Everything EOS is good quality (the premium range of products are called EOS) you will notice all their amps use Sanken, Wima Texas Instruments OPAMPs Rubycon caps, Elna Sim audio caps... Only the 980 and 920 use the Mundorf caps in the premium range... 

Their AE-4100LE is a very competent 5 channel amp and sounds brilliant 4x110 1x365 at 4 ohms 1x680 at 2 ohms - a friend of mine measured the amp before distortion and it was more along the lines of 4x150 1x600 at 4 ohms as they rate their amps at 0.004 distortion whereas the GZ Ref amps are measured at 1% distortion...


----------



## Orion525iT

RobERacer said:


> Yup, OR it could just be that some folks just want to believe that they are in fact smarter than oh.. everyone and tell themselves and everyone around precisely just what they want to hear.
> I am not talking about presumption and I am certain that there are certain characters on here that do presume. I will say it again car audio is plagued by an industry (that includes the dealers as well as the manufacturers) that generally:
> 1. insists that people by without trying or even being able to check their products out.
> 2. expects people to believe whatever they say
> 3. are more than happy to take people's money even if they are selling them the exact wrong thing for the job.
> My point is this. Telling folks there is no difference in sonics just proves ones lack of knowledge and understanding and is just another form of lying to or misleading people. That would make you just as guilty as the car audio industry itself sir. You might really believe that too but just know that you are so wrong my friend. Amplifier technology can be vastly different and just like in pro audio and home audio car audio has different designs and manufacture thereby creating different sounding amps. As much as car audio tries to discourage it there are places that will let you check it out for yourself. I invite you to do some research at your leisure. The only thing is you need to go with an open mind and if you read this stuff in these posts you will notice some clues as to where you should be looking.


I have made no claims. Why is it so hard for people to comprehend this. I have *made no claims !* You have the burden of proof completely backwards. I have said repeatedly, that I am agnostic on the subject, that I am neutral. However, the burden lies with those making the positive claim, and there is a distinct lack of proof to this claim! You can point me to all the personal testimony you want, *but in no way shape or form is that evidence*. I cannot for the life of me figure out why this very, very basic epistemic approach is so hard for people to comprehend. I don't think anybody is that stupid, more than likely it is a fact that is conveniently ignored, because acknowledging and addressing this issue would commit one to admitting the massive fallacies in reliance on personal testimony and likewise the position held. 

So why don't you address this? Where are the studies, the documented literature that provides evidence to support the claim? Post links, please with appropriate cited sources.


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> Different how? I use Cardas silver http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00KCTRYGC/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_5?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A1O44Z2C3OZAM9


https://translate.googleusercontent...x.html&usg=ALkJrhhpTN9SYFJZytMCv_jpc8mlR6KemQ


----------



## Victor_inox

Orion, personal testimony is evidence, it is in the court of law.


----------



## thehatedguy

I think it is a pound spool...might be the smaller spool, will have to check it out.

Maybe instead of selling it, maybe we could work a trade in the future? My car stereo budget is small, and sometimes trading could be more valuable than some dollars...especially if we have something that each other wants and little money tied up in either item. Really on the hunt for another DC Ref amp, and really want one of your tube pres...but the amp might be more beneficial immediately than the pre depending on what I do for my front stage...really have a hard on to try some pro coaxes like some Radian 8s or build more synergy horns, in which case all that I would need would be the amp I already have.


----------



## thehatedguy

Victor is from Russia...no need to translate for him.



Elektra said:


> https://translate.googleusercontent...x.html&usg=ALkJrhhpTN9SYFJZytMCv_jpc8mlR6KemQ


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> https://translate.googleusercontent...x.html&usg=ALkJrhhpTN9SYFJZytMCv_jpc8mlR6KemQ



how is that answering my question? 
again, Google translation is an insult to both Russian and English languages. 
Aside from specs they can`t get anything correctly. 
what does that mean? ) All soldering carried silfos.


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> As soon as I know more I`ll let you know.


The 980 is between $800 - $1000 depends on how you import it and taxes etc, shipping...

The Verdi will be around $1300 - 1500 or so.. 

An importer will be more accurate with regards to the charges etc..


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> how is that answering my question?
> again, Google translation is an insult to both Russian and English languages.
> Aside from specs they can`t get anything correctly.
> what does that mean? ) All soldering carried silfos.


Dude I am Italian... I can't speak a word of Russian - I rely on Google translate..


----------



## rayray881

Orion, hit the nail on the head! Another thing that bothers me, for those that believe they hear these differences, why is it that these changes are always for the better? I have never heard somebody say, "Ya, I hear some changes in this $5k amp compared to this $2k amp, but the changes make the sound worse." And, if you hear these changes that you assume are better sounding, what exactly are you basing these opinions on? Were you in the recording studio listening to what the song was supposed to sound like? Were you at that live performance sitting where the mic was recording the performance? What are you basing your claims on, other than your own made up belief of what you think sounds correct? Enlighten me please.......


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> how is that answering my question?
> again, Google translation is an insult to both Russian and English languages.
> Aside from specs they can`t get anything correctly.
> what does that mean? ) All soldering carried silfos.


You can talk to Mr V Reznikov - he is the Director of car audio at EOS - [email protected] 

He can answer all your questions - if you can communicate in Russian all the better as his English isn't great...


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> Dude I am Italian... I can't speak a word of Russian - I rely on Google translate..


 well I am. and on top of that my Mother was Russian literature teacher.
It is very important how things said in Russian, so you can trust me with russian translations. what they meant is that these some silver content in that solder, 1% 0.1% or 50% is unknown but most likely just enough to show traces of silver on spectrometer.


----------



## Elektra

rayray881 said:


> Orion, hit the nail on the head! Another thing that bothers me, for those that believe they hear these differences, why is it that these changes are always for the better? I have never heard somebody say, "Ya, I hear some changes in this $5k amp compared to this $2k amp, but the changes make the sound worse." And, if you hear these changes that you assume are better sounding, what exactly are you basing these opinions on? Were you in the recording studio listening to what the song was supposed to sound like? Were you at that live performance sitting where the mic was recording the performance? What are you basing your claims on, other than your own made up belief of what you think sounds correct? Enlighten me please.......


I heard a $700 amp sound better than my $6000 amp - I sold the $6000 amp immediately and continued with the $700. In fact amongst a small group of us here that actually care what products sound like - the $700 amp is termed affectionally "The Reference Amp" any test we do involves the Reference amp - it has not been beaten aside from the Tube amps - but the cost was higher and therefore bang for buck it's unbeatable. 

The test is simple listen to both and decide which is better most of the time it's very obvious which one is best so deliberating was ever required.. 

We also did simple cable tests - 5min to tell if it's snake oil or not.. We all easily agreed it's fact not snake oil... 

We believe this to be fact because we joke about it so often - how can you not hear a difference - it's laughable really..

If others chose to call BS then that's there problem we are not here to save the audio community.. Everyone for their own!


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> You can talk to Mr V Reznikov - he is the Director of car audio at EOS - [email protected]
> 
> He can answer all your questions - if you can communicate in Russian all the better as his English isn't great...


thanks for contact info I`ll send him an email.


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> well I am. and on top of that my Mother was Russian literature teacher.
> It is very important how things said in Russian, so you can trust me with russian translations. what they meant is that these some silver content in that solder, 1% 0.1% or 50% is unknown but most likely just enough to show traces of silver on spectrometer.


My mother is an English teacher.. Lol..

So my English is excellent - I think the Google translate gives you the gist of what is happening - I have read reviews that I can see that some things gets lost in translation... 

Where are you based - someone on the ODR Thread mentioned a Victor in Russia who has contacts in getting ODR products?


----------



## Victor_inox

rayray881 said:


> Orion, hit the nail on the head! Another thing that bothers me, for those that believe they hear these differences, why is it that these changes are always for the better? I have never heard somebody say, "Ya, I hear some changes in this $5k amp compared to this $2k amp, but the changes make the sound worse." And, if you hear these changes that you assume are better sounding, what exactly are you basing these opinions on? Were you in the recording studio listening to what the song was supposed to sound like? Were you at that live performance sitting where the mic was recording the performance? What are you basing your claims on, other than your own made up belief of what you think sounds correct? Enlighten me please.......


Absolutely not true, I`ve heard a lot and I mean a lot of more expensive equipment sound not better at all. People only talk about when they`ve got expected results. 
recording studio performance never sounds like life concert. 
what makes me chuckle is that "Correct" is incorrect term in emotional matter such as music. It`s much easier to rely on FR and distortion Graph to make your decision. I``m not sure about you but I listen to music to please my mind, not engineer in me looking for perfection in unimportant parameters. 
Stop listening to your stereo and try listening to music it reproduce.


----------



## legend94

Victor_inox said:


> As soon as I know more I`ll let you know.


Hell I'm still waiting on a response from my last text


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> Hell I'm still waiting on a response from my last text


 sorry, I haven`t noticed. answered.


----------



## Orion525iT

Victor_inox said:


> Orion, personal testimony is evidence, it is in the court of law.


BS. Seriously, are you this intellectually dishonets? You and I both know that witness accounts are terribly flawed, which is why it is accepted less and less when it comes to criminal investigations and prosecution. There is massive amounts of research that supports this. There have been endless numbers of people sent to prison based on personal testimony, only to be found completely innocent when the emprical, quantifiable, objective forensic evidence is presented. This is why double blind tests are now being implemented in line ups. Personal testimony is the kind of stuff that led to witch burning.

This whole argument breaks down to this, I saw the Easter Bunny, my friend saw the Easter Bunny, the Easter Bunny is therefore real, now prove the Easter Bunny does not exist.

So, there you go, prove the Easter Bunny does not exist.


----------



## rayray881

I do listen to music, which is why I have not changed equipment since it was put in from the start, and also why I dont bother to compare amp "a" against amp "b,c,d". Maybe some of you guys should quit worrying about the 2% difference you think you hear amongst amps and wire, and take your own advice of listening to actual music.


----------



## rayray881

I have 18" biceps and my buddy also has 18" biceps. I am 6% body fat and he is 25% body fat. Everbody says my arms look massive compared to his because his are all fat. They must be correct, my arms are bigger!!!!


----------



## Victor_inox

Orion525iT said:


> BS. Seriously, are you this intellectually dishonets? You and I both know that witness accounts are terribly flawed, which is why it is accepted less and less when it comes to criminal investigations and prosecution. There is massive amounts of research that supports this. There have been endless numbers of people sent to prison based on personal testimony, only to be found completely innocent when the emprical, quantifiable, objective forensic evidence is presented. This is why double blind tests are now being implemented in line ups. Personal testimony is the kind of stuff that led to witch burning.
> 
> This whole argument breaks down to this, I saw the Easter Bunny, my friend saw the Easter Bunny, the Easter Bunny is therefore real, now prove the Easter Bunny does not exist.
> 
> So, there you go, prove the Easter Bunny does not exist.


 I never said you have to accept my point of view, you can still believe in Graphs and comparison tests but how you know that people who set such tests not ****ing liars? You don`t just like in case of false testimonies in the court of law or witch hunting before then. 
I can testify that every test set by someone else was skewed to point scale into that person or group of people ultimate goal.
All amps sounds the same was and still is promoted by corporations realised that most money to be made in basic product, and cheap electronics bring more revenue than expensive. THEREFORE **** QUALITY- sell quantity.
why Pioneer discontinuing stage 4 line? How much money they make selling their top of the line HU? thousand times less then selling $99 junk with BT streaming as main feature. And they have resources to make you believe it sounds just as good.


Ohh Easter bunny exist because he is awesome!


----------



## Victor_inox

rayray881 said:


> I do listen to music, which is why I have not changed equipment since it was put in from the start, and also why I dont bother to compare amp "a" against amp "b,c,d". Maybe some of you guys should quit worrying about the 2% difference you think you hear amongst amps and wire, and take your own advice of listening to actual music.


Who ever said that I`m worried? I`m not, I offered my point of view- nothing more. I don`t give a **** to prove it to anyone. 

2% difference is still a difference, isn`t it? Some of us desire the best, others fine with mediocrity.

you can marry this








and be happy

or desire this









most however settle with something in between.


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> Who ever said that I`m worried? I`m not, I offered my point of view- nothing more. I don`t give a **** to prove it to anyone.
> 
> 2% difference is still a difference, isn`t it? Some of us desire the best, others fine with mediocrity.


Agreed..


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> My mother is an English teacher.. Lol..
> 
> So my English is excellent - I think the Google translate gives you the gist of what is happening - I have read reviews that I can see that some things gets lost in translation...
> 
> Where are you based - someone on the ODR Thread mentioned a Victor in Russia who has contacts in getting ODR products?


 not me, i`m in Denver CO, US of A. different Victor. when it`s about technical specs my English is good enough.


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> not me, i`m in Denver CO, US of A. different Victor. when it`s about technical specs my English is good enough.


Thought it was you being Russian and called Victor .. What are the odds lol!


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> Thought it was you being Russian and called Victor .. What are the odds lol!


Higher than you think, it`s popular name and there is a lot of Russian people who still appreciate good sound.


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> Higher than you think, it`s popular name and there is a lot of Russian people who still appreciate good sound.


That's why I only support EOS... The Director Mr Reznikov has a few music degrees and was in a band when he was younger - he is fairly old now but has a deep understanding of how music should sound like..

I support this way of thinking..


----------



## Victor_inox

V.Reznikov could be Victor you looking for?


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> V.Reznikov could be Victor you looking for?


 Вячеслав Резников


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> Вячеслав Резников


You haven`t attempted to write that name in English- as it almost impossible for English speakers to pronounce. In Russian he most likely called Slava.


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> Who ever said that I`m worried? I`m not, I offered my point of view- nothing more. I don`t give a **** to prove it to anyone.
> 
> 2% difference is still a difference, isn`t it? Some of us desire the best, others fine with mediocrity.
> 
> you can marry this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and be happy
> 
> or desire this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most however settle with something in between.



EEk gadd. That thing is killin ma Soob


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> You haven`t attempted to write that name in English- as it almost impossible for English speakers to pronounce. In Russian he most likely called Slava.


his name started with a V - Can't remember exactly I alway addressed him as Mr Reznikov...


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> his name started with a V - Can't remember exactly I alway addressed him as Mr Reznikov...


 Slava to Viacheslav is like Bob to Robert.


----------



## RobERacer

The difference between the Hafler and the Bryston might have been 2 % and some of my friends preferred the Bryston because "It sounded beefier and smoother". I think if we looked at it on an oscilloscope we would see that the image (audio image that is) was in fact more smeared with the Bryston. It has a listed slew rate of 40 volts per microsecond (from memory I might be off a bit) which is a good clue to that. It just didn't have the resolution the Hafler had. FR wise they seemed about the same in the bottom but the Bry seemed a bit exaggerated in the lower mid range to me. We weren't driving subs with it so that wasn't really a good test of bandwidth but it was sufficient for what I wanted it for (mid/hi). I just felt like it was muddy compared to the Hafler. Of course I like accuracy. I don't need nor want my gear to lie to me and tell me something sounds pretty when it actually is not. If it is supposed to sound rude I want it that way. Nice better be nice too. The point here is that I like green and they like red. None of us are wrong as they are both excellent high rez choices and industry wide recognised as such even now. 

Car audio amps. I have heard a few myself. They just don't seem a lot different from any amps from any other part of the industry. That said just like pro audio they all sound different. Just so we know I started as a muzo. I ****ing love music and spend hours every single day listening to it and sometimes just because I enjoy it. It is my whole life and what I do for a living. Audio is my instrument of choice but I also played drums, bass and sing (reasonably well too actually) not to mention I tinker with keys and guitar as well at times. I realised when I was very young that if I was going to actually get good at something I needed to focus on that one thing. I put down the sticks and hung the bass on the wall. I spent literally years in the chair (behind the console) before I picked either up again. I sought out great mentors. Went to school to learn all I could about my craft. I practically lived at the studios that I worked at. Later as a freelancer I blew off clients that "just wanted to have sound" not caring about how good it was going to be. Often to my financial demise too. All in the name of "I am in this because I want to work with cool audio." So yes, some of your statements came across as a complete personal insult to me. It may surprise you to know that I have learned a thing or two on my journey too. Relevant; one of the courses we had in college was entitled "Ear Training". No, it was not how to tune instruments. This course was taught to engineering and production students. It was all about learning how to listen or rather hear. I love it when a statement is has relevance on multiple levels. Think about it.


----------



## Elektra

RobERacer said:


> The difference between the Hafler and the Bryston might have been 2 % and some of my friends preferred the Bryston because "It sounded beefier and smoother". I think if we looked at it on an oscilloscope we would see that the image (audio image that is) was in fact more smeared with the Bryston. It has a listed slew rate of 40 volts per microsecond (from memory I might be off a bit) which is a good clue to that. It just didn't have the resolution the Hafler had. FR wise they seemed about the same in the bottom but the Bry seemed a bit exaggerated in the lower mid range to me. We weren't driving subs with it so that wasn't really a good test of bandwidth but it was sufficient for what I wanted it for (mid/hi). I just felt like it was muddy compared to the Hafler. Of course I like accuracy. I don't need nor want my gear to lie to me and tell me something sounds pretty when it actually is not. If it is supposed to sound rude I want it that way. Nice better be nice too. The point here is that I like green and they like red. None of us are wrong as they are both excellent high rez choices and industry wide recognised as such even now.
> 
> Car audio amps. I have heard a few myself. They just don't seem a lot different from any amps from any other part of the industry. That said just like pro audio they all sound different. Just so we know I started as a muzo. I ****ing love music and spend hours every single day listening to it and sometimes just because I enjoy it. It is my whole life and what I do for a living. Audio is my instrument of choice but I also played drums, bass and sing (reasonably well too actually) not to mention I tinker with keys and guitar as well at times. I realised when I was very young that if I was going to actually get good at something I needed to focus on that one thing. I put down the sticks and hung the bass on the wall. I spent literally years in the chair (behind the console) before I picked either up again. I sought out great mentors. Went to school to learn all I could about my craft. I practically lived at the studios that I worked at. Later as a freelancer I blew off clients that "just wanted to have sound" not caring about how good it was going to be. Often to my financial demise too. All in the name of "I am in this because I want to work with cool audio." So yes, some of your statements came across as a complete personal insult to me. It may surprise you to know that I have learned a thing or two on my journey too. Relevant; one of the courses we had in college was entitled "Ear Training". No, it was not how to tune instruments. This course was taught to engineering and production students. It was all about learning how to listen or rather hear. I love it when a statement is has relevance on multiple levels. Think about it.


Love how you can specify 2% difference... Are you sure it wasn't 3 or 2.5%?

How on earth can you equate a % as 10% improvement is massive - think about it..


----------



## RobERacer

You can't. The associated percentage on all accounts is a guestimation aimed solely at attempting to quantify the difference as it is something the is noted in varying degrees. Yes, that does make it subjective as well but let us remember that arguably this whole discussion is subjective. Hehe Even that is subjective. I think they have a name for a spiralling paradigm don't they? I don't think anyone has developed a sonic integrity transmission meter with a scale as of yet. The only thing I was trying to point out is that we all know what is bad. If we know what the physical awesome point is we can estimate varying degrees in between. Based on what I have seen I feel like folks are devaluing what is great or more likely are not yet attuned to note the differences. If you don't drink finer wines how do you really know the difference between a $10 bottle and a $50 bottle. The $50 is usually not as good as the $500 but often much better than the $10 but until you have the ability to quantify the difference your inability to discern that is not everyone else's fault. What I am seeing here is folks out and out calling those who have discerned the difference liars and cheats or just stupid. And vehemently I might add. Does anyone else see the injustice here? SHHH, don't tell anyone cause it is a secret but the ability to hear this stuff is learnable in the same way we can learn to appreciate finer wines. I don't think there are books that can teach you that stuff either. It is kind of the ultimate audiophile life quest really and I am not sure we ever arrive at the end of the journey. Side note. I have meet a few people over the years that are in fact not capable of that. It is kinda like being color blind. The only difference is color blind people don't blame everyone else for the colors being wrong. 

I should also point out that there seems to be two schools of thought too. I and many of us believe high quality audio would be sound reproduction that is as faith as possible to reproducing exactly what was inputed. Many other folks (more on here than on other audio forums that I have seen) seem to believe that high quality audio is more about "Enhancing The Sound". This opens a whole other can of worms in that the question of how do we qualify what is an enhancement over what is a degradation arises. Distortion in some senses is often considered and enhancement for example added SPL at various frequencies is another.


----------



## rton20s

RobERacer said:


> I should also point out that there seems to be two schools of thought too. I and many of us believe high quality audio would be sound reproduction that is as faith as possible to reproducing exactly what was inputed. *Many other folks (more on here than on other audio forums that I have seen) seem to believe that high quality audio is more about "Enhancing The Sound".* This opens a whole other can of worms in that the question of how do we qualify what is an enhancement over what is a degradation arises. Distortion in some senses is often considered and enhancement for example added SPL at various frequencies is another.


What? Are you even reading posts on DIYMA, or do you just come here to post walls of text from atop your high horse? (Thank you for finally attempting paragraphs. It is appreciated.) The bold statement above is the exact opposite of my experience with DIYMA and in my conversations and demos from members in the real world.


----------



## Elektra

RobERacer said:


> You can't. The associated percentage on all accounts is a guestimation aimed solely at attempting to quantify the difference as it is something the is noted in varying degrees. Yes, that does make it subjective as well but let us remember that arguably this whole discussion is subjective. Hehe Even that is subjective. I think they have a name for a spiralling paradigm don't they? I don't think anyone has developed a sonic integrity transmission meter with a scale as of yet. The only thing I was trying to point out is that we all know what is bad. If we know what the physical awesome point is we can estimate varying degrees in between. Based on what I have seen I feel like folks are devaluing what is great or more likely are not yet attuned to note the differences. If you don't drink finer wines how do you really know the difference between a $10 bottle and a $50 bottle. The $50 is usually not as good as the $500 but often much better than the $10 but until you have the ability to quantify the difference your inability to discern that is not everyone else's fault. What I am seeing here is folks out and out calling those who have discerned the difference liars and cheats or just stupid. And vehemently I might add. Does anyone else see the injustice here? SHHH, don't tell anyone cause it is a secret but the ability to hear this stuff is learnable in the same way we can learn to appreciate finer wines. I don't think there are books that can teach you that stuff either. It is kind of the ultimate audiophile life quest really and I am not sure we ever arrive at the end of the journey. Side note. I have meet a few people over the years that are in fact not capable of that. It is kinda like being color blind. The only difference is color blind people don't blame everyone else for the colors being wrong.
> 
> I should also point out that there seems to be two schools of thought too. I and many of us believe high quality audio would be sound reproduction that is as faith as possible to reproducing exactly what was inputed. Many other folks (more on here than on other audio forums that I have seen) seem to believe that high quality audio is more about "Enhancing The Sound". This opens a whole other can of worms in that the question of how do we qualify what is an enhancement over what is a degradation arises. Distortion in some senses is often considered and enhancement for example added SPL at various frequencies is another.


I think the guys who post here are SQ guys - which means if they can improve their audio experience they would - some will do so with no limit budgets. Unfortunately some of us don't have a bank to support our endless desires for audio nirvana. 

So we use these forums to express ourselves and ask questions about their personal experiences with certain products. If their is a pot of gold out there we all want to know about it. 

Remember some of us here have super high end systems that rival serious home systems - so a "2%" improvement is a big deal in a world of diminishing returns as our systems get better and better...

Most of us have heard the best in one way or another so product comparisons are important - even if it's not scientific. Pulling out curves, graphs etc mean nothing to most of us - more so how does it sound? 

We all reference our own poison to the next potential purchase - if it sounds better then great buy it!


----------



## Jepalan

Elektra said:


> Pulling out curves, graphs etc mean nothing to most of us - more so how does it sound?


Methinks it is better to represent your own opinion than to try and speak for "most of us".

My personal opinion, for what it is worth....

Curves, graphs *and* experience are what I want to read about in these forum discussions. For me, curves and graphs take precedence.

And to clarify - by "curves and graphs" I mean measurements of real-world installs, taken from the listening position, with measurement methods well described.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

^ To go even further, curves and graphs, if you know how they are measured, can tell you how something is going to sound, if you know how to read them.


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> Methinks it is better to represent your own opinion than to try and speak for "most of us".
> 
> My personal opinion, for what it is worth....
> 
> Curves, graphs *and* experience are what I want to read about in these forum discussions. For me, curves and graphs take precedence.
> 
> And to clarify - by "curves and graphs" I mean measurements of real-world installs, taken from the listening position, with measurement methods well described.



In that case if we can only use numbers to qualify what is good and what is not then there IS very little difference between the cheapest stuff and the very best. Worse, the car audio doesn't want to tell us enough of the pertinent information either so the "graphs" would be even more skewed. In that way they are effectually lying to us. The numbers are only a clue. Folks are not getting what they were looking for and the reason is clear. I and I would hope most of us are listening to the sound not reading it. We need both parts to help us make valid, informed purchasing decisions.


----------



## Elektra

Jepalan said:


> Methinks it is better to represent your own opinion than to try and speak for "most of us".
> 
> My personal opinion, for what it is worth....
> 
> Curves, graphs *and* experience are what I want to read about in these forum discussions. For me, curves and graphs take precedence.
> 
> And to clarify - by "curves and graphs" I mean measurements of real-world installs, taken from the listening position, with measurement methods well described.


Don't you think the real world measurements taken in listening positions is a bit false? 

I mean you take so many factors into consideration - car, speaker positions, installer ability, tuning ability, speaker type/quality , cabling, source.. Any one of these factors can influence the outcome of your scientific measurements - it clouds the results too much! 

How can you possibly test anything in that manner - best way is purpose built speaker boxes for the speakers you INTEND to use, cabling you INTEND to use and a source you INTEND in a untainted environment - this will bring out the pure results without any influences...

Just raw results..


----------



## Elektra

RobERacer said:


> In that case if we can only use numbers to qualify what is good and what is not then there IS very little difference between the cheapest stuff and the very best. Worse, the car audio doesn't want to tell us enough of the pertinent information either so the "graphs" would be even more skewed. In that way they are effectually lying to us. The numbers are only a clue. Folks are not getting what they were looking for and the reason is clear. I and I would hope most of us are listening to the sound not reading it. We need both parts to help us make valid, informed purchasing decisions.


1000% correct - you can look into all the curves, graphs you like... Take a Sony $20 tweeter and compare it to a Scanspeak Revelator tweeter and the graphs will be similar - does that mean they sound similar? 

You would be a fool to read into specs, graphs, curves etc as the only way you can justify one product over another..

I once read the specs on a Sony $100 radio - it stated 120db SN!! That is the same as the F1 HU - so why buy the F1 HU at $2000?


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

The measurements from a $20 Sony tweeter will look nothing like that of a revelator tweeter. Nothing even close. 

Snr is only on spec. You didn't mention frequency response, distortion, the orders of distortion, or tuning and or physical features of the deck.

Hell, I'll even go further and say that the graphs from say a hybrid audio imagine tweeter will look nothing like that of a hybrid audio L1 Pro R2. I know, I've measured both. Even different models of revelators will test different. You have to know what your looking at.


----------



## Victor_inox

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Even different models of revelators will test different. You have to know what your looking at.


 or better yet listening to.


----------



## cajunner

this thread depends on a steady infusion of 2-channel home audio followers entering and demanding proof that they can hear the differences...

with that, you get the audiophile chip on the shoulder, and many of us chuckling out on the periphery.

guys with big money put into their dedicated listening rooms, sitting 60 degrees of equilateral, toe-in, toe-out lives, trying to tell the compartmented off-center chaps how to do their business...

and it's just spank the troll, watch him roll...


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> this thread depends on a steady infusion of 2-channel home audio followers entering and demanding proof that they can hear the differences...
> 
> with that, you get the audiophile chip on the shoulder, and many of us chuckling out on the periphery.
> 
> guys with big money put into their dedicated listening rooms, sitting 60 degrees of equilateral, toe-in, toe-out lives, trying to tell the compartmented off-center chaps how to do their business...
> 
> and it's just spank the troll, watch him roll...


No one forcing their opinion on you guys it`s quite the opposite...
You keep that tone and maybe someone will agree with you just not to argue anymore.
Am I rolling fast enough for your liking?


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> No one forcing their opinion on you guys it`s quite the opposite...
> You keep that tone and maybe someone will agree with you just not to argue anymore.
> Am I rolling fast enough for your liking?


let's take a poll?



if there's more audiophile nuthuggers than there are DSP augmented suspects following this thread, it will show, what, exactly?

that you can hear the differences of amps, or that in the car environment the nuances of silver's speed and the tumescent effects of cable elevators, is gratuitous much?

the tone, is equal to the amount of force audiophiles believe in their flawed methodology, transposing the listening environment without factoring in the different variables.


let's not get sensitive at this late stage of the thread...


the two-channel homebodies can sip their brandy and feel superior, but it doesn't mean much in the rough and tumble world of audio on the move.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Victor_inox said:


> or better yet listening to.


Ears are inadequate, flawed devices that are affected by almost anything. Not nearly good enough to be reliable.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> let's take a poll?
> 
> 
> 
> if there's more audiophile nuthuggers than there are DSP augmented suspects following this thread, it will show, what, exactly?
> 
> that you can hear the differences of amps, or that in the car environment the nuances of silver's speed and the tumescent effects of cable elevators, is gratuitous much?
> 
> the tone, is equal to the amount of force audiophiles believe in their flawed methodology, transposing the listening environment without factoring in the different variables.
> 
> 
> let's not get sensitive at this late stage of the thread...
> 
> 
> the two-channel homebodies can sip their brandy and feel superior, but it doesn't mean much in the rough and tumble world of audio on the move.


 life is not black and white how "all amps sounds the same" crowd trying to present. not a one person in opposite camp ever stated such thing as unimportance of DSPs to in car installations. 
How is my preference taking that Cognac neat affect your decision what to drink?


----------



## Hanatsu

Elektra said:


> 1000% correct - you can look into all the curves, graphs you like... Take a Sony $20 tweeter and compare it to a Scanspeak Revelator tweeter and the graphs will be similar - does that mean they sound similar?
> 
> You would be a fool to read into specs, graphs, curves etc as the only way you can justify one product over another..
> 
> I once read the specs on a Sony $100 radio - it stated 120db SN!! That is the same as the F1 HU - so why buy the F1 HU at $2000?


OK. If that $20 driver measures nearly as good as a Scan Rev tweeter I'll be first to buy it. It's not very likely now is it? I've measured tons of drivers I have no issues correlating good measurement performance with good sounding drivers. Despite what you may think, a full set of measurements do describe the performance fully, ear evaluation do not. 

I've compared my Pioneer p99rs to a cheap Sony unit (the one I post graphs of a few posts back) and there's no real difference at all between them really if we're comparing raw throughput. Both me and my friend failed hearing any differences at all in a blind-test with an overall otherwise high-end home audio system (expected since measurements are similar/distortions below audible thresholds). I also wonder why people spend $2000 on a HU. Get a good DSP instead.


----------



## WRX/Z28

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Ears are inadequate, flawed devices that are affected by almost anything. Not nearly good enough to be reliable.


Stealing this one...


----------



## Victor_inox

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Ears are inadequate, flawed devices that are affected by almost anything. Not nearly good enough to be reliable.


You keep staring on pretty graphs while I use my unreliable ears to enjoy music. sounds like a plan?


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> In that case if we can only use numbers to qualify what is good and what is not then there IS very little difference between the cheapest stuff and the very best.


Wow. Jump to conclusions much? I did not discount ears as an important part of the process. Maybe I wasn't clear -> by "Curves, graphs *and* experience..." I meant *listening* experience. i.e. "ears". 



> Worse, the car audio doesn't want to tell us enough of the pertinent information either so the "graphs" would be even more skewed. In that way they are effectually lying to us. The numbers are only a clue. Folks are not getting what they were looking for and the reason is clear. I and I would hope most of us are listening to the sound not reading it. We need both parts to help us make valid, informed purchasing decisions.


What? I'm not sure exactly what you wrote, but again - I did not say to only "read" the sound. I want to hear about people's listening experience as well as see measured data. Both are important to me. I simply place higher importance on well described measurements - *unless I am there to hear the system first hand*.

Rob, you reek of troll.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

I listen to and enjoy music every day whether through stereo reproduction or playing music.

I'm just not foolish enough to believe my ears are reliable measurement instruments that can tell me what amp is more accurate to the source, when the actual differences are tiny.


----------



## Victor_inox

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> I listen to and enjoy music every day whether through stereo reproduction or playing music.
> 
> I'm just not foolish enough to believe my ears are reliable measurement instruments that can tell me what amp is more accurate to the source, when the actual differences are tiny.


Tiny is relative term.
measurements roughly shows what to expect from a piece of equipment sonically and in that regard is important as starting point, nicely measured amps will most likely sound good but not necessarily so. CD measured better than vinyl in every known to men parameter, yet people prefer vinyl sonically.
Solid state amplifiers measured better in every known to men parameter as well. Yet I never met a single person who`ll take solid state rather than tubes.
If sonic qualities only deciding factor and not price, size, ecological impact, etc..


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

But cd's didn't measure better in every known parameter. In fact, noise and storage density are the only real huge advantages of cd's. And it's almost impossible to fairly compare cd's to vinyl, as the mastering of each format is pretty much never the same. This is why most of my cds are ripped from vinyl, because vinyl was largely ignored by the loudness wars.

As far as tubes, in a perfect world, I'll admit I would run the highest power tube amp I could get. But, not because I've heard huge differences, but because statistically, they can be made better, when you really nit pick specs. And I'm a big diminished returns chasing kind of guy, when I can be.


----------



## RobERacer

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> I listen to and enjoy music every day whether through stereo reproduction or playing music.
> 
> I'm just not foolish enough to believe my ears are reliable measurement instruments that can tell me what amp is more accurate to the source, when the actual differences are tiny.


I count on my ears everyday to do just that. Actually so do my clients. I still use electronics to help me but like EVERYONE who is any good in audio our ears tell us first and they also make the final decisions not the fancy gadgets. BTW many folks don't know that RTA's only tell you amplitude of audible frequencies. They do not tell you where those vibrations originate or if they are in phase or if they are distorted. Ears are a far better detector of that.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Tiny is relative term.
> measurements roughly shows what to expect from a piece of equipment sonically and in that regard is important as starting point, nicely measured amps will most likely sound good but not necessarily so. CD measured better than vinyl in every known to men parameter, yet people prefer vinyl sonically.
> Solid state amplifiers measured better in every known to men parameter as well. Yet I never met a single person who`ll take solid state rather than tubes.
> If sonic qualities only deciding factor and not price, size, ecological impact, etc..


people would fill their homes with photographs, instead of art...

and it's fine if you have a penchant for finery, but defending the importance of acquiring, and investing yourself in the good stuff is really philosophical and not a scientific and more a theorem kind of thing.

you can persist in your habitual pursuit, of "excellence" but in regards to the wholesale requirement that you have singled out quality, and your perspective is imbued with that intangible essence of superiority you must know, deep down...

that it's all compensation, and don't get me wrong, we're all compensating.


----------



## Victor_inox

You are incorrect on every point of your argument. 
CD does measure better on any parameter, dynamic range is still measurable parameter 
Mastering is pretty much the same for every format up to production stage. 
Or at least it was up to late 90th. There is no music worth listening to was made since so who cares.

Solid state amps can be made to the point of impossibility to measure THD, phase shift,etc... crazy s/n numbers like 110DB. I made one a while ago I couldn`t measure on 25 thousand dollars analyzer,beyond measurable threshold, erhaps it`s time to reopen that project. great tube amps still shows thd up to 4% THD. General population doesn`t care beyond bluetooth speaker volume anyway. So what the point?


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Rob, creating music by ear is perfectly fine. 

Recreating it is science, not art. You can't be accurate in reproduction by ear alone.


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> No one forcing their opinion on you guys it`s quite the opposite...
> You keep that tone and maybe someone will agree with you just not to argue anymore.
> Am I rolling fast enough for your liking?


Ya. I am not so sure that some people aren't just here to egg the situation on. I just don't understand their motivation yet. I will though eventually. I think the reality is more likely that there are only a few people who actually believe that crap and really we both know that a little bit of exposure is all the proof needed to dispel that lie. The proof is totally in the pudding.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> people would fill their homes with photographs, instead of art...
> 
> and it's fine if you have a penchant for finery, but defending the importance of acquiring, and investing yourself in the good stuff is really philosophical and not a scientific and more a theorem kind of thing.
> 
> you can persist in your habitual pursuit, of "excellence" but in regards to the wholesale requirement that you have singled out quality, and your perspective is imbued with that intangible essence of superiority you must know, deep down...
> 
> that it's all compensation, and don't get me wrong, we're all compensating.


People are fill their lives with surrogate art, it`s easier and almost just as good.
Almost "good enough" is became standard I refuse to follow.
persuit of perfection is a must for every engineer, pursuit of wholesale is for someone else.
We all compromise in about everything in our lives, but we all would be happy not to if we have means.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> People are fill their lives with surrogate art, it`s easier and almost just as good.
> Almost "good enough" is became standard I refuse to follow.
> persuit of perfection is a must for every engineer, pursuit of wholesale is for someone else.
> We all compromise in about everything in our lives, but we all would be happy not to if we have means.


I think a lot of people *care* about this stuff, because they have the ability to acquire only middle grade stuff on their income, and the drama that results is due to expectations.

I can promise you that when you do actually get to the top of the line, it's not the same vantage point as it was when you were looking from the bottom.

"I thought there would be more, I expected more" is a common feeling, because it is rare the expectation meets up with the end result, in most indulgences in life.

If you taste the wine that others say is fine, and you don't really get it, that's okay too. Even if you slaved and skimped and saved your way to afford the best, it really doesn't mean all that much, you can get 98% of the way by picking up a bottle at the grocery store...

what I'm trying to show is that people aren't attacking your point of view, as much as you are condescending theirs, it's not fair to assume that everyone needs to pursue perfect ends, in order to enjoy the means.


----------



## Victor_inox

Perhaps you are correct and people bought top of the line (insert your expensive amp here) going WTF is sounds just as good as my pep boys special Jensen...... and they feel cheated. it`s their speakers producing 20% distortion on the edge of blowing just doesn`t care what amp pushing them they`ve been made like that and no amount of clean power can change that. Or DSP set poorly, or head unit`s 25 cents opamps. Or $10 opamps made like 25 cents once. 
Or amp input impedance not matched with their DSP output impedances, etc etc.
In either case consumer going to blame whatever component has been changed last.
How many times we see threads here "everything has been fine until...."


----------



## Elektra

Hanatsu said:


> OK. If that $20 driver measures nearly as good as a Scan Rev tweeter I'll be first to buy it. It's not very likely now is it? I've measured tons of drivers I have no issues correlating good measurement performance with good sounding drivers. Despite what you may think, a full set of measurements do describe the performance fully, ear evaluation do not.
> 
> I've compared my Pioneer p99rs to a cheap Sony unit (the one I post graphs of a few posts back) and there's no real difference at all between them really if we're comparing raw throughput. Both me and my friend failed hearing any differences at all in a blind-test with an overall otherwise high-end home audio system (expected since measurements are similar/distortions below audible thresholds). I also wonder why people spend $2000 on a HU. Get a good DSP instead.


I disagree...

I bought a Sound Monitor from a guy here - only reason I bought it was because the guy was young and didn't know what he had - I mean no IPod or MP3 play back. So I basically stole it from him..

Setup a listening environment at my house - used my Verdi tube amp , kinetic battery and my Focal Kit 7' s and my P90 and did a side by side test - the P90 raped the Sound Monitor in every respect.. I mean the floor noise was incredibly high compared to the P90 also the high frequencies were much cleaner - I'll give the lower midrange warmth to the Sound Monitor but the fact I could hear so much hiss in the background was disappointing. 

Yes the P90 does not have all the goodies a all in one HU has but I do have the P90 DSP as well so I am not worried... Point is a good clean source is vital to how your system performs... And if a good clean source costs you $2000 then so be it..


----------



## subwoofery

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> The measurements from a $20 Sony tweeter will look nothing like that of a revelator tweeter. Nothing even close.
> 
> Snr is only on spec. You didn't mention frequency response, distortion, the orders of distortion, or tuning and or physical features of the deck.
> 
> Hell, I'll even go further and say that the graphs from say a hybrid audio imagine tweeter will look nothing like that of a hybrid audio L1 Pro R2. I know, I've measured both. Even different models of revelators will test different. You have to know what your looking at.


Highpass both of them @ 10kHz, level match them and listen - It might actually sound quite similar yet measurement should say otherwise 

^ Lycan's style :laugh:

Kelvin


----------



## Elektra

To add further...

If a DSP is it... Then a Bitone off a OEM radio will sound exactly the same as a Bitone off a P90 or F1 unit? 

Afraid not.. Poor signal in = poor signal out (albeit not as poor) I know a lot of guys competing here that use the Bitone and they have all commented on how the audio improved with a better HU..

Bottom line you can have the F1 processor with a cheap Jenson HU - yes it will be ok but not as good if you used the F1 source...


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra, would you mind posting guts picture of that Verdi amp?


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> Elektra, would you mind posting guts picture of that Verdi amp?


I have on my iPhone - if you can tell me how to upload pics then I'll gladly do it..


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> I have on my iPhone - if you can tell me how to upload pics then I'll gladly do it..


Photobucket has an app for iphone. I highly recommend using photobucket for picture sharing, free and easy.


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> what I'm trying to show is that people aren't attacking your point of view, as much as you are condescending theirs, it's not fair to assume that everyone needs to pursue perfect ends, in order to enjoy the means.


Care to elaborate on this I am not quite sure it is clear what you are saying here. Specifically the part about it not being fair... in order to enjoy the means". Are you trying to point out that people just have fun trying out new things? I am certain they do. I do but... I hate spending $800 on a new amp when I already spent $400 on one to do the same job but just isn't up to snuff especially when the reason that happened was because I didn't do enough research to make sure I was making the right choice in the first place. BTW that is why it doesn't happen very often to me. I take my time and like to try before I buy. Numbers, reviews (maybe forums) then listen to verify what I am thinking in case the numbers aren't the whole truth. They are too often not. This forum. Case in point. I am looking for an amp. The only thing is the cheap amp that I bought last year was just to get me by till I could do the research and squirrel the money away to fund the project. It isn't a throw away either. Going into my other halfs car. :angel:


----------



## cajunner

audio isn't a zero sum game.

for some people, getting .1% improvement, in any number be it noise, distortion, power or FR, is worth paying 100% higher in cost.

most of us stop at some point, where maybe we achieve 98% of what someone else will spend 10 times the money to get to 100% of the baseline, or what is considered by many to be reference level.

does the person who paid 10K for their car audio bits, have a system they can gloat, or look down on those who only pay 1K? If you look at much of this thread, you see a pattern where money doesn't equal expectation, it is just the appearance of performance and the reputation created by audio nerds, that precedes the quality being touted by those who claim superiority.

if anyone who claims to hear those minute differences would accept a challenge, pink slips for their system if they can't find Waldo between 3 systems set up at 1/10th the cost, then maybe we'd have something.

it's all well and good that we are stocked up on audio fanatics who claim to be able to tell beyond objective measurements and obviously beyond the documented fails of ABX testing participants, but let them put their money where their mouth is, and you will see a lot of backing out, a lot of hem-hawing and whatever, because even they know the odds are good that they will lose their shirts.

so this is what I want, I want the people who continue to push the matter into esoteric argument, to put up their supposed audio nirvana bits, and I'll produce a system that tests within the limits of audibility of theirs, at Walmart pricing and we'll get that taste test going...


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> Elektra, would you mind posting guts picture of that Verdi amp?


----------



## Elektra

cajunner said:


> audio isn't a zero sum game.
> 
> for some people, getting .1% improvement, in any number be it noise, distortion, power or FR, is worth paying 100% higher in cost.
> 
> most of us stop at some point, where maybe we achieve 98% of what someone else will spend 10 times the money to get to 100% of the baseline, or what is considered by many to be reference level.
> 
> does the person who paid 10K for their car audio bits, have a system they can gloat, or look down on those who only pay 1K? If you look at much of this thread, you see a pattern where money doesn't equal expectation, it is just the appearance of performance and the reputation created by audio nerds, that precedes the quality being touted by those who claim superiority.
> 
> if anyone who claims to hear those minute differences would accept a challenge, pink slips for their system if they can't find Waldo between 3 systems set up at 1/10th the cost, then maybe we'd have something.
> 
> it's all well and good that we are stocked up on audio fanatics who claim to be able to tell beyond objective measurements and obviously beyond the documented fails of ABX testing participants, but let them put their money where their mouth is, and you will see a lot of backing out, a lot of hem-hawing and whatever, because even they know the odds are good that they will lose their shirts.
> 
> so this is what I want, I want the people who continue to push the matter into esoteric argument, to put up their supposed audio nirvana bits, and I'll produce a system that tests within the limits of audibility of theirs, at Walmart pricing and we'll get that taste test going...


You won't stand a chance... 

Fact remains a 1bit Walmart dac special isn't going to compete with the likes of the 24bit K grade BB dacs say found in a F1 unit.. 

To think that a mass produced Nakamichi amp for $100 will never compete against the top end amps.. How could they 1c caps vs $5 caps etc..

All of your Walmart products will produce 20hz - 20khz ... If you think that the Walmart products will compete - then your a fool..

But go ahead and try.. I am sure you will have many cars to compare to..


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

So the question is, would you be willing to bet your system on your belief?

You can make claims that he won't stand a chance, but his point was simple. That when it actually came down to it, people would talk a big game, but back out when there was a chance of them losing their own system. And that the people that aren't willing to put up, don't trust their ears as much as they claim to.


----------



## Elektra

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> So the question is, would you be willing to bet your system on your belief?
> 
> You can make claims that he won't stand a chance, but his point was simple. That when it actually came down to it, people would talk a big game, but back out when there was a chance of them losing their own system. And that the people that aren't willing to put up, don't trust their ears as much as they claim to.


I would ... Because I have tested it and I know my findings to be true..


----------



## Elektra

Set aside all the BS.. That a lot of manufacturer claims to be true... 90% of the time you get what you pay for.. 

Why do you think the F1 and ODR stuff is so expensive? The name? No because the Alpine uses multiple $50 DACs in it and all the rest of it that is uncompromising in quality and design... I don't think those units made that much profit as they cost so much to build...

Like the Bugatti Veyron cost 5 times more than what they sold it for ... It's more of a Fu to to the world saying yes we can...

Truth be told Alpine make more money on their cheap stuff than they did on the high end stuff - which is sad to be honest as so many people think like some of you guys and say a $100 HU sounds the same as a $2000 HU... So the manufacturers don't bother anymore as its not worth it for them..

I bet Alpine and Pioneer can make a HU combo that will compete with the best in the world - come home car or studio but with guys calling BS they won't bother..

Nobody says you can't enjoy a $1000 system hell I can stomach my BMW's oem system (sometimes) but if the best retails for $10k and its your thing who are you to say anything...

It's not your cash is it? I can without any doubt state that if you want the best - it will cost you and no $1000 system can EVER compete sonically


----------



## legend94

Elektra said:


> View attachment 59135



That will keep Victor busy recreating for a week or so!


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> View attachment 59135


 That looks like it made at the same factory DLS was made and Ground Zero reference.currently made. I don`t see anything super special


----------



## Victor_inox

legend94 said:


> That will keep Victor busy recreating for a week or so!


If reverse engineering was that simple.....I don`t have to, I don`t see anything worth of effort.


----------



## Victor_inox

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Rob, creating music by ear is perfectly fine.
> 
> Recreating it is science, not art. You can't be accurate in reproduction by ear alone.


Nobody ever dismissed science in amplifier design.


----------



## Victor_inox

subwoofery said:


> Highpass both of them @ 10kHz, level match them and listen - It might actually sound quite similar yet measurement should say otherwise
> 
> ^ Lycan's style :laugh:
> 
> Kelvin


Or better yet highpass them at 20Khz and there will be no difference at all.


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> That looks like it made at the same factory DLS was made and Ground Zero reference.currently made. I don`t see anything super special


That's what I said before.. Except the price is much cheaper the GZ... That's special!


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> If reverse engineering was that simple.....I don`t have to, I don`t see anything worth of effort.


Well it may not appear to be anything special to you but it will out perform most high product 2 or 3 times the price..


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> That's what I said before.. Except the price is much cheaper the GZ... That's special!


 Sorry I missed that. I didn`t say it is the same, just very similar, but is can sounds very different. i still think soldering tubes instead of socketing them is a kick in the balls. every manufacturer doing that coming up with lame excuse that solder is more reliable. ********! sockets make tube replacement/rolling is hobby by itself but there is no profit for manufacturer. same can be said about opamps.


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> Well it may not appear to be anything special to you but it will out perform most high product 2 or 3 times the price..


 and how is that contradict my statement?
Also here in US we value customer service/support/repair.
GZ is right here to take care of what they sell. 
what people suppose to do with Verdi going in puff? buy another one because it`s cheaper?


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> audio isn't a zero sum game.
> 
> for some people, getting .1% improvement, in any number be it noise, distortion, power or FR, is worth paying 100% higher in cost.
> 
> most of us stop at some point, where maybe we achieve 98% of what someone else will spend 10 times the money to get to 100% of the baseline, or what is considered by many to be reference level.
> 
> does the person who paid 10K for their car audio bits, have a system they can gloat, or look down on those who only pay 1K? If you look at much of this thread, you see a pattern where money doesn't equal expectation, it is just the appearance of performance and the reputation created by audio nerds, that precedes the quality being touted by those who claim superiority.
> 
> if anyone who claims to hear those minute differences would accept a challenge, pink slips for their system if they can't find Waldo between 3 systems set up at 1/10th the cost, then maybe we'd have something.
> 
> it's all well and good that we are stocked up on audio fanatics who claim to be able to tell beyond objective measurements and obviously beyond the documented fails of ABX testing participants, but let them put their money where their mouth is, and you will see a lot of backing out, a lot of hem-hawing and whatever, because even they know the odds are good that they will lose their shirts.
> 
> so this is what I want, I want the people who continue to push the matter into esoteric argument, to put up their supposed audio nirvana bits, and I'll produce a system that tests within the limits of audibility of theirs, at Walmart pricing and we'll get that taste test going...


Does Walmart sell DSP in the states? You must know something I don't then then. Want a job? One of my clients has this rig that has 3 networked BSS BLU-160's plus 6 BOB's and 16'BIB's all networked to a raft of L'Acoustics LA-8's and Crestron AV as well as BSS control. It designed so that it can be operated by both pro users and average joe on a daily basis without causing functional issues due to confusion (that is a huge problem in itself). More it is almost completely reconfigurable on the fly. Google that stuff bro! It should take care of your boredom for a while. It's a programmers dream. How about that challenge? I know that isn't really fair. You would be one in less than a dozen guys worldwide who could do it. By way of comparison there are more Olympic athletes than there are these guys. But people who do that are just geeks right? I am on the phone with people working with that one a lot. It's mind boggling what that system can do. You dream it, there is a way. 

It seems to me that most of the gear designers seem to thumb their noses up at the Walmart level gear too. Some of the companies they work for make stuff for the Walmarts of the world too but I don't have the understanding from any of the designers that I know that they do those "budget" designs for any other reason than to make a buck. They are just slap it together cheap because it gives them a paycheque. I have less glorious work that I have to do too but I make it a point to work in situations that I at least get to give the situation my best efforts. I would hate to be forced to do crap work. 

When is the next IASCA Triple Crown event? You're going to enter your Walmart mobile ya? Let me know. I will take the time off to be there. Rather than pink slips though I have better idea. That is just trifle. Let's do cash. We can see just how many people on here agree or disagree with you as well. Let's build a pot. I will put up the first $50 USD. You will need to have receipts for your gear, leave all of the wiring visible and you can't use anything that you did not buy at Walmart. Also everyone has the right to run tests to prove that you aren't cheating any with things could be hidden before and after judging too. You see from what I have read on here as they are using Brax amps even the competitors don't agree with you. This levels out the car speaker installation part of the equation (which is it's own separate field) so it is all about you and your tuning. I'd be more than happy to tune a competitor's car for free (I charge to tune audio systems) if there is someone who has a car with a decent installation. Or if someone wants to loan the gear and put up the entry fee we can dump it in the Soob and enter my car. I has A Pioneer DEH 80PRS head unit (inconsequential, we would inject full wave digital audio direct into the processor just as the pro's do), Focal KRX2's and an Infinity Kappa 100.9 sub in a custom pro audio, design/ built Balic Birch sealed cabinet driven by a Rockford Fosgate P6001 amp at 2 Ohms (it's way serious and floors people all of the time. Tight, flat and low). We would need a good 4 channel (100 watts or so @ 2 ohms Class AB with a good slew rate and damping factor of 200:1 or better at 400hz) amp (that will fit under the driver's seat), a 6 in (+digital, got to figure out how to get direct digital out of the phone yet), 8 out processor with all parametric eq on the outputs and fine increments (like .1 db boost cut that sort of thing) and can also do time delay and crossover with various filter types and slopes. We both get to pull out all of the stops and use every tuning trick we know. Are we tuning for just the driver's seat or both seats? Let's leave the back seat out is actually that is just going to cloud the sonic more anyway. The best part is this way we would both be competing against the very best in the biz too. That should be a humbling experience for both of us I am thinking. There is no doubt in my mind that those guys don't suck! I guess I have to order that new measurement mic afterall ya? I kinda was hoping to get by with my old mic for a while longer. I hate parting with my cash. You think you can win though? Well here is your chance. Who else is in. There should be at least a hundred people on here willing to put up 50 bucks each. Do the math. That is some serious good coin plus the win from the event too. Plus you'll be a total hero for winning too. Should be a real boost to your installation business. Just fun for me though. I get out of dodge! It's in Florida ya?

I love to see folks put their best foot forward to meet a challenge. Our world is plagued by people who complacently just "get by". We need more high achievers. Honestly, I want you to win!


----------



## rton20s

RobERacer said:


> Does Walmart sell DSP in the states? You must know something I don't then then.


Technically? Yes. DEH-80PRS is available through Walmart. 

The rest of your post? Absolute fantasy land drivel. 

If there is to be a "showdown," start a new thread as I am sure a lot of members would love to follow along and be present for such an occurrence. I think we both know that it will never happen.


----------



## DLO13

I find this thread to be very interesting. So much passion on both sides and it seems like very few people in the middle.

For the sake of argument, I am curious, to those of you who think my PDX amps don't sound as good as a Mosconi, or Brax or another High end A/B amp... Do you think that the improvement you get from a higher end amp, is worth the money for that amp, vs putting that money towards improving installation or a better set of drivers? 

Clearly car audio has diminishing returns...... But I look at some build logs/signatures and see people running these amps that cost 5x as much as my PDX's, and they don't have a DSP, and they are running passive, or running from a factory radio. 
Is it not more wise to put that money towards a better source, a dsp, install, drivers?

Just wondering what people think....


----------



## claydo

:dead_horse:

Somebody......anybody......please shoot this thread in the face.


----------



## Victor_inox

claydo said:


> :dead_horse:
> 
> Somebody......anybody......please shoot this thread in the face.


we shooting for 100 pages...... yay! but I suspect it will not stop there.


----------



## claydo

Sadly, I suspect the same thing......


----------



## cajunner

RobERacer said:


> Does Walmart sell DSP in the states? You must know something I don't then then. Want a job? One of my clients has this rig that has 3 networked BSS BLU-160's plus 6 BOB's and 16'BIB's all networked to a raft of L'Acoustics LA-8's and Crestron AV as well as BSS control. It designed so that it can be operated by both pro users and average joe on a daily basis without causing functional issues due to confusion (that is a huge problem in itself). More it is almost completely reconfigurable on the fly. Google that stuff bro! It should take care of your boredom for a while. It's a programmers dream. How about that challenge? I know that isn't really fair. You would be one in less than a dozen guys worldwide who could do it. By way of comparison there are more Olympic athletes than there are these guys. But people who do that are just geeks right? I am on the phone with people working with that one a lot. It's mind boggling what that system can do. You dream it, there is a way.
> 
> It seems to me that most of the gear designers seem to thumb their noses up at the Walmart level gear too. Some of the companies they work for make stuff for the Walmarts of the world too but I don't have the understanding from any of the designers that I know that they do those "budget" designs for any other reason than to make a buck. They are just slap it together cheap because it gives them a paycheque. I have less glorious work that I have to do too but I make it a point to work in situations that I at least get to give the situation my best efforts. I would hate to be forced to do crap work.
> 
> When is the next IASCA Triple Crown event? You're going to enter your Walmart mobile ya? Let me know. I will take the time off to be there. Rather than pink slips though I have better idea. That is just trifle. Let's do cash. We can see just how many people on here agree or disagree with you as well. Let's build a pot. I will put up the first $50 USD. You will need to have receipts for your gear, leave all of the wiring visible and you can't use anything that you did not buy at Walmart. Also everyone has the right to run tests to prove that you aren't cheating any with things could be hidden before and after judging too. You see from what I have read on here as they are using Brax amps even the competitors don't agree with you. This levels out the car speaker installation part of the equation (which is it's own separate field) so it is all about you and your tuning. I'd be more than happy to tune a competitor's car for free (I charge to tune audio systems) if there is someone who has a car with a decent installation. Or if someone wants to loan the gear and put up the entry fee we can dump it in the Soob and enter my car. I has A Pioneer DEH 80PRS head unit (inconsequential, we would inject full wave digital audio direct into the processor just as the pro's do), Focal KRX2's and an Infinity Kappa 100.9 sub in a custom pro audio, design/ built Balic Birch sealed cabinet driven by a Rockford Fosgate P6001 amp at 2 Ohms (it's way serious and floors people all of the time. Tight, flat and low). We would need a good 4 channel (100 watts or so @ 2 ohms Class AB with a good slew rate and damping factor of 200:1 or better at 400hz) amp (that will fit under the driver's seat), a 6 in (+digital, got to figure out how to get direct digital out of the phone yet), 8 out processor with all parametric eq on the outputs and fine increments (like .1 db boost cut that sort of thing) and can also do time delay and crossover with various filter types and slopes. We both get to pull out all of the stops and use every tuning trick we know. Are we tuning for just the driver's seat or both seats? Let's leave the back seat out is actually that is just going to cloud the sonic more anyway. The best part is this way we would both be competing against the very best in the biz too. That should be a humbling experience for both of us I am thinking. There is no doubt in my mind that those guys don't suck! I guess I have to order that new measurement mic afterall ya? I kinda was hoping to get by with my old mic for a while longer. I hate parting with my cash. You think you can win though? Well here is your chance. Who else is in. There should be at least a hundred people on here willing to put up 50 bucks each. Do the math. That is some serious good coin plus the win from the event too. Plus you'll be a total hero for winning too. Should be a real boost to your installation business. Just fun for me though. I get out of dodge! It's in Florida ya?
> 
> I love to see folks put their best foot forward to meet a challenge. Our world is plagued by people who complacently just "get by". We need more high achievers. Honestly, I want you to win!


walmart pricing, does not mean I buy everything from walmart.

the question of course, is not "my install vs. your install" because that's way too complicated.

the question is the title theme, you put your big bucks amp against 2 challengers of my choosing, and you test against them.

I pick which two amps I want to compete with, and I'm pretty sure I can get close enough to your big bucks amp that you can't figure out which is yours in a blind comparison. I use Walmart's highest cost amp as my barrier to include other uber amps, I'm constrained by price, whatever Walmart allots in their dot com offerings. I believe they have amps available that cost 499.00.

that's the deal.

that's how sure I am that today's circuit designs are mature to the point that the odds are in my favor that I can put you into a no-man's land of audibility, that I can find two amps with close enough sonic signatures to your amp, that you won't be able to distinguish your own. You won't know your own, because the blood that runs through the uber specimens, is trickled down into middle tier offerings. 

499.00.


:laugh:


----------



## RobERacer

rton20s said:


> Technically? Yes. DEH-80PRS is available through Walmart.
> 
> The rest of your post? Absolute fantasy land drivel.
> 
> If there is to be a "showdown," start a new thread as I am sure a lot of members would love to follow along and be present for such an occurrence. I think we both know that it will never happen.


Exactly what part is "land drivel"? If you are going to call me a ****ing liar then be point blank. I have to tell you though bro you are just about to embarrass yourself because I am pretty sure I know which part you are talking about.


----------



## RobERacer

DLO13 said:


> I find this thread to be very interesting. So much passion on both sides and it seems like very few people in the middle.
> 
> For the sake of argument, I am curious, to those of you who think my PDX amps don't sound as good as a Mosconi, or Brax or another High end A/B amp... Do you think that the improvement you get from a higher end amp, is worth the money for that amp, vs putting that money towards improving installation or a better set of drivers?
> 
> Clearly car audio has diminishing returns...... But I look at some build logs/signatures and see people running these amps that cost 5x as much as my PDX's, and they don't have a DSP, and they are running passive, or running from a factory radio.
> Is it not more wise to put that money towards a better source, a dsp, install, drivers?
> 
> Just wondering what people think....


All audio has diminishing returns. Always has. The better you try to get the more it costs. In the top end double your money and more is common. I was a little surprised to see in car audio that the Brax 4 chan DSP amp is $3400 and that there are still other amps that are well over 10 grand. Just like pro audio I see.

PDX. I guess it depends on what you consider better. You are referring to Alpine ya? It is Digital. Many folks still don't believe that digital is up with the best analogue yet. All I keep saying is sure get the low down from others, check out the reviews and read the brochure but you need to actually hear it in order to know if you are good with it. Works for all audio.


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> walmart pricing, does not mean I buy everything from walmart.
> 
> the question of course, is not "my install vs. your install" because that's way too complicated.
> 
> the question is the title theme, you put your big bucks amp against 2 challengers of my choosing, and you test against them.
> 
> I pick which two amps I want to compete with, and I'm pretty sure I can get close enough to your big bucks amp that you can't figure out which is yours in a blind comparison. I use Walmart's highest cost amp as my barrier to include other uber amps, I'm constrained by price, whatever Walmart allots in their dot com offerings. I believe they have amps available that cost 499.00.
> 
> that's the deal.
> 
> that's how sure I am that today's circuit designs are mature to the point that the odds are in my favor that I can put you into a no-man's land of audibility, that I can find two amps with close enough sonic signatures to your amp, that you won't be able to distinguish your own. You won't know your own, because the blood that runs through the uber specimens, is trickled down into middle tier offerings.
> 
> 499.00.
> 
> 
> :laugh:


 No, no you clearly claimed that your budget driven designed product was with your installation ability capable of outperforming any high performance gear. Clearly you think I just stuff the **** into my car any old way. In fact I didn't do the work. I did my research and found some folks who are known for doing that part well. That was part of the factored cost. A driver is only half of a speaker. The cabinet is a big part of the equation as well and I am not a speaker designer/builder so I farmed that part out to someone who does know that. The stuff in my car is not anything near the top end but is all a good step up from the budget driven product that you described before. Fair is fair.

Actually if you want to compare just amps we could take all of the variables out of the equation and do this. I have a set of dual concentric Tannoy studio monitors that do very little to hide anything. We can rig up a 12 volt supply and swap amps back and forth all day. The only thing that would change would be the amp. There is a real test of your "Higher End Amp SQ Is A Myth". See this is not a dick size competition. You are claiming that entry level gear sounds just as good as the high end stuff and I am emphatically saying you are absolutely full of ****! This isn't about your better installation of your speakers because if you can do that better than others that is going to factor in but also if we change your cheap amp out for a real amp that will change the situation as well. If your drivers suck or if you limit the bandwidth frequency wise that may in fact make the differences less apparent though so we need to eliminate the "you or me" from this competition. Otherwise this becomes as much a Focal KRX2 vs whatever you stuck in your car which might be walmart but I am guessing it is anything but entry level. The high end self contained studio monitor solution is a great way to eliminate the variables. Even playing field. Amp vs amp and I can test whatever amps I see fit at any cost. You are limited to Walmart. Oh being fair too $500 buys some Arc Audio units. That is getting into the higher end realm. I am considering the Arc Audio KS 300.4 in my list of potential amps. It is pretty universally considered a fairly high end contender and the MSRP is only $549. I am not betting anything on it all though it fared well with reviews and some folks on here I have yet to hear it. Under $200 I think should be a good representation of entry level.


----------



## cajunner

RobERacer said:


> No, no you clearly claimed that your budget driven designed product was with your installation ability capable of outperforming any high performance gear. Clearly you think I just stuff the **** into my car any old way. In fact I didn't do the work. I did my research and found some folks who are known for doing that part well. That was part of the factored cost. A driver is only half of a speaker. The cabinet is a big part of the equation as well and I am not a speaker designer/builder so I farmed that part out to someone who does know that. The stuff in my car is not anything near the top end but is all a good step up from the budget driven product that you described before. Fair is fair.
> 
> Actually if you want to compare just amps we could take all of the variables out of the equation and do this. I have a set of dual concentric Tannoy studio monitors that do very little to hide anything. We can rig up a 12 volt supply and swap amps back and forth all day. The only thing that would change would be the amp. There is a real test of your "Higher End Amp SQ Is A Myth". See this is not a dick size competition. You are claiming that entry level gear sounds just as good as the high end stuff and I am emphatically saying you are absolutely full of ****! This isn't about your better installation of your speakers because if you can do that better than others that is going to factor in but also if we change your cheap amp out for a real amp that will change the situation as well. If your drivers suck or if you limit the bandwidth frequency wise that may in fact make the differences less apparent though so we need to eliminate the "you or me" from this competition. Otherwise this becomes as much a Focal KRX2 vs whatever you stuck in your car which might be walmart but I am guessing it is anything but entry level. The high end self contained studio monitor solution is a great way to eliminate the variables. Even playing field. Amp vs amp and I can test whatever amps I see fit at any cost. You are limited to Walmart. Oh being fair too $500 buys some Arc Audio units. That is getting into the higher end realm. I am considering the Arc Audio KS 300.4 in my list of potential amps. It is pretty universally considered a fairly high end contender and the MSRP is only $549. I am not betting anything on it all though it fared well with reviews and some folks on here I have yet to hear it. Under $200 I think should be a good representation of entry level.


scared, huh?

yeah, I figured you'd back up and take another tack, since what I propose is too close and you know it.

Walmart pricing.

amps at walmart go for 499, I checked.

so I have 499 and you tell me which amp you are bringing to the party.

I go out and find 2 amps that I think will display similar sonic characteristics, and you have to find Waldo.

that's fair.

And nothing modded by somebody, we're talking commercially available product unmolested by tweakers and guru types who can make an amp sound a certain way for you to find Waldo, that's not what this is.

you see, it's about what you can get on the market, it's about what people believe in the marketing, and it's about what people can actually discern for their hard-earned money.

if you were an amp designer and you knew a design that had tell-tale signs of FR ****ery or distortion bomb second order, or whatever, that's not fair either.

what I'm suggesting is the average Joe, being able to find the higher end in a blind comparison.

you keep saying how my "entry level" product won't stand a chance, and after I defined the parameters of price, you want to force a downgrade?


hahahhahahahaha...

you know, and I know, and now everybody knows.


----------



## thehatedguy

Amen to that. Soldering tubes is for the nuts.



Victor_inox said:


> Sorry I missed that. I didn`t say it is the same, just very similar, but is can sounds very different. i still think soldering tubes instead of socketing them is a kick in the balls. every manufacturer doing that coming up with lame excuse that solder is more reliable. ********! sockets make tube replacement/rolling is hobby by itself but there is no profit for manufacturer. same can be said about opamps.


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> scared, huh?
> 
> yeah, I figured you'd back up and take another tack, since what I propose is too close and you know it.
> 
> Walmart pricing.
> 
> amps at walmart go for 499, I checked.
> 
> so I have 499 and you tell me which amp you are bringing to the party.
> 
> I go out and find 2 amps that I think will display similar sonic characteristics, and you have to find Waldo.
> 
> that's fair.
> 
> And nothing modded by somebody, we're talking commercially available product unmolested by tweakers and guru types who can make an amp sound a certain way for you to find Waldo, that's not what this is.
> 
> you see, it's about what you can get on the market, it's about what people believe in the marketing, and it's about what people can actually discern for their hard-earned money.
> 
> if you were an amp designer and you knew a design that had tell-tale signs of FR ****ery or distortion bomb second order, or whatever, that's not fair either.
> 
> what I'm suggesting is the average Joe, being able to find the higher end in a blind comparison.
> 
> you keep saying how my "entry level" product won't stand a chance, and after I defined the parameters of price, you want to force a downgrade?
> 
> 
> hahahhahahahaha...
> 
> you know, and I know, and now everybody knows.



You know what everyone can see through you. You changed the rules. With that you're the one that backed down first. I simply offered you a game that I felt would prove clearly that low end crap is crap. Now you are trying to make it not so low end. I knew you would never agree to the game without trying to cheat your way along. Better than that I even found a way so that the question of opinion was neither of us too by putting it in front of judges. Different rules, different game.


----------



## RobERacer

RobERacer said:


> Exactly what part is "land drivel"? If you are going to call me a ****ing liar then be point blank. I have to tell you though bro you are just about to embarrass yourself because I am pretty sure I know which part you are talking about.


You know what. You first. What makes you "the end authority on all things audio"? I don't claim to be or even act like it but you continually personally attack me as though I have attacked you so out with it. I am not afraid at all and I can prove every claim I make. Show us your giant ****!


----------



## RobERacer

RobERacer said:


> You know what. You first. What makes you "the end authority on all things audio"? I don't claim to be or even act like it but you continually personally attack me as though I have attacked you so out with it. I am not afraid at all and I can prove every claim I make. Show us your giant ****!


Hey Everyone except Rtas or whatever your name is all you deserve is a good swift kick in your crotch. (Everyone else) I am sorry for getting my back up and being rude. I am certain there are folks on here with more experience and qualifications than me and maybe some of you even know the exact venue of which I speak. It is highly possible that you might even know me. I have no valid excuse for being rude. Sorry folks. I will try not to let it happen again.


----------



## rton20s

RobERacer said:


> Exactly what part is "land drivel"? If you are going to call me a ****ing liar then be point blank. I have to tell you though bro you are just about to embarrass yourself because I am pretty sure I know which part you are talking about.


How is this for point blank? 

You will not show up for the IASCA Triple Crown event and perform any sort of A/B amplifier comparison with cajunner. If you do, I will personally commit right now to match your $50 to the undisputed winner of the debate/comparison. 

Also, the term used was "fantasy land drivel"

fantasy: something that is produced by the imagination : an idea about doing something that is far removed from normal reality

land: realm, domain <in the land of dreams> —sometimes used in combination <TV-land>

drivel: to talk in a very foolish or silly way
*
Postscript:
I saw RobERacer's apology (to everyone but me) after I had posted this. I will continue to let this post stand. I clarified my statement that he challenged. And it seems pretty obvious that the A/B comparison will never happen as in the matter of minutes the thing fell apart with both parties pointing at the other and placing blame. *


----------



## cajunner

RobERacer said:


> You know what everyone can see through you. You changed the rules. With that you're the one that backed down first. I simply offered you a game that I felt would prove clearly that low end crap is crap. Now you are trying to make it not so low end. I knew you would never agree to the game without trying to cheat your way along. Better than that I even found a way so that the question of opinion was neither of us too by putting it in front of judges. Different rules, different game.


I'm sanguine.

you got all huffy, because to you, Walmart equals entry level, and entry level equals crap.

I'm pretty sure you interpreted my condition of Walmart pricing, as entry level.

Is 499 too much?

Is my condition more about the line-in-sand of higher end, as you know it, or is it just that you cannot accept the challenge because you know yourself, an amp that goes for 499 is good enough to call your bluff?

you jumped on me, saying I'm full of ****.

"You are claiming that entry level gear sounds just as good as the high end stuff and I am emphatically saying you are absolutely full of ****!"

so who is attacking who, and who is getting personal?


Just because you can get it at Walmart or you can pay the same price, does not invalidate the challenge.

I said Walmart pricing, from the get-go.

you made a mistake of misunderstanding, I have been clear all along.


----------



## Victor_inox

$500 is not entry level I don`t care walmart or not. I don`t shop in walmart so i don`t know what can be had there for 5 bills.


----------



## Guest

Guy's..... 

I've been into car audio since I was 15 years old... I'm 44 and still love the hobby...

Please believe me.... "Amplifiers DO sound differently..." 

The above statement is simply a FACT... 

Listen to what I am saying... Amplifiers SOUND differently... They have unique sonic characteristics because of the internal components used and the design philosophy being utilized...

...and I'm looking frantically for my nomex suit....


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> $500 is not entry level I don`t care walmart or not. I don`t shop in walmart so i don`t know what can be had there for 5 bills.


is 500 what you call higher end?

there is a Cadence Olympia 2000 watt amp that goes for 499.

I think it would probably be pretty strong, since Cadence is not known for delivering less than half advertised RMS like BOSS or Legacy.

but that's not the amp I would use to qualify the Walmart priced amp of my choosing, since I have to know what amp I'm going up against before making my sonic signature selection.


I am not a fool, I am able to distinguish between amps I own, but I have not heard much of the super high priced, or "higher end" stuff. I make my challenge based on the simple observation that almost every scientific test involving human fallibility in the audio, has not proved this hypothesis.

When I see people say BRAX, and I say "I'll come with a 499 entry" I suppose I am making a real commitment, but perhaps not?

Is it that the people with the BRAX amps, know something I don't? Is it that they want a more lopsided competition?


is it that BRAX needs the handicap of a 200 dollar cut-off?

That right there, says as much as we need to know.


----------



## Guest

Cajunner: 
Brother I'm at a loss.... A Brax amplifier compared to something that WalMart sells... ??

As you can see from my signature, I'm a Sinfoni nut.... I've used every amplifier they have produced and I'm completely sold of the brand.

That said, I've used Brax as well... I LOVE both, but for completely different reasons... IMHO, It all comes down to personal preference. The sonic signature of the Sinfoni's simply appeal to me... I also love the Brax for the sheer power output capability they possess while being very pleasing to listen to...


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

SQ_TSX said:


> Guy's.....
> 
> I've been into car audio since I was 15 years old... I'm 44 and still love the hobby...
> 
> Please believe me.... "Amplifiers DO sound differently..."
> 
> The above statement is simply a FACT...
> 
> Listen to what I am saying... Amplifiers SOUND differently... They have unique sonic characteristics because of the internal components used and the design philosophy being utilized...
> 
> ...and I'm looking frantically for my nomex suit....


The problem with your above statement is you say fact. It's a fact based on what? Sighted listening tests don't count as evidence of fact. Neither do long term listening comparisons.

The word fact means their must be indisputable evidence that it is correct. No one, ever, has proven it to be fact that amplifiers sound different.


----------



## cajunner

SQ_TSX said:


> Cajunner:
> Brother I'm at a loss.... A Brax amplifier compared to something that WalMart sells... ??
> 
> As you can see from my signature, I'm a Sinfoni nut.... I've used every amplifier they have produced and I'm completely sold of the brand.
> 
> That said, I've used Brax as well... I LOVE both, but for completely different reasons... IMHO, It all comes down to personal preference. The sonic signature of the Sinfoni's simply appeal to me... I also love the Brax for the sheer power output capability they possess while being very pleasing to listen to...


A BRAX amplifier compared to something valued at what you can find at Walmart.

My point, is not to make fun of people who buy Sinfoni or BRAX.


It is to make those who cannot obtain BRAX or Sinfoni, aware that in a taste test, it is damn hard to know what amp is playing within a reasonable doubt, when comparing the amps most of us can afford, to that higher end stuff.


And if it is that difficult, then it's not so important to sweat over whether your amp is resolving enough, or quiet enough, or whatever metric you want to use to justify the cost of ownership of those upper tier brands.

I want people to be happy, and not worry.


----------



## Victor_inox

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> The problem with your above statement is you say fact. It's a fact based on what? Sighted listening tests don't count as evidence of fact. Neither do long term listening comparisons.
> 
> The word fact means their must be indisputable evidence that it is correct. No one, ever, has proven it to be fact that amplifiers sound different.


 What fact do you need? That differently designed circuits sound different?
well that is the fact and inability of pseudo scientific approach is not making the opposite a fact as well.

"Don`t want to hear" people will argue for 100 pages that they hear no difference so they can stop drooling about that sinfoni or whatever else they drooling about... they want to believe there is no difference and their mind helping them so. in my 30 years in audio I`ve seen that many many times.


----------



## Bayboy

Wow!


----------



## rton20s

cajunner said:


> I want people to be happy, and not worry.


cajunner?


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> "want to hear" people will argue for 100 pages that they hear a difference so they can convince themselves about that sinfoni or whatever else they justify buying about... they want to believe there is a difference and their mind helping them so. in my 30 years in audio I`ve seen that many many times.


fixed, that for ya...


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> fixed, that for ya...


that works too.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

There's a key grammar issue here.

Sound as it related to humans means what we can actually hear as being different.

Victor, you mean to say that different designed circuits can have different effects on the output signal from the input signal. That doesn't mean they sound different. In order to sound different, we have to hear that difference.


And again, I'll go on record as saying that I believe in certain cases that there are audible differences. But those differences are something that is measurable. And in those cases, the amplifier that changes the signal the most, is worse, in terms of sound quality. As the term sound quality means to infer ad little of a change as possible from the original signal, in terms of amplifier design. For example, if budget was unlimited, the lowest overall distortion, lowest noise amplifier with the most flat frequency response and phase response would be the best. 

Anything else that changed one of those parameters intentionally is therefore a change from quality, to some artistic idea of what it's supposed to be.


----------



## RobERacer

rton20s said:


> How is this for point blank?
> 
> You will not show up for the IASCA Triple Crown event and perform any sort of A/B amplifier comparison with cajunner. If you do, I will personally commit right now to match your $50 to the undisputed winner of the debate/comparison.
> 
> Also, the term used was "fantasy land drivel"
> 
> fantasy: something that is produced by the imagination : an idea about doing something that is far removed from normal reality
> 
> land: realm, domain <in the land of dreams> —sometimes used in combination <TV-land>
> 
> drivel: to talk in a very foolish or silly way
> *
> Postscript:
> I saw RobERacer's apology (to everyone but me) after I had posted this. I will continue to let this post stand. I clarified my statement that he challenged. And it seems pretty obvious that the A/B comparison will never happen as in the matter of minutes the thing fell apart with both parties pointing at the other and placing blame. *


You're damn straight I didn't apologize to you. With what you said to me what self respecting individual would. They can throw me off the site for all I care. You took the gloves off and threw the first punch!

Just so everyone gets this I countered the offer with a different set of parameters that specifically isolated the purpose of the test and allowed us a far clearer way of proving or disproving the point of this forum. NO BS, just a fair test. So what about what this guy said? Well, it clearly allows for other parameters to affect the outcome of the test. It is not a scientifically valid test. He knows it and he actually wants it that way because in order for this to be proven in Cajunner's favor (who I believe is probably honestly believing what he is saying) he needs every opportunity to effect the outcome he can get. For Mr. rton20's this is merely a personal attack against me. You see last year when I was on here he played a similar game with some other folks another thread and I severely embarrassed him and his friends showing how they really had no understanding of what they were even looking at (it had to do with frequency graphs, pretty basic really). I didn't do that just out of the blue either. Once again as one of the spearheads Mr rton20 was belittling people because they wouldn't confess their change of mind in favor of his friends statements. Beat them into submission. right? Here we see he is trying to dazzle everyone with his "I will be at IASCA" but here is the thing. Sure he might go. Anyone can go! He might even enter the competition but you know what? He won't win! He can't. Why do I know that? People who win world competitions are usually really great at what they do. That level of achievement requires focus. People who are truly exceptional at what they do aren't arrogant. Arrogant people are the way they are because they are overcompensating for the fact that they know that they are incapable and they don't want you to know that. With that they are more focused at what is going on around them then on what they are in fact doing. Confident people don't need to do the things this guy does and I wish that is all this was. He is here because he is actually causing ****. I haven't figured that one out but he is just a hindrance to this site entirely. It would be nice if the Mods would take a clear look at him and deal with this.

OMG this is so hilarious. I am sitting here watching Veruca Salt get dragged down the garbage shoot by the squirrels for being a "Bad Nut" in Charlie and the Chocolate factory. So poetic. 

So I come back to it Cajunner. You want to know the real truth? Let's do a real test then. High end studio monitors. The drivers are already in great cabinets and they sound fab just like that and they are high spec. We can set it up with a dealer who has a good mix of high end and lower budget based amps and we can both bring some too. I will bet there is someone on here who would offer up their shop for a day. We could even bring in some unbiased judges. See, then this is pertinent to the topic and not just us showing off our cocks or are you lacking in confidence just like Mr. rton20s? If you haven't figured out I am 100% certain that we will not only hear the difference between various amps but that you will be amazed at just how much difference it can make. I was shocked the first time I heard it. I was also shocked at the price of the one I liked too though. At the time it took the wind out of my sails. I will tell you that.


----------



## Orion525iT

cajunner said:


> I am not a fool, I am able to distinguish between amps I own, but I have not heard much of the super high priced, or "higher end" stuff. I make my challenge based on the simple observation that almost every scientific test involving human fallibility in the audio, has not proved this hypothesis.





TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> The problem with your above statement is you say fact. It's a fact based on what? Sighted listening tests don't count as evidence of fact. Neither do long term listening comparisons.
> 
> The word fact means their must be indisputable evidence that it is correct. No one, ever, has proven it to be fact that amplifiers sound different.


Yep to both, and this is what I have been arguing from day one. This still has not been addressed by the "high end sq" camp. It never will be, because they can't address it without their position falling apart completely. 



Victor_inox said:


> What fact do you need? That differently designed circuits sound different?
> well that is the fact and inability of pseudo scientific approach is not making the opposite a fact as well.
> 
> "Don`t want to hear" people will argue for 100 pages that they hear no difference so they can stop drooling about that sinfoni or whatever else they drooling about... they want to believe there is no difference and their mind helping them so. in my 30 years in audio I`ve seen that many many times.


Victor, *for the millionth time you have the burden of proof backwards*. I'll go back to my Eastern Bunny example. Here you go; *Prove* to me the Easter Bunny _does not exist_! *Prove* to me that invisible pink unicorns _do not exist_!

Absurd? Well it is essentially the same argument you are making and it is just as absurd. 

Why can't you recognize this? Let me make this very clear, I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying the burden of proof is in your corner. That burden of proof has a high bar in regards to making a determination. In other words, *scientific* studies and double blind research that adds support and evidence to your position. YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE ---period, at all, none!

Can you please address this!


----------



## RobERacer

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> There's a key grammar issue here.
> 
> Sound as it related to humans means what we can actually hear as being different.
> 
> Victor, you mean to say that different designed circuits can have different effects on the output signal from the input signal. That doesn't mean they sound different. In order to sound different, we have to hear that difference.
> 
> 
> And again, I'll go on record as saying that I believe in certain cases that there are audible differences. But those differences are something that is measurable. And in those cases, the amplifier that changes the signal the most, is worse, in terms of sound quality. As the term sound quality means to infer ad little of a change as possible from the original signal, in terms of amplifier design. For example, if budget was unlimited, the lowest overall distortion, lowest noise amplifier with the most flat frequency response and phase response would be the best.
> 
> Anything else that changed one of those parameters intentionally is therefore a change from quality, to some artistic idea of what it's supposed to be.


I largely agree that the differences are often measurable as clues to why the differences. As a direct example many times amps that have higher slew rate also reproduce frequencies far beyond that of human hearing. First folks discount the widened frequency response as not necessary. A statement that is not entirely false however they neglect to realise that maybe that amp resolves more detail. This is common because manufacturers don't often tell what the slew rates are.


----------



## Victor_inox

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> There's a key grammar issue here.
> 
> Sound as it related to humans means what we can actually hear as being different.
> 
> Victor, you mean to say that different designed circuits can have different effects on the output signal from the input signal. That doesn't mean they sound different. In order to sound different, we have to hear that difference.
> 
> 
> And again, I'll go on record as saying that I believe in certain cases that there are audible differences. But those differences are something that is measurable. And in those cases, the amplifier that changes the signal the most, is worse, in terms of sound quality. As the term sound quality means to infer ad little of a change as possible from the original signal, in terms of amplifier design. For example, if budget was unlimited, the lowest overall distortion, lowest noise amplifier with the most flat frequency response and phase response would be the best.
> 
> Anything else that changed one of those parameters intentionally is therefore a change from quality, to some artistic idea of what it's supposed to be.


well I hear the difference and that what matters to me. i`ll repeat for thousands time amp sounds different, you will not find anywhere that I said that 2000 dollars amp sounds better than 1000 amp.just different.Now everyone want me to put quantitative difference. 
I don`t give a **** how close amplified signal to original if I don`t like the way it sounds, quality of engineering and appearance. life is not white and black it`s much more colorful. i`ve heard cars tuned to flat as ruler FR and they still sound like crap. So what is the point of faithful reproduction if result sounds like ****.


----------



## rton20s

RobERacer, I have no idea why the term "fantasy land drivel" became such a hot button issue for you. Yes, I was questioning your proposal of an amp comparison with cajunner at the IASCA event. I still don't think it will ever happen. Even after the dozens of revisions you guys have already made to the suggested parameters of the comparison, you still can't agree. That being said, I'm still in for $50 to the undisputed winner if it does take place. 

You might not like someone questioning you, but it most certainly shouldn't elicit profanity filled tirades directed at individuals (not only myself). While I might not agree with Victor and some of the others in that camp on everything, at least they seem to be able to maintain civility. 

To be honest, I have a hard time even reading your posts as they seem like a disorganized "stream of consciousness" that never quite gel into a cohesive statement. This will be my last post in this thread responding to you directly. To everyone else, I apologize for my part in the derailment. Though the thread is already a mess, I will refrain from responding to your posts to do what I can to keep this monstrous thread on track.


----------



## Victor_inox

Orion525iT said:


> Yep to both, and this is what I have been arguing from day one. This still has not been addressed by the "high end sq" camp. It never will be, because they can't address it without their position falling apart completely.
> 
> 
> 
> Victor, *for the millionth time you have the burden of proof backwards*. I'll go back to my Eastern Bunny example. Here you go; *Prove* to me the Easter Bunny _does not exist_! *Prove* to me that invisible pink unicorns _do not exist_!
> 
> Absurd? Well it is essentially the same argument you are making and it is just as absurd.
> 
> Why can't you recognize this? Let me make this very clear, I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying the burden of proof is in your corner. That burden of proof has a high bar in regards to making a determination. In other words, *scientific* studies and double blind research that adds support and evidence to your position. YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE ---period, at all, none!
> 
> Can you please address this!


First of all I don`t own you anything nor anyone for that matter. I purely stated my opinion based on my experience and directed only as such- opinion.
Word science was used very loosely in this thread yet anyone failed to point what kind. so what is it? 
double blind tests has been contacted numerous times and proven that for many people (but not all) amplifiers sound indistinguishable. what science is that? statistics perhaps? statistics is anything but objective. can be manipulated any way statistician desired. I can setup a test that every head unit will sound the same it`s harder with speakers but possible too. 

It`s certainly not physics as every amp measured differently and on opposite side of this argument. Do you need proof of that? do you want me to setup a lab and measure a bunch of amplifiers? You`d have to pay me for that because I don`t have interest of proving results I proved to myself numerous times over and over again. 
In my pursuit of perfection I often don`t even need to hear a piece of electronics just take a look at the guts.properly designed circuits look awesome as well as they sound.when I see high quality craftsmanship for me it`s art.


----------



## WRX/Z28

SQ_TSX said:


> Guy's.....
> 
> I've been into car audio since I was 15 years old... I'm 44 and still love the hobby...
> 
> Please believe me.... "Amplifiers DO sound differently..."
> 
> The above statement is simply a FACT...
> 
> Listen to what I am saying... Amplifiers SOUND differently... They have unique sonic characteristics because of the internal components used and the design philosophy being utilized...
> 
> ...and I'm looking frantically for my nomex suit....


I'm not sure you understand the definition of "Fact".


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> and how is that contradict my statement?
> Also here in US we value customer service/support/repair.
> GZ is right here to take care of what they sell.
> what people suppose to do with Verdi going in puff? buy another one because it`s cheaper?


Well you can get the circuit diagram from the manufacturer and if the parts are not available (unlikely) then you can DHL them. 

I did that with my Brax amps - no agents here ... No issue in repairs


----------



## RobERacer

rton20s said:


> RobERacer, I have no idea why the term "fantasy land drivel" became such a hot button issue for you. Yes, I was questioning your proposal of an amp comparison with cajunner at the IASCA event. I still don't think it will ever happen. Even after the dozens of revisions you guys have already made to the suggested parameters of the comparison, you still can't agree. That being said, I'm still in for $50 to the undisputed winner if it does take place.
> 
> You might not like someone questioning you, but it most certainly shouldn't elicit profanity filled tirades directed at individuals (not only myself). While I might not agree with Victor and some of the others in that camp on everything, at least they seem to be able to maintain civility.
> 
> To be honest, I have a hard time even reading your posts as they seem like a disorganized "stream of consciousness" that never quite gel into a cohesive statement. This will be my last post in this thread responding to you directly. To everyone else, I apologize for my part in the derailment. Though the thread is already a mess, I will refrain from responding to your posts to do what I can to keep this monstrous thread on track.


Oh no. You are not going to hide behind your little illusive charade. Your statement "fantasy land drivel" was totally to say that I in fact did not do what I said I do. A real audio guy would know what the BSS London Blu Soundweb system is but you probably actually googled it. You saw that it is far more complex than anything you have ever even seen an know that you could not wrap your head around it. With that you wanted to implant doubt that what I had to say was truth. Why did it annoy me with that. It is simple you were if fact bold facedly calling me an out and out LIAR and claiming that I invented what I was saying and was intentionally misleading people. You personally don't care one bit whether or not I am telling the truth. To you it is even funnier if I am telling the truth because it is all a game to you. As I said I firmly believe you are just here to cause problems like this. To me it is all about honor now and I will defend my honor to the death. The profanity, tone and personal disdain was something you earned through your own actions. 

As far as your challenge goes I think that part of what I said was real clear. I will involve myself in a FAIR amp performance test that is not clouded and shrouded by external variables like different speakers and in this case complete environments. That part is well understood but I will say it again. The goal is to prove or disprove emphatically that "Higher End Amp SQ Is A Myth". Why do you wish to cloud that? I don't think I need to say anything else.


----------



## Elektra

Orion525iT said:


> Yep to both, and this is what I have been arguing from day one. This still has not been addressed by the "high end sq" camp. It never will be, because they can't address it without their position falling apart completely.
> 
> 
> 
> Victor, *for the millionth time you have the burden of proof backwards*. I'll go back to my Eastern Bunny example. Here you go; *Prove* to me the Easter Bunny _does not exist_! *Prove* to me that invisible pink unicorns _do not exist_!
> 
> Absurd? Well it is essentially the same argument you are making and it is just as absurd.
> 
> Why can't you recognize this? Let me make this very clear, I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying the burden of proof is in your corner. That burden of proof has a high bar in regards to making a determination. In other words, *scientific* studies and double blind research that adds support and evidence to your position. YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE ---period, at all, none!
> 
> Can you please address this!


I once demod my brother the difference between a normal AB EOS amp and then because he has never heard the Verdi amp I demod that amp - both amps matched exactly... I was testing the Scanspeak Revelator 18W (testing the effects of a smaller box size with fill added - was using a RTA) 

The look on his face when I swopped out to the Verdi amp said a thousand words..

I was so surprised myself as to how much better the amp sounded a remeasured the speaker to see if the Verdi amp was playing higher frequencies compared to the AB amp - both amps measured 8500hz as a peak but the Verdi amp played the 18w as if a tweeter was playing where as the other EOS sounded like it wasn't - the bass reproduction was very impressive as well..

I think my brother realized that 2 amps don't sound the same from that day forward...

But like most people he was hung up on the price.

So most guys say yes it's better but it's twice the price...


----------



## Elektra

I think we can discuss this thread till the cows come home...


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> well I hear the difference and that what matters to me. i`ll repeat for thousands time amp sounds different, you will not find anywhere that I said that 2000 dollars amp sounds better than 1000 amp.just different.Now everyone want me to put quantitative difference.
> I don`t give a **** how close amplified signal to original if I don`t like the way it sounds, quality of engineering and appearance. life is not white and black it`s much more colorful. i`ve heard cars tuned to flat as ruler FR and they still sound like crap. So what is the point of faithful reproduction if result sounds like ****.


That's true - I measured my Morel Elate 3 ways built into a home speaker and it was flat on the RTA 

Did the same for the Focal Kit7 and it wasn't nearly as flat as the Morels but it sounded a lot better


----------



## Elektra

Elektra said:


> That's true - I measured my Morel Elate 3 ways built into a home speaker and it was flat on the RTA
> 
> Did the same for the Focal Kit7 and it wasn't nearly as flat as the Morels but it sounded a lot better


The Focal RTA curve..


----------



## Elektra

Elektra said:


> The Focal RTA curve..


As you can see the RTA curve in the morel looks much better ... But the Focals sound much better...


----------



## Elektra

Been thinking about this whole debate...

The best way to explain car audio and any audio for that matter is to equate it to something we all know something about... Cars!

Let's equate an ODR combo to a Ferrari ... Shiney new 200mph version...

Assume you decide to race it... So you hop in and drive to your local raceway as one would and get on the track to do a few laps..

Now you have already decided that Racing Fuel is too expensive and regular 93 octane is sufficient - after all fuel is fuel and the car runs! Let's say fuel is your amps..

Now you don't feel that racing slick tires are worth the extra coin and your road tires are sufficient - after all rubber is rubber? Right? Let's say tired are speakers 

You also feel that your more than capable of driving this car round a track - after all you have a liscence ... Right? Let's call the driver - cables...

Now you recon you can setup your car well enough to do the business - after all why do you need a team? Let's call the team - tuning 

Now you race your 200mph Ferrari round the track and you feel like a king.. But you look at your times and you just realized that your 30secs SLOWER than a Fiat which is 1100cc turbo charged car...

WTF!!! How is this possible? So you know decide to change the Fuel to Racing fuel - your faster but still slower than the Fiat...

You change the Tires to racing tires ... Your still slower albeit quicker than before..

You change the Driver and let a professional drive it... Now your faster!

You decide to get a proper team.... The car is now even faster!

So from being 30sec slower your now 30sec faster! 

My point is that if you don't match your equipment your wasting your time and money...

As you can see every link in the audio chain is vital to your end result... How far your willing to go is upto you...

Once you get your Ferrari to be quickest - now you can test different types of tires, you can test different drivers you can can get better mechanics - but all of these represents small improvements in the end result as they are very similar but have small benefits in different areas - like changing to Bridgstone might be the same speed in the dry but faster in the wet...

Where do you value the improvements in your system? Lower midbass or upper midbass? 

This is why sharing experiences on different equipment of the same level is important - as firstly we could not possibly have heard everything that is available...

Doing AB tests are useful but we need to be sure that the correct equipment matching is being used - you can't test racing fuel on a 900cc Fiat and expect any improvement in performance that warrants the additional price over standard fuel.. Rather test a racing car for racing fuel test.. Logical? 

I hope this makes some sense to you...


----------



## Hanatsu

No it makes no sense no me. We don't even share the same idea how this "experience" should be shared. I want data, I care nothing at all about subjective impressions because they are completely meaningless to me. Doing these analogies are not improving your point either, it still makes no sense. In a home audio environment where you use speakers with perhaps complicated crossovers and difficult loads it might have some relevance but in cars where most of us use active filtering the amp isn't affected by this in the same way. Why eqiupment matching? Present some study that support that it makes a statistical difference. Me including several others are tired of personal testimonys which flat out is in direct contradiction with our own experience. That's why we need data that can analyzed (like AX /ABX testing - measurements correlating listening experience etc.) to make any forms of conclusions here. It is not enough saying "but I heard a difference" and the other party says "well we didn't". To reach conclusions you must be objective, it is that simple. Tests cannot be sighted, if they are - they are no longer objective.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elektra

Hanatsu said:


> No it makes no sense no me. We don't even share the same idea how this "experience" should be shared. I want data, I care nothing at all about subjective impressions because they are completely meaningless to me. Doing these analogies are not improving your point either, it still makes no sense. In a home audio environment where you use speakers with perhaps complicated crossovers and difficult loads it might have some relevance but in cars where most of us use active filtering the amp isn't affected by this in the same way. Why eqiupment matching? Present some study that support that it makes a statistical difference. Me including several others are tired of personal testimonys which flat out is in direct contradiction with our own experience. That's why we need data that can analyzed (like AX /ABX testing - measurements correlating listening experience etc.) to make any forms of conclusions here. It is not enough saying "but I heard a difference" and the other party says "well we didn't". To reach conclusions you must be objective, it is that simple. Tests cannot be sighted, if they are - they are no longer objective.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


Dude...

You can use every test ,every piece of equipment in any scientific lab and dissect every meaningless graph, spec whatever.. How will that make the sound warm, cold, detailed, open etc...

Point is I have done the tests and I have concluded that everything in my "car analogy" is correct and true to me - I give a rats ass about what anyone thinks - it won't make me think otherwise as it was proved right in front me... With other people present to concur or disagree..

If you can hear the differences ... Guess what... Don't buy it! 

Aren't you the same guy who said that a Sony HU sounded the same as a P99? I am still laughing about that...

Bottom line is that nobody here is saying that you must buy this or that it's personal accounts and experiences with equipment that they may or may not have encountered. Which may be of some value to them!

That's it...


----------



## Bayboy

Very interesting points being made, but if you really want to get to the root of the issue, you have to go back in the archives. Way back to the beginnings of this forum. Only then will things make sense of what has become.


----------



## Elektra

Hanatsu said:


> No it makes no sense no me. We don't even share the same idea how this "experience" should be shared. I want data, I care nothing at all about subjective impressions because they are completely meaningless to me. Doing these analogies are not improving your point either, it still makes no sense. In a home audio environment where you use speakers with perhaps complicated crossovers and difficult loads it might have some relevance but in cars where most of us use active filtering the amp isn't affected by this in the same way. Why eqiupment matching? Present some study that support that it makes a statistical difference. Me including several others are tired of personal testimonys which flat out is in direct contradiction with our own experience. That's why we need data that can analyzed (like AX /ABX testing - measurements correlating listening experience etc.) to make any forms of conclusions here. It is not enough saying "but I heard a difference" and the other party says "well we didn't". To reach conclusions you must be objective, it is that simple. Tests cannot be sighted, if they are - they are no longer objective.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


It was ironic that I received these text messages..

This guy Marcus swopped a DLS A7 for a EOS AE-4100LE (both 5 channel amps) he sent me this message while I was drive now..

Should I ask him to explain this via graphs, scientific experiments? 

I think this conclusively proves my point..


----------



## sbeezy

^that can all be explained by gains being different, his mind expecting a change because of newer gear. We need graphs and measurements from his listening position to really highlight a difference.


----------



## Elektra

sbeezy said:


> ^that can all be explained by gains being different, his mind expecting a change because of newer gear. We need graphs and measurements from his listening position to really highlight a difference.


True... why can't you accept it for what it is..

As I said we can discuss this till the cows come home..


----------



## sbeezy

Because it could very well be the placebo effect. I'm not saying some don't have better ears to pick up nuances between amps but objective data is better than hearsay. I've been able to pick up differences in sub amps, Rockford vs kicker vs JL audio. I liked the Jl and Rockford better but that doesn't mean I really heard the difference that could've been me expecting a change so therefore I heard one. Objective data with binaural mics in the listening position is the best way to record a difference.


----------



## Elektra

sbeezy said:


> Because it could very well be the placebo effect. I'm not saying some don't have better ears to pick up nuances between amps but objective data is better than hearsay. I've been able to pick up differences in sub amps, Rockford vs kicker vs JL audio. I liked the Jl and Rockford better but that doesn't mean I really heard the difference that could've been me expecting a change so therefore I heard one. Objective data with binaural mics in the listening position is the best way to record a difference.


Wrong.. Placebo effect is only valid upon initial impression - he had this amp in car now for 2 weeks - placebo effect would have worn off by now..

Your ears are the best mics...


----------



## sbeezy

I don't think so... Your brain can influence your ears quite easily... Just like the magurk effect...


----------



## Elektra

sbeezy said:


> I don't think so... Your brain can influence your ears quite easily... Just like the magurk effect...


What system are you running in your car?


----------



## Victor_inox

sbeezy said:


> I don't think so... Your brain can influence your ears quite easily... Just like the magurk effect...


I think one should read all 94 pages first to see if such argument was discussed before offering it for 10th time.


----------



## Elektra

sbeezy said:


> Because it could very well be the placebo effect. I'm not saying some don't have better ears to pick up nuances between amps but objective data is better than hearsay. I've been able to pick up differences in sub amps, Rockford vs kicker vs JL audio. I liked the Jl and Rockford better but that doesn't mean I really heard the difference that could've been me expecting a change so therefore I heard one. Objective data with binaural mics in the listening position is the best way to record a difference.


The difference between placebo effect and validation is very large.. Placebo is when your hoping for one thing to sound better therefore your brain is telling you it's better..

Validation is confirming a product is what it is with implications that can affect your finances for the next year or not..

For instance - I bought a set of AUDIOQUEST Sky RCA cables from our agents here.. I have the opertunity to purchase a further 5 sets at a very reasonable price. I setup a listening test using my equipment which I was going to use and tested it against cheaper cable - to VALIDATE whether I need to put myself into a financial meltdown for something I can't hear the difference with.

This kind of test has no placebo effect or any other effect rather the Validation process of confirming that I should or shouldn't purchase the balance of the cables. 

What this test confirmed is that MY system benefitted from the high end cables enough for me to consider the purchase...

There is a big difference here...


----------



## Victor_inox

If anything these cables looks pretty- good enough reason for me.


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> If anything these cables looks pretty- good enough reason for me.


The red cable in the pic was the AUDIOQUEST King Cobra cable - I would say a very nice cable - good enough for 99% of all systems in a car - ALOT cheaper - the Sky had the edge in tonality and overall music presentation - if I had to pay retail I would get the King Cobra's 

But since the price I am getting for the SKYs it was worth the price over the King Cobras


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> If anything these cables looks pretty- good enough reason for me.


I used Monster cable RCA cables with basic speaker cables with std iPod cable as part of my test..

From here I changed to King cobra and coffee iPod cable with type 2 AQ cable ... MASSIVE difference..


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> If anything these cables looks pretty- good enough reason for me.


The King cobra setup..


----------



## legend94

Elektra said:


> I used Monster cable RCA cables with basic speaker cables with std



which std?


----------



## Elektra

legend94 said:


> which std?


This happens when typing on a iPhone... Lol

I meant standard speaker cable... Lol


----------



## Jepalan

I think Electra is off his rocker.
I think RobERacer is off his Ritalin.
I think Victor is just off. 
I perceive these things, therefore they are true. To me.
My argument is irrefutable.


----------



## Hanatsu

So you are using another persons impressions as "proof". So if I link to some post where someone hear no difference between two amps, is my point of view proven? Sorry but that's just plain silly. Just go to headfi, the entire forum is filled with people who confirm eachothers subjective thoughts. It is still no proof. I also find it funny that you can say that there are absolutely no way a $100 Sony HU can sound equally good to a Pio p99rs - have you done this test yourself? Otherwise it's just assumptions. I argue that it is the exact opposite way around. Ears are worthless tools for evaluation as long as the switch time between two piece of equipment is longer than ~0,2sec. Measurements can pick up far more than any human ears can. At some point things get audibly transparent and improvements beyond that point is not needed.

As I've said before there's an easy way of determining differences between all forms of low powered electronics or cables for that matter. Feed a simple differential circuit with both signals and see if they null or use raw throughput recorded through a soundcard, line the waveforms up and substract one of the waveform against the other. I tested a few (15-18ft) cables against cheap standard rcas and they all transferred equal waveforms. I've also tested HU's using the same method and noticed extremely small deviations which can be traced back to a dropoff in the FR in the highest or lowest octave. If EQed to the same response all that's left is non-linearities. NLD that's -90dB down can be disregarded since it's simply not audible. Klippel got excellent statistics over how audible these types of distortion is. I've said this hundreds of times now. We do not need to listen to anything to make comparisons and we certainly don't need non-quantifiable subjective terms to describe electronics. I shall build a voltage divider and do the same with different amps when I find the time.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elektra

Hanatsu said:


> So you are using another persons impressions as "proof". So if I link to some post where someone hear no difference between two amps, is my point of view proven? Sorry but that's just plain silly. Just go to headfi, the entire forum is filled with people who confirm eachothers subjective thoughts. It is still no proof. I also find it funny that you can say that there are absolutely no way a $100 Sony HU can sound equally good to a Pio p99rs - have you done this test yourself? Otherwise it's just assumptions. I argue that it is the exact opposite way around. Ears are worthless tools for evaluation as long as the switch time between two piece of equipment is longer than ~0,2sec. Measurements can pick up far more than any human ears can. At some point things get audibly transparent and improvements beyond that point is not needed.
> 
> As I've said before there's an easy way of determining differences between all forms of low powered electronics or cables for that matter. Feed a simple differential circuit with both signals and see if they null or use raw throughput recorded through a soundcard, line the waveforms up and substract one of the waveform against the other. I tested a few (15-18ft) cables against cheap standard rcas and they all transferred equal waveforms. I've also tested HU's using the same method and noticed extremely small deviations which can be traced back to a dropoff in the FR in the highest or lowest octave. If EQed to the same response all that's left is non-linearities. NLD that's -90dB down can be disregarded since it's simply not audible. Klippel got excellent statistics over how audible these types of distortion is. I've said this hundreds of times now. We do not need to listen to anything to make comparisons and we certainly don't need non-quantifiable subjective terms to describe electronics. I shall build a voltage divider and do the same with different amps when I find the time.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


Don't have to do tests my brother has a P99 heard his car 100's of times with different HU in - yes the P99 is better..

I do however think that the P90 is cleaner..

Can your tests, graphs , scientific analysis etc indicate whether a system presents a wider stage, cleaner sound ,clinical, warm etc...amongst 100's of other things

If your thing is calculators and not your ears - then by all means.. Do you go to a hifi store and bring your equipment to listen or do you sit and listen for yourself?

Pretty dumb if you ask me.. Buying a $1mil home system based on graphs... Lol!

So you bought the perfect system that has graphs that make for a total wet dream for you.. And when you listen to it you can't understand why it sounds so bad...

Maybe then your listen with your ears rather than your equipment... 

It's like buying a car and insisting on a Dyno before buying it...


----------



## Elektra

Jepalan said:


> I think Electra is off his rocker.
> I think RobERacer is off his Ritalin.
> I think Victor is just off.
> I perceive these things, therefore they are true. To me.
> My argument is irrefutable.


I think your problem is the "I think" .... Nobody here said I think when discussing equipment...

So your argument is refutable as it's based on a emotion rather than fact...


----------



## Elektra

Hanatsu said:


> So you are using another persons impressions as "proof". So if I link to some post where someone hear no difference between two amps, is my point of view proven? Sorry but that's just plain silly. Just go to headfi, the entire forum is filled with people who confirm eachothers subjective thoughts. It is still no proof. I also find it funny that you can say that there are absolutely no way a $100 Sony HU can sound equally good to a Pio p99rs - have you done this test yourself? Otherwise it's just assumptions. I argue that it is the exact opposite way around. Ears are worthless tools for evaluation as long as the switch time between two piece of equipment is longer than ~0,2sec. Measurements can pick up far more than any human ears can. At some point things get audibly transparent and improvements beyond that point is not needed.
> 
> As I've said before there's an easy way of determining differences between all forms of low powered electronics or cables for that matter. Feed a simple differential circuit with both signals and see if they null or use raw throughput recorded through a soundcard, line the waveforms up and substract one of the waveform against the other. I tested a few (15-18ft) cables against cheap standard rcas and they all transferred equal waveforms. I've also tested HU's using the same method and noticed extremely small deviations which can be traced back to a dropoff in the FR in the highest or lowest octave. If EQed to the same response all that's left is non-linearities. NLD that's -90dB down can be disregarded since it's simply not audible. Klippel got excellent statistics over how audible these types of distortion is. I've said this hundreds of times now. We do not need to listen to anything to make comparisons and we certainly don't need non-quantifiable subjective terms to describe electronics. I shall build a voltage divider and do the same with different amps when I find the time.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


Please use more paragraphs... It's hard to read a wall of text..


----------



## JVD240

Elektra said:


> True... why can't you accept it for what it is..
> 
> As I said we can discuss this till the cows come home..


Because you provide ZERO data to back up the "listening impressions".

Look through some of Hanatsu's past threads. He provides data and correlates it what he hears. 

You provided a screen shot... of a text message... from some random guy who swapped an amp. Great. That proves nothing.

Yes, this will be discussed forever because people will continue to believe they hear better than equipment measures.

No one in this thread said ruler flat power response is ideal anyway. You measured some speakers right out of the box and they were different. Again, GREAT. We're talking about amplifiers passing uncoloured signal from input to output.

Oh, and I made every sentence into a "paragraph" to make it easy to read.


----------



## Elektra

JVD240 said:


> Because you provide ZERO data to back up the "listening impressions".
> 
> Look through some of Hanatsu's past threads. He provides data and correlates it what he hears.
> 
> You provided a screen shot... of a text message... from some random guy who swapped an amp. Great. That proves nothing.
> 
> Yes, this will be discussed forever because people will continue to believe they hear better than equipment measures.
> 
> No one in this thread said ruler flat power response is ideal anyway. You measured some speakers right out of the box and they were different. Again, GREAT. We're talking about amplifiers passing uncoloured signal from input to output.
> 
> Oh, and I made every sentence into a "paragraph" to make it easy to read.


Thanks for the paragraphs...


----------



## Jepalan

Elektra said:


> I think your problem is the "I think" .... Nobody here said I think when discussing equipment...
> 
> So your argument is refutable as it's based on a emotion rather than fact...


Fixed...

Electra is off his rocker.
RobERacer is off his Ritalin.
Victor is just off.
I perceive these things, therefore they are true. To me.
My argument is irrefutable.


----------



## Jepalan

Deja Vu all over again.
This is a very worthwhile read...
Blind Listening Tests & Amplifiers - diyAudio

Starts with what (to me) seems to be a pretty reasonable post from the OP. It only takes four posts before it starts getting whacky.


----------



## Elektra

cajunner said:


> A BRAX amplifier compared to something valued at what you can find at Walmart.
> 
> My point, is not to make fun of people who buy Sinfoni or BRAX.
> 
> 
> It is to make those who cannot obtain BRAX or Sinfoni, aware that in a taste test, it is damn hard to know what amp is playing within a reasonable doubt, when comparing the amps most of us can afford, to that higher end stuff.
> 
> 
> And if it is that difficult, then it's not so important to sweat over whether your amp is resolving enough, or quiet enough, or whatever metric you want to use to justify the cost of ownership of those upper tier brands.
> 
> I want people to be happy, and not worry.


An amp is just one of many cogs in the SQ machine - to have a BRAX or a Thesis means very little if the rest of your system isn't up to equal standard...


----------



## Elektra

Jepalan said:


> Fixed...
> 
> Electra is off his rocker.
> RobERacer is off his Ritalin.
> Victor is just off.
> I perceive these things, therefore they are true. To me.
> My argument is irrefutable.


Too late... Lol - your contradicting yourself... We now don't dont know which is true... Your statement is unreliable..


----------



## Elektra

Jepalan said:


> Deja Vu all over again.
> This is a very worthwhile read...
> Blind Listening Tests & Amplifiers - diyAudio
> 
> Starts with what (to me) seems to be a pretty reasonable post from the OP. It only takes four posts before it starts getting whacky.


For every blind test that says one thing their are 10 tests that say something else...

Most of these blind tests are not done by audio experts in there respective fields which means a layman is giving an opinion on a very controversial topic.. 

A trained person who does this for a living will be the more respected opinion..

I did a blind test - it was a joke! One guy had double hearing aids - what exactly did he hear? The test became farce - but people will always remember the end results rather the method and people who compiled the test..

Don't believe in all the blind test results you read..


----------



## Jepalan

Elektra said:


> For every blind test that says one thing their are *10 tests that say something else*...


Links please? I am happy to read well documented tests regardless of whether or not I agree with the results. 



> A trained person who does this for a living will be the more respected opinion.


A trained person that does *what* for a living, exactly? 

What do you do for a living? How have you been trained? Why should I put more weight in your opinion over *anyone* else's?


----------



## Orion525iT

Hanatsu said:


> No it makes no sense no me. We don't even share the same idea how this "experience" should be shared. I want data, I care nothing at all about subjective impressions because they are completely meaningless to me. Doing these analogies are not improving your point either, it still makes no sense. In a home audio environment where you use speakers with perhaps complicated crossovers and difficult loads it might have some relevance but in cars where most of us use active filtering the amp isn't affected by this in the same way. Why eqiupment matching? Present some study that support that it makes a statistical difference. Me including several others are tired of personal testimonys which flat out is in direct contradiction with our own experience. That's why we need data that can analyzed (like AX /ABX testing - measurements correlating listening experience etc.) to make any forms of conclusions here. It is not enough saying "but I heard a difference" and the other party says "well we didn't". To reach conclusions you must be objective, it is that simple. Tests cannot be sighted, if they are - they are no longer objective.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


x1000


----------



## sbeezy

Victor_inox said:


> I think one should read all 94 pages first to see if such argument was discussed before offering it for 10th time.


Victor I've been subbed to this thread since it started. Back to your corner Electra and I were just starting to ge!t along!


----------



## Victor_inox

sbeezy said:


> Victor I've been subbed to this thread since it started. Back to your corner Electra and I were just starting to ge!t along!


 keep going then.


----------



## sbeezy

Victor_inox said:


> keep going then.


I'm not, I'm picking with you! This is a revolving door lol!


----------



## Elektra

Orion525iT said:


> x1000


I think this topic is going around in circles and will always do so - mainly because we are essentially saying the same thing in different ways.

One corner wants technical measurements, ABX testing to validate why one product sounds better than the next

The other corner does not care for the above - mainly because it's boring! And would rather listen for themselves - besides not all of us has access to fancy equipment to measure every aspect of the products - but we all have ears! 

Usually when a product sounds better than another it's due to a number of reasons - quality of build ,components used and design. 

Their has been millions of tests done on caps, OPAMPS, DACS etc to validate this even the manufacturers provide the technical sheets on their components. You can go on the Respective websites and gather all the data and pricing you desire. 

One can't refute each other's philosophies on the topic as they are both valid.. Yes we can't take all personal accounts as literal either but you also can't tell the whole story through a machine either..

So both corners need to respect each other - Hanatsu has a point so do I - we just go about it in different ways. None of us will change so the topic will always go around in circles 

I will continue to believe in my method and believe the results I find and the other guys will continue to measure..


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Moral of the story is...if the amp fits your needs who cares? I've found over the years that an amp that's built really well will do the job fine 99% of the time. An amp that is cheaply built can be more hit and miss. I've wasted too much money over the years thinking a cheap amp can do the same thing as one built well.


----------



## Victor_inox

Hillbilly SQ said:


> Moral of the story is...if the amp fits your needs who cares? I've found over the years that an amp that's built really well will do the job fine 99% of the time. An amp that is cheaply built can be more hit and miss. I've wasted too much money over the years thinking a cheap amp can do the same thing as one built well.


there is saying "we are not rich enough to buy cheap things."


----------



## Elektra

Hillbilly SQ said:


> Moral of the story is...if the amp fits your needs who cares? I've found over the years that an amp that's built really well will do the job fine 99% of the time. An amp that is cheaply built can be more hit and miss. I've wasted too much money over the years thinking a cheap amp can do the same thing as one built well.


Exactly ... 

A cheap product is ...well cheap! Nothing inside the amp is built with anything SQ orientated from the 2c caps through to the cheap rca inputs... They are built for a specific market at the cheapest price and then sold off to big super markets... Followed by a reputation which has extended from the old school days when that company prided themselves on quality and ability AKA Zapco, Soundstream, Kicker, RF 

Most of those products share a generic board design which in most cases was never designed by the manufacturer presented on the heat sink. 

It's all clever marketing....


----------



## Jepalan

Elektra said:


> A cheap product is ...well cheap! Nothing inside the amp is built with anything SQ orientated from the 2c caps through to the cheap rca inputs... They are built for a specific market at the cheapest price and then sold off to big super markets... Followed by a reputation which has extended from the old school days when that company prided themselves on quality and ability AKA Zapco, Soundstream, Kicker, RF
> 
> Most of those products share a generic board design which in most cases was never designed by the manufacturer presented on the heat sink.
> 
> It's all clever marketing....


Elektra - Sorry for poking fun earlier. Getting back to a more serious discussion, because I like your last post. I actually agree with most everything you have written here (with only some minor caveats). 

I wholeheartedly agree that there are 'cheap' products and 'well built' or 'high quality' products. I am very willing to pay more money for a 'high quality' product if I can clearly see the increased value to me for the additional money spent (increased reliability, increased MTBF, more features, easier to use, even a look, style, or other aesthetic characteristic that I prefer over another - even better SQ in some cases!). 

As you have stated, where I become wary is when the dollar to value ratio becomes pure marketing drivel. <-- by the intention of the marketers, this line is blurred with 'creative specmanship' and well written product prose aimed at the psychological hot buttons of the target audience.

You state above that it is "all clever marketing". I agree! But that applies to the most expensive product lines as well as the cheap product lines - across the board. I usually find myself somewhere in the middle ground of the price range where I can pick up a more solidly built product that will last a reasonable amount of time and can be used in multiple installations so I can experiment with different install techniques and or system tunings with the same electronics. That is just my approach to the hobby and I don't expect everyone else to have the same attack on car audio. 

I promise not try to impose my personal philosophy on others here as long as I am allowed to share my perspective without attack of it being a 'right or wrong' way to to carry out my hobby, or career.

From your prior posts, it seems you believe there is a strong correlation between 'higher price tag' and 'better product', and you prefer to believe your ears over everything else, and you don't care whether a 'better listening experience' is due to real scientific differences, or the power of suggestion. If it sounds better to you, you buy it. This is a perfectly valid approach to your hobby and you have every right to spend your money any way you want. ENJOY!


----------



## Elektra

Jepalan said:


> Elektra - Sorry for poking fun earlier. Getting back to a more serioues discussion, because I like your last post. I actually agree with most everything you have written here (with only some minor caveats).
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree that there are 'cheap' products and 'well built' or 'high quality' products. I am very willing to pay more money for a 'high quality' product if I can clearly see the increased value to me for the additional money spent (increased reliability, increased MTBF, more features, easier to use, even a look, style, or other aesthetic characteristic that I prefer over another - even better SQ in some cases!).
> 
> As you have stated, where I become wary is when the dollar to value ratio becomes pure marketing drivel. <-- by the intention of the marketers, this line is blurred with 'creative specmanship' and well written product prose aimed at the psychological hot buttons of the target audience.
> 
> You state above that it is "all clever marketing". I agree! But that applies to the most expensive product lines as well as the cheap product lines - across the board. I usually find myself somewhere in the middle ground of the price range where I can pick up a more solidly built product that will last a reasonable amount of time and can be used in multiple installations so I can experiment with different install techniques and or system tunings with the same electronics. That is just my approach to the hobby and I don't expect everyone else to have the same attack on car audio.
> 
> I promise not try to impose my personal philosophy on others here as long as I am allowed to share my perspective without attack of it being a 'right or wrong' way to to carry out my hobby, or career.
> 
> From your prior posts, it seems you believe there is a strong correlation between 'higher price tag' and 'better product', and you prefer to believe your ears over everything else, and you don't care whether a 'better listening experience' is due to real scientific differences, or the power of suggestion. If it sounds better to you, you buy it. This is a perfectly valid approach to your hobby and you have every right to spend your money any way you want. ENJOY!


Most correct.. 

This hobby can be very expensive especially if you dive in and by the "best" at retail...

I don't believe in that really I would far rather try unkown products and give them a try before forking out for really high price tag products..

I mean I can get Thesis amps if I wanted to but I chose a much cheaper alternative in EOS... 

I value the internals and design more than a fancy name and reputation that comes with a high price tag..


I have owned high price tag and high rep products before and felt like an idiot when I realized my unkown products were in fact superior.. 

Science has its place no doubt.. So I don't discount it mainly because it's not my thing and I can't have an educated discussion with a guy like Hanatsu who is clearly much more knowledgable in that field.. I can only share my person experiences..

More than that I can't do..


----------



## JVD240

Elektra said:


> I think this topic is going around in circles and will always do so - mainly because we are essentially saying the same thing in different ways.
> 
> One corner wants technical measurements, ABX testing to validate why one product sounds better than the next
> 
> The other corner does not care for the above - mainly because it's boring! And would rather listen for themselves - besides not all of us has access to fancy equipment to measure every aspect of the products - but we all have ears!
> 
> Usually when a product sounds better than another it's due to a number of reasons - quality of build ,components used and design.
> 
> Their has been millions of tests done on caps, OPAMPS, DACS etc to validate this even the manufacturers provide the technical sheets on their components. You can go on the Respective websites and gather all the data and pricing you desire.
> 
> One can't refute each other's philosophies on the topic as they are both valid.. Yes we can't take all personal accounts as literal either but you also can't tell the whole story through a machine either..
> 
> So both corners need to respect each other - Hanatsu has a point so do I - we just go about it in different ways. None of us will change so the topic will always go around in circles
> 
> I will continue to believe in my method and believe the results I find and the other guys will continue to measure..


I don't really understand why people don't want to do ABX testing...

Can you elaborate on that?

If you feel your ears are good enough how is a test like that going to prevent you from identifying equipment?


----------



## Elektra

JVD240 said:


> I don't really understand why people don't want to do ABX testing...
> 
> Can you elaborate on that?
> 
> If you feel your ears are good enough how is a test like that going to prevent you from identifying equipment?


I do ABX testing all the time... I don't place much value in ABX tests done by others... As I would like to be present to do the test myself - you won't believe how many guys that participate in these tests can't actually listen properly 

Call it a bad experience...


----------



## WRX/Z28

cajunner said:


> walmart pricing, does not mean I buy everything from walmart.
> 
> the question of course, is not "my install vs. your install" because that's way too complicated.
> 
> the question is the title theme, you put your big bucks amp against 2 challengers of my choosing, and you test against them.
> 
> I pick which two amps I want to compete with, and I'm pretty sure I can get close enough to your big bucks amp that you can't figure out which is yours in a blind comparison. I use Walmart's highest cost amp as my barrier to include other uber amps, I'm constrained by price, whatever Walmart allots in their dot com offerings. I believe they have amps available that cost 499.00.
> 
> that's the deal.
> 
> that's how sure I am that today's circuit designs are mature to the point that the odds are in my favor that I can put you into a no-man's land of audibility, that I can find two amps with close enough sonic signatures to your amp, that you won't be able to distinguish your own. You won't know your own, because the blood that runs through the uber specimens, is trickled down into middle tier offerings.
> 
> 499.00.
> 
> 
> :laugh:


This. All the "I can hear it" guys never offer to take this test, it they truly dig deep, they realize they would not pass.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> This. All the "I can hear it" guys never offer to take this test, it they truly dig deep, they realize they would not pass.


Question is how much you willing to pay if you wrong?:laugh:


----------



## miniSQ

Maybe this point has been brought up before, but there is more to how an amp "sounds" when i choose one. There is an enjoyment factor that comes into play for me. There is something that affects the senses or at least my senses when i listen to something exotic or just well built. I think i would enjoy the music better with a Brax amp in the trunk even if it didnt sound any better than a kraco from walmart.


----------



## sbeezy

miniSQ said:


> Maybe this point has been brought up before, but there is more to how an amp "sounds" when i choose one. There is an enjoyment factor that comes into play for me. There is something that affects the senses or at least my senses when i listen to something exotic or just well built. I think i would enjoy the music better with a Brax amp in the trunk even if it didnt sound any better than a kraco from walmart.


So basically what you're saying is that you'd buy the brax for tons more even if the kraco from wally world was just as transparent as the brax?


----------



## Elektra

sbeezy said:


> So basically what you're saying is that you'd buy the brax for tons more even if the kraco from wally world was just as transparent as the brax?


How many of you will purchase say a Thesis amp If you could hear a difference? Irrespective of how much of a difference you can hear?

Problem is which I found out for myself is that it doesn't matter how superior a product is over the next - the cost factor is the ultimate deterant...

The corner that believes a Walmart special sounds as good as a Thesis... Will always bring up the cost factor - the corner who looks for the best sounding products don't really care about the price and if they did - they will always buy it off EBay for a reduced price..

The other issue I find is that very common is that the guys who argue about amps being the same are generally running mediocre equipment anyway... So they will never benefit from the increased resolution, etc that good equipment can provide...

The guys trying to exploit the maximum out of their systems are guys generally running higher end equipment - they will benefit from the increased resolution as they have a system capable of doing this..

I say generally because their is exception to the rule...

So would anyone care to bring out their Thesis HV Venti and compare it against a Walmart special? 

I won't bet against the Thesis cleaning up the Walmart special? 

Would you?


----------



## sbeezy

Elektra said:


> How many of you will purchase say a Thesis amp If you could hear a difference? Irrespective of how much of a difference you can hear?
> 
> Problem is which I found out for myself is that it doesn't matter how superior a product is over the next - the cost factor is the ultimate deterant...
> 
> The corner that believes a Walmart special sounds as good as a Thesis... Will always bring up the cost factor - the corner who looks for the best sounding products don't really care about the price and if they did - they will always buy it off EBay for a reduced price..
> 
> The other issue I find is that very common is that the guys who argue about amps being the same are generally running mediocre equipment anyway... So they will never benefit from the increased resolution, etc that good equipment can provide...
> 
> The guys trying to exploit the maximum out of their systems are guys generally running higher end equipment - they will benefit from the increased resolution as they have a system capable of doing this..
> 
> I say generally because their is exception to the rule...
> 
> So would anyone care to bring out their Thesis HV Venti and compare it against a Walmart special?
> 
> I won't bet against the Thesis cleaning up the Walmart special?
> 
> Would you?


If your hearing is that good call Mr Clark up and take his money!


----------



## miniSQ

sbeezy said:


> So basically what you're saying is that you'd buy the brax for tons more even if the kraco from wally world was just as transparent as the brax?


Basically what i am saying is i would enjoy the experience more with the Brax in the back. Same as i do if all my wires are nice and tidy vs thrown around the trunk. I am saying for me, "how" an amp is perceived to sound is not the entire package.


----------



## sbeezy

miniSQ said:


> Basically what i am saying is i would enjoy the experience more with the Brax in the back. Same as i do if all my wires are nice and tidy vs thrown around the trunk. I am saying for me, "how" an amp is perceived to sound is not the entire package.


I can dig that!


----------



## Elektra

sbeezy said:


> If your hearing is that good call Mr Clark up and take his money!


Lol... Richard is not that stupid.. He tests 2 amps in the test - great! But here's the catch he tests 2 amps of similar quality/price - you ain't going to hear anything 

But if Richard allows me to bring my own equipment - I would love to take his cash...


----------



## WRX/Z28

Elektra said:


> Lol... Richard is not that stupid.. He tests 2 amps in the test - great! But here's the catch he tests 2 amps of similar quality/price - you ain't going to hear anything
> 
> But if Richard allows me to bring my own equipment - I would love to take his cash...


That's not what he does at all. Have you even read the test guidelines? You can bring any amp you like, and you'll still fail. Even if what you said were true, and amps had to be the same price, you think they all sound the same? Does the amp know how much you spent on it? LOL

This is why you can't argue the point, you guys dont even bother to look into it, you simply insist on your belief. If you dug down deep and really were honest with yourself, you'd realize that there are a ton of high end manufacturers selling snake oil in amps...

Almost to 100!!!


----------



## Jepalan

miniSQ said:


> Basically what i am saying is i would enjoy the experience more with the Brax in the back. Same as i do if all my wires are nice and tidy vs thrown around the trunk. I am saying for me, "how" an amp is perceived to sound is not the entire package.


I agree with miniSQ. It's not always about SQ. It isn't the name or price either that gives me that comfort and confidence in a product. It is the quality, fit, finish and heft of the product - the experience when I unboxed it, peeked under the lid, plugged in the RCAs, set it up, read the manual, etc. If the Kraco gave me that experience for half the price, then I wouldn't hesitate to install one.


----------



## Victor_inox

Snake oil in amps? 
sure thing,engineering, quality of parts, craftsmanship exactly those things.


----------



## thehatedguy

Victor, just walk away from this thread...you will be glad you did.


----------



## Victor_inox

thehatedguy said:


> Victor, just walk away from this thread...you will be glad you did.


I have my agenda in the matter, to discuss how upgrading opamps and such perceived by "all **** made for the same task performed the same" crowd.


----------



## Elektra

WRX/Z28 said:


> That's not what he does at all. Have you even read the test guidelines? You can bring any amp you like, and you'll still fail. Even if what you said were true, and amps had to be the same price, you think they all sound the same? Does the amp know how much you spent on it? LOL
> 
> This is why you can't argue the point, you guys dont even bother to look into it, you simply insist on your belief. If you dug down deep and really were honest with yourself, you'd realize that there are a ton of high end manufacturers selling snake oil in amps...
> 
> Almost to 100!!!


So you think I can't hear the difference between a Class A input stage tube amp and a class D amp? 

I'll put money on it I can...


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> Snake oil in amps?
> sure thing,engineering, quality of parts, craftsmanship exactly those things.


Just like snake oil in cabling.. Lol


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> Just like snake oil in cabling.. Lol


 not comparable matters, sorry.


----------



## Hanatsu

Elektra said:


> So you think I can't hear the difference between a Class A input stage tube amp and a class D amp?
> 
> I'll put money on it I can...


If they measure differently then yes, it's very viable that they sound different. I've seen tube-preamps with low-order HD as high as -40dB down. I don't think anyone here says that all amps absolutely sound the same. I have two amps on my shelf (one old class-D) that sounds like absolute **** if used fullrange. I also found out why when I measured one of the amps. Above 3-4kHz or so - THD increasingly went from 2-5% till it's cutoff frequency. In the highest octave the FR was also full of ripple adding to the problem.

Most modern amps have 0,1dB+/- 30-18000Hz and non-linear distortion at least 70-100dB down. Combined with a low noise floor and adequate output I find the "amp-issue" about at the bottom of my list when building a SQ system. Whatever you want a system to sound like can be modified by changing speakers, speaker locations, acoustic treatments and digital processing. That's where the real difference lies imo.

I also want to add that I only buy "decently" high quality products. I hate stuff that break. I want stability, longlivity and something nice to "look at". Quality components are of course paramount but it's not individual components that make up the performance of a design. All components must be within a certain range of values in order for it to function properly. A "higher-end" design might need to utilize higher tolerance components in order for its design to work properly... Will they measure differently? Most likely yes. Will they sound different? Maybe, maybe not. 

Humans are worse detecting distortions than measurement equipment. We can always improve designs but I believe we often pass the audible threshold on how good it can sound with seemingly mediocre products. I have $12 fullrange speakers in my living room at the moment. They sound great, I don't believe my old B&W 801 is so much incredibly better if we compare midrange/tweeter-range performance, yet they cost like 1000 times more when they were new. Again, I've done hundreds of measurements and I pretty much know why they both sound great. Measuring is knowing, basing knowledge on listening can more or less be considered qualified (or not qualified) guessing.


----------



## Elektra

Hanatsu said:


> If they measure differently then yes, it's very viable that they sound different. I've seen tube-preamps with low-order HD as high as -40dB down. I don't think anyone here says that all amps absolutely sound the same. I have two amps on my shelf (one old class-D) that sounds like absolute **** if used fullrange. I also found out why when I measured one of the amps. Above 3-4kHz or so - THD increasingly went from 2-5% till it's cutoff frequency. In the highest octave the FR was also full of ripple adding to the problem.
> 
> Most modern amps have 0,1dB+/- 30-18000Hz and non-linear distortion at least 70-100dB down. Combined with a low noise floor and adequate output I find the "amp-issue" about at the bottom of my list when building a SQ system. Whatever you want a system to sound like can be modified by changing speakers, speaker locations, acoustic treatments and digital processing. That's where the real difference lies imo.
> 
> I also want to add that I only buy "decently" high quality products. I hate stuff that break. I want stability, longlivity and something nice to "look at". Quality components are of course paramount but it's not individual components that make up the performance of a design. All components must be within a certain range of values in order for it to function properly. A "higher-end" design might need to utilize higher tolerance components in order for its design to work properly... Will they measure differently? Most likely yes. Will they sound different? Maybe, maybe not.
> 
> Humans are worse detecting distortions than measurement equipment. We can always improve designs but I believe we often pass the audible threshold on how good it can sound with seemingly mediocre products. I have $12 fullrange speakers in my living room at the moment. They sound great, I don't believe my old B&W 801 is so much incredibly better if we compare midrange/tweeter-range performance, yet they cost like 1000 times more when they were new. Again, I've done hundreds of measurements and I pretty much know why they both sound great. Measuring is knowing, basing knowledge on listening can more or less be considered qualified (or not qualified) guessing.


I'll be interested in what system you run considering the science behind your choices...

Please share with us...


----------



## Victor_inox

Most so called audio professionals who pushing all amps sounds the same usually financed by interest groups to say exactly that or swing the test to that direction. Don`t believe me check who sign their paychecks and/or give them grants.


----------



## Victor_inox

B&W 801 sounds just like widebanders?

Something is seriously wrong with your hearing or your setup.


----------



## cajunner

the point I keep making, is that the perceived value in higher end amps is not sustainable if the metric we use to justify that cost, is performance.

Once you get off the Chinese sweatshop factory floor, and into the proven designs being manufactured with quiet circuit paths and mature ground/RF rejection/trace width/whatever, it doesn't matter to the music, if there is a "noticeable" change when upgrading.

the issue here is that there is common sense still to be found in amp purchasing decisions, and I'm here to help.

if you find yourself drooling all over the promo materials of those higher end amplifiers and yet you are only really capable of say, Soundstream Reference or going old school, PG M series or PPI Arts, without putting the kids to bed hungry a couple nights a week for a month, please take heed that the marketing does not make up the sonic equivalence of a "breakthrough" on amp sonics, or performance envelopes.

The use of "liquid" audio descriptors and terminology, unhinges the rational part of the brain, it dissolves the proof requiring, logical side's chemical awareness, and tingles the imagination, it fires the synaptic ruse of a snake oil's hope and change, ill able, illable?


ahhaha... I made up a word, illable... or is it illables, as in the daily requirement of fantastic charlatan spiels with the warmth of timbre and the blackness of night always close by, ready for purpose-drawn efforts to clear the air, that muddy, mottled, indistinct and yet familiar soup of drawn breaths, we live in every day...


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> B&W 801 sounds just like widebanders?
> 
> Something is seriously wrong with your hearing or your setup.


I agree.. I tested a set of Morel Elate 3 ways of my home hifi - the Utopia Kit 7 sounded better using the same Morel Elate Passives...

I have heard the 801's I doubt a $12 driver sounded the same... That's pushing it in what I am prepared to accept..


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> life is not black and white how "*all amps sounds the same*" crowd trying to present.


I don't think anyone in this thread has ever said that all amps sound the same.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> Snake oil in amps?
> sure thing,engineering, quality of parts, craftsmanship exactly those things.


Yes, Snake Oil, IE: the belief that when you spend a certain amount on an amp it does something magical to the signal it's fed. 



Elektra said:


> So you think I can't hear the difference between a Class A input stage tube amp and a class D amp?
> 
> I'll put money on it I can...


100% That's what I think. What measurable difference is there between the two examples you would use. The minute you figure that out, you have your answer why they can easily sound identical. 



Elektra said:


> Just like snake oil in cabling.. Lol


Exactly like that. You are the epitome of the believer. You are probably religious to a fault and have been involved in Amway at some point as well...



cajunner said:


> the point I keep making, is that the perceived value in higher end amps is not sustainable if the metric we use to justify that cost, is performance.
> 
> Once you get off the Chinese sweatshop factory floor, and into the proven designs being manufactured with quiet circuit paths and mature ground/RF rejection/trace width/whatever, it doesn't matter to the music, if there is a "noticeable" change when upgrading.
> 
> the issue here is that there is common sense still to be found in amp purchasing decisions, and I'm here to help.
> 
> if you find yourself drooling all over the promo materials of those higher end amplifiers and yet you are only really capable of say, Soundstream Reference or going old school, PG M series or PPI Arts, without putting the kids to bed hungry a couple nights a week for a month, please take heed that the marketing does not make up the sonic equivalence of a "breakthrough" on amp sonics, or performance envelopes.
> 
> The use of "liquid" audio descriptors and terminology, unhinges the rational part of the brain, it dissolves the proof requiring, logical side's chemical awareness, and tingles the imagination, it fires the synaptic ruse of a snake oil's hope and change, ill able, illable?
> 
> 
> ahhaha... I made up a word, illable... or is it illables, as in the daily requirement of fantastic charlatan spiels with the warmth of timbre and the blackness of night always close by, ready for purpose-drawn efforts to clear the air, that muddy, mottled, indistinct and yet familiar soup of drawn breaths, we live in every day...


Cajunner makes more and more sense with every post. 


Please someone enlighten me as to what you think these "high end" amps do to the signal they are fed that the average amp does not. This is the point. If there is a flaw in an amp where it is distinguishable from another (the flawed amp would be the one that would be different from the norm), unless it is exceptional noise, (exceptional noise would be an obvious and easily avoided flaw) it can be accounted for. No magic, no fairy dust, no dollar bills wrapped around the fets or the caps... 

What measurable change do these amps make?

If the difference is measureable, it can be accounted for to the point that they are identical again. If the difference is not measureable, it is false...


----------



## Orion525iT

Elektra said:


> So you think I can't hear the difference between a Class A input stage tube amp and a class D amp?
> 
> I'll put money on it I can...





Victor_inox said:


> Most so called audio professionals who pushing all amps sounds the same usually financed by interest groups to say exactly that or swing the test to that direction. Don`t believe me check who sign their paychecks and/or give them grants.


Two great examples of red herring fallacies and moving of the goal posts. On top of the personal testimony fallacies, ect. Pretty sure the title of the thread is HIGHER END AMP SQ IS A MYTH. Not, do all amps sound the same.

Some other great red herrings are the introduction of reliability and "bling" factors. Both are inconsequential to the original post and subject; which is the question of whether there is an audible difference with supposed "high end sq amps". 

Nice tries guys. Keep plucking away with the fallacies. 



Hanatsu said:


> If they measure differently then yes, it's very viable that they sound different. I've seen tube-preamps with low-order HD as high as -40dB down. I don't think anyone here says that all amps absolutely sound the same. I have two amps on my shelf (one old class-D) that sounds like absolute **** if used fullrange. I also found out why when I measured one of the amps. Above 3-4kHz or so - THD increasingly went from 2-5% till it's cutoff frequency. In the highest octave the FR was also full of ripple adding to the problem.


We all know older class D did not do well full range. We also have *measurements* that back up the observational assessment.


----------



## Victor_inox

coppertone selling Phass widebanders for about 1/5 of retail, it anyone need widebanders that`s a pair to get.


----------



## Elektra

WRX/Z28 said:


> Yes, Snake Oil, IE: the belief that when you spend a certain amount on an amp it does something magical to the signal it's fed.
> 
> 
> 
> 100% That's what I think. What measurable difference is there between the two examples you would use. The minute you figure that out, you have your answer why they can easily sound identical.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly like that. You are the epitome of the believer. You are probably religious to a fault and have been involved in Amway at some point as well...
> 
> 
> 
> Cajunner makes more and more sense with every post.
> 
> 
> Please someone enlighten me as to what you think these "high end" amps do to the signal they are fed that the average amp does not. This is the point. If there is a flaw in an amp where it is distinguishable from another (the flawed amp would be the one that would be different from the norm), unless it is exceptional noise, (exceptional noise would be an obvious and easily avoided flaw) it can be accounted for. No magic, no fairy dust, no dollar bills wrapped around the fets or the caps...
> 
> What measurable change do these amps make?
> 
> If the difference is measureable, it can be accounted for to the point that they are identical again. If the difference is not measureable, it is false...


While you have your point of view and your beliefs... That's great we need them..
I can't discount science, technology, R&D etc ... But ask yourself this.. If a cheap amp sounds the same as a high end amp - why would the manufacturer spend Millions on R&D and components and design to build a high end amp - put the company under financial pressure as they have to order at least 100 units only for their money to be wasted on a product that they could have spent 10 times less on that sounds the same and expose their company less financially? 

Why would AUDIOQUEST spend millions on R&D and components to build a cable when twin flex or rip cord at 1000 times less exposure to them if it sounded the same? 

I have heard the differences in both cases... It's my money I think I can spend it anyway I please - but please don't make me out to be a fool when I am willing to spend the $$$ as I don't simply open my wallet to any sales talk - I research my products carefully and test them subjectively and if I am happy I'll get it...

I don't need measurements, graphs etc


----------



## Victor_inox

Orion525iT said:


> Two great examples of red herring fallacies and moving of the goal posts. On top of the personal testimony fallacies, ect. Pretty sure the title of the thread is HIGHER END AMP SQ IS A MYTH. Not, do all amps sound the same.
> 
> Some other great red herrings are the introduction of reliability and "bling" factors. Both are inconsequential to the original post and subject; which is the question of whether there is an audible difference with supposed "high end sq amps".
> 
> Nice tries guys. Keep plucking away with the fallacies.
> 
> 
> 
> We all know older class D did not do well full range. We also have *measurements* that back up the observational assessment.


Nice try, keep insulting people maybe some will switch camps.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Elektra said:


> While you have your point of view and your beliefs... That's great we need them..
> I can't discount science, technology, R&D etc ... But ask yourself this.. If a cheap amp sounds the same as a high end amp - why would the manufacturer spend Millions on R&D and components and design to build a high end amp - put the company under financial pressure as they have to order at least 100 units only for their money to be wasted on a product that they could have spent 10 times less on that sounds the same and expose their company less financially?
> 
> Why would AUDIOQUEST spend millions on R&D and components to build a cable when twin flex or rip cord at 1000 times less exposure to them if it sounded the same?
> 
> I have heard the differences in both cases... It's my money I think I can spend it anyway I please - but please don't make me out to be a fool when I am willing to spend the $$$ as I don't simply open my wallet to any sales talk - I research my products carefully and test them subjectively and if I am happy I'll get it...
> 
> I don't need measurements, graphs etc


That's just it, they don't spend millions. Please show me the financial report of any "high end" audio company for cost spent on R&D. 

Same for Audioquest. Zip cord not withstanding, any properly gauged, 100% copper wire is the same as another. Again, if they measure the same, they sound the same. If they measure different, please tell me where and how. 

I'm not saying you haven't heard differences, I'm saying you are incorrectly identifying the cause of those differences. <this sums up my whole argument.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX you selling some nice US acoustics amps on this very forum saying they sound awesome... do they sounds better than $100 brand new amps at walmart? You also noted that they made here in US "when people cared about such things"
Where are you not completely honest? here or there?


----------



## Elektra

WRX/Z28 said:


> That's just it, they don't spend millions. Please show me the financial report of any "high end" audio company for cost spent on R&D.
> 
> Same for Audioquest. Zip cord not withstanding, any properly gauged, 100% copper wire is the same as another. Again, if they measure the same, they sound the same. If they measure different, please tell me where and how.
> 
> I'm not saying you haven't heard differences, I'm saying you are incorrectly identifying the cause of those differences. <this sums up my whole argument.


I can't tell you how many times I purchased "100%" copper cables and found hifi cables to sound better.. I don't need to call the CFO of AQ to get his statements for his company...

Fact is on my system Monster cable got killed by King Cobra... Both have copper in them both are well built... One sounded much better..

That's all she wrote...


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> WRX you selling some nice US acoustics amps on this very forum saying they sound awesome... do they sounds better than $100 brand new amps at walmart? You also noted that they made here in US "when people cared about such things"
> Where are you not completely honest? here or there?


Yes, I am. I said they sound awesome (as do all powerful amps) in reply to your trolling of my post. Douchebag move on your part, but I digress. (if you'd like me to start trolling your threads about your products, keep it up)

I like US made things, they make good power, and have good crossovers. They are clean and nostalgic in appearance. Where am I not 100% honest?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Elektra said:


> I can't tell you how many times I purchased "100%" copper cables and found hifi cables to sound better.. I don't need to call the CFO of AQ to get his statements for his company...
> 
> Fact is on my system Monster cable got killed by King Cobra... Both have copper in them both are well built... One sounded much better..
> 
> That's all she wrote...


So what measured different? What caused the difference? What would recreate the difference?


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Yes, I am. I said they sound awesome (as do all powerful amps) in reply to your trolling of my post. Douchebag move on your part, but I digress. (if you'd like me to start trolling your threads about your products, keep it up)
> 
> I like US made things, they make good power, and have good crossovers. They are clean and nostalgic in appearance. Where am I not 100% honest?


 i posted simple question did you find a better amps? how is that douchebag move?
Do you think that was trolling? i didn`t said anything bad about your amps didn`t I?
If anything it gave your amps more exposure. You welcome!
I also didn`t say anything about being dishonest, i asked you what do you think it looks like.
Since that thread is going I sell more preamps than 6 month prior to that, why I wonder.
Go ahead post in my threads, every time someone does that I sell more .


----------



## Elektra

WRX/Z28 said:


> So what measured different? What caused the difference? What would recreate the difference?


Don't know and don't really care...


----------



## Hanatsu

Victor_inox said:


> B&W 801 sounds just like widebanders?
> 
> Something is seriously wrong with your hearing or your setup.


I never said that. I said both sound great.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> i posted simple question did you find a better amps? how is that douchebag move?
> Do you think that was trolling? i didn`t said anything bad about your amps didn`t I?
> If anything it gave your amps more exposure. You welcome!
> I also didn`t say anything about being dishonest, i asked you what do you think it looks like.
> Since that thread is going I sell more preamps than 6 month prior to that, why I wonder.
> Go ahead post in my threads, every time someone does that I sell more .


okay, will do.



Elektra said:


> Don't know and don't really care...


 Then you don't belong in this thread.


----------



## Hanatsu

Elektra said:


> I'll be interested in what system you run considering the science behind your choices...
> 
> Please share with us...


In my home audio system? 2x XTZ A100-D3 amps. 2x 2x4miniDigi DSPs running 3-way semi-actively. I use a media-computer as source via Coax digital. Normally I use a 3-way Scan-Speak system, 18wu-12wu-6600 aircirc tweets + a 12" Scan 30w sub which I've built myself. I have lots of other stuff too (like 10 pairs of speakers in the cellar), I change once in a while.


----------



## Elektra

Hanatsu said:


> In my home audio system? 2x XTZ A100-D3 amps. 2x 2x4miniDigi DSPs running 3-way semi-actively. I use a media-computer as source via Coax digital. Normally I use a 3-way Scan-Speak system, 18wu-12wu-6600 aircirc tweets + a 12" Scan 30w sub which I've built myself. I have lots of other stuff too (like 10 pairs of speakers in the cellar), I change once in a while.


Nice Scans... If I never had the utopias I would have gone for those...


----------



## Elektra

WRX/Z28 said:


> okay, will do.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't belong in this thread.


Do you?


----------



## Orion525iT

Victor_inox said:


> Nice try, keep insulting people maybe some will switch camps.


I am not insulting anybody. Just pointing out the obvious fallacies and the fact that you continue to provide zero evidence in support of your position. 

I will continue to point out those fallacies as you keep providing them. I have not once relied on insults, just the fact of the flawed arguments you keep making. *You, again, have not addressed those fallacies*. Instead, you throw out another red herring that I am simply insulting you. If that's the way you take it, it's not my issue.

Throw another one out, go ahead. Have you yet provided evidence to support your position? 

List of fallacies provided by you
1) Appeal to authority
2) Red Herrings
3) Shifting of goal posts

Anyone of those should be enough to expose your flawed argument.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Elektra said:


> Do you?


considering I care and have tested and measured for myself, yes.


----------



## subwoofery

sbeezy said:


> So basically what you're saying is that you'd buy the brax for tons more even if the kraco from wally world was just as transparent as the brax?


What would you do when your Kraco has 1 channel that cuts every now and then - or static noise comes and goes when you turn your system on - or worse just won't turn on? 
Change the amp every 6 months? 

I know what I would do... Buy a Brax, set it and forget it. 

Kelvin


----------



## Victor_inox

Orion525iT said:


> I am not insulting anybody. Just pointing out the obvious fallacies and the fact that you continue to provide zero evidence in support of your position.
> 
> I will continue to point out those fallacies as you keep providing them. I have not once relied on insults, just the fact of the flawed arguments you keep making. *You, again, have not addressed those fallacies*. Instead, you throw out another red herring that I am simply insulting you. If that's the way you take it, it's not my issue.
> 
> Throw another one out, go ahead. Have you yet provided evidence to support your position?
> 
> List of fallacies provided by you
> 1) Appeal to authority
> 2) Red Herrings
> 3) Shifting of goal posts
> 
> Anyone of those should be enough to expose your flawed argument.


1Appeal to authority? really that is exactly what you guys were doing like Richard Clark supposedly highest authority test.
You can`t prove absence of something in this very test lack of differences. 
inability of some individuals to hear differences is exactly that, nothing more.


----------



## Victor_inox

Hanatsu said:


> I never said that. I said both sound great.


But could you distinguish between them?


----------



## Victor_inox

subwoofery said:


> What would you do when your Kraco has 1 channel that cuts every now and then - or static noise comes and goes when you turn your system on - or worse just won't turn on?
> Change the amp every 6 months?
> 
> I know what I would do... Buy a Brax, set it and forget it.
> 
> Kelvin


I did exactly that. but where is the fun of the hobby?

Could we just buy JL XD, bridge them and get comparable power at 1/3 of the cost? 

i don`t know about most of you but I love to spent my money any way I pleased and having fun doing it. 
No wonder we observe demise of sound quality started from mastering all the way up to speakers. Amps maybe not playing critical role to that but certainly not last.


----------



## Victor_inox

Let me ask you this. do you think that upgrading opamps, caps, resistors is a waste of money and scam run by people such as Mr M. Roberts and such?


----------



## Bayboy

Victor_inox said:


> B&W 801 sounds just like widebanders?
> 
> Something is seriously wrong with your hearing or your setup.





Elektra said:


> I agree.. I tested a set of Morel Elate 3 ways of my home hifi - the Utopia Kit 7 sounded better using the same Morel Elate Passives...
> 
> I have heard the 801's I doubt a $12 driver sounded the same... That's pushing it in what I am prepared to accept..



As a bystander as well as reading to learn, I have to put the brakes on both replies and point out that is NOT what Hanatsu stated. I don't even see how that could have been twisted into saying that. He stated that the performance of the 801 compared to the $12 driver didn't sound incredibly better especially being that it cost many times more. I usually respect all perspectives, but taking things out of context (hopefully not on purpose) sort of kills the that point in debate.


----------



## Elektra

Bayboy said:


> As a bystander as well as reading to learn, I have to put the brakes on both replies and point out that is NOT what Hanatsu stated. I don't even see how that could have been twisted into saying that. He stated that the performance of the 801 compared to the $12 driver didn't sound incredibly better especially being that it cost many times more. I usually respect all perspectives, but taking things out of context (hopefully not on purpose) sort of kills the that point in debate.


I think people here have a thing for other people when it comes to spending $$$ so many things wrong with a statement that states that a $12 speaker compares to a $12000 speaker... 

How was this test even derived? Test tones on a computer then measured? Was the B&W driver removed and only that was played? 

I still fail to see how a computer can tell you about what your hearing? Like sense of space,soundstage, warmth, clinical... 

All things said here I will ask the question - 

Are you saying if I had a system like this:

ODR HU preamp let's say the RS-P90
UTOPIA Kit 7
Dyn Esotar E1200
AQ cabling 

Will sound the SAME or just a good as a system like this:
Sony Xplod HU - being generous apparantly sounds the same as a P99
Sony Xplod amps
Sony Xplod subs
Walmart cabling

Considering - amps sound the same, HU sound the same, cabling is snake oil..


----------



## Orion525iT

Victor_inox said:


> 1Appeal to authority? really that is exactly what you guys were doing like Richard Clark supposedly highest authority test.
> You can`t prove absence of something in this very test lack of differences.
> inability of some individuals to hear differences is exactly that, nothing more.


I never once mentioned Richard Clark, but I will come back to this. The appeal to authority, was you (the authority) stating you can hear a difference, therefor there is a difference _but without actually providing any evidence to support the claim_.

And for millionth time, the burden of proof is on you! You have this whole thing completely backwards. I have pointed this out several times now. The burden is upon you to provide evidence to support your claim, not for anybody to provide evidence that there is no difference. You literally have no idea on how to make informal and formal arguments. You have no idea how a proper scientific, evidence based investigation works. 

I am not insulting you, but anybody reading this must understand that your arguments are fallacious. The reader can take that where they want. I have no interest in getting people to "switch camps", I am just trying to get people to realize when an position lacks evidence that anything anything else offered as "proof" also lacks validity.



Victor_inox said:


> You can`t prove absence of something in this very test lack of differences.
> inability of some individuals to hear differences is exactly that, nothing more.


Just so you can't accuse me of ad hominem attack, an attack on your character, the above quote exemplifies just how little you understand about scientific methodology. The test was not set up to show the absence of anything. The fact that people could not tell the difference shows that the claim of the existence of a "higher end amp sq" _is not supported_ by the test results. That is, in fact evidence of something. It is evidence that listeners cannot tell the difference. When somebody makes an assertion, and no evidence supports that assertion, the pragmatic, proper default position is to _reject that position_.

To take your argumentative stand point. I make an assertion that people can fly if they flap their arms hard enough. I do a test (and this is already going one step further than you have in any of your arguments; you haven't conducted any tests), and the test subjects flap their arms and fall to the ground in a gory mess. What's my conclusion? Do I say that the test proves nothing? Do I say that this doesn't prove that people *can't* fly? Of course not, that would be absurd. As a result of the test, I would logically reject my previous assertion, right? But the opposite is the argument you are making. You would literally take the position that the test proves nothing and you would continue to assert that people can fly. That is your position here Do you see why this is a problem? You are rejecting the results of the test, and reasserting your original position. *Which is another fallacy; Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa. *


----------



## Bayboy

Putting yourself on the defense by assuming people here "have a thing" for people who spend money is quite condescending. As far as you keep stating others that are arguing all compared equipment sounds the same... I still believe that is being taken out of context in some regards. 

Having read that one thread that was talking about double dins vs single dins (if that's what you're inadvertently or directly referring to), I didn't see where it stated that. It was more or less to show that the distortion of signal wasn't widely varied as some assumed.


----------



## cajunner

every available departure from the crux of this argument, the audiophile defers to their own biases, instead of addressing the missing linchpin in their horse and cart.

if we're stuck on amps as say, a part of an overall system, then we can safely assume that the outcome of listening to a blind test, means you buy power, and that's about it.

now if we're trying to bring a reference level standard, to the rest of the system's parts then sure, there should be some cumulative, audible and substantive changes that make one able to determine one from the other.

naturally, the speakers are where we see the biggest possible statistical advantage in favor of the audiophile, since speakers are responsible for turning electric energy into acoustic energy and in the most sensitive spectrum of human hearing.

but the amplifiers don't have 1/20th the impact, or significant change to the audio.


so if you pay for amp quality, say spend 1200 on a decent amp, because it sounded so much better on the board and the salesman said it was easily the best amp he's ever had the pleasure of selling, and then you go and spend 300 on a middle of the road set of components at retail, what did you do?


you completely lost at the game of audio, salesman wins...

I think this is what should be hammered home, the amps used are the last place you find the numbers add up, dollar for watt and in comparison to the pre-amps' various tone controls and DSP work, not the place to "invest" the 'nut' of your orgasmic audio budget.

move the decimal places, put the money where "to the last significant digit" makes sense, and if you have found your speaker budget exceeds your amp costs, you're doing it right...


----------



## Elektra

Bayboy said:


> Putting yourself on the defense by assuming people here "have a thing" for people who spend money is quite condescending. As far as you keep stating others that are arguing all compared equipment sounds the same... I still believe that is being taken out of context in some regards.
> 
> Having read that one thread that was talking about double dins vs single dins (if that's what you're inadvertently or directly referring to), I didn't see where it stated that. It was more or less to show that the distortion of signal wasn't widely varied as some assumed.


Ok then post up some graphs of good and bad stuff let's study the science... Let's see a Walmart amp compared to a Thesis amp - let's understand how many components need to be upgraded/changed for that amp to measure as well as a Thesis amp - then we can discuss how much these components will cost and if it's even possible considering the board layout and designs..

Convince me - the burden of proof is with you..

Oh post up some graphs that show sound stages, realism, warmth and clinical, clarity while you at it...

It would be great to understand this so that when I am looking for new kit I can completely ignore the listening sessions and go straight to the graphs...

Let's see...


----------



## Jepalan

Elektra said:


> I can't tell you how many times I purchased "100%" copper cables and found hifi cables to sound better.. I don't need to call the CFO of AQ to get his statements for his company...
> 
> Fact is on my system Monster cable got killed by King Cobra... Both have copper in them both are well built... One sounded much better..
> 
> That's all she wrote...


Elektra, would you be willing to share with us what you do for a living? How do you make your money? What is your education? I understand this is probably irrelevant for the most part, but I am just fascinated by how adamant you are that you can hear the difference in these 'hi-fi' cable types. This completely amazes me. For the record, I am vice-president of product strategy for a professional video equipment company. My education and experience are in electrical engineering and circuit design. Our products are used for compression, transmission and reception of video signals - mainly in north america. I've been doing this for 23 yrs. In my current role I have had to learn a lot about the sales and marketing side of our business and I like to understand different people's backgrounds and profiles. I do understand if you don't want to share personal info on the forum.

Thanks.


----------



## Elektra

Jepalan said:


> Elektra, would you be willing to share with us what you do for a living? How do you make your money? What is your education? I understand this is probably irrelevant for the most part, but I am just fascinated by how adamant you are that you can hear the difference in these 'hi-fi' cable types. This completely amazes me. For the record, I am vice-president of product strategy for a professional video equipment company. My education and experience are in electrical engineering and circuit design. Our products are used for compression, transmission and reception of video signals - mainly in north america. I've been doing this for 23 yrs. In my current role I have had to learn a lot about the sales and marketing side of our business and I like to understand different people's backgrounds and profiles. I do understand if you don't want to share personal info on the forum.
> 
> Thanks.


What's the relevance? 

I am an Architect... Been into audio since 1995..


----------



## Victor_inox

I asked if Hanatsu could hear the difference, yet he failed to reply. that was his statement that both sounded not all that different? what does that means exactly, that he can still hear a difference or he does not? in regards that he can distinguish cello vs violin on both speakers doesn't say much doesn't it? What quantitative measurements will support his finding then?
I conducted and participated a lot of comparison tests with level set with very expensive lab equipment to set levels precisely. I can`t hear a difference between quality interconnects regardless of brand/price, I still can measure difference between them. resistance/ capacitance and inductance still different. what does that prove? that my hearing is not as good as measurements known to science? or that differences in measurements not as easy as it might look. Is there another parameter we yet failed to discover? 
What I`m saying that test result means squat when your listening experience said otherwise. what is the point of comparing 50 and 500W amplifiers if each of them suited to different tasks? 
I`ll ask my question again, do you think that all input stages based on different opamps sounds the same? I`d like to hear your opinion on that, please.


----------



## schmiddr2

Victor_inox said:


> But could you distinguish between them?


That is not the question that needs answering, because the answer will almost certainly be derived from many things other than "sound signature" and therefore prove nothing.

The question is why do they sound different; answering this question should tell you why and most importantly the voltage being applied across a frequency range.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> every available departure from the crux of this argument, the audiophile defers to their own biases, instead of addressing the missing linchpin in their horse and cart.
> 
> if we're stuck on amps as say, a part of an overall system, then we can safely assume that the outcome of listening to a blind test, means you buy power, and that's about it.
> 
> now if we're trying to bring a reference level standard, to the rest of the system's parts then sure, there should be some cumulative, audible and substantive changes that make one able to determine one from the other.
> 
> naturally, the speakers are where we see the biggest possible statistical advantage in favor of the audiophile, since speakers are responsible for turning electric energy into acoustic energy and in the most sensitive spectrum of human hearing.
> 
> but the amplifiers don't have 1/20th the impact, or significant change to the audio.
> 
> 
> so if you pay for amp quality, say spend 1200 on a decent amp, because it sounded so much better on the board and the salesman said it was easily the best amp he's ever had the pleasure of selling, and then you go and spend 300 on a middle of the road set of components at retail, what did you do?
> 
> 
> you completely lost at the game of audio, salesman wins...
> 
> I think this is what should be hammered home, the amps used are the last place you find the numbers add up, dollar for watt and in comparison to the pre-amps' various tone controls and DSP work, not the place to "invest" the 'nut' of your orgasmic audio budget.
> 
> move the decimal places, put the money where "to the last significant digit" makes sense, and if you have found your speaker budget exceeds your amp costs, you're doing it right...


It`s all nice and dandy and i`d agree completely but here we have Hanatsu`s statement that $12 widebanders sound " not all that different" from $12000 speakers. I was saying from the beginning of this thread and everywhere else that select your speakers first and go backwards the chain for the rest of it components.


----------



## Victor_inox

schmiddr2 said:


> That is not the question that needs answering, because the answer will almost certainly be derived from many things other than "sound signature" and therefore prove nothing.
> 
> The question is why do they sound different; answering this question should tell you why and most importantly the voltage being applied across a frequency range.



Why not, that`s the question that was asked from the beginning in regards of amplifiers. 

I have my guess why they sounded "not all that different".
because widebander and 801 was not set the best for their abilities.
if you apply 30 watt to widebander and 801 widebander will have advantage of operating in it`s designed range when 801 underpowered.
this is just my guess.


----------



## Hanatsu

Victor_inox said:


> But could you distinguish between them?


Of course... Two systems can sound great and still sound different. Is that notion so strange to you? Seriously I don't see where you going with this.

I was pointing out fact that price and "high-end" equipment share little correlation with perceived audio quality. I can build a very cheap system and using a scientific approach create great results nonetheless. I have tested and built speakers for the last 10 years now and all speakers do have a "character" (more or less) which is perfectly understandable - because they are all high-distortion units, where most available amplifiers or low powered electronics are not.


----------



## Victor_inox

I`m not going anywhere just got confused by your statement.of course you can buy raw drivers and build hell of a speakers for many times less than furniture grade high- end speakers commercially available. Especially if you build them for known listening environment. I`m too build my first speaker at the age of 12or 13. I established for myself that it makes more sense to buy commercially build speakers instead.
but I do love widebands, what was those you used?


----------



## Bayboy

Elektra said:


> Ok then post up some graphs of good and bad stuff let's study the science... Let's see a Walmart amp compared to a Thesis amp - let's understand how many components need to be upgraded/changed for that amp to measure as well as a Thesis amp - then we can discuss how much these components will cost and if it's even possible considering the board layout and designs..
> 
> Convince me - the burden of proof is with you..
> 
> Oh post up some graphs that show sound stages, realism, warmth and clinical, clarity while you at it...
> 
> It would be great to understand this so that when I am looking for new kit I can completely ignore the listening sessions and go straight to the graphs...
> 
> Let's see...


I'll leave this point of view with you. the short version


----------



## Hanatsu

Elektra said:


> I think people here have a thing for other people when it comes to spending $$$ so many things wrong with a statement that states that a $12 speaker compares to a $12000 speaker...
> 
> How was this test even derived? Test tones on a computer then measured? Was the B&W driver removed and only that was played?
> 
> I still fail to see how a computer can tell you about what your hearing? Like sense of space,soundstage, warmth, clinical...
> 
> All things said here I will ask the question -
> 
> Are you saying if I had a system like this:
> 
> ODR HU preamp let's say the RS-P90
> UTOPIA Kit 7
> Dyn Esotar E1200
> AQ cabling
> 
> Will sound the SAME or just a good as a system like this:
> Sony Xplod HU - being generous apparantly sounds the same as a P99
> Sony Xplod amps
> Sony Xplod subs
> Walmart cabling
> 
> Considering - amps sound the same, HU sound the same, cabling is snake oil..


Interesting that you question how a test was derived. Believe it or not I simply listening to normal music. This was certainly not a controlled test and there was certainly a good amount of time between the speaker swap. So in the sense of a comparison testing, the flaws are multiple. First off, any real evaluation cannot be sighted and the switch must be instantaneous. Even the speaker location would have to be the same to avoid refection alteration etc. 

As you might understand it's hard to pull off such a objective listening test. Just to clarify, I did none of these things and my intention was not to do an objective comparison. *I simply stated that both systems sound great* - not the same - never even said similar - no other elaborations. WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

I for one do not use nonsense audiophile words like space, warmth, clinical. Because they all meaningless and describe nothing. The only things I care about regarding cables is noise rejection. Use TOSLINK and you don't even have to worry about that. Cables might have a HF drop if you use extremely long cables, as might be the case in pro audio environment. For the short lengths used in home and even in cars, they do simply not affect the system in any audible way. Regarding speaker cables, adequate size should be used to avoid power loss due to resistance but that's it. 

... and nobody has still NOT said that all amps sound the same. Stop quoting this all the time please.

BTW. I'd be glad to do such a test as you mention - if I got the opportunity. 

Finally, a computer can TELL if two waveforms are the same. Our brains cannot, why this is so hard to understand is still baffling to me. Take any chain of equipment you like, record it through a computer. Compare it to another waveform, may it be the original reference or a playback made from an other set of equipment. If the waveforms null after subtraction it would be definitive proof the signal was not altered. Why is a listening test needed to test for such a thing? Answer: It's not. It just introduces a whole lot of interpretation and complexity which makes it harder to make proper conclusions.


----------



## Hanatsu

Victor_inox said:


> I`m not going anywhere just got confused by your statement.of course you can buy raw drivers and build hell of a speakers for many times less than furniture grade high- end speakers commercially available. Especially if you build them for known listening environment. I`m too build my first speaker at the age of 12or 13. I established for myself that it makes more sense to buy commercially build speakers instead.
> but I do love widebands, what was those you used?


Vifa TC9 (3 of them in each box). Great drivers. Working on a MTM design with Vifa XT19. As you said, I'm building them for a known environment.


----------



## Victor_inox

not very big room and relatively near field placement they should be quite pleasant.
I love multi drivers speakers even though they measure terrible.


----------



## Hanatsu

Elektra said:


> Ok then post up some graphs of good and bad stuff let's study the science... Let's see a Walmart amp compared to a Thesis amp - let's understand how many components need to be upgraded/changed for that amp to measure as well as a Thesis amp - then we can discuss how much these components will cost and if it's even possible considering the board layout and designs..
> 
> Convince me - the burden of proof is with you..
> 
> Oh post up some graphs that show sound stages, realism, warmth and clinical, clarity while you at it...
> 
> It would be great to understand this so that when I am looking for new kit I can completely ignore the listening sessions and go straight to the graphs...
> 
> Let's see...


Zaph|Audio

This concludes it all basically.

*Warmth could refer to tonal balance with an emphasis on lower midrange (200-500Hz). 

*Realism could refer to an accurate frequency response. Tonality would be a better word.

*Crinical, crarity could mean a frequency response with too much energy in the midrange (tonal imbalance). It could mean excessive non-linear distortion. 

It could be anything, we do not know unless we measure. These words hold no useful meaning other than to the person who writes them. I evaluate speakers solely by measurements.


----------



## Hanatsu

Victor_inox said:


> not very big room and relatively near field placement they should be quite pleasant.


Indeed. They are fairly placed fairly nearfield and staging and tonal balance is exceptional


----------



## WRX/Z28

Elektra said:


> I think people here have a thing for other people when it comes to spending $$$ so many things wrong with a statement that states that a $12 speaker compares to a $12000 speaker...
> 
> How was this test even derived? Test tones on a computer then measured? Was the B&W driver removed and only that was played?
> 
> I still fail to see how a computer can tell you about what your hearing? Like sense of space,soundstage, warmth, clinical...
> 
> All things said here I will ask the question -
> 
> Are you saying if I had a system like this:
> 
> ODR HU preamp let's say the RS-P90
> UTOPIA Kit 7
> Dyn Esotar E1200
> AQ cabling
> 
> Will sound the SAME or just a good as a system like this:
> Sony Xplod HU - being generous apparantly sounds the same as a P99
> Sony Xplod amps
> Sony Xplod subs
> Walmart cabling
> 
> Considering - amps sound the same, HU sound the same, cabling is snake oil..


What do you think creates a sense of space, or stage? Warmth usually refers to good bass/midbass but what does that subjective term mean to you? 

Things that do make a big difference, drivers, power level, T/A, EQ, xover points, positioning, environment even temperature. Amps of similar power? Not so much...


----------



## Jepalan

Elektra said:


> What's the relevance?
> 
> I am an Architect... Been into audio since 1995..


Thanks. Like I mentioned in my post, no relevance really. The question was just to satisfy my curiosity, nothing more. 

I work in a *very* technology driven industry. We design, build and sell commercial products. Our products don't have to be pretty but they have to work well and last a very long time. Testing & performance are everything. 

I was just trying to gain some insight so as to get outside of my personal bias about technology products. 

I have a HUGE hot-button about the high-end cable industry. I believe with all my heart that the high-end (consumer) cable market is all smoke, mirrors and snake oil. I believe this just as strongly as you believe you can hear and experience a difference between said cables. I know better than to try and convince you of anything other than what you believe, but know that I cannot relate to your perspective at all - not even a little bit. It totally perplexes me.

I have always bought the cheapest A/V cables I can find - usually from monoprice.com and have never regretted it.

Cheers.


----------



## sbeezy

subwoofery said:


> What would you do when your Kraco has 1 channel that cuts every now and then - or static noise comes and goes when you turn your system on - or worse just won't turn on?
> Change the amp every 6 months?
> 
> I know what I would do... Buy a Brax, set it and forget it.
> 
> Kelvin


I would too if price was equal between the two.


----------



## WRX/Z28

So, anyone? If you believe that amps make large audible differences, why is this? What measures differently? Why does your amp sound different when mine all reproduce the same signal they are fed?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Jepalan said:


> Thanks. Like I mentioned in my post, no relevance really. The question was just to satisfy my curiosity, nothing more.
> 
> I work in a *very* technology driven industry. We design, build and sell commercial products. Our products don't have to be pretty but they have to work well and last a very long time. Testing & performance are everything.
> 
> I was just trying to gain some insight so as to get outside of my personal bias about technology products.
> 
> I have a HUGE hot-button about the high-end cable industry. I believe with all my heart that the high-end (consumer) cable market is all smoke, mirrors and snake oil. I believe this just as strongly as you believe you can hear and experience a difference between said cables. I know better than to try and convince you of anything other than what you believe, but know that I cannot relate to your perspective at all - not even a little bit. It totally perplexes me.
> 
> I have always bought the cheapest A/V cables I can find - usually from monoprice.com and have never regretted it.
> 
> Cheers.


I'm 100% of the same opinion. This is after selling Monster Cable, Audio Quest and Kimber Cable, and completely buying into their hype. Then I decided to A/B, and realized that there was 0 difference between them, and a $20 rca cable. 

I didn't start to realize this enough to want to test for myself until I saw these companies manufacturing power cables. Meanwhile your whole house is wired with Romex, at least 30-40ft long, so what is that 6ft power cable going to change? 

This in and of itself shows how stupid the cable companies think we are, and some of us are proving them right over and over again.


----------



## Elektra

Jepalan said:


> Thanks. Like I mentioned in my post, no relevance really. The question was just to satisfy my curiosity, nothing more.
> 
> I work in a *very* technology driven industry. We design, build and sell commercial products. Our products don't have to be pretty but they have to work well and last a very long time. Testing & performance are everything.
> 
> I was just trying to gain some insight so as to get outside of my personal bias about technology products.
> 
> I have a HUGE hot-button about the high-end cable industry. I believe with all my heart that the high-end (consumer) cable market is all smoke, mirrors and snake oil. I believe this just as strongly as you believe you can hear and experience a difference between said cables. I know better than to try and convince you of anything other than what you believe, but know that I cannot relate to your perspective at all - not even a little bit. It totally perplexes me.
> 
> I have always bought the cheapest A/V cables I can find - usually from monoprice.com and have never regretted it.
> 
> Cheers.


For me it solidifies my system and makes a difference... When I demod the cables I put myself in a sceptical frame of mind. So as not to wish for an improvement - rather just to listen and decide for myself.

The difference was beyond an imagination - to be honest I didn't like the way the system sounded - after swoping out to better cables - the system sounded ALOT better..

Smoke and snake oil? I can't believe that... I heard what I heard... Maybe the cheaper cables were not 100% copper CCA? But these were considered expensive in the car audio industry probably beyond what 95% of people would care to use/spend


----------



## Elektra

WRX/Z28 said:


> I'm 100% of the same opinion. This is after selling Monster Cable, Audio Quest and Kimber Cable, and completely buying into their hype. Then I decided to A/B, and realized that there was 0 difference between them, and a $20 rca cable.
> 
> I didn't start to realize this enough to want to test for myself until I saw these companies manufacturing power cables. Meanwhile your whole house is wired with Romex, at least 30-40ft long, so what is that 6ft power cable going to change?
> 
> This in and of itself shows how stupid the cable companies think we are, and some of us are proving them right over and over again.


Could you explain my findings? 

Not being funny here... The monster cable I used was a lot more expensive than $20...

It's not perceived or imagined - assume for a second the what I heard was accurate...


----------



## WRX/Z28

Elektra said:


> Could you explain my findings?
> 
> Not being funny here... The monster cable I used was a lot more expensive than $20...
> 
> It's not perceived or imagined - assume for a second the what I heard was accurate...


You had a cable with a defect to compare the expensive cable to. Defect being bad contact, bad termination or so on... or it was psychological...


----------



## Elektra

WRX/Z28 said:


> You had a cable with a defect to compare the expensive cable to. Defect being bad contact, bad termination or so on... or it was psychological...


Ok..

Cable wasn't defective as it was working 100%, in fact the monster cable had a better contact to the equipment than the AQ...

Psychological? I don't think so either - I wrote down everything that I didn't like off each genre of music I listened to.. 

Changed the cable and listened again to the same music and went back to my notes - major improvement in all areas described in my notes..


----------



## Elektra

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the human physiology plays a role in how we hear or perceive things?

We are guided by our 5 senses.. Which in turn project a image to our brain. Considering we only use 5% at most of our brain - it's safe to say our limitations are our brains.

For instance - your eyes are the window to the world - ever heard that saying? Well it's true.. Lose your eye sight and your sense of touch , taste and hearing gets better as you force your brain to compensate for the loss of your eye sight... The improvement in your other senses will take years to improve as you have train your brain all over again to compensate.

Have you ever tried to decider Brael or identify food that get put in your mouth without you seeing what it is or expecting? Your favorite food may not be that nice without seeing it first.. Good looks delicious, smells delicious - your brain has already made its mind up - it is delicious...

A person who loves music but is blind will probably hear more than an able body person - why? Because he has trained himself to use his ears better - his brain is more in tune with his ears therefore he listens more intently than normal people. Beethoven is a good example he was stone deaf but still able to write music - he would rest his head on the piano and listen to the reverberation of each note..

Doing blind AB tests is a joke.. We are not trained to shut our eyes and listen critically - we only hear 50% of what we could hear if you used our eyes to help our brain to determine what our ears should hear. Only a trained professional or people who are able to critically listen should ever be allowed to do a blind listening test. All this test proves is that you can't listen properly

Our brains are trained to a certain point which means that even if we measure a product to death and the compare it to another and it sounds the same - in reality it does only to you - but to a person who is able to critically listen he can hear the differences. 

A person who can critically listen can identify the differences to amps, cables, HU's etc .. It is not the case the if you can't hear the differences you can't hear - of course you can! Some people are able to hear better as they have trained themselves to do so. 

A person who critically listens is a person who does not listen to the music as such but listens to the way the music is being played - I.e. How the fingers hit the piano , how long the reverb of that note goes on for how the top , middle and low of that note sounds, how the voice pronounces the start middle and end of each word. Etc...

If you do this all the time then your able to critically listen - some are able for a few minutes others all the time.. 

To these people sonic imperfections are completely annoying and if you can listen with your ears and listen in your mind at the same time and your minds version sounds better then you require more resolution. 

This is why 10% or less are willing to spend $$ on better equipment and cable - because they can hear the differences where 90% call BS and Snake oil.. This is why companies cater for the 10% and are able to sustain themselves..

I have trained my ear for 40 years.. I can hear things that others don't notice till being pointed out - music that sounds wrong to me but right to someone else irritates me to no end. I can hear the differences between cables, amps and HU's..


----------



## sbeezy

Elektra said:


> Has it ever occurred to anyone that the human physiology plays a role in how we hear or perceive things?
> 
> We are guided by our 5 senses.. Which in turn project a image to our brain. Considering we only use 5% at most of our brain - it's safe to say our limitations are our brains.
> 
> For instance - your eyes are the window to the world - ever heard that saying? Well it's true.. Lose your eye sight and your sense of touch , taste and hearing gets better as you force your brain to compensate for the loss of your eye sight... The improvement in your other senses will take years to improve as you have train your brain all over again to compensate.
> 
> Have you ever tried to decider Brael or identify food that get put in your mouth without you seeing what it is or expecting? Your favorite food may not be that nice without seeing it first.. Good looks delicious, smells delicious - your brain has already made its mind up - it is delicious...
> 
> A person who loves music but is blind will probably hear more than an able body person - why? Because he has trained himself to use his ears better - his brain is more in tune with his ears therefore he listens more intently than normal people. Beethoven is a good example he was stone deaf but still able to write music - he would rest his head on the piano and listen to the reverberation of each note..
> 
> Doing blind AB tests is a joke.. We are not trained to shut our eyes and listen critically - we only hear 50% of what we could hear if you used our eyes to help our brain to determine what our ears should hear. Only a trained professional or people who are able to critically listen should ever be allowed to do a blind listening test. All this test proves is that you can't listen properly
> 
> Our brains are trained to a certain point which means that even if we measure a product to death and the compare it to another and it sounds the same - in reality it does only to you - but to a person who is able to critically listen he can hear the differences.
> 
> A person who can critically listen can identify the differences to amps, cables, HU's etc .. It is not the case the if you can't hear the differences you can't hear - of course you can! Some people are able to hear better as they have trained themselves to do so.
> 
> A person who critically listens is a person who does not listen to the music as such but listens to the way the music is being played - I.e. How the fingers hit the piano , how long the reverb of that note goes on for how the top , middle and low of that note sounds, how the voice pronounces the start middle and end of each word. Etc...
> 
> If you do this all the time then your able to critically listen - some are able for a few minutes others all the time..
> 
> To these people sonic imperfections are completely annoying and if you can listen with your ears and listen in your mind at the same time and your minds version sounds better then you require more resolution.
> 
> This is why 10% or less are willing to spend $$ on better equipment and cable - because they can hear the differences where 90% call BS and Snake oil.. This is why companies cater for the 10% and are able to sustain themselves..
> 
> I have trained my ear for 40 years.. I can hear things that others don't notice till being pointed out - music that sounds wrong to me but right to someone else irritates me to no end. I can hear the differences between cables, amps and HU's..


Ok Mr sonic bionic ear!


----------



## Hanatsu

We don't use 5% of our brains. We actually use far more than we used to believe. Our brains are filtering out the majority of the auditory input, otherwise it would cause a sensory overload. This is why we hear "new" things in the exact same setup at different times. You hear what you focus on. Furthermore, we can't train our ears - we can train our brains to focus on different things. 

A/B-X testing is certainly not a joke. You are simply way off here. You yourself said that you require your eyes in the process of evaluation. 

If you know what you listening at - you will use that information in deciding the performance of the system. You can't be objective with this mindset.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


----------



## el_bob-o

This makes me think of the Southpark with Chipotlaway sold by Billie Mays. 

"You may have a golden rectum of the gods, but the rest of us need chipotlaway." 

Except replace your rectum with ears of course and Chipotlaway with commonplace amplifiers.


----------



## Bayboy

I was interested & reading with delight, but when the cable aspect was brought up.... ummm, I'm done!  Outta here...


----------



## Elektra

sbeezy said:


> Ok Mr sonic bionic ear!


We are all capable of this... It's limited to a few "bionic ear" guys


----------



## Elektra

* not limited - sorry


----------



## Elektra

el_bob-o said:


> This makes me think of the Southpark with Chipotlaway sold by Billie Mays.
> 
> "You may have a golden rectum of the gods, but the rest of us need chipotlaway."
> 
> Except replace your rectum with ears of course and Chipotlaway with commonplace amplifiers.


Lol...


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> I`ll ask my question again, do you think that all input stages based on different opamps sounds the same? I`d like to hear your opinion on that, please.


Yes. I tested through two same model zed amps with different op-amps (one used Burr-Brown) and no appreciable difference. 



Elektra said:


> Ok..
> 
> Cable wasn't defective as it was working 100%, in fact the monster cable had a better contact to the equipment than the AQ...
> 
> Psychological? I don't think so either - I wrote down everything that I didn't like off each genre of music I listened to..
> 
> Changed the cable and listened again to the same music and went back to my notes - major improvement in all areas described in my notes..


How did you test the cable? What was the impedance from terminal to terminal? 

Your test is flawed because your mind sorts things too quickly. Stopping your track, swapping the cable, and restarting the track, notes or not, your memory has already faded of what you heard the first time, and your mind is making up the missing pieces. Psychology plays a huge part under these circumstances. 



Elektra said:


> Has it ever occurred to anyone that the human physiology plays a role in how we hear or perceive things?


I think you said physiology, but past here your description sounds more like psychology, which if that's the case, we're 100% in agreement on. 



Elektra said:


> We are guided by our 5 senses.. Which in turn project a image to our brain. Considering we only use 5% at most of our brain - it's safe to say our limitations are our brains.


We use far more than 5%. You need to get out more. 



Elektra said:


> For instance - your eyes are the window to the world - ever heard that saying? Well it's true.. Lose your eye sight and your sense of touch , taste and hearing gets better as you force your brain to compensate for the loss of your eye sight... The improvement in your other senses will take years to improve as you have train your brain all over again to compensate.


This has been shown to be myth as well. Deaf people do not have better sight, blind people do not have better hearing. People that loose one sense do not gain in another. They may pay more attention to the remaining information, but the input is the same. 



Elektra said:


> Have you ever tried to decider Brael or identify food that get put in your mouth without you seeing what it is or expecting? Your favorite food may not be that nice without seeing it first.. Good looks delicious, smells delicious - your brain has already made its mind up - it is delicious...


Taste is preceded by smell, and smell plays a huge part. This is why when we're sick, and can't smell, food tastes different. The remainder is all psychology, which again, we agree on. 



Elektra said:


> A person who loves music but is blind will probably hear more than an able body person - why? Because he has trained himself to use his ears better - his brain is more in tune with his ears therefore he listens more intently than normal people. Beethoven is a good example he was stone deaf but still able to write music - he would rest his head on the piano and listen to the reverberation of each note..


Not a great example, as you're only pointing out that even the deaf can hear in other ways. IE: A deaf person can still perceive deep bass. 

The blind person hasn't trained himself about anything. At most, he may be paying more attention to the remaining sense (sound). His capabilities at hearing that sound are no different than if he had sight. 




Elektra said:


> Doing blind AB tests is a joke.. We are not trained to shut our eyes and listen critically - we only hear 50% of what we could hear if you used our eyes to help our brain to determine what our ears should hear. Only a trained professional or people who are able to critically listen should ever be allowed to do a blind listening test. All this test proves is that you can't listen properly


Uhm, what?  You're not making sense here. Blind A/B tests are the endgame to this argument. They show that you can not tell the difference, or you can. If I do a blind A/B taste test, do I need to learn how to taste first? All people should be able to do a blind A/B listening test. Any differences that are there should be perceivable by anyone with average hearing capabilities. Even if they can't explain what was different, they should be able to identify it as different. 



Elektra said:


> Our brains are trained to a certain point which means that even if we measure a product to death and the compare it to another and it sounds the same - in reality it does only to you - but to a person who is able to critically listen he can hear the differences.


100% no sense made here. 



Elektra said:


> A person who can critically listen can identify the differences to amps, cables, HU's etc .. It is not the case the if you can't hear the differences you can't hear - of course you can! Some people are able to hear better as they have trained themselves to do so.


No, they just think they can. People that have better hearing still fail the blind A/B test, as the information passed through is still the same. People can't learn to have better hearing. It's simply impossible. 



Elektra said:


> A person who critically listens is a person who does not listen to the music as such but listens to the way the music is being played - I.e. How the fingers hit the piano , how long the reverb of that note goes on for how the top , middle and low of that note sounds, how the voice pronounces the start middle and end of each word. Etc...


But these differences are all created by measurable things, and just about everything besides your amp plays a huge part in this. 



Elektra said:


> If you do this all the time then your able to critically listen - some are able for a few minutes others all the time..
> 
> To these people sonic imperfections are completely annoying and if you can listen with your ears and listen in your mind at the same time and your minds version sounds better then you require more resolution.
> 
> This is why 10% or less are willing to spend $$ on better equipment and cable - because they can hear the differences where 90% call BS and Snake oil.. This is why companies cater for the 10% and are able to sustain themselves..
> 
> I have trained my ear for 40 years.. I can hear things that others don't notice till being pointed out - music that sounds wrong to me but right to someone else irritates me to no end. I can hear the differences between cables, amps and HU's..


Yeah, the rest of this all sum's up into your false belief that some of us have "Golden ears", while the rest do not. 



sbeezy said:


> Ok Mr sonic bionic ear!


I thought it was Ms. Sonic Bionic ear... no? When I hear the name Elektra, I envision Jennifer Garner...


----------



## WRX/Z28

100 Pages!!! Woohoo!!! 100 pages of going in circles!






Bayboy said:


> I was interested & reading with delight, but when the cable aspect was brought up.... ummm, I'm done!  Outta here...


Yeah, cables are just another part into how absurd this insistence of a magical immeasurable difference is...

Cable companies are the most modern iteration of snake oil there is.


----------



## sbeezy

WRX/Z28 said:


> Yes. I tested through two same model zed amps with different op-amps (one used Burr-Brown) and no appreciable difference.
> 
> 
> 
> How did you test the cable? What was the impedance from terminal to terminal?
> 
> Your test is flawed because your mind sorts things too quickly. Stopping your track, swapping the cable, and restarting the track, notes or not, your memory has already faded of what you heard the first time, and your mind is making up the missing pieces. Psychology plays a huge part under these circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you said physiology, but past here your description sounds more like psychology, which if that's the case, we're 100% in agreement on.
> 
> 
> 
> We use far more than 5%. You need to get out more.
> 
> 
> 
> This has been shown to be myth as well. Deaf people do not have better sight, blind people do not have better hearing. People that loose one sense do not gain in another. They may pay more attention to the remaining information, but the input is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Taste is preceded by smell, and smell plays a huge part. This is why when we're sick, and can't smell, food tastes different. The remainder is all psychology, which again, we agree on.
> 
> 
> 
> Not a great example, as you're only pointing out that even the deaf can hear in other ways. IE: A deaf person can still perceive deep bass.
> 
> The blind person hasn't trained himself about anything. At most, he may be paying more attention to the remaining sense (sound). His capabilities at hearing that sound are no different than if he had sight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm, what?  You're not making sense here. Blind A/B tests are the endgame to this argument. They show that you can not tell the difference, or you can. If I do a blind A/B taste test, do I need to learn how to taste first? All people should be able to do a blind A/B listening test. Any differences that are there should be perceivable by anyone with average hearing capabilities. Even if they can't explain what was different, they should be able to identify it as different.
> 
> 
> 
> 100% no sense made here.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they just think they can. People that have better hearing still fail the blind A/B test, as the information passed through is still the same. People can't learn to have better hearing. It's simply impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> But these differences are all created by measurable things, and just about everything besides your amp plays a huge part in this.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the rest of this all sum's up into your false belief that some of us have "Golden ears", while the rest do not.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was Ms. Sonic Bionic ear... no? When I hear the name Elektra, I envision Jennifer Garner...


Lmao @ the Ms sonic bionic ear! I'm dead!


----------



## Elektra

Hanatsu said:


> We don't use 5% of our brains. We actually use far more than we used to believe. Our brains are filtering out the majority of the auditory input, otherwise it would cause a sensory overload. This is why we hear "new" things in the exact same setup at different times. You hear what you focus on. Furthermore, we can't train our ears - we can train our brains to focus on different things.
> 
> A/B-X testing is certainly not a joke. You are simply way off here. You yourself said that you require your eyes in the process of evaluation.
> 
> If you know what you listening at - you will use that information in deciding the performance of the system. You can't be objective with this mindset.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


The whole thing is psychological - your 5 senses dictate everything you do and perceive. The loss of one of your senses heightens others..

Everybody sees, heard, tastes differently - you see red I see scarlet... 

The fact that your eyes, brain sees measurements - your brain is already coming to a conclusion...don't care how unbiased you are in your evaluations. The difference between 1% and 0.00001% distortion may not be heard by everyone... A amp with 80db SN vs 120db SN may not be heard by some..

Fact remains is what you can actually hear - not what the equipment measures at.. 

For me it does not matter if I can see what I am testing or not I always come to the same conclusion. ABX testing is useful for your own evaluation - I find ABX testing done by others isn't always reliable as I cannot be certain of the calibre of individuals conducting the tests...

The wrong people in a ABX test can ruin a products reputation unfairly... 

When people accept that people are all different then they will realize that this topic is a waste of time... Especially if your not willing to concede that it may be fact for some and not for the rest..

That's life..


----------



## WRX/Z28

sbeezy said:


> Lmao @ the Ms sonic bionic ear! I'm dead!


I'm being serious here, that wasn't intended as an insult. 

I think Jenifer Garner, and then Carmen Elektra.


----------



## WRX/Z28

Elektra said:


> The whole thing is psychological - your 5 senses dictate everything you do and perceive. The loss of one of your senses heightens others..
> 
> Everybody sees, heard, tastes differently - you see red I see scarlet...
> 
> The fact that your eyes, brain sees measurements - your brain is already coming to a conclusion...don't care how unbiased you are in your evaluations. The difference between 1% and 0.00001% distortion may not be heard by everyone... A amp with 80db SN vs 120db SN may not be heard by some..
> 
> Fact remains is what you can actually hear - not what the equipment measures at..
> 
> For me it does not matter if I can see what I am testing or not I always come to the same conclusion. ABX testing is useful for your own evaluation - I find ABX testing done by others isn't always reliable as I cannot be certain of the calibre of individuals conducting the tests...
> 
> The wrong people in a ABX test can ruin a products reputation unfairly...
> 
> When people accept that people are all different then they will realize that this topic is a waste of time... Especially if your not willing to concede that it may be fact for some and not for the rest..
> 
> That's life..


That's the point. Blind A/B testing is to remove the psychological part of the equation, and see if there truly is an audible difference. 

Don't think I've ever seen someone misguidedly attack Blind A/B testing before, but I guess there's a first time for everything...


So let's sum this up, Measurements as testing for difference is wrong. Blind A/B testing for difference is wrong. What other way would you like us to determine if there is a difference? lol


----------



## sbeezy

Elektra said:


> The whole thing is psychological - your 5 senses dictate everything you do and perceive. The loss of one of your senses heightens others..
> 
> Everybody sees, heard, tastes differently - you see red I see scarlet...
> 
> The fact that your eyes, brain sees measurements - your brain is already coming to a conclusion...don't care how unbiased you are in your evaluations. The difference between 1% and 0.00001% distortion may not be heard by everyone... A amp with 80db SN vs 120db SN may not be heard by some..
> 
> Fact remains is what you can actually hear - not what the equipment measures at..
> 
> For me it does not matter if I can see what I am testing or not I always come to the same conclusion. ABX testing is useful for your own evaluation - I find ABX testing done by others isn't always reliable as I cannot be certain of the calibre of individuals conducting the tests...
> 
> The wrong people in a ABX test can ruin a products reputation unfairly...
> 
> When people accept that people are all different then they will realize that this topic is a waste of time... Especially if your not willing to concede that it may be fact for some and not for the rest..
> 
> That's life..


If you believe this why go to extreme lengths to try to explain your point. Why not just rest your case an accept that some don't believe you? That's life...


----------



## Jepalan

Elektra said:


> Could you explain my findings?


Elektra - I do not doubt that *you personally perceived a difference*. Nobody here can explain your experience. We could try, but would need a LOT of detail about the test you did. What were the system components? What cable type was tested and where was it connected in the system? Did you test the cables blind or did you know which cables you were listening to? Who performed the set up and cable swap (you or store employee)? Stuff like that. Regardless, even with those details and a logical explanation, you would still believe you heard a difference. So the point is moot.

I am a skeptic. Without detail about the test you did, I personally believe the difference you heard was either a psychological effect, or faked by some other parameter change. I also believe if the test was done correctly and blind you would not be able to identify which cable sounded 'better'. I believe these things because in every cable test I have participated in I could not detect a difference - and in every well documented test I have read about no difference could be detected. I am firm in my belief.


----------



## Jepalan

WRX/Z28 said:


> Cable companies are the most modern iteration of snake oil there is.


Agreed. But make no mistake, 'creative marketing' is a part of *every* consumer product sold at some level. Touted benefits are exaggerated or do not exist at all in almost every product category. 

Read some of the articles about how red-levels, contrast, brightness & store lighting are purposely set up differently on TVs in showrooms in order to increase sales of one model over another. 

Pick up a text book on consumer psychology.


----------



## JVD240

Elektra said:


> Could you explain my findings?
> 
> Not being funny here... The monster cable I used was a lot more expensive than $20...
> 
> It's not perceived or imagined - assume for a second the what I heard was accurate...


Everything you "hear" is PERCEIVED. Please understand that. 

I trust my ears as well. I've built and sold premium cables to people like you. I could hear zero difference. Is your hearing just superior? Can you hear better than equipment can measure as well?

My work is in commercial audio/video/lighting. In my world cable is cable. I've spoken to some of the brightest people in the business who will tell you the same. I chose audio cable based on lengths and installation environment only.


----------



## XSIV SPL

> Please someone enlighten me as to what you think these "high end" amps do to the signal they are fed that the average amp does not. This is the point.


This is the right question, sort of... 

Fidelity to the source is what we seek. So, the perfect amplifier, if one existed, but in reality cannot, would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MORE to the input signal than to duplicate its frequency, period and wavelength EXACTLY, but at a much higher amplitude. Fidelity.

It is fact that every component in an audio system will add its own "color" to the sound being reproduced, be it source, cables, speaker wire, amps and loudspeakers, etc. 

Honestly, some folks PREFER a certain coloration though- for example: I was at the audio shop this past weekend and observed a fellow auditioning speakers for his car who actually preferred the sound of a pair of Alpine co-axial speakers over the sound of a Dynaudio 3-way system, and GOOD FOR HIM! He'll be happier with the less expensive option, even though I was in the next room and could clearly hear the difference even from a distance.

Back on topic:

Since there will probably never be a "perfect" (totally neutral) amplifier, (or other component of any sort for that matter) we are left to sort through nearly endless possibilities and capabilities of the various pieces needed to assemble an audio system.

There is probably always something which is better, and noticeably so, than what any of us are probably using, and it will ALWAYS be the component that does the LEAST to the input signal other than its intended specific purpose. It just so happens that this particular component can cost many times more than one which doesn't sound "that much" lesser than the component being considered.

One can get a huge bang for the buck moving from one to another component in the lower price ranges, but audio as a hobby is a pursuit of diminishing returns.

There is probably not a single person reading this thread who has not at one time or another said "This sounds really good FOR THE MONEY." 

Is there? 

Oh, wow, it's page 100 here... Yay!

Reason for edit: typos, oops!


----------



## Jesus Christ

XSIV SPL said:


> Fidelity to the source is what we seek. So, the perfect amplifier, if one existed, but in reality cannot, would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MORE to the input signal than to duplicate its frequency, period and wavelength EXACTLY, but at a much higher amplitude. Fidelity.


If that were true then wouldn't it make sense for the people claiming differences to measure amplifiers to find the most accurate amp rather than their ears?


----------



## sbeezy

I've said this sounds really good for the money for a few amps.


----------



## XSIV SPL

Jesus Christ said:


> If that were true then wouldn't it make sense for the people claiming differences to measure amplifiers to find the most accurate amp rather than their ears?


In a perfect environment, yes?

Since no two amps are the same, and no two environments are the same, I have to believe that measuring goes only to a certain point.

For example: Some folks think that certain Focal loudspeakers are the best you can attain, while I find them harshly "bright", and the list goes on...

Preference and price will always converge to guide us on how many dollars we are willing to part with, personally, 100% of the time.


----------



## ChrisB

WRX/Z28 said:


> 100 Pages!!! Woohoo!!! 100 pages of going in circles!



I only have 63 pages...

EDIT:


----------



## Jesus Christ

XSIV SPL said:


> In a perfect environment, yes?
> 
> Since no two amps are the same, and no two environments are the same, I have to believe that measuring goes only to a certain point.
> 
> For example: Some folks think that certain Focal loudspeakers are the best you can attain, while I find them harshly "bright", and the list goes on...
> 
> Preference and price will always converge to guide us on how many dollars we are willing to part with, personally, 100% of the time.


If fidelity to the source is the ultimate goal as you said though then measurements are much better than your ears to make that determination.


----------



## legend94

ChrisB said:


> I only have 63 pages...
> 
> EDIT:



It doesn't matter how many pages you have if you have at least 10. If you have more than that it's just another circle jerk with no happy ending.


----------



## subwoofery

WRX/Z28 said:


> Yes, I am. I said they sound awesome (as do all powerful amps) in reply to your trolling of my post. Douchebag move on your part, but I digress. (if you'd like me to start trolling your threads about your products, keep it up)
> 
> I like US made things, they make good power, and have good crossovers. They are clean and nostalgic in appearance. Where am I not 100% honest?


So powerful amps sounds awesome compared to amps that can only put out 50 watts? I thought that it was not possible to tell an amp apart from another if gains where set correctly... 

Now you lost me 

Kelvin


----------



## rton20s

WRX/Z28 said:


> So let's sum this up, Measurements as testing for difference is wrong. Blind A/B testing for difference is wrong. What other way would you like us to determine if there is a difference? lol


Marketing copy?


----------



## XSIV SPL

legend94 said:


> It doesn't matter how many pages you have if you have at least 10. If you have more than that it's just another circle jerk with no happy ending.


THIS!

Except that we already have 100 pages of that... So far, and bound to climb higher...


----------



## subwoofery

WRX/Z28 said:


> So, anyone? If you believe that amps make large audible differences, why is this? What measures differently? Why does your amp sound different when mine all reproduce the same signal they are fed?


The distortion profile is different when playing a sound. I've posted this many times 

Next question please 

Kelvin


----------



## legend94

XSIV SPL said:


> THIS!
> 
> Except that we already have 100 pages of that... So far, and bound to climb higher...


This will keep going until it's shut down. I would love to do some real ab testing myself to see if I can hear a difference in amps. Not cables....amps.


----------



## Hanatsu

XSIV SPL said:


> In a perfect environment, yes?
> 
> Since no two amps are the same, and no two environments are the same, I have to believe that measuring goes only to a certain point.
> 
> For example: Some folks think that certain Focal loudspeakers are the best you can attain, while I find them harshly "bright", and the list goes on...
> 
> Preference and price will always converge to guide us on how many dollars we are willing to part with, personally, 100% of the time.


Sorry but what does environment has to do with anything? To compensate for the environment we simply use a DSP. I have to believe that we can't hear nearly as good as we can measure.

As long as that preference is based on sighted testing then we'll continue to spend money on things that may not improve our systems in any meaningful way at all. 

This discussion, as pointed out by many others here, is going in circles and have started to become quite uninteresting to follow. Until someone present something new, this will just go on and on....

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


----------



## XSIV SPL

Jesus Christ said:


> If fidelity to the source is the ultimate goal as you said though then measurements are much better than your ears to make that determination.


I merely said that the ultimate determination will rely upon the ear...

I no longer use instruments of measurement for anything other than "roughing-in" my gains...

I rely upon my ears for everything audio, which seems sensible to me...


----------



## XSIV SPL

Hanatsu said:


> Sorry but what does environment has to do with anything? To compensate for the environment we simply use a DSP.


Sorry, but aren't we talking mobile environments here?

No two environments are the same, and you should know that. In a poor environment, there is NO amount of DSP which can correct that...

I'm sure you are aware that you can't just move your finely tuned gear to another location and expect the same result. Environment is at least 80% of the process here as far as how one would plan and tune accordingly...

Environments cannot be conquered by a few simple clicks on your DSP... 

The DSP is a wonderful asset for sure, but it's certainly not magic. It won't correct a poor environment, and it won't improve your ears, nor your ability to discern finite details in your music or mine. And it certainly will never make up for poor planning and poor loudspeaker placement.


----------



## Elektra

WRX/Z28 said:


> That's the point. Blind A/B testing is to remove the psychological part of the equation, and see if there truly is an audible difference.
> 
> Don't think I've ever seen someone misguidedly attack Blind A/B testing before, but I guess there's a first time for everything...
> 
> 
> So let's sum this up, Measurements as testing for difference is wrong. Blind A/B testing for difference is wrong. What other way would you like us to determine if there is a difference? lol


Measurements tell a certain part of the story - it doesn't explain everything...

As some of the measurements are beyond human hearing..

AB testing is the best way to test equipment as the results are based on the level of your own hearing and not based on someone else's - you may have worse hearing or better hearing than the AB tests done by others..

I believe psychology plays a major role in what you hear whether your able to see the tests or not..

Most of us rely heavily on sight to tell our brain what to hear from our ears - take away that and your ability to listen properly may be hindered... The results may be flawed..

Most of us are not trained to listen properly without sight as your brain gets too distracted - that's why sometimes it's hard to close your eyes and listen intently for periods of time - your brain loses focus and you find you can't concentrate..

This is my opinion - I have never had a situation when I found something to sound better and retracted it at a later stage or had a different opinion when testing it again...

Whether you like it or not your brain plays an important role in what you hear...


----------



## Hanatsu

XSIV SPL said:


> Sorry, but aren't we talking mobile environments here?
> 
> No two environments are the same, and you should know that. In a poor environment, there is NO amount of DSP which can correct that...
> 
> I'm sure you are aware that you can't just move your finely tuned gear to another location and expect the same result. Environment is at least 80% of the process here as far as how one would plan and tune accordingly...
> 
> Environments cannot be conquered by a few simple clicks on your DSP...
> 
> The DSP is a wonderful asset for sure, but it's certainly not magic. It won't correct a poor environment, and it won't improve your ears, nor your ability to discern finite details in your music or mine. And it certainly will never make up for poor planning and poor loudspeaker placement.


No amount of "high-end amplifier" will "correct" for anything. All cars can be considered poor environments and YES, DSP CAN compensate for a lot of acoustic shortcomings. DSPs are the single most important thing in any system in regards of attaining a good sound, in my world - DSP is that important. Call it magic if you will.

I will agree that installation and speaker placements are stuff that can (may) introduce issues that are non-fixable with processing. 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


----------



## WRX/Z28

subwoofery said:


> So powerful amps sounds awesome compared to amps that can only put out 50 watts? I thought that it was not possible to tell an amp apart from another if gains where set correctly...
> 
> Now you lost me
> 
> Kelvin


Seriously?  *Setting gains so both amps make identical power.* not "correctly", the gains are set within the limits of the weaker amp. See, you don't even understand the point we are making, nevermind having anything useful to contribute. You don't bother to read the explanation, you just assume it is wrong, so you skim over it...

Have you even read the guidelines of RC's challenge at all?



rton20s said:


> Marketing copy?


:laugh:



subwoofery said:


> The distortion profile is different when playing a sound. I've posted this many times
> 
> Next question please
> 
> Kelvin



Please explain what a "distortion profile" is? Assuming you mean distortion is the difference, distortion is measureable, so we should:

A: be able to simply choose the amp that measured the least distortion. 

B: not be able to hear the fractions of a percent of distortion the amp makes over the 3% or more distortion the speaker itself creates. 

C: already know that distortion below a certain threshold is inaudible. 

You may post it many more times (I don't remember seeing it accepted as useful information), but it still holds no water. 

Keep posturing as though you've made some revelation to us that we're all missing... by all means... 


Elektra said:


> Measurements tell a certain part of the story - it doesn't explain everything...
> 
> As some of the measurements are beyond human hearing..
> 
> AB testing is the best way to test equipment as the results are based on the level of your own hearing and not based on someone else's - you may have worse hearing or better hearing than the AB tests done by others..
> 
> I believe psychology plays a major role in what you hear whether your able to see the tests or not..
> 
> Most of us rely heavily on sight to tell our brain what to hear from our ears - take away that and your ability to listen properly may be hindered... The results may be flawed..
> 
> Most of us are not trained to listen properly without sight as your brain gets too distracted - that's why sometimes it's hard to close your eyes and listen intently for periods of time - your brain loses focus and you find you can't concentrate..
> 
> This is my opinion - I have never had a situation when I found something to sound better and retracted it at a later stage or had a different opinion when testing it again...
> 
> Whether you like it or not your brain plays an important role in what you hear...


 You are making my points for me, and slowly agreeing with me. Psychology plays a large point in why we think we hear differences when we are expecting to. 

If measurements are beyond human hearing (again we agree), why don't they explain everything? What difference can we not measure? I'll give you a hint at the answer... it's none. 

We rely on sight to tell us what we hear? Really? Care to show any published documentation to support that one? 

You seem to be trying to explain the psychology involved, but are missing the target. When blind A/B testing is involved, the psychology is removed, since you don't know what you are listening to. Once the psychology is removed, you find what the *audible* differences are, which are not repeatedly identifiable, even with golden ears/brain.

I'm not sure why you are telling me your brain plays a large role in what we hear, obviously this is the case. You seem to insinuate that most don't believe this. Why? I've not found that to be the case, quite the opposite actually. 

This in itself explains why we can't rely on our ears, especially when we have preconceived notions and bias.


----------



## Hanatsu

Elektra said:


> Measurements tell a certain part of the story - it doesn't explain everything...
> 
> As some of the measurements are beyond human hearing..
> 
> AB testing is the best way to test equipment as the results are based on the level of your own hearing and not based on someone else's - you may have worse hearing or better hearing than the AB tests done by others..
> 
> I believe psychology plays a major role in what you hear whether your able to see the tests or not..
> 
> Most of us rely heavily on sight to tell our brain what to hear from our ears - take away that and your ability to listen properly may be hindered... The results may be flawed..
> 
> Most of us are not trained to listen properly without sight as your brain gets too distracted - that's why sometimes it's hard to close your eyes and listen intently for periods of time - your brain loses focus and you find you can't concentrate..
> 
> This is my opinion - I have never had a situation when I found something to sound better and retracted it at a later stage or had a different opinion when testing it again...
> 
> Whether you like it or not your brain plays an important role in what you hear...


*1. It is not a big issue.*

Even IF there were "fine-details" to heard if you concentrated on it etc. Why should we care, unless we are competing or listening in a quiet place with no external noise? The majority of us are listening with the engine on, while driving with an enormous amount of external noise (relatively speaking). 

*2. NOT obvious.*

Furthermore, as you "amplifier-high-end-sound-propagators" make it sound like, the differences are very obvious yet subtle at the same time. This discussion wouldn't exist to begin with if the difference would be obvious. Noone debating if "high-end speakers is a myth" - why? Because the difference is OBVIOUS.

*3. Audiophiles do not have a monopoly on critical listening.*

This is the worst thing really. It could actually be considered offensive. The people who says that they can hear something other can't often refer to themselves as being superior. "There's obviously sometime wrong with your ears" - "You have no listening experience" - "You don't know what to listen for" etc etc. Believe it or not that we "objective people" people might know exactly what to listen for. 

I can hear quite small amounts of non-linearities (I've managed to hear ~1% in controlled listening on the klippel site (link below)) in speaker systems, much less than some of "20-years of listening experience-golden-ears" people I know - yet they claim they can hear the difference between 0,0001% and 0,05% distortion in DACs etc. 

*4. My experience.*

I think there's a very weak correlation between people who claim they can hear a difference and those who cannot in terms of hearing ability (assuming you don't have excessive high frequency loss or hearing damage). The main difference is the mindset. If you fail to point out differences in an AB/X test, it's automatically decided that the test method is flawed. I and many others accept reality and draw NEW conclusions based on the outcome instead of constant denial. 

I have certainly not anything wrong with my hearing, I do know how to listen. I actually was exactly like you a few years back believe it or not. I had golden ears, I could tell differences between cables, amps, HUs - everything. I used audiophile fancy words to describe everything until the day I did a controlled AB/X test and failed miserably. I couldn't tell the difference all of a sudden, even though I "knew" the difference when I saw the products. It was an eye-opener to me, since then I got another mindset and suddenly things isn't as different anymore when I listen. 

The mindset is so powerful it creates illusions of what we WANT to hear. It's for this reason, tests cannot be objective when sighted. It doesn't matter how much experience you got, it doesn't even matter if you are aware and believe in this "mind-trick" - you will STILL be affected of what you see in front of you. That's why I simply state that two systems can sound great but make no other elaborations than that if I know what I'm listening at. I do not trust myself to not use that knowledge and still be un-biased in my conclusions. 

With measurements I can compare two speakers against eachother in a structured, efficient, objective and understood manner (as long as the measurement method and conditions remains the same).


http://www.klippel.de/listeningtest/lt/


----------



## Elektra

Hanatsu said:


> *1. It is not a big issue.*
> 
> Even IF there were "fine-details" to heard if you concentrated on it etc. Why should we care, unless we are competing or listening in a quiet place with no external noise? The majority of us are listening with the engine on, while driving with an enormous amount of external noise (relatively speaking).
> 
> *2. NOT obvious.*
> 
> Furthermore, as you "amplifier-high-end-sound-propagators" make it sound like, the differences are very obvious yet subtle at the same time. This discussion wouldn't exist to begin with if the difference would be obvious. Noone debating if "high-end speakers is a myth" - why? Because the difference is OBVIOUS.
> 
> *3. Audiophiles do not have a monopoly on critical listening.*
> 
> This is the worst thing really. It could actually be considered offensive. The people who says that they can hear something other can't often refer to themselves as being superior. "There's obviously sometime wrong with your ears" - "You have no listening experience" - "You don't know what to listen for" etc etc. Believe it or not that we "objective people" people might know exactly what to listen for.
> 
> I can hear quite small amounts of non-linearities (I've managed to hear ~1% in controlled listening on the klippel site (link below)) in speaker systems, much less than some of "20-years of listening experience-golden-ears" people I know - yet they claim they can hear the difference between 0,0001% and 0,05% distortion in DACs etc.
> 
> *4. My experience.*
> 
> I think there's a very weak correlation between people who claim they can hear a difference and those who cannot in terms of hearing ability (assuming you don't have excessive high frequency loss or hearing damage). The main difference is the mindset. If you fail to point out differences in an AB/X test, it's automatically decided that the test method is flawed. I and many others accept reality and draw NEW conclusions based on the outcome instead of constant denial.
> 
> I have certainly not anything wrong with my hearing, I do know how to listen. I actually was exactly like you a few years back believe it or not. I had golden ears, I could tell differences between cables, amps, HUs - everything. I used audiophile fancy words to describe everything until the day I did a controlled AB/X test and failed miserably. I couldn't tell the difference all of a sudden, even though I "knew" the difference when I saw the products. It was an eye-opener to me, since then I got another mindset and suddenly things isn't as different anymore when I listen.
> 
> The mindset is so powerful it creates illusions of what we WANT to hear. It's for this reason, tests cannot be objective when sighted. It doesn't matter how much experience you got, it doesn't even matter if you are aware and believe in this "mind-trick" - you will STILL be affected of what you see in front of you. That's why I simply state that two systems can sound great but make no other elaborations than that if I know what I'm listening at. I do not trust myself to not use that knowledge and still be un-biased in my conclusions.
> 
> With measurements I can compare two speakers against eachother in a structured, efficient, objective and understood manner (as long as the measurement method and conditions remains the same).
> 
> 
> Listening Test


I guess we all have our ways to get what we want... I do my own AB testing on products - it satisfies my needs... 

If my method is wrong and is all in my mind then I don't mind my mind thinking its great every time I listen to it...

I will never believe results from a ABX testing session - those tests are designed to fool your brain... I have seen people who have never done a ABX test before with the best sounding cars in the country get 9/30 in a blind listening test...

Does this mean they can't hear? No it's because the tester failed to specify how the test was going to be conducted - In fact only at the end did he say there was a X in the test... Kind of writing an exam without preparing for it...

But the only person in the room who has done these tests before got 28/30 why? Could he hear better? No because he mentally prepared himself for the X part of the test..

Why must you trick your brain to decide if a product is good or better?


----------



## High Resolution Audio

I just wanted to bring up a few points about the fact that some people say that if there is a difference that can be heard it can be measured:

Most measurements are done with a single microphone. One source point of gathering information.

As everyone knows, we have two ears. Our ears are spaced apart at different widths. Our ear shapes and canals gather sound differently. Our ear canals (amplification chambers) are not exactly inversely symmetrical. We are all different heights. We have two source points for gathering information.

Moving a microphone just 1/2" has shown to have a significant frequency response change.

Knowing all of the above, and adding to the equation that each ear hears sound differently just as each of our eyes sees differently, it is our brains that take and analyze the two sources of information and come up with the final rendering. 

I doubt that it would ever be possible to be able to come up with a mechanical tool that is as complicated as the human body system. To do so would infer that we as human beings are as intelligent as our creator. 

Lots of people go through life with blinders on. They cannot see the big picture how the entire planet and everything on it has been designed to work together in a symbiotic relationship. How changing one thing can have an affect on so many other things. 

Yes, technology is great and wonderful and has helped the human race advance, however, it has also caused just as many problems. To think that by simply measuring something with a mechanical device created by man is the be all end all definitive answer is not opening up your mind to the possibility that life may not just be black and white but many shades of gray.


----------



## Elektra

High Resolution Audio said:


> I just wanted to bring up a few points about the fact that some people say that if there is a difference that can be heard it can be measured:
> 
> Most measurements are done with a single microphone. One source point of gathering information.
> 
> As everyone knows, we have two ears. Our ears are spaced apart at different widths. Our ear shapes and canals gather sound differently. Our ear canals (amplification chambers) are not exactly inversely symmetrical. We are all different heights. We have two source points for gathering information.
> 
> Moving a microphone just 1/2" has shown to have a significant frequency response change.
> 
> Knowing all of the above, and adding to the equation that each ear hears sound differently just as each of our eyes sees differently, it is our brains that take and analyze the two sources of information and come up with the final rendering.
> 
> I doubt that it would ever be possible to be able to come up with a mechanical tool that is as complicated as the human body system. To do so would infer that we as human beings are as intelligent as our creator.
> 
> Lots of people go through life with blinders on. They cannot see the big picture how the entire planet and everything on it has been designed to work together in a symbiotic relationship. How changing one thing can have an affect on so many other things.
> 
> Yes, technology is great and wonderful and has helped the human race advance, however, it has also caused just as many problems. To think that by simply measuring something with a mechanical device created by man is the be all end all definitive answer is not opening up your mind to the possibility that life may not just be black and white but many shades of gray.


Bravo.. very well put - my exact thoughts.. Just not as concise...


----------



## JVD240

Elektra said:


> I guess we all have our ways to get what we want... I do my own AB testing on products - it satisfies my needs...
> 
> If my method is wrong and is all in my mind then I don't mind my mind thinking its great every time I listen to it...
> 
> I will never believe results from a ABX testing session - those tests are designed to fool your brain... I have seen people who have never done a ABX test before with the best sounding cars in the country get 9/30 in a blind listening test...
> 
> Does this mean they can't hear? No it's because the tester failed to specify how the test was going to be conducted - In fact only at the end did he say there was a X in the test... Kind of writing an exam without preparing for it...
> 
> But the only person in the room who has done these tests before got 28/30 why? Could he hear better? No because he mentally prepared himself for the X part of the test..
> 
> Why must you trick your brain to decide if a product is good or better?


So... not knowing what's in the test without visually seeing the equipment is "tricking your brain."

But... seeing the equipment during the test is "preparing you for the test."

Most solid logic presented in this thread thus far.


----------



## JVD240

High Resolution Audio said:


> I just wanted to bring up a few points about the fact that some people say that if there is a difference that can be heard it can be measured:
> 
> Most measurements are done with a single microphone. One source point of gathering information.
> 
> As everyone knows, we have two ears. Our ears are spaced apart at different widths. Our ear shapes and canals gather sound differently. Our ear canals (amplification chambers) are not exactly inversely symmetrical. We are all different heights. We have two source points for gathering information.
> 
> Moving a microphone just 1/2" has shown to have a significant frequency response change.
> 
> Knowing all of the above, and adding to the equation that each ear hears sound differently just as each of our eyes sees differently, it is our brains that take and analyze the two sources of information and come up with the final rendering.
> 
> I doubt that it would ever be possible to be able to come up with a mechanical tool that is as complicated as the human body system. To do so would infer that we as human beings are as intelligent as our creator.
> 
> Lots of people go through life with blinders on. They cannot see the big picture how the entire planet and everything on it has been designed to work together in a symbiotic relationship. How changing one thing can have an affect on so many other things.
> 
> Yes, technology is great and wonderful and has helped the human race advance, however, it has also caused just as many problems. To think that by simply measuring something with a mechanical device created by man is the be all end all definitive answer is not opening up your mind to the possibility that life may not just be black and white but many shades of gray.


Are you one of those guys who walks barefoot everywhere?


----------



## Victor_inox

I 100% agree with what High Resolution Audio said


----------



## captainobvious

subwoofery said:


> The distortion profile is different when playing a sound. I've posted this many times
> 
> Next question please
> 
> Kelvin



Good point Kelvin.

I'd argue though that you should not be running amplifiers into their range of higher distortion as that's not what the product is designed for and not where its designed to be operated. That's buyer error for not selecting the amplifier with enough output for their systems needs. Distortion profile is irrelevant if you're operating them in the designed range which is below audibility, no?


----------



## captainobvious

Elektra said:


> I guess we all have our ways to get what we want... I do my own AB testing on products - it satisfies my needs...
> 
> If my method is wrong and is all in my mind then I don't mind my mind thinking its great every time I listen to it...
> 
> I will never believe results from a ABX testing session - *those tests are designed to fool your brain.*.. I have seen people who have never done a ABX test before with the best sounding cars in the country get 9/30 in a blind listening test...


No, they're designed to eliminate the outside variables and allow your ears to do the critical comparison, not other influences.

Do you know why that happens to people with great sounding vehicles? Because it happens to people without great sounding vehicles and everyone else for that matter too. It's not the test that you really have a problem with, it's the result. People with great sounding cars achieve that because they are able to manipulate those factors that actually DO make a difference... speakers, installation, tuning, etc.




Elektra said:


> Does this mean they can't hear? No it's because the tester failed to specify how the test was going to be conducted - In fact only at the end did he say there was a X in the test... Kind of writing an exam without preparing for it...
> 
> But the only person in the room who has done these tests before got 28/30 why? Could he hear better? No because he mentally prepared himself for the X part of the test..


I'm not sure which tests you may referring to but it sounds like you're making stuff up.
I not only told all of my testing group the exact procedure I was going to conduct, but they also got a chance to verify equipment and setup before hand as well. They were informed. They verified. They did an "easier" AX test. They averaged a coin flip on whether they could hear any difference.






Elektra said:


> Why must you trick your brain to decide if a product is good or better?



You're misunderstanding the point of the tests and the results they provide. The tests eliminate other variables that can influence you, making you *think* you are hearing things you are not. By isolating those other variables, you get a more clear understanding of what your ears can and cannot hear.


----------



## High Resolution Audio

JVD240 said:


> Are you one of those guys who walks barefoot everywhere?


No I wear shoes. I even drive a Caddilac. But I do turn off the water when brushing my teeth.


----------



## High Resolution Audio

Elektra said:


> Bravo.. very well put - my exact thoughts.. Just not as concise...


Thank you it took me a few weeks to formulate in my mind.


----------



## Jepalan

High Resolution Audio said:


> I just wanted to bring up a few points about the fact that some people say that if there is a difference that can be heard it can be measured:


Generalizations and pontification like this by someone that has not actually read the arguments presented nor understands the science involved is why I will be leaving this discussion.

Most measurements are NOT done from a single point- have you read *anything* on this site about measurement and tuning? 

Interaural time difference, Interaural intensity difference, reflective zone versus resonant zone versus zone of confusion (Schroeder frequency) in a car cabin installation are all taken into account in the most basic measurement and tuning processes. 

Here is a great place to start learning -> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/how-articles-provided-our-members/163234-first-timers-guide-measuring-your-system.html

Your generalizations about technology are naive at best, insulting at worst. Technology has not created a single problem in and of itself. It is a tool that can be applied in many wonderful (and terrifying) ways - by MAN. Religious fanaticism and blind ignorant belief have propagated far more violence and destruction than science. 

Can we please invoke Godwin's law and kill this thread now.


----------



## High Resolution Audio

Jepalan said:


> Generalizations and pontification like this by someone that has not actually read the arguments presented nor understands the science involved is why I will be leaving this discussion.
> 
> Most measurements are NOT done from a single point- have you read *anything* on this site about measurement and tuning?
> 
> Interaural time difference, Interaural intensity difference, reflective zone versus resonant zone versus zone of confusion (Schroeder frequency) in a car cabin installation are all taken into account in the most basic measurement and tuning processes.
> 
> Here is a great place to start learning -> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/how-articles-provided-our-members/163234-first-timers-guide-measuring-your-system.html
> 
> Your generalizations about technology are naive at best, insulting at worst. Technology has not created a single problem in and of itself. It is a tool that can be applied in many wonderful (and terrifying) ways - by MAN.
> Religious fanaticism and blind ignorant belief have propagated far more violence and destruction than science.
> 
> Can we please invoke Godwin's law and kill this thread now.


I checked your link. It still seems as if there is only one microphone in the diagram. Am I missing something?


----------



## captainobvious

High Resolution Audio said:


> I just wanted to bring up a few points about the fact that some people say that if there is a difference that can be heard it can be measured:
> 
> Most measurements are done with a single microphone. One source point of gathering information.
> 
> As everyone knows, we have two ears. Our ears are spaced apart at different widths. Our ear shapes and canals gather sound differently. Our ear canals (amplification chambers) are not exactly inversely symmetrical. We are all different heights. We have two source points for gathering information.
> 
> Moving a microphone just 1/2" has shown to have a significant frequency response change.
> 
> Knowing all of the above, and adding to the equation that each ear hears sound differently just as each of our eyes sees differently, it is our brains that take and analyze the two sources of information and come up with the final rendering.
> 
> I doubt that it would ever be possible to be able to come up with a mechanical tool that is as complicated as the human body system. To do so would infer that we as human beings are as intelligent as our creator.
> 
> Lots of people go through life with blinders on. They cannot see the big picture how the entire planet and everything on it has been designed to work together in a symbiotic relationship. How changing one thing can have an affect on so many other things.
> 
> Yes, technology is great and wonderful and has helped the human race advance, however, it has also caused just as many problems. To think that by simply measuring something with a mechanical device created by man is the be all end all definitive answer is not opening up your mind to the possibility that life may not just be black and white but *many shades of gray*.



That's all well and good. But people still can't tell the difference between the "shades of gray" coming out of these amplifiers. That's the point. We understand that we all hear things _differently_. This still does not change the fact that people aren't able to hear the *differences *between amplifiers in these tests when outside variables are removed. The most vehement supporters of the "differences" myth are those that have not even been party to a proper blind AX or ABX comparison so I'd argue that their point is moot. 

Simply put: You don't know what you don't know...until you do.


.


----------



## High Resolution Audio

captainobvious said:


> That's all well and good. But people still can't tell the difference between the "shades of gray" coming out of these amplifiers. That's the point. We understand that we all hear things _differently_. This still does not change the fact that people aren't able to hear the *differences *between amplifiers in these tests when outside variables are removed. The most vehement supporters of the "differences" myth are those that have not even been party to a proper blind AX or ABX comparison so I'd argue that their point is moot.
> 
> Simply put: You don't know what you don't know...until you do.
> 
> 
> .


I have heard differences in amplifiers. The differences were very subtle. Too subtle to actually describe or quantify with words. But out of four amps that I compared, there were three that were nearly identical and one that sounded better to me than the rest.


----------



## Victor_inox

High Resolution Audio said:


> I have heard differences in amplifiers. The differences were very subtle. Too subtle to actually describe or quantify with words. But out of four amps that I compared, there were three that were nearly identical and one that sounded better to me than the rest.


No you haven`t... It`s all your imagination.....


----------



## captainobvious

High Resolution Audio said:


> I have heard differences in amplifiers. The differences were very subtle. Too subtle to actually describe or quantify with words. But out of four amps that I compared, there were three that were nearly identical and one that sounded better to me than the rest.



I stated in a *PROPER BLIND AX or ABX* test.


Have you done that? Where? Conducted by whom? Supporting documentation from the tests?


Listening to amps willy nilly and switching back and forth is not a proper control protocol. If you are able to hear differences, that would be revealed in the testing results. If not- well welcome to reality, you're like the rest of us afterall- no shame in that. 



Victor_inox said:


> No you haven`t... It`s all your imagination.....


Same goes for you. Answers to the above questions?



.


----------



## thehatedguy

So when we talk about accurate reproduction, are we talking about live instruments in the studio or what is coming out of the monitors?


----------



## Elektra

JVD240 said:


> So... not knowing what's in the test without visually seeing the equipment is "tricking your brain."
> 
> But... seeing the equipment during the test is "preparing you for the test."
> 
> Most solid logic presented in this thread thus far.


Don't you think if I could see both amps in a test it levels the playing fields?

After all I ditched a $5000 amp for a $700 amp - surely I would have been biased towards the $5000 amp? I chose the best product to my ears - it just so happened it was the best product to other people's ears as well.. So how far was I off? 

I am not interested in being biased to a certain product as I would be shooting myself in the foot doing so..

I do the tests for my benefit not to be biased to a product... That's ridiculous..

Seeing the equipment makes no difference to the end result... 

Group AB testing is just a fun exercise that has no bearing on wether or not I would agree on the results or not..

Placing too much emphasis on group ABX testing - taints the end results imho...

Your measuring emphasis as the only way to explain anything and the search for a "solid logic" is like searching for the holy Grail... 

You and I don't hear the same - what would a blind ABX test prove? I can hear a difference you can't? Vices versa? so for whose benefit will that serve? Mine or yours? And how does a guy on the other end of the world benefit from those results?

They can't because of a multitude of factors in its way...

As I said it proves nothing... 

A BRAX amp probably measures better than a EOS amp - but the EOS amp sounds better? 

Do I choose the measurements or my ear?


----------



## Jepalan

High Resolution Audio said:


> I checked your link. It still seems as if there is only one microphone in the diagram. Am I missing something?


Yes, you are missing everything. You don't need two microphones to account for the fact that we have two ears. Multiple measurements are taken on right and left sides, saved and averaged. The way the data is used and the tuning process itself is design to address all the 'human' qualities you are so concerned about.


----------



## High Resolution Audio

captainobvious said:


> I stated in a *PROPER BLIND AX or ABX* test.
> 
> 
> Have you done that? Where? Conducted by whom? Supporting documentation from the tests?
> 
> 
> Listening to amps willy nilly and switching back and forth is not a proper control protocol. If you are able to hear differences, that would be revealed in the testing results. If not- well welcome to reality, you're like the rest of us afterall- no shame in that.
> 
> 
> 
> Same goes for you. Answers to the above questions?
> 
> 
> 
> .


I will describe the entire event and the conditions etc. a little later as I have to do some errands right now. My story will be a little long, and later on today when I return I will have time to share the events and conditions, etc.


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> I 100% agree with what High Resolution Audio said


Of course you do. There is profit in it for you. Don't get me wrong - I have no direct experience with your products, and have read many good reviews of the value and good performance your amps and PSUs offer. On the other hand it does seem a little strange that someone who is in the business of selling technology products agrees with the "technology is evil" preacher.


----------



## Elektra

captainobvious said:


> That's all well and good. But people still can't tell the difference between the "shades of gray" coming out of these amplifiers. That's the point. We understand that we all hear things _differently_. This still does not change the fact that people aren't able to hear the *differences *between amplifiers in these tests when outside variables are removed. The most vehement supporters of the "differences" myth are those that have not even been party to a proper blind AX or ABX comparison so I'd argue that their point is moot.
> 
> Simply put: You don't know what you don't know...until you do.
> 
> 
> .


Hogwash... I have heard massive differences between 2 amps equally matched...

By your reasoning we should all choose the cheapest rubbish on the market to install in our cars.. It will sound no different to high end amps.. So why spend $$ ?
I am willing to bet anything you like if I check your ZAPCO posts I can dig out plenty of comments made by you that the "Z amps are the best you heard" 

Are you not contradicting yourself here? 

You can't even argue power as their are plenty of cheap amps that produce more than enough power to run whatever you want...

You will notice I have not contradicted myself even from those old threads..

So Captain what's in your trunk? Cheap and nasty or high end?


----------



## subwoofery

WRX/Z28 said:


> Seriously?  *Setting gains so both amps make identical power.* not "correctly", the gains are set within the limits of the weaker amp. See, you don't even understand the point we are making, nevermind having anything useful to contribute. You don't bother to read the explanation, you just assume it is wrong, so you skim over it...
> 
> Have you even read the guidelines of RC's challenge at all?
> 
> Knew I should have re-read my post before posting :mean: :laugh:
> Well yeah, set the gain to match the lower output one... So you can hear the difference? According to your previous post, yes you could
> 
> For the record, I understand everything your camp has been trying to express... RC's challenge? Yes I've read it and understand it too
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain what a "distortion profile" is? Assuming you mean distortion is the difference, distortion is measureable, so we should:
> 
> A: be able to simply choose the amp that measured the least distortion.
> 
> B: not be able to hear the fractions of a percent of distortion the amp makes over the 3% or more distortion the speaker itself creates.
> 
> C: already know that distortion below a certain threshold is inaudible.
> 
> You may post it many more times (I don't remember seeing it accepted as useful information), but it still holds no water.
> 
> Keep posturing as though you've made some revelation to us that *we're all missing*... by all means...
> 
> That's the thing, you guyz *ARE MISSING *something... Please read this:
> The Decware Audiophile Tube Amplifier / Model ZEN TORII MKIII
> What I want to point out is in "SET sound from Push-Pull"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you dismiss that information too because you "think" we can't hear it is fine... but the difference is there - if it measures different, it sounds different... remember?
> Everything is in my sig, nothing to hide


My post for reference: 


subwoofery said:


> Buy looking at some tests done on some amps, I've noticed a trend - the warm sound we hear from some amps doesn't come from the freq response but from the distorsion figures over the whole spectrum (usually above 1kHz). Here are a few examples:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also want to point out that the distorsion figures we see doesn't necessarily mean that "warm" amps have the highest "Total Harmonic Distorsion" numbers.
> "Warm" amps:
> Audison - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.138%
> DLS Ref - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.029%
> Mosconi - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.07%
> Sinfoni - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.02%
> 
> "Clinical" amps:
> Brax X2 - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.44% (not a mistake)
> DLS TA2 - yes, this hybrid tube amp actually exhibits more of a clinical sound. It's THD @ 4 ohm is 0.046%
> Focal - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.028%
> Zapco - THD @ 4 ohm is 0.005%
> 
> Let's discuss
> 
> Kelvin


Kelvin


----------



## captainobvious

Elektra said:


> Don't you think if I could see both amps in a test it levels the playing fields?
> 
> After all I ditched a $5000 amp for a $700 amp - surely I would have been biased towards the $5000 amp? I chose the best product to my ears - it just so happened it was the best product to other people's ears as well.. So how far was I off?
> 
> I am not interested in being biased to a certain product as I would be shooting myself in the foot doing so..
> 
> I do the tests for my benefit not to be biased to a product... That's ridiculous..
> 
> *Seeing the equipment makes no difference to the end result... *
> 
> *Group AB testing is just a fun exercise that has no bearing on wether or not I would agree on the results or not..*
> 
> *Placing too much emphasis on group ABX testing - taints the end results imho...*
> 
> Your measuring emphasis as the only way to explain anything and the search for a "solid logic" is like searching for the holy Grail...


You're so far off base here. You need to understand psycho-acoustics and how they can affect what you perceive. This is why your argument is fundamentally flawed. YES, seeing the amplifiers makes a difference in what you think you hear. 



Elektra said:


> *You and I don't hear the same - what would a blind ABX test prove? I can hear a difference you can't? Vices versa? so for whose benefit will that serve? Mine or yours? And how does a guy on the other end of the world benefit from those results?*





Elektra said:


> As I said it proves nothing...


Have you done an AX/ABX controlled blind evaluation? If not, then how can you dismiss its merits and worth...?


----------



## subwoofery

captainobvious said:


> Good point Kelvin.
> 
> I'd argue though that you should not be running amplifiers into their range of higher distortion as that's not what the product is designed for and not where its designed to be operated. That's buyer error for not selecting the amplifier with enough output for their systems needs. Distortion profile is irrelevant if you're operating them in the designed range which is below audibility, no?


I just made a post that replies to yours  

Explanation is in the Decware link. 

Kelvin


----------



## captainobvious

High Resolution Audio said:


> I will describe the entire event and the conditions etc. a little later as I have to do some errands right now. My story will be a little long, and later on today when I return I will have time to share the events and conditions, etc.



Thanks for taking the time to do so.


----------



## Jepalan

Elektra said:


> Don't you think if I could see both amps in a test it levels the playing fields?


^^ No. It has been demonstrated many times that knowledge of the product under test *does* bias your perception. This isn't something you 'will' to happen - it just does. 



> I am not interested in being biased to a certain product as I would be shooting myself in the foot doing so..


You cannot will sub-conscious psychological biases to happen or not.



> Seeing the equipment makes no difference to the end result...


^^^Yes, it does matter. This is the entire point of most of the 100+ pages of discussion here. It has been proven many times that it *DOES* matter.



> You and I don't hear the same - what would a blind ABX test prove? I can hear a difference you can't? Vices versa? so for whose benefit will that serve? Mine or yours? And how does a guy on the other end of the world benefit from those results?
> They can't because of a multitude of factors in its way...
> As I said it proves nothing...
> A BRAX amp probably measures better than a EOS amp - but the EOS amp sounds better?
> Do I choose the measurements or my ear?


Why are you talking about measurements now? Blind ABX is a *listening* test. Period. 

Let me explain one benefit of blind testing for you... 

Everything that is recorded and everything that is captured on camera uses science and engineering that has been painstakingly targeted at the scientifically measured capabilities of human aural and visual perception. This extensive data was taken in very controlled ways using blind test methodologies. Everything in the process of capturing light & sound, storing it, compressing it, and reproducing it depends on the knowledge gained from from these well-controlled experiments.


----------



## captainobvious

Elektra said:


> Hogwash... I have heard massive differences between 2 amps equally matched...
> 
> By your reasoning we should all choose the cheapest rubbish on the market to install in our cars.. It will sound no different to high end amps.. So why spend $$ ?
> I am willing to bet anything you like if I check your ZAPCO posts I can dig out plenty of comments made by you that the "Z amps are the best you heard"
> 
> Are you not contradicting yourself here?
> 
> You can't even argue power as their are plenty of cheap amps that produce more than enough power to run whatever you want...
> 
> You will notice I have not contradicted myself even from those old threads..
> 
> So Captain what's in your trunk? Cheap and nasty or high end?



As I said- PROPER AX/ABX comparison. This is NOT what you did. What you did is NOT a controlled blind evaluation and therefore introduces psychoacoustics and biases into the mix.


I've admitted before and I still do that I once also thought I could hear differences between amplifiers- until I learned better.

Also- I've also said numerous times that there are MANY considerations that one must take into account when selecting an amplifier for their system. The "sound" of the amplifier just happens to not be among those considerations. Size, power output, price, aesthetics, warranty, customer service, exclusivity...these are just a few of the considerations I would recommend. Sound? No.

Currently in my trunk is nothing...but soon to be JL HD amps. And JL XD amps in my wifes car. Class D....the horror! :laugh:


----------



## Jepalan

subwoofery said:


> I just made a post that replies to yours
> Explanation is in the Decware link.
> Kelvin


It is well known that certain amplifier topologies produce even order distortion products and others do not. It has also been shown (in blind ABX listening tests) that in some cases these differences are audible.

The point is: 
If the differences are audible, then they are measurable.

NOT the other way around.


----------



## High Resolution Audio

Jepalan said:


> Yes, you are missing everything. You don't need two microphones to account for the fact that we have two ears. Multiple measurements are taken on right and left sides, saved and averaged. The way the data is used and the tuning process itself is design to address all the 'human' qualities you are so concerned about.


Who is to say that the L + R average is the correct rendering? You would be assuming so if you did. 
Using your logic, with eyesight for instance, what you see with the right eye is different from the left. If you came up with a drawing that averaged what both eyes saw, would that be the way out brain perceives the image? You would be wrong if you did so.


----------



## captainobvious

subwoofery said:


> I just made a post that replies to yours
> 
> Explanation is in the Decware link.
> 
> Kelvin


Not sure I fully understand Kelvin. Are we talking about harmonics that end up being 80db or more below the fundamental frequency being audible?

Pretty amplifier- nice craftsmanship by the looks of it.


----------



## Elektra

captainobvious said:


> As I said- PROPER AX/ABX comparison. This is NOT what you did. What you did is NOT a controlled blind evaluation and therefore introduces psychoacoustics and biases into the mix.
> 
> 
> I've admitted before and I still do that I once also thought I could hear differences between amplifiers- until I learned better.
> 
> Also- I've also said numerous times that there are MANY considerations that one must take into account when selecting an amplifier for their system. The "sound" of the amplifier just happens to not be among those considerations. Size, power output, price, aesthetics, warranty, customer service, exclusivity...these are just a few of the considerations I would recommend. Sound? No.
> 
> Currently in my trunk is nothing...but soon to be JL HD amps. And JL XD amps in my wifes car. Class D....the horror! :laugh:


Indeed horror.. Lol


----------



## captainobvious

Elektra said:


> Indeed horror.. Lol



Some of the very best autosound vehicles in the world utilize them. You might be surprised to learn what excellent vehicles are running lower budget amps or class D amplifiers- and doing so VERY successfully. 


The JL's are excellent amplifiers. Well designed, well executed and well supported. They fill the check boxes for almost all areas for me.


----------



## Elektra

captainobvious said:


> Some of the very best autosound vehicles in the world utilize them. You might be surprised to learn what excellent vehicles are running lower budget amps or class D amplifiers- and doing so VERY successfully.
> 
> 
> The JL's are excellent amplifiers. Well designed, well executed and well supported. They fill the check boxes for almost all areas for me.


That's what I say... If it checks the boxes then it is for you.. I don't like JL amps as they are too expensive here I can get amps that check my boxes for much less


----------



## Victor_inox

Jepalan said:


> Of course you do. There is profit in it for you. Don't get me wrong - I have no direct experience with your products, and have read many good reviews of the value and good performance your amps and PSUs offer. On the other hand it does seem a little strange that someone who is in the business of selling technology products agrees with the "technology is evil" preacher.



There is no many of good review there is only good reviews....

I`m not preaching technology is evil ,strange you came to that conclusion reading my posts.
What i`m saying that technology is not as simple as 3 sets of parameters you guys preaching. Never i said measurements are unimportant. 
Funny things how you people love to put words in my mouth.


----------



## Jepalan

High Resolution Audio said:


> Who is to say that the L + R average is the correct rendering? You would be assuming so if you did.
> Using your logic, with eyesight for instance, what you see with the right eye is different from the left. If you came up with a drawing that averaged what both eyes saw, would that be the way out brain perceives the image? You would be wrong if you did so.


Again, you need to actually read the entire thread on measuring and tuning. It does NOT say to only average the left and right together. Multiple left and multiple right 'ear' measurements for each speaker are used independently to balance the responses and time delays based on the well founded knowledge of how we perceive sound - and IIT and IAT are addressed directly in the process.

Don't pretend to understand the science here. There is plenty of extensive research on how we perceive and process sound. Nothing in the link I provided is based on anyone's opinion or assumption, it is all based on very sound science. 

You have no argument. Or at least no argument that I am interested in addressing further unless you spend the time to study and comprehend the topic at hand.


----------



## CDT FAN

This is the first post I think I have made in this thread because it is a subjective topic that never seems to have a clear winner. This post is a little off the path of the current argument, but it does relate to title of the thread. 

I listen to music on headphones at work. Sennheiser HD600, to be exact. For a while, I have been using a Topping TP30 headphone amp. It is one of those T-amp headphone amps that has gotten pretty good reviews. It is very detailed and easy to listen to. My fellow music lover let me listen to his $700 Headroom amplifier. It is a class A/B amp transistor and it is well respected. While it was a nice improvement, it wasn't a drastic change. 

Recently, I found a used tube/hybrid amp on ebay. New, it was a $400 amp. I payed about $100. It is a Head-Direct EF1. I have always wanted to try a tube amp to see what the hoopla was about. I didn't really expect it to sound much different; just hopefully better than what I had. I want to say I am quite satisfied. I cannot really describe the difference. The sound seems fuller. The instruments seem to have an extra sound that was missing with the other amps. Like when a horn plays. Instead of just the loud note that you would normally hear, it has the bbrrrr sound to it, like I have heard from a live horn. Piano and guitar strings seem to have more reverb to them. They sound more natural now. 

All of these amps have almost ruler flat FR measurements with low distortion ratings, yet they definitely sound different. If all decent quality amps sound the same, then how is this the case?


----------



## Victor_inox

You`ll get argument that headphones are not the car and therefore not applicable in that test. that car is noisy and if you get some noise mixed with signal you will not be able to say which is which. When that`s maybe true but it`s not changing the fact that they sounds different. That if more natural means more distortion you hearing ****.


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> There is no many of good review there is only good reviews....
> 
> I`m not preaching technology is evil ,strange you came to that conclusion reading my posts.
> What i`m saying that technology is not as simple as 3 sets of parameters you guys preaching. Never i said measurements are unimportant.
> Funny things how you people love to put words in my mouth.


Victor - I think you lost track of our discussion do to the lack of multi-quote. I did not mean to generalize about your many posts. I was only addressing your one specific response to High_Resolution_Audio and his comment about technology as the cause of many problems. Your response said you agreed with him 100%. That is all.

Yes, you never said measurements are unimportant, and I never said ears are unimportant, nor have I ever said you cannot hear differences between *some* amplifiers. You most definitely *can* hear differences between some amplifiers, some of the time, under the right circumstances. 

I think the only thing we disagree on is:

"Difference" to me means: "It can be heard, AND it can be validated in blind ABX testing, AND it can be measured with scientific instruments."

"Difference" to you means only: "You perceive some sort of difference in an uncontrolled self-evaluation of two products"


----------



## Jepalan

CDT FAN said:


> <snip>
> All of these amps have almost ruler flat FR measurements with low distortion ratings, yet they definitely sound different. If all decent quality amps sound the same, then how is this the case?


Once again, nobody here is saying 'all amps sound the same' nobody is saying 'all decent quality amps sound the same'. While the latter is much more likely, of course there is a chance that some 'decent quality amp' has a unique characteristic that is audible. 

All that is being said is:

IF they 'definitely sound different', THEN the difference can be measured, AND will show up in blind ABX testing.


----------



## Victor_inox

Science has been referred to in this thread too many times.
Science is to find the truth, not importance of that truth.
Difference to me means that every two amps measure different, maybe close but different.
and I mean any, same model from the same bunch. importance of that fact is to the end user to determine, not to generalize "as all amps sounds the same"

as you stated it yourself I do my own tube gear, you assume I don`t know how to do comparisons?


----------



## Elektra

CDT FAN said:


> This is the first post I think I have made in this thread because it is a subjective topic that never seems to have a clear winner. This post is a little off the path of the current argument, but it does relate to title of the thread.
> 
> I listen to music on headphones at work. Sennheiser HD600, to be exact. For a while, I have been using a Topping TP30 headphone amp. It is one of those T-amp headphone amps that has gotten pretty good reviews. It is very detailed and easy to listen to. My fellow music lover let me listen to his $700 Headroom amplifier. It is a class A/B amp transistor and it is well respected. While it was a nice improvement, it wasn't a drastic change.
> 
> Recently, I found a used tube/hybrid amp on ebay. New, it was a $400 amp. I payed about $100. It is a Head-Direct EF1. I have always wanted to try a tube amp to see what the hoopla was about. I didn't really expect it to sound much different; just hopefully better than what I had. I want to say I am quite satisfied. I cannot really describe the difference. The sound seems fuller. The instruments seem to have an extra sound that was missing with the other amps. Like when a horn plays. Instead of just the loud note that you would normally hear, it has the bbrrrr sound to it, like I have heard from a live horn. Piano and guitar strings seem to have more reverb to them. They sound more natural now.
> 
> All of these amps have almost ruler flat FR measurements with low distortion ratings, yet they definitely sound different. If all decent quality amps sound the same, then how is this the case?


It psychological ... Lol no difference in amps your imagining things because your mind has already said a tube amp sounds better ...

Therefore it is...

We can go on forever.. We will NEVER agree on anything as its all about the measurements...

The measurement boys can't accept the human factor - we are all machines - it measures therefore it is... 

We will never understand the the human body/mind/brain and how everything works together to make a conclusion...

If only life was as simple as a simple measurement - we would punch in a few numbers and create world peace... Lol


----------



## CDT FAN

Elektra said:


> It psychological ... Lol no difference in amps your imagining things because your mind has already said a tube amp sounds better ...
> 
> Therefore it is...
> 
> We can go on forever.. We will NEVER agree on anything as its all about the measurements...
> 
> The measurement boys can't accept the human factor - we are all machines - it measures therefore it is...
> 
> We will never understand the the human body/mind/brain and how everything works together to make a conclusion...
> 
> If only life was as simple as a simple measurement - we would punch in a few numbers and create world peace... Lol


LOL. I figured this would be the response. That's fine with me. I understand that our brains can play tricks on us. I really didn't know what to expect from the amp change and I sure didn't know HOW it would sound differently, if it did at all. I was actually pessimistic, but hopeful. If I am imagining things, then I guess ignorance is bliss. I suppose, when I switch the amps back and hear the difference, that will also be all in my head.


----------



## captainobvious

CDT FAN said:


> This is the first post I think I have made in this thread because it is a subjective topic that never seems to have a clear winner. This post is a little off the path of the current argument, but it does relate to title of the thread.
> 
> I listen to music on headphones at work. Sennheiser HD600, to be exact. For a while, I have been using a Topping TP30 headphone amp. It is one of those T-amp headphone amps that has gotten pretty good reviews. It is very detailed and easy to listen to. My fellow music lover let me listen to his $700 Headroom amplifier. It is a class A/B amp transistor and it is well respected. While it was a nice improvement, it wasn't a drastic change.
> 
> Recently, I found a used tube/hybrid amp on ebay. New, it was a $400 amp. I payed about $100. It is a Head-Direct EF1. I have always wanted to try a tube amp to see what the hoopla was about. I didn't really expect it to sound much different; just hopefully better than what I had. I want to say I am quite satisfied. I cannot really describe the difference. The sound seems fuller. The instruments seem to have an extra sound that was missing with the other amps. Like when a horn plays. Instead of just the loud note that you would normally hear, it has the bbrrrr sound to it, like I have heard from a live horn. Piano and guitar strings seem to have more reverb to them. They sound more natural now.
> 
> All of these amps have almost ruler flat FR measurements with low distortion ratings, yet they definitely sound different. If all decent quality amps sound the same, then how is this the case?



The problem is that you need to do a true BLIND AX/ABX comparison to draw any truly useful information from the comparison. <Psychoacoustics>


----------



## WRX/Z28

High Resolution Audio said:


> I just wanted to bring up a few points about the fact that some people say that if there is a difference that can be heard it can be measured:
> 
> Most measurements are done with a single microphone. One source point of gathering information.
> 
> As everyone knows, we have two ears. Our ears are spaced apart at different widths. Our ear shapes and canals gather sound differently. Our ear canals (amplification chambers) are not exactly inversely symmetrical. We are all different heights. We have two source points for gathering information.
> 
> Moving a microphone just 1/2" has shown to have a significant frequency response change.
> 
> Knowing all of the above, and adding to the equation that each ear hears sound differently just as each of our eyes sees differently, it is our brains that take and analyze the two sources of information and come up with the final rendering.
> 
> I doubt that it would ever be possible to be able to come up with a mechanical tool that is as complicated as the human body system. To do so would infer that we as human beings are as intelligent as our creator.
> 
> Lots of people go through life with blinders on. They cannot see the big picture how the entire planet and everything on it has been designed to work together in a symbiotic relationship. How changing one thing can have an affect on so many other things.
> 
> Yes, technology is great and wonderful and has helped the human race advance, however, it has also caused just as many problems. To think that by simply measuring something with a mechanical device created by man is the be all end all definitive answer is not opening up your mind to the possibility that life may not just be black and white but many shades of gray.


Your point assumes that the only way to measure is with a microphone, and after the amp has been played through speakers...


----------



## cubdenno

captainobvious said:


> The problem is that you need to do a true BLIND AX/ABX comparison to draw any truly useful information from the comparison. <Psychoacoustics>


AND measure the FR and THD/N on the amps. As there may be a very real difference in the amps. 

As said to the point of nausea, IF you can hear it, it can be measured.

Also said to the point of vomiting but few seem to pick it up,

Subjective tastes are not a bad thing. Everyone has a subjective preference. Adding EQ or finding one likes/desires a type of distortion does not make a person bad or their preferences invalid. it does however not have anything to do with the discussion though it constantly gets thrown out there.

If you do want to prove to yourself that you can hear differences in level matched amplifiers that have a flat frequency response and inaudible distortion, do yourself a favor and try a blind listening test. It takes some work to set up, but it has been found in every case I have seen or heard about to shut golden ears down. Do yourself that favor. It doesn't have to change or alter your love of a particular brand, design type etc. But at least then you would know.

Once you discover psycho acoustics happening and where it does, in my opinion it can then allow you to pursue the areas where further increasing the quality of sound reproduction can audibly happen.


----------



## WRX/Z28

subwoofery said:


> My post for reference:
> 
> 
> Kelvin


Everything shown is below the threshold for human hearing... Sooooo...


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Your point assumes that the only way to measure is with a microphone, and after the amp has been played through speakers...


AKA real world conditions. If you knew how inaccurate measuring equipment could be you wouldn`t place your fate exclusively in it and nothing else.

many testers interpret ABX tests as inconclusive and showing that there is no difference yet there is enormous number of tests shows exactly the opposite.
people will be arguing about legitimacy of said tests for 300 pages more and will not come to universally accepted conclusion. 
My 25000 dollars HP analyser shows differences, now what?


----------



## WRX/Z28

Victor_inox said:


> AKA real world conditions. If you knew how inaccurate measuring equipment could be you wouldn`t place your fate exclusively in it and nothing else.
> 
> many testers interpret ABX tests as inconclusive and showing that there is no difference yet there is enormous number of tests shows exactly the opposite.
> people will be arguing about legitimacy of said tests for 300 pages more and will not come to universally accepted conclusion.
> My 25000 dollars HP analyser shows differences, now what?


Real world skewed by distortion producing speakers/mircophones. So how would scoping an amp not be real world? There are more measurements than just microphones. 

If you knew how inaccurate hearing could be, your wouldn't place your fate exclusively in it and nothing else... 

I know I know, you use measurements too... or so you say. 

ABX tests where amps eq out the same and are the same level show the most truth to any difference from one amp to the next. If an EQ change is what you are hearing, you shouldn't spend money to have that eq change when you can simply use an eq, which is often much less than a tube amp, or an amp with an inherent eq curve. If the amp has audible noise, or audible distortion, simply avoid the flawed piece (not hard since most amps do not have noise/audible distortion, none of the 300+ I own anyway save for one broken amp)

So what difference does your 25,000 hp analyzer show that we can not correct for?


----------



## Victor_inox

How hard is it to grasp that amount of difference is irrelevant? 
Dildo measured way superior than real thing, what does that prove?
What should or should I not spend my money for is no one business yet this conversation return to that point over and over again.

let`s just make digital reproduction of classic art, shall we? lowering standards each generation.
In no time famous paintings will looks like minecraft screen capture. 
Good enough mentality killing art. It almost killed HI FI already.


----------



## Hanatsu

Question: How exactly do you people know that these amplifiers (let's take the headphone amp as example) create a ruler flat FR? The load can affect the response...

This brings back the good ol quote "if there is a difference, the difference will be measureable". If FR deviations is the root of the issue, simply EQ the response. 

I've said it before. I'd be truly interested if someone can hear a difference between two amps in a controlled AX or ABX double blind test. THEN post measurements of both units to display what made them different. I'm 100% certain what there would either be FR deviations or excessive non-linear dìstortion (steady state) if so were the case. I'd then stay as far away from 'that different' amp as I could. 

Also, IF there really was a difference in 1 out 5 amps. Confirmed by proper listening tests. What makes you think that amp is the better one? Perhaps it's the other four that's accurate. The more 'overly complicated' equipment tend to get, the higher risk that it does things it's not supposed to do. Just an observation.

http://nwavguy.blogspot.se/2011/02/headphone-amp-impedance.html?m=1

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Victor_inox

Unless it`s resistive dummy load that is. most tests done with such load.


----------



## RobERacer

Elektra said:


> As you can see the RTA curve in the morel looks much better ... But the Focals sound much better...



Did the midrange spike in the Focal not bother you? That would have driven me nuts.


----------



## Victor_inox

WRX/Z28 said:


> Real world skewed by distortion producing speakers/mircophones. So how would scoping an amp not be real world? There are more measurements than just microphones.
> 
> If you knew how inaccurate hearing could be, your wouldn't place your fate exclusively in it and nothing else...
> 
> I know I know, you use measurements too... or so you say.
> 
> ABX tests where amps eq out the same and are the same level show the most truth to any difference from one amp to the next. If an EQ change is what you are hearing, you shouldn't spend money to have that eq change when you can simply use an eq, which is often much less than a tube amp, or an amp with an inherent eq curve. If the amp has audible noise, or audible distortion, simply avoid the flawed piece (not hard since most amps do not have noise/audible distortion, none of the 300+ I own anyway save for one broken amp)
> 
> So what difference does your 25,000 hp analyzer show that we can not correct for?





RobERacer said:


> Did the midrange spike in the Focal not bother you? That would have driven me nuts.


Why? because FR is not flat on RTA? or because it sounds unpleasant to you?


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> Science has been referred to in this thread too many times.
> Science is to find the truth, not importance of that truth.
> Difference to me means that every two amps measure different, maybe close but different.
> and I mean any, same model from the same bunch. importance of that fact is to the end user to determine, not to generalize "as all amps sounds the same"
> 
> as you stated it yourself I do my own tube gear, you assume I don`t know how to do comparisons?


Who is generalizing that "all amps sound the same"?
Please refer to the exact post. 
I cannot find a single post here that is supporting that claim.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jepalan said:


> Who is generalizing that "all amps sound the same"?
> Please refer to the exact post.
> I cannot find a single post here that is supporting that claim.


Anyone who saying that blind tests shows no difference to be heard, isn`t it absolutely the same thing? I`m genuinely curious.


----------



## JAX

so.....did we figure out the answer as in yes or no...maybe so....


All I know is I have had too many amps. a person on here was asking if they wanted him to produce a high end amp and I couldnt find any reason I needed one...

does that mean I think they sound the same? not always...lol.


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> How hard is it to grasp that amount of difference is irrelevant?
> Dildo measured way superior than real thing, what does that prove?


LOL - good point 



> What should or should I not spend my money for is no one business yet this conversation return to that point over and over again.
> 
> let`s just make digital reproduction of classic art, shall we? lowering standards each generation.
> In no time famous paintings will looks like minecraft screen capture.
> Good enough mentality killing art. It almost killed HI FI already.


Interesting. I agree that a well crafted, creatively designed and built amplifier can itself be a 'work of art'. That does not mean it has to impart some sort of mystical magic upon the sound it is reproducing. I have great respect for fine craftsmanship, including in the circuitry itself. 

For example: I love the steampunk retro victorian look. I have paid way to much money for various gadgets based solely on their 'styling and craftsmanship'.


----------



## subwoofery

captainobvious said:


> Not sure I fully understand Kelvin. Are we talking about harmonics that end up being 80db or more below the fundamental frequency being audible?
> 
> Pretty amplifier- nice craftsmanship by the looks of it.


Something that we have not discussed yet is the component that makes the sound: 
- speaker by itself? 
- amplifier by itself? 
- whole system? 

Meaning that when a whole system is playing, it'll display harmonics from every components in the chain (HU, processor, amp and speaker). 

We are most of the time fighting over this amp adds this and this amp adds that but what if it was the opposite? This amp reduces this and this amp removes that? Maybe the race to zero is what makes most amp sound identical to one another... Some engineer just want to create an amp that cancels any kind of distortion. 

Isn't science fun sometimes? lol 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

Jepalan said:


> It is well known that certain amplifier topologies produce even order distortion products and others do not. It has also been shown (in blind ABX listening tests) that in some cases these differences are audible.
> 
> The point is:
> If the differences are audible, then they are measurable.
> 
> NOT the other way around.


So in some case, you can hear the difference and in others, you can't? 

That's knew? Isn't it what some in this thread have been saying all this time? That it is possible to tell one amp apart from another? 
Never dismissed science - I always tried to provide measurements and what I provided showed how different the distortion profile really was from 1 amp to the next. 

And like I said in my post above, do certain topologies produce/add distortion or do certain topologies remove/cancel distortion? 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

WRX/Z28 said:


> Everything shown is below the threshold for human hearing... Sooooo...


Knew you would say that... You're not the only one. Too easy :laugh:

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

thehatedguy said:


> So when we talk about accurate reproduction, are we talking about live instruments in the studio or what is coming out of the monitors?


I'll let the other camp answer you question... My answer would be to short to be noticed :blush:

Kelvin


----------



## Jepalan

subwoofery said:


> So in some case, you can hear the difference and in others, you can't?


Yes, of course. Simple example is when the differences are outside of our ability to hear them.



> That's knew? Isn't it what some in this thread have been saying all this time? That it is possible to tell one amp apart from another?


Sorry - I'm not sure I understand your point or your questions above - the grammar came out wonky.



> Never dismissed science - I always tried to provide measurements and what I provided showed how different the distortion profile really was from 1 amp to the next.


I never said you did dismiss science.



> And like I said in my post above, do certain topologies produce/add distortion or do certain topologies remove/cancel distortion?


Yes, of course different topologies may produce different types and amounts of distortion. This is well known. It is very unlikely that *any* topology would remove or cancel "distortion", but the answer depends very precisely on what exactly you mean by distortion. 

Regardless, I am not sure you got my prior point. I will restate it as simply as I can. 

1) SOME differences can be measured, but cannot be heard (in controlled blind ABX). 

2) ALL differences that are heard (and verified by blind ABX) can also be measured.


----------



## Hanatsu

subwoofery said:


> So in some case, you can hear the difference and in others, you can't?
> 
> That's knew? Isn't it what some in this thread have been saying all this time? That it is possible to tell one amp apart from another?
> Never dismissed science - I always tried to provide measurements and what I provided showed how different the distortion profile really was from 1 amp to the next.
> 
> And like I said in my post above, do certain topologies produce/add distortion or do certain topologies remove/cancel distortion?
> 
> Kelvin


Non-linear distortion is per definition additive. It's adds to the waveform, a form of distortion that was not present in the original signal. Harmonic distortion is the easiest one to measure and to analyze on a broad spectrum. You are right when you say that it's the entire systems distortion 'profile' which we hear in the end. What the audibility threshold of non-linear distortion is, can be debated. It's both volume and frequency dependent, I also believe it's connected to ELC curves (where the fundamental lies vs distortion product frequency "destination"). For speaker's with generally low energy storage and therefore low order non-linearities, quite large amounts of distortion can be present and we generally perceive it as false "warmth" or "detail" (I really hate using these terms but that's the least bad description I can make...).

The distortion profile of low-powered electronics or amplifiers to some extent can produce higher order distortion products, arguable more audible at lower levels. This is why THD is a bad indicator of electronic performance. We should care if the THD consist of 2nd order HD or 20th order HD - because the 2nd order is far more 'tolerable'. Some people even argue that low order (even order) HD is pleasant and desired. I disagree, non-linear distortion can only degrade audible performance in all forms, in any form - in my opinion. We can desire the lowest order, the lowest percentage as the best compromise, but it's still not a good thing. Non-linear distortion is also one thing that never can be taken away or reduced by processing alone.

I have done lots of research into audibility of harmonic distortion in speakers and some into the type that low-powered electronics tend to create. Geddes has also touched this subject and even if I agree with lots of his other studies, I can not accept his conclusions that low-order non-linearities are completely inaudible even at astounding levels - as his research implied. He also drew the conclusion that tall order NLD was FAR more audible at very low levels. How low, he never concluded as far as I know. I've made lots of examples of audio files where I've added different types of harmonic distortion in different quantity and testing has been inconclusive and I think I know why.

In the klippel test I linked to earlier, they use real speakers playing different levels of nonlinearities. This is key, non-linearities are a collective term for different forms of distortion, where harmonic distortion is the most well known and "tested-for" type. As I said before, non-linear distortion is additive and I believe the main culprit here is IM-distortion. I base this upon the fact that I've used the same music track as klippel does and added harmonic distortion to the "clean" part of the song separately, I then compared the listening results on their site and found that I could barely make out ~1% of combined non-linearities. My own listening results using harmonic distortion ONLY, the audible threshold increased from 1% to roughly 6% (!). This using a simulation of "what a speaker's distortion profile normally looks like" (ie. low order harmonics). Using an increasing slope of tall order, lowered my threshold to roughly ~2% THD. 

How much IM-distortion plays part in this is not eay to say, but I almost dare to say that it is generally worse in the same quantity and order than harmonic distortion. These two are connected to each other but not all the same. IMD occurs in both electronics and speakers alike but the type (order) is different. The audibility threshold also dependent on material. With piano solo tracks, with music that got lots of "separated frequency content" and silent portions where the masking effect plays a smaller role, the threshold goes down. Same goes for the opposite. 

Do we have to care about anything below, let's say 0,5% regardless of distortion type? Maybe, maybe not. Should we care about 0,2% or less? Well... I can tell you. For those who haven't done these forms of testing - you'd be surprised that levels of distortion you think is acceptable. I can find the distorted portions of the music because I know exactly where to focus at it in particular tracks. Does it mean it's an issue or annoying to listen at when using "other music" during "normal" listening? Nope, not really. I can accept lot more distortion than I've mentioned here during normal listening. 

The short version; I don't think the non-linearities in such quantity as shown in the tests you supplied would be audible to me. I'm skeptical it's audible to anyone unless under very specific conditions. Our hearing is simply not accurate enough to hear such small deviations in the waveform and the masking effect is really powerful. The people behind the famous lossy audio codecs know this. I don't think there's ANY problems measuring anything, some other people here keeps saying "we don't know what we measure is the right thing to measure". This is disagree with, I argue that it's the correlation between our hearing and the measurements that is the issue. Not the measurements themselves. Don't get me wrong, anyone who posts some kind of objective data to support claims made gains respect in my eyes - even if it's far stretched.


----------



## Jepalan

thehatedguy said:


> So when we talk about accurate reproduction, are we talking about live instruments in the studio or what is coming out of the monitors?


Great question. As relates to a discussion of amplifiers, I would say neither. The amplifier's role is to create an amplified facsimile of the electrical signal on it's inputs - regardless of what that input is - and while driving any load within it's design/spec range. 

This may/may not have anything to do with the live instruments that were recorded or the sound heard from the studio monitors while doing so.


----------



## Hanatsu

Jepalan said:


> 1) SOME differences can be measured, but cannot be heard (in controlled blind ABX).
> 
> 2) ALL differences that are heard (and verified by blind ABX) can also be measured.


This is correct. This has been proven to me in every case I can think of.


----------



## Hanatsu

Jepalan said:


> Great question. As relates to a discussion of amplifiers, I would say neither. The amplifier's role is to create an amplified facsimile of the electrical signal on it's inputs - regardless of what that input is - and while driving any load within it's design/spec range.
> 
> This may/may not have anything to do with the live instruments that were recorded or the sound heard from the studio monitors while doing so.


Below clipping (and I pretty much disregard TIM) amplifiers are (generally) low distortion devices and therefore generally has very little impact on the shape of the waveform. Speakers are not and together with acoustic imperfections (room) has a very very large impact on the waveform relatively speaking, no pun intended.


----------



## RobERacer

cubdenno said:


> AND measure the FR and THD/N on the amps. As there may be a very real difference in the amps.
> 
> As said to the point of nausea, IF you can hear it, it can be measured.
> 
> Also said to the point of vomiting but few seem to pick it up,
> 
> Subjective tastes are not a bad thing. Everyone has a subjective preference. Adding EQ or finding one likes/desires a type of distortion does not make a person bad or their preferences invalid. it does however not have anything to do with the discussion though it constantly gets thrown out there.
> 
> If you do want to prove to yourself that you can hear differences in level matched amplifiers that have a flat frequency response and inaudible distortion, do yourself a favor and try a blind listening test. It takes some work to set up, but it has been found in every case I have seen or heard about to shut golden ears down. Do yourself that favor. It doesn't have to change or alter your love of a particular brand, design type etc. But at least then you would know.
> 
> Once you discover psycho acoustics happening and where it does, in my opinion it can then allow you to pursue the areas where further increasing the quality of sound reproduction can audibly happen.


Everyone does have certain aspects of sound that they value more than others. That is why in the end tuning (maybe other than cars in the United States) is finalised with human ears and with that is subjective making it art and not so much science.


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> It is well known that certain amplifier topologies produce even order distortion products and others do not. It has also been shown (in blind ABX listening tests) that in some cases these differences are audible.
> 
> The point is:
> If the differences are audible, then they are measurable.
> 
> NOT the other way around.


Where is the data? Distortion, frequency response and power output are not the only characteristics that are needed to even have a hint as to how good an amp is or is not.


----------



## JVD240

RobERacer said:


> Where is the data? Distortion, frequency response and power output are not the only characteristics that are needed to even have a hint as to how good an amp is or is not.


Not even a hint?

What specs do you consider most important?


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> Why? because FR is not flat on RTA? or because it sounds unpleasant to you?


I would find that really unpleasant. Of course those graphs showed a lot of nonlinearity but that was all in a zone by itself. It would stand out like a sore thumb.


----------



## Victor_inox

RobERacer said:


> I would find that really unpleasant. Of course those graphs showed a lot of nonlinearity but that was all in a zone by itself. It would stand out like a sore thumb.


Stand out how? Visually? or sonically?


----------



## High Resolution Audio

So here is my story. About 20 or so years ago i was in my early 20's and just getting into Car audio. 

Rode with my dad to the New Bedford or Providence area can't remember exactly, to pick up a repaired radar for his fishing boat. As we were pulling into the parking lot for the Marine Electronics Repair Shop and saw a car audio shop and I had never been in one, so I asked my Dad if we could go in after we picked up the radar. He agreed and I was very excited. I remember running over to the store and walked right into the demo room in the far right corner of the store. I stood there confused and looking at the demo board. I waited for a salesman to help out. Had no idea how to operate all the equipment or what all the buttons did. 

There were 4 sets of speakers and 4 amplifiers to choose from. Least expensive on the bottom and most expensive on top. First listened to the speakers from the bottom to top and found that the most expensive speakers sounded best. 

Then listened to the amps one by one.

I think they were all Kenwood Brand Amps. 

4th amp $250
3rd amp $199
2nd amp $149
1st amp $99

The salesman started with the 2nd amp and then pressed the button to change from third to fourth. After the 4th amp he switched to the 1st and asked me what I thought of the $99 AMP. I could immediately hear more details in the music and the instruments just came to life. I said to him "no way" I listened some more and then said "really?" Then he did something that surprised me. He asked me to compare the different amps and tell him what I thought. He sat on a stool just outside of the demo room and waited patiently as I asked him if it was ok for me to push the buttons that switched from amp to amp as I was afraid to at first not wanting to screw something up. 
I started my analysis. The power ratings for the amps varied so I adjusted the volume of the source unit accordingly. I started pushing buttons and listening. At first, when I switched from on amp to the next I had a hard time hearing any difference. I told him that this was not going to be easy. I spent several minutes doing my testing. I remember really having to concentrate hard as this was going to be difficult. When switching from amp to amp several times, I said to him "I can hear differences, but they are just so subtle, so slight that I cannot come up with words to describe the differences." He then asked me what I thought of the $99 amp. I told him that the price did not reflect the quality of the sound. I actually could hear more details in the music from the $99 amp than the $250 amp. I told him that this amp (pointing to the $99) is a good amp. and I liked this amp the best. This whole process actually took about 10-15 painstaking minutes. After concentrating so hard and paying careful attention to just my sense of sound, I became exhausted. At the very end, I switched back and forth from the most expensive amp and least expensive amp. Without concentrating on listening it was extremely difficult to notice any difference at all. 
Bottom line, I agree with some of you that in a moving vehicle, the subtle, barely perceptible differences may not matter. However, there are differences that can be heard.

I think with better quality speakers like the ones I have now, Boston Acoustics Pro Series First Generation differences may be more apparent and noticeable. I had a Pyramid class A amplifier in the late 1990's early running another set of BA's. When re-creating my old system recently, I was frustrated because I tried tweeter after tweeter trying to get the sound I had in my old system 15-20 years ago. I couldn't get the sound I remembered even after I finally found a set of the same tweeters on E-Bay. I swapped out a JL 300/4 for Soundstream Class A 100 II and immediately upper end details came back It sounds just as I remembered. I offer anyone that claims that they cannot hear a notable difference between amps listen to these two amps on my system, you might just change your mind.


----------



## RobERacer

JVD240 said:


> Not even a hint?
> 
> What specs do you consider most important?


I've mentioned before about slew rate. That and damping factor relate closely to resolution. We noted the actual response graph already. That will tell you just how nonlinear FR is. How about distortion at normal operating levels as opposed to full power. How often do you see these specs? 

My point is this speakers and amps are largely standardised in terms of impedance. More than that current amp designs deal with reactive loads far better than they did 50 years ago to the point where we don't really consider that much of a factor in most audio applications anymore. FYI Reactive loads = speaker impedances change while they run. I think it is still a given that the less the load the more distortion is introduced by the amp. I have yet to see an amp where that was not true anyway. That said distortion is far more detectable in the upper frequencies and most manufacturers make their tweeters based around 8 ohms so as to take advantage of the fact that amps usually have less distortion at higher impedances. For the most part just like we can prettimuch all hear and agree that something sounds bad even though we hear slightly different amps can be swapped out directly with minimal disruption to show the sonic differences as well. Will one speaker work with a specific amp better than another? Yup but... which ones match best? That is a whole other set of specs which yet again we don't actually have. Suffice it to say that for most of the audio industry that evaluation process is set to ignore. It is something that high end studios do though. That said they NEVER BUY ANYTHING without trying it first anyway so suddenly the spec war becomes a no go there too. Hmm


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> Stand out how? Visually? or sonically?


Sonically of course. I never care what it looks like. That said I am obsessed and the issues that I find issues others don't even think about. Till I fix them that is. Then the reaction is


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> Anyone who saying that blind tests shows no difference to be heard, isn`t it absolutely the same thing? I`m genuinely curious.


I'm sorry, but NOBODY is saying that blind tests show no difference!!! 
Do you actually read what is posted?
What has been said is... 

IF blind ABX testing does show a difference, THEN that difference is also measurable. 

Of course some amplifiers do sound different, and when they do, that difference is verifiable by blind ABX testing. 

WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO COMPREHEND?


----------



## Victor_inox

RobERacer said:


> Sonically of course. I never care what it looks like. That said I am obsessed and the issues that I find issues others don't even think about. Till I fix them that is. Then the reaction is


Graphs are visual, I`ve had to ask.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jepalan said:


> I'm sorry, but NOBODY is saying that blind tests show no difference!!!
> Do you actually read what is posted?
> What has been said is...
> 
> IF blind ABX testing does show a difference, THEN that difference is also measurable.
> 
> Of course some amplifiers do sound different, and when they do, that difference is verifiable by blind ABX testing.
> 
> WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO COMPREHEND?


Nobody? just about 20 people here. I CAN SCREAM TOO
I was not necessarily talking to you.


----------



## RobERacer

K so it is settled then? Amps are not all the same and if the right measurements are taken that compiled data can give clues to which amps are more likely to do what. Meanwhile all tests are subject to what we actually hear in the end as sometimes the data can 1. be misleading or 2. be misinterpreted. Isn't that more or less where we started though? Sheesh. Are we done yelling yet?

I can't remember who said it but about ten pages ago I remember reading someone who disagreed with me that system design can be art. At first that hurt me a bit. I like being an artist. I am slightly more right brained that left actually oh and yes, I actually am ADHD but I ditched all the chems as all they did was make me sleep. Kelvin stated in a more recent message that he determined the DLS Reference Series to be a warm sounding amp and branded the Focal (I assume 4160) as a sonically accurate amp. I'll take him at his word for that. I did find the Focal to have good resolution and I am interested in hearing the DLS which lists really cheap comparatively speaking. Digital audio has a tendency to make things sound a little harsh. This is because digital audio causes the waveform to have squarer cuts which make the waveform similar in sound to transistor AKA "square wave" distortion. It is actually inducing distortion into the signal. The more we degrade our bit depth the more that becomes obvious too. Audio engineers since the 80's have used certain signal path alterations to try to compensate for that. Tubes are one way and transformers are another. Different tube circuits and different transformers have different sonic specifics but one thing they prettimuch all do is generate a bit of a smoothing effect. There were also some transformer signal paths that did similar things too that were used. At any rate literally we put these boxes in line and even though it might have been an eq or compression circuit we might not have engaged any processing. We did it merely to benefit from the signal path. This is very common even today in mastering. Many folks on here mention that Focal KRX's although very capable of great resolution can come away with a bit of a harsh or brittle tone. What if one were to choose an amp that smooths that tone a bit? Conversely Dynaudio's have a tendency to not be so detail revealing and maybe a bit weaker in the upper mid. What if one were to choose a digital amp to run those? Digital audio also sometimes gives a sense of accentuated mids. Whichever unit one chooses is not wrong. Technically they are all correct and actually all of these are recognised as great choices but we just like some sounds more than others. Is that not artistic impression? 
How many of us actually take a measurement of the sonic spectrum with an RTA, merely invert the graph applying that to the eq and call it a day. "Perfect, done!" That doesn't quite work does it? That would be the scientific method of tuning wouldn't it? We just don't like the color so we alter it. We all color our tones slightly at least the best guys do and as far as mix engineers go the best ones have an almost unmistakable "sound" that they bring to the mix. That is actually their stock in trade not their knowledge of tech. Most will say "Who cares?" when tech is concerned. It's art no matter what way you slice it and the more in depth we get into audio the more that art side becomes apparent.


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> Nobody? just about 20 people here. I CAN SCREAM TOO
> I was not necessarily talking to you.


Oh hehe. I just read the bottom of your post about circuit simplicity. I have to agree actually. The hilarious part is regarding what I just wrote about which was adding circuits for no real good reason (sort of). Yup, I guess I am two faced. Again it's art. The rules can change depending on the context.


----------



## Victor_inox

RobERacer said:


> Oh hehe. I just read the bottom of your post about circuit simplicity. I have to agree actually. The hilarious part is regarding what I just wrote about which was adding circuits for no real good reason (sort of). Yup, I guess I am two faced. Again it's art. The rules can change depending on the context.


I stand by my signature, thank you!


----------



## Elektra

RobERacer said:


> Did the midrange spike in the Focal not bother you? That would have driven me nuts.


Actually no.. The Utopias honestly are the smoothest most natural sounding speakers I have heard to date..

In fact I find the Morels to be brighter sounding speakers - but you would not say that by looking at the graph..

The Beryllium tweeter was so smooth and natural - I had to put my ear right up to the tweeter to check if it was playing...

I didn't use the crossblock on the Focals as I didn't have one so the speakers were/are playing through the Elate Passives - which had more or less the correct frequencies and slopes Focal recommend 

Playing the Focals off my ONKYO amp at home the speakers sound fine - no complaints - but off my simulated car setup it was another level completely those speakers really sounded magnificent 

Almost like the Grande Utopia set I demod a few months back (obviously not as good) 

I really don't get the "bright" tweeter sound everyone complains about ... As I don't hear it and neither does the RTA show it? 

I would like to say it's the quality of the amp I used to play the speakers (which by the way Focal actually do say) 

But they going into my car next month so results could be different - but I suspect it would be better considering the setup I am going to use with it... 

My cross block should be here as well by then so lots of exciting things going to happen in the next month..

I'll give you guys a review once it's in...


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> Graphs are visual, I`ve had to ask.


You see the graph and the process of interpreting it you already deriving a mental assessment of what you will hear... Like a perceived peak in a certain range already tells you the sound will be bright or brital..

What do you think you are listening to when you listen to that amp - your expecting a bright sound? 

Is it actually bright or is your brain convincing you its bright? Lol

So much for science... Lol


----------



## Elektra

High Resolution Audio said:


> So here is my story. About 20 or so years ago i was in my early 20's and just getting into Car audio.
> 
> Rode with my dad to the New Bedford or Providence area can't remember exactly, to pick up a repaired radar for his fishing boat. As we were pulling into the parking lot for the Marine Electronics Repair Shop and saw a car audio shop and I had never been in one, so I asked my Dad if we could go in after we picked up the radar. He agreed and I was very excited. I remember running over to the store and walked right into the demo room in the far right corner of the store. I stood there confused and looking at the demo board. I waited for a salesman to help out. Had no idea how to operate all the equipment or what all the buttons did.
> 
> There were 4 sets of speakers and 4 amplifiers to choose from. Least expensive on the bottom and most expensive on top. First listened to the speakers from the bottom to top and found that the most expensive speakers sounded best.
> 
> Then listened to the amps one by one.
> 
> I think they were all Kenwood Brand Amps.
> 
> 4th amp $250
> 3rd amp $199
> 2nd amp $149
> 1st amp  $99
> 
> The salesman started with the 2nd amp and then pressed the button to change from third to fourth. After the 4th amp he switched to the 1st and asked me what I thought of the $99 AMP. I could immediately hear more details in the music and the instruments just came to life. I said to him "no way" I listened some more and then said "really?" Then he did something that surprised me. He asked me to compare the different amps and tell him what I thought. He sat on a stool just outside of the demo room and waited patiently as I asked him if it was ok for me to push the buttons that switched from amp to amp as I was afraid to at first not wanting to screw something up.
> I started my analysis. The power ratings for the amps varied so I adjusted the volume of the source unit accordingly. I started pushing buttons and listening. At first, when I switched from on amp to the next I had a hard time hearing any difference. I told him that this was not going to be easy. I spent several minutes doing my testing. I remember really having to concentrate hard as this was going to be difficult. When switching from amp to amp several times, I said to him "I can hear differences, but they are just so subtle, so slight that I cannot come up with words to describe the differences." He then asked me what I thought of the $99 amp. I told him that the price did not reflect the quality of the sound. I actually could hear more details in the music from the $99 amp than the $250 amp. I told him that this amp (pointing to the $99) is a good amp. and I liked this amp the best. This whole process actually took about 10-15 painstaking minutes. After concentrating so hard and paying careful attention to just my sense of sound, I became exhausted. At the very end, I switched back and forth from the most expensive amp and least expensive amp. Without concentrating on listening it was extremely difficult to notice any difference at all.
> Bottom line, I agree with some of you that in a moving vehicle, the subtle, barely perceptible differences may not matter. However, there are differences that can be heard.
> 
> I think with better quality speakers like the ones I have now, Boston Acoustics Pro Series First Generation differences may be more apparent and noticeable. I had a Pyramid class A amplifier in the late 1990's early running another set of BA's. When re-creating my old system recently, I was frustrated because I tried tweeter after tweeter trying to get the sound I had in my old system 15-20 years ago. I couldn't get the sound I remembered even after I finally found a set of the same tweeters on E-Bay. I swapped out a JL 300/4 for Soundstream Class A 100 II and immediately upper end details came back It sounds just as I remembered. I offer anyone that claims that they cannot hear a notable difference between amps listen to these two amps on my system, you might just change your mind.


The reason why you couldn't hear much difference between the 4 kenwood amps was because if you studied the board layouts you would most probably find that the audio section was basically identical - the price difference was not large enough to assume better components were being used from the cheapest to the most expensive amp

However the price difference was probably more for extra channels/ more power etc...

Now you compare a JL300/4 to a Class A Soundstream - there you getting a different board layout/components etc and yes I would totally agree with you that the SS sounded better


----------



## cajunner

read the marketing spiel on the Milbert amp.

if Victor can put out a pair of single-ended kt88's for a cool grand, I want to write the advertising copy!


would be fun, a jaunt through the audiophile thesaurus...


then find some celebrity to strike the publicity chord, maybe a freak right-winger like Ted Nugent going off on a spoof of Mcconaughey's Lincoln spots...


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> read the marketing spiel on the Milbert amp.
> 
> if Victor can put out a pair of single-ended kt88's for a cool grand, I want to write the advertising copy!
> 
> 
> would be fun, a jaunt through the audiophile thesaurus...
> 
> 
> then find some celebrity to strike the publicity chord, maybe a freak right-winger like Ted Nugent going off on a spoof of Mcconaughey's Lincoln spots...


You won`t find audiophile mambo jumbo in anything I sell. No need.
You can start writing now, it`s about done.


----------



## miniSQ

Tuesday i am going to switch out my front amp...( sub amp switch will come later when its warmer ), but for now i am going to switch a Jl 300/4 running active with a Mosconi AS 100.4..it will be a completely drop in switch...nothing else will change.

Anyone want to come up to Vermont and do some A/B testing?


----------



## Elektra

miniSQ said:


> Tuesday i am going to switch out my front amp...( sub amp switch will come later when its warmer ), but for now i am going to switch a Jl 300/4 running active with a Mosconi AS 100.4..it will be a completely drop in switch...nothing else will change.
> 
> Anyone want to come up to Vermont and do some A/B testing?


Love too... But I am a bit far..


----------



## JVD240

RobERacer said:


> I've mentioned before about slew rate. That and damping factor relate closely to resolution. We noted the actual response graph already. That will tell you just how nonlinear FR is. How about distortion at normal operating levels as opposed to full power. How often do you see these specs?
> 
> My point is this speakers and amps are largely standardised in terms of impedance. More than that current amp designs deal with reactive loads far better than they did 50 years ago to the point where we don't really consider that much of a factor in most audio applications anymore. FYI Reactive loads = speaker impedances change while they run. I think it is still a given that the less the load the more distortion is introduced by the amp. I have yet to see an amp where that was not true anyway. That said distortion is far more detectable in the upper frequencies and most manufacturers make their tweeters based around 8 ohms so as to take advantage of the fact that amps usually have less distortion at higher impedances. For the most part just like we can prettimuch all hear and agree that something sounds bad even though we hear slightly different amps can be swapped out directly with minimal disruption to show the sonic differences as well. Will one speaker work with a specific amp better than another? Yup but... which ones match best? That is a whole other set of specs which yet again we don't actually have. Suffice it to say that for most of the audio industry that evaluation process is set to ignore. It is something that high end studios do though. That said they NEVER BUY ANYTHING without trying it first anyway so suddenly the spec war becomes a no go there too. Hmm


Can someone please explain damping factor to me again?

From what I remember from a training seminar I attended it was basically a pointless measurement as all amps now have very high DF ratings because of their low output impedance. It's very possible I misinterpreted that though. I've always understood all audio systems to go from low - high impedance. That will always result in a high DF as far as I know.

It seems MFGs brag about the high DF... but these are the same people who list max power. Lol.


----------



## cubdenno

Victor_inox said:


> Good enough mentality killing art. It almost killed HI FI already.


I have to disagree. And sure we can blame the internet for a lot of it. The availability of information currently has pretty much rendered those that sell snake oil and voodoo, impotent. 

Now people have access to measurement equipment with capabilities that you had to drop the cash that would buy a car, 20 years ago. 

Science, information availability, knowledge. That is what is killing the HIFI industry.

Art? Sorry. I still love the craftmanship and cabinet design that is out there. 

And it sounds like you are trying to define what is art. 
Is it not still art when my daughter draws a picture on a tablet connected to a computer verses doing it on an easel? Technology as allowed advances in even art. It allows me to have reproductions of art that I have an appreciation of. Maybe I misunderstood.

Making music is art. Reproducing music is science.


----------



## cubdenno

JVD240 said:


> Can someone please explain damping factor to me again?
> 
> From what I remember from a training seminar I attended it was basically a pointless measurement as all amps now have very high DF ratings because of their low output impedance. It's very possible I misinterpreted that though. I've always understood all audio systems to go from low - high impedance. That will always result in a high DF as far as I know.
> 
> It seems MFGs brag about the high DF... but these are the same people who list max power. Lol.


yeah damping factor is a marketing buzzword and unless the circuitry is just bad, slew rate is another spec that is basically meaningless now. But it could affect the upper frequency response of the amplifier. Again, now days, you should be OK.


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> Nobody? just about 20 people here. I CAN SCREAM TOO
> I was not necessarily talking to you.


Victor. Of course you were talking to me. You quoted my post in your reply. Apparently you have a very short, or very selective memory. Here is the entire conversation for you...



Jepalan said:


> Who is generalizing that "all amps sound the same"?
> Please refer to the exact post.
> I cannot find a single post here that is supporting that claim.





Victor_inox said:


> Anyone who saying that blind tests shows no difference to be heard, isn`t it absolutely the same thing? I`m genuinely curious.





Jepalan said:


> I'm sorry, but NOBODY is saying that blind tests show no difference!!!
> Do you actually read what is posted?
> What has been said is...
> 
> IF blind ABX testing does show a difference, THEN that difference is also measurable.
> 
> Of course some amplifiers do sound different, and when they do, that difference is verifiable by blind ABX testing.
> 
> WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO COMPREHEND?





Victor_inox said:


> Nobody? just about 20 people here. I CAN SCREAM TOO
> I was not necessarily talking to you.


----------



## Jepalan

cubdenno said:


> yeah damping factor is a marketing buzzword and unless the circuitry is just bad, slew rate is another spec that is basically meaningless now. But it could affect the upper frequency response of the amplifier. Again, now days, you should be OK.


^^I agree. Not much to worry about as far as DF when talking about modern solid state amps. If dealing with tube/valve amps with really low DF, then may want to pay closer attention to it.

Good discussion of slew rate here -> Slew Rate in Audio Amplifiers - What Does it Mean? | Audioholics

The quote from Sergiu Ignat is particularly clarifying.


----------



## captainobvious

High Resolution Audio said:


> So here is my story. About 20 or so years ago i was in my early 20's and just getting into Car audio.
> 
> Rode with my dad to the New Bedford or Providence area can't remember exactly, to pick up a repaired radar for his fishing boat. As we were pulling into the parking lot for the Marine Electronics Repair Shop and saw a car audio shop and I had never been in one, so I asked my Dad if we could go in after we picked up the radar. He agreed and I was very excited. I remember running over to the store and walked right into the demo room in the far right corner of the store. I stood there confused and looking at the demo board. I waited for a salesman to help out. Had no idea how to operate all the equipment or what all the buttons did.
> 
> There were 4 sets of speakers and 4 amplifiers to choose from. Least expensive on the bottom and most expensive on top. First listened to the speakers from the bottom to top and found that the most expensive speakers sounded best.
> 
> Then listened to the amps one by one.
> 
> I think they were all Kenwood Brand Amps.
> 
> 4th amp $250
> 3rd amp $199
> 2nd amp $149
> 1st amp $99
> 
> The salesman started with the 2nd amp and then pressed the button to change from third to fourth. After the 4th amp he switched to the 1st and asked me what I thought of the $99 AMP. I could immediately hear more details in the music and the instruments just came to life. I said to him "no way" I listened some more and then said "really?" Then he did something that surprised me. He asked me to compare the different amps and tell him what I thought. He sat on a stool just outside of the demo room and waited patiently as I asked him if it was ok for me to push the buttons that switched from amp to amp as I was afraid to at first not wanting to screw something up.
> I started my analysis. The power ratings for the amps varied so I adjusted the volume of the source unit accordingly. I started pushing buttons and listening. At first, when I switched from on amp to the next I had a hard time hearing any difference. I told him that this was not going to be easy. I spent several minutes doing my testing. I remember really having to concentrate hard as this was going to be difficult. When switching from amp to amp several times, I said to him "I can hear differences, but they are just so subtle, so slight that I cannot come up with words to describe the differences." He then asked me what I thought of the $99 amp. I told him that the price did not reflect the quality of the sound. I actually could hear more details in the music from the $99 amp than the $250 amp. I told him that this amp (pointing to the $99) is a good amp. and I liked this amp the best. This whole process actually took about 10-15 painstaking minutes. After concentrating so hard and paying careful attention to just my sense of sound, I became exhausted. At the very end, I switched back and forth from the most expensive amp and least expensive amp. Without concentrating on listening it was extremely difficult to notice any difference at all.
> Bottom line, I agree with some of you that in a moving vehicle, the subtle, barely perceptible differences may not matter. However, there are differences that can be heard.
> 
> I think with better quality speakers like the ones I have now, Boston Acoustics Pro Series First Generation differences may be more apparent and noticeable. I had a Pyramid class A amplifier in the late 1990's early running another set of BA's. When re-creating my old system recently, I was frustrated because I tried tweeter after tweeter trying to get the sound I had in my old system 15-20 years ago. I couldn't get the sound I remembered even after I finally found a set of the same tweeters on E-Bay. I swapped out a JL 300/4 for Soundstream Class A 100 II and immediately upper end details came back It sounds just as I remembered. I offer anyone that claims that they cannot hear a notable difference between amps listen to these two amps on my system, you might just change your mind.




Thanks for sharing.

Here's part of the problem -and don't take this as a knock on you specifically, as many of the people in this thread claiming to hear differences have had, I'm sure, very similar experiences whether in an audio shop, a demo room, someones car, their OWN car...etc. - myself included !

These demo's that people base their opinion on this topic about, are NOT properly controlled blind tests that eliminate outside variables and isolate only the amplifiers to be the sole differential. Therein is where the largest disparity arises.



Have all amplifiers been _*properly *_level matched?
Are all amplifiers being fed the exact same source output?
Are all amplifiers using the exact same source cables and length?
Are all amplifiers using the exact same speaker wire size and length?
Are all amplifiers playing through the exact same speakers?
Are switches between amplifier A and amplifier X being conducted immediately- no waiting period?

These are just a few of the questions that need to be answered with a YES for you to gain any significant or valid information from the demoing process. Controls _*must *_be in place, or you're not comparing apples to apples.

In your demo room example there are several things I'm going to point out that made this a poor evaluation to draw meaningful conclusions from. And again, please don't take this as any slight on you, I'm pointing these out for people to understand WHY this isn't a good way to evaluate amplifiers on merits of "sound". We've all been there, and it's fun to do demo's. But there's a difference between enjoying the experience and what you heard, versus drawing *accurate *information from the session to base decisions off of.


1. There was no way for you to know that all of the amps were properly level matched. If any of those amps had more output than another, the louder amplifier will almost always sound "better" to the listener. Particularly in audio shops, it is a common practice to raise the output slightly on an amplifier they may want to move on the sales floor.

2. There was no way to verify that the cables- both signal and speaker- were the same length, size and construction and provided a consistent resistance/impedance.

3. Adjusting the volume- You need to set the volume of the source at a fixed point and then keep it there for the duration of the evaluations. Here's the reason why- Different amplifiers will produce more, or less power based on the input voltage supplied. Meaning if I have 4 amplifiers I'm demoing, they will have different power outputs and efficiencies. The difference could be slight or it could be vast. This is why we level match the output, because with 1 volt of input signal voltage, some amps will produce quite a bit more output than others. If you go back then and adjust the volume from the source at some point during the evaluations, then you've skewed the relative output between each of the 4 amplifiers.

4. Not blind- Seeing and knowing which amp is playing affects your perception of what you think you hear. Psychoacoustics must be taken into consideration to remove that variable to make any of these tests legitimate and to make the information you take away from them accurate and meaningful.

These are just a few, but you can hopefully see what I'm trying to point out. 

Like you, I had shared that same belief that these amplifiers do sound different. It was an eye (or rather ear) opening experience when I did the proper blind testing and learned for myself.


----------



## captainobvious

miniSQ said:


> Tuesday i am going to switch out my front amp...( sub amp switch will come later when its warmer ), but for now i am going to switch a Jl 300/4 running active with a Mosconi AS 100.4..it will be a completely drop in switch...nothing else will change.
> 
> Anyone want to come up to Vermont and do some A/B testing?



It will be fun I'm sure. Gear changes always are 

Just don't plan to gather any meaningful information from the swap itself unless you take into consideration the things I listed above for HRA


----------



## Hanatsu

JVD240 said:


> Can someone please explain damping factor to me again?
> 
> From what I remember from a training seminar I attended it was basically a pointless measurement as all amps now have very high DF ratings because of their low output impedance. It's very possible I misinterpreted that though. I've always understood all audio systems to go from low - high impedance. That will always result in a high DF as far as I know.
> 
> It seems MFGs brag about the high DF... but these are the same people who list max power. Lol.


Speaker load divided by the output impedance is the damping factor. It's a BS spec that people tend to crazy over, moderate or extremely high is of no consequence at all. The only thing an extremely low DF can result in is alteration in the FR. Low DF will show itself at speaker resonances (impedance peaks) and raise Q the lower DF gets. This affect the frequency response, another symptom can be a very low Q attenuation of the mid-frequency band. This has almost zero relevance to solid-state amplifiers though. The output impedance varies with frequency and load (obviously). It's also affected by the electrical resistance in the cable connected between the amp/speakers. 

Damping Factor: Effects On System Response | Audioholics


----------



## Hanatsu

cubdenno said:


> Making music is art. Reproducing music is science.


Should be the sub-title of DIYMA.


----------



## Elektra

captainobvious said:


> Thanks for sharing.
> 
> Here's part of the problem -and don't take this as a knock on you specifically, as many of the people in this thread claiming to hear differences have had, I'm sure, very similar experiences whether in an audio shop, a demo room, someones car, their OWN car...etc. - myself included !
> 
> These demo's that people base their opinion on this topic about, are NOT properly controlled blind tests that eliminate outside variables and isolate only the amplifiers to be the sole differential. Therein is where the largest disparity arises.
> 
> 
> 
> Have all amplifiers been _*properly *_level matched?
> Are all amplifiers being fed the exact same source output?
> Are all amplifiers using the exact same source cables and length?
> Are all amplifiers using the exact same speaker wire size and length?
> Are all amplifiers playing through the exact same speakers?
> Are switches between amplifier A and amplifier X being conducted immediately- no waiting period?
> 
> These are just a few of the questions that need to be answered with a YES for you to gain any significant or valid information from the demoing process. Controls _*must *_be in place, or you're not comparing apples to apples.
> 
> In your demo room example there are several things I'm going to point out that made this a poor evaluation to draw meaningful conclusions from. And again, please don't take this as any slight on you, I'm pointing these out for people to understand WHY this isn't a good way to evaluate amplifiers on merits of "sound". We've all been there, and it's fun to do demo's. But there's a difference between enjoying the experience and what you heard, versus drawing *accurate *information from the session to base decisions off of.
> 
> 
> 1. There was no way for you to know that all of the amps were properly level matched. If any of those amps had more output than another, the louder amplifier will almost always sound "better" to the listener. Particularly in audio shops, it is a common practice to raise the output slightly on an amplifier they may want to move on the sales floor.
> 
> 2. There was no way to verify that the cables- both signal and speaker- were the same length, size and construction and provided a consistent resistance/impedance.
> 
> 3. Adjusting the volume- You need to set the volume of the source at a fixed point and then keep it there for the duration of the evaluations. Here's the reason why- Different amplifiers will produce more, or less power based on the input voltage supplied. Meaning if I have 4 amplifiers I'm demoing, they will have different power outputs and efficiencies. The difference could be slight or it could be vast. This is why we level match the output, because with 1 volt of input signal voltage, some amps will produce quite a bit more output than others. If you go back then and adjust the volume from the source at some point during the evaluations, then you've skewed the relative output between each of the 4 amplifiers.
> 
> 4. Not blind- Seeing and knowing which amp is playing affects your perception of what you think you hear. Psychoacoustics must be taken into consideration to remove that variable to make any of these tests legitimate and to make the information you take away from them accurate and meaningful.
> 
> These are just a few, but you can hopefully see what I'm trying to point out.
> 
> Like you, I had shared that same belief that these amplifiers do sound different. It was an eye (or rather ear) opening experience when I did the proper blind testing and learned for myself.


Captain your now the converted.. Lol - thinking back to the Zapco threads..

Have you done a AB full sight test before? 

Have you done one with 2 amps that you know nothing about and the test was out of interest? How were the results?

I ask this because in your old days Zapco Z series was the be all and end all of amps - nothing stood in its way.. Except me lol 

I have always maintained that they were rubbish - nothing has changed .. They still rubbish!

Reality was I purchased the Z150.6 based on a huge reputation and with John buttering me up for weeks.. Talk was like huge improvement on the famed C2K (at least on the Zapco forums) etc.. So my mind was pretty much made up - hook line and sinker. 

The EOS amp was a after thought as it was only given to me on the day I collected the Zapco. No research no anything - I was hardly interested in taking it - the guy insisted I try it. I indulged him..

I had a DC360.4 (which I still have) in the car before changing to the Z amp we all listened..

Installed the Z amp and there was a audible problem with the Z amp.. I drove home 40min .. All the time thinking there is something not right..

I spent 4 hours tuning it - it was just rubbish! 

Looked on my back seat and saw the EOS - though what the hell and installed it - I must stress I had no preconceived ideas about the EOS...

All I had to do is level match and literally 15min later - from rubbish to brilliant! 

Can anyone explain this? No mind tricks - remember Zapco buttered me up for weeks EOS was a grudge demo... 

My mind should have favored the Z not the EOS...right as we only favor what we want to favor... Right?

So after 105 pages .. Can anyone explain this? Without saying psychology! 

I am open to discussion... 

Also based on my previous post on my cable experience - nobody has explained that too...


----------



## captainobvious

Elektra said:


> Captain your now the converted.. Lol - thinking back to the Zapco threads..
> 
> Have you done a AB full sight test before?
> 
> Have you done one with 2 amps that you know nothing about and the test was out of interest? How were the results?
> 
> I ask this because in your old days Zapco Z series was the be all and end all of amps - nothing stood in its way.. Except me lol
> 
> I have always maintained that they were rubbish - nothing has changed .. They still rubbish!
> 
> Reality was I purchased the Z150.6 based on a huge reputation and with John buttering me up for weeks.. Talk was like huge improvement on the famed C2K (at least on the Zapco forums) etc.. So my mind was pretty much made up - hook line and sinker.
> 
> The EOS amp was a after thought as it was only given to me on the day I collected the Zapco. No research no anything - I was hardly interested in taking it - the guy insisted I try it. I indulged him..
> 
> I had a DC360.4 (which I still have) in the car before changing to the Z amp we all listened..
> 
> Installed the Z amp and there was a audible problem with the Z amp.. I drove home 40min .. All the time thinking there is something not right..
> 
> I spent 4 hours tuning it - it was just rubbish!
> 
> Looked on my back seat and saw the EOS - though what the hell and installed it - I must stress I had no preconceived ideas about the EOS...
> 
> All I had to do is level match and literally 15min later - from rubbish to brilliant!
> 
> Can anyone explain this? No mind tricks - remember Zapco buttered me up for weeks EOS was a grudge demo...
> 
> My mind should have favored the Z not the EOS...right as we only favor what we want to favor... Right?
> 
> So after 105 pages .. Can anyone explain this? Without saying psychology!
> 
> I am open to discussion...
> 
> Also based on my previous post on my cable experience - nobody has explained that too...



First- I think you completely brushed over my post that you quoted. The experience you just provided- which is part of your basis of your opinion on the "sound" of amps was NOT done in a controlled manner like I stated. This alone means that your results cannot be legitimized as accurate and meaningful with respect to differences in sound of those devices in that example. You do understand that, right?

To your second point- I think it's entirely possible that you have/had a bad or malfunctioning amplifier if you were hearing an audible issue or problem with the amplifier- although you didn't state what that problem was.

Third- I don't ever recall saying that Zapco's Z series amps were the be-all end-all. They are fine amplifiers- Just not what I needed as my system evolved over time.



"All I had to do was level match"- That is a fallacy. You need to do much more than simply level match if you want _accurate _and _meaningful_ information.


Please re-read my post above. Let me know if any of the things brought up are unclear or need more elaboration. They are very important to understand so that you know WHY those controls must be in place.


----------



## miniSQ

captainobvious said:


> It will be fun I'm sure. Gear changes always are
> 
> Just don't plan to gather any meaningful information from the swap itself unless you take into consideration the things I listed above for HRA


yeah i based my entire purchasing decision on all the above information


----------



## Hanatsu

Elektra said:


> All I had to do is level match and literally 15min later - from rubbish to brilliant!
> 
> Can anyone explain this? No mind tricks - remember Zapco buttered me up for weeks EOS was a grudge demo...
> 
> So after 105 pages .. Can anyone explain this? Without saying psychology!
> 
> I am open to discussion...
> 
> Also based on my previous post on my cable experience - nobody has explained that too...


OK. So a good amp only requires you level match then it's "perfect". Sorry but that's just too much... Things like this is the reason this thread is 105 pages long. It's been explained a hundred times already why you can't make conclusions like this one. I've installed like 40 different amps in my cars, same build and never NEVER, even once experienced something like this. Can you explain that? Without saying I don't know what to listen for, please. 

Audiophile cables are a pseudo-science that defy all logic. It's perfectly explainable why a cable can't ever do the things do you claim if does. So the entire point is moot. It's even more hilarious when I hear people talking about digital cables and how they change the sound, how USB transfer somehow degrade the sound etc. Someone with even the most basic knowledge of how digital transfer works knows that it's complete and utter ********. 

For example, all USB transfers utilize -CRC- (checksum) to control that all bits have reached the target correctly. The data sent and received must be exactly the same, yet BS manufacturers still make "high-end" USB cables because it somehow improves "something". Why is that? This is the kind of debate arises when discussing cables and there are still people who debate whether they can hear these "differences".


----------



## captainobvious

miniSQ said:


> yeah i based my entire purchasing decision on all the above information


:laugh:


I would never say to base the entire purchasing decision on just the "sound". In fact I go the opposite. basically everything except the "sound" of an amplifier is what is important to make the decision. Which factors are more important to a buyer is going to differ greatly though.

I think you'll like the Mosconi AS amps, I know I did.


----------



## Elektra

captainobvious said:


> First- I think you completely brushed over my post that you quoted. The experience you just provided- which is part of your basis of your opinion on the "sound" of amps was NOT done in a controlled manner like I stated. This alone means that your results cannot be legitimized as accurate and meaningful with respect to differences in sound of those devices in that example. You do understand that, right?
> 
> To your second point- I think it's entirely possible that you have/had a bad or malfunctioning amplifier if you were hearing an audible issue or problem with the amplifier- although you didn't state what that problem was.
> 
> Third- I don't ever recall saying that Zapco's Z series amps were the be-all end-all. They are fine amplifiers- Just not what I needed as my system evolved over time.
> 
> 
> 
> "All I had to do was level match"- That is a fallacy. You need to do much more than simply level match if you want _accurate _and _meaningful_ information.
> 
> 
> Please re-read my post above. Let me know if any of the things brought up are unclear or need more elaboration. They are very important to understand so that you know WHY those controls must be in place.


Problem in this thread is the inability to accept you may be wrong..

I have accepted science plays a role..

I have experience a very real event.. Not just me but many other people over different days agreed

Are 15 people wrong?


----------



## miniSQ

captainobvious said:


> :laugh:
> 
> 
> I would never say to base the entire purchasing decision on just the "sound". In fact I go the opposite. basically everything except the "sound" of an amplifier is what is important to make the decision. Which factors are more important to a buyer is going to differ greatly though.
> 
> I think you'll like the Mosconi AS amps, I know I did.


for me it was equal parts "mosconi" mystique...i just had to know what the excitement was all about...plus they fit perfectly into my existing amp rack and the wiring locations are almost identical so most of my custom RCA cables and distribution pieces can still be used.

Other amps that i was looking at like the Zapco's and such mostly have connection on the opposing sides so that wouldn't work without rebuilding my sub box.

SQ really didnt come into play at all, other than i assume the mosconi amps sound good.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jepalan said:


> Victor. Of course you were talking to me. You quoted my post in your reply. Apparently you have a very short, or very selective memory. Here is the entire conversation for you...


I was talking about previous post, go couple pages back see for yourself.


----------



## Victor_inox

JVD240 said:


> Can someone please explain damping factor to me again?
> 
> From what I remember from a training seminar I attended it was basically a pointless measurement as all amps now have very high DF ratings because of their low output impedance. It's very possible I misinterpreted that though. I've always understood all audio systems to go from low - high impedance. That will always result in a high DF as far as I know.
> 
> It seems MFGs brag about the high DF... but these are the same people who list max power. Lol.


 It seems that every explanation to your question was copied from wikipedia or something.... in plain language what damping factor is controlling movement of your speaker. example how to put 100W rated speaker on 300W rated amplifier. If you match your speaker capability to amplifier you have damping factor is marketing buzz. if you have powerful amp and not so powerful speakers that high damping factor come handy.
There is absolutely no controversy in listing power and damping factor in specs.


----------



## Elektra

captainobvious said:


> First- I think you completely brushed over my post that you quoted. The experience you just provided- which is part of your basis of your opinion on the "sound" of amps was NOT done in a controlled manner like I stated. This alone means that your results cannot be legitimized as accurate and meaningful with respect to differences in sound of those devices in that example. You do understand that, right?
> 
> To your second point- I think it's entirely possible that you have/had a bad or malfunctioning amplifier if you were hearing an audible issue or problem with the amplifier- although you didn't state what that problem was.
> 
> Third- I don't ever recall saying that Zapco's Z series amps were the be-all end-all. They are fine amplifiers- Just not what I needed as my system evolved over time.
> 
> 
> 
> "All I had to do was level match"- That is a fallacy. You need to do much more than simply level match if you want _accurate _and _meaningful_ information.
> 
> 
> Please re-read my post above. Let me know if any of the things brought up are unclear or need more elaboration. They are very important to understand so that you know WHY those controls must be in place.


Reality is science does not prove everything - it can prove facets of audio but not all

We simply don't understand the whole human body yet.. If we did we would be able to build bionic ears,eyes arms legs - we can't cure all diseases and we can't make a paraplegic walk again..

What makes you think you understand the human ear and the relationship between all the senses and the brain to derive a picture be it sight touch or hearing...

You would be nieve to believe you can replicate or simulate the human hearing exactly with the current equipment available right now..

You can only do the best guess... Why because you can't hear the same as the next guy - you don't even see the same colours as the next guy - you don't have the same mental capacity of the next guy

How on earth can you replicate what I would be able to hear through graphs and measurements... You can't its a best guess - that's it..

In a court of law my eye witness event can convict a person - which makes my statement a valid one.

people are not dumb - they get fooled once twice max - then they no longer fooled - why are audio companies selling top end units to repeat customers be it cables amps etc..

Do you think we are all dumb - why are these companies still around? Why are uber expensive products being sold?

Trust me the snake oil theory is in the minority as if it was in the majority companies would be closing everyday...

This is not the case..

You contributed to the arousal of the Z range as you never disputed anyone otherwise - except when it was negative towards to brand..


This thread is soo pointless as we cannot agree to anything... It's going in circles - I will buy expensive cables and try various amps - I am constantly looking for more - I will purchase a Thesis for the hell of it and test it against what I have if its better I'll use it if not I'll store it...


----------



## captainobvious

Elektra said:


> Problem in this thread is the inability to accept you may be wrong..
> 
> I have accepted science plays a role..
> 
> I have experience a very real event.. Not just me but many other people over different days agreed
> 
> Are 15 people wrong?



If they've based their opinion on the grounds of faulty information because of a faulty process, than emphatically- YES. This is where the hang up is. 

This absolutely confounds me that the supporters of "hearing differences" can totally just pass over those simple facts stated above in my post. 

It's like your telling me something I haven't already experienced, many many times over myself. I've done the listening tests "your way", yet you've not done them "my way", yet you continue to say your way is correct with no experience of the other alternative. 

I'm not even spouting off about using measurement equipment. The supporters say "use your ears". I'm agreeing- use your ears, but in the _*proper method *_for making a real evaluation! 

You can't simply dismiss the proper process or psychoacoustics. These things are based in fact and scientifically proven.




Elektra said:


> Problem in this thread is the inability to accept you may be wrong..


It's not the acceptance of being wrong (although that is difficult for any of us to accept, I'm sure. Heck, my wife would tell you I suffer from that :laugh. 
The problem is the inability or unwillingness of people who believe they hear these differences to _*actually *_do these evaluations in a *properly controlled manner* as explained so that they are actually learning for themselves what they can and cannot hear, absent of those destructive variables. The problem is that people continue to expound upon and regurgitate these same arguments without exploring this method.


----------



## captainobvious

miniSQ said:


> for me it was equal parts "mosconi" mystique...i just had to know what the excitement was all about...plus they fit perfectly into my existing amp rack and the wiring locations are almost identical so most of my custom RCA cables and distribution pieces can still be used.
> 
> Other amps that i was looking at like the Zapco's and such mostly have connection on the opposing sides so that wouldn't work without rebuilding my sub box.
> 
> SQ really didnt come into play at all, other than i assume the mosconi amps sound good.


Good man 

The Mosconi's have a lot going for them. Good looks, very good class A/B power for the footprint size, Top mount controls, single side connections, hidden connections, hidden mounting points, and they appear to have good overall reliability and support too. All of these things are important factors in the decision for sure. I loved the ones I had.

Moved to JL HDs for the size and power/efficiency for the changes in the system.


----------



## cajunner

high damping factor was a specification that only higher cost amps used to be able to brag about, as they used better grade parts that allowed for their circuits to be optimized.

as has been reiterated many times, today's amp designs and today's available parts, do not suffer from the same vulnerability as when solid state was just getting good, and especially not when tube design was being compared to solid state...

today we have people touting the sonic characteristics of tube amps with intrinsic low damping factors, as having some of the "tube goodness" that everyone wants but can't seem to define in scientific, measurable criteria.

so, as a rule an amplifier with a high damping factor uses good parts and design, and all amplifiers built after say, 1998 that are solid state and not crap amps, will display "high enough" of a damping factor as to be not a viable stat when comparing amps.

it's great that a amp you own is able to produce a high damping factor, but it's not a sign of audibly superior characteristics. It's just a way of verifying that the amp is measurably better, along with low THD and IMD specs, or channel separation.

which, channel separation can be a pain to discuss, some people say anything over 50 db is not noticeable and others want to punch you in the nose for even suggesting it, and put a mono amp on every speaker because you know, that's like nearly 100 dee beez, of channel separation, haha...


----------



## captainobvious

Elektra said:


> Reality is science does not prove everything - it can prove facets of audio but not all
> 
> We simply don't understand the whole human body yet.. If we did we would be able to build bionic ears,eyes arms legs - we can't cure all diseases and we can't make a paraplegic walk again..
> 
> What makes you think you understand the human ear and the relationship between all the senses and the brain to derive a picture be it sight touch or hearing...
> 
> You would be nieve to believe you can replicate or simulate the human hearing exactly with the current equipment available right now..
> 
> You can only do the best guess... Why because you can't hear the same as the next guy - you don't even see the same colours as the next guy - you don't have the same mental capacity of the next guy
> 
> How on earth can you replicate what I would be able to hear through graphs and measurements... You can't its a best guess - that's it..
> 
> In a court of law my eye witness event can convict a person - which makes my statement a valid one.
> 
> people are not dumb - they get fooled once twice max - then they no longer fooled - why are audio companies selling top end units to repeat customers be it cables amps etc..
> 
> Do you think we are all dumb - why are these companies still around? Why are uber expensive products being sold?
> 
> Trust me the snake oil theory is in the minority as if it was in the majority companies would be closing everyday...
> 
> This is not the case..
> 
> You contributed to the arousal of the Z range as you never disputed anyone otherwise - except when it was negative towards to brand..
> 
> 
> This thread is soo pointless as we cannot agree to anything... It's going in circles - I will buy expensive cables and try various amps - I am constantly looking for more - I will purchase a Thesis for the hell of it and test it against what I have if its better I'll use it if not I'll store it...


You're arguing points I'm not even making.


I don't think you're dumb- never said that. I would say perhaps misguided though. I'm not arguing science knows all. As I said- use your ears, by all means use your ears. But DO IT PROPERLY so you can make intelligent, accurate decisions and know that what your taking from your comparisons is based on what you *actually* hear, not the other variables that you're failing to eliminate or control. 

Do you see the value in doing that? I'm being 100% serious here- You understand the need for these controls to make your evaluations accurate...right?


----------



## Elektra

captainobvious said:


> You're arguing points I'm not even making.
> 
> 
> I don't think you're dumb- never said that. I would say perhaps misguided though. I'm not arguing science knows all. As I said- use your ears, by all means use your ears. But DO IT PROPERLY so you can make intelligent, accurate decisions and know that what your taking from your comparisons is based on what you *actually* hear, not the other variables that you're failing to eliminate or control.
> 
> Do you see the value in doing that? I'm being 100% serious here- You understand the need for these controls to make your evaluations accurate...right?


I am now inspired to re test again...


----------



## captainobvious

When you don't have proper controls in place for doing critical evaluations like these, how can you expect your information to be accurate? Let me provide an example...

Let's assume your a soda drinker.
_
You're asked to do a taste test at a local market. You sit at a table and have a can of Pepsi in front of you and a can of Coke. You see the cans, the colorful labels. 

You know you usually prefer the sweeter, less carbonated taste of Pepsi, but you assure yourself you'll be unbiased. 

Thoughts of those silly superbowl ads pass through your mind. 

The Pepsi can was in the fridge and is chilled. They ran out of Coke in the fridge so they grabbed one off of the shelf so it is room temperature. When the cans get poured for you to sample, half of the Pepsi can is poured into a clean, clear glass. The full can of Coke is poured into a 16oz red Solo cup. 

Suddenly you're reminded of your college days and the late nights of beer pong in the dorm. Those were fun nights.

You hear the pop and crackle of those carbonated beverages as the bubbles rise to the surface. 

"Hmm, I haven't had Rice Crispies in a while" you think to yourself. "Better pick up some milk while I'm here before I leave."

As you're instructed to start the tasting, you bring the first drink up to your mouth. The smell of vanilla and maple is sweet and the nice cold soda soothes your throat a bit as it's quite hot and dry in this market.

"I wonder how high they have the heat turned up in here"

You record your results of the first soda.

You pick up the second drink. The Solo cup flexes in your hand a bit under the weight of the full 12 ounces. As you take a whiff you get some hints of vanilla which are soon trampled by the pungent smell of cheese penetrating the air as the Deli clerk slices into a half spent brick of Roquefort for a waiting customer.

"Man that stuff smells. Who would actually eat that?"

The soda has some bite and good sweetness. You record your remarks on the sheet.

You pick up your things and finish your business at the market and then leave.
_


Look at the plethora of outside influences and variables that were not controlled. This makes the data that you've supplied meaningless, outside of a little entertainment.



When you try to critically evaluate the sound of amplifiers without putting proper controls in place, you introduce variables that produce too many inaccuracies and inconsistencies to make the data that you collect meaningful.


----------



## captainobvious

Elektra said:


> I am now inspired to re test again...



I truly hope that you do. If/when you do, make it a properly controlled blind AX and it will provide much more useful info for you.

You can set one up fairly easily and have a friend, wife, etc do the switching for you.


----------



## Elektra

captainobvious said:


> When you don't have proper controls in place for doing critical evaluations like these, how can you expect your information to be accurate? Let me provide an example...
> 
> Let's assume your a soda drinker.
> _
> You're asked to do a taste test at a local market. You sit at a table and have a can of Pepsi in front of you and a can of Coke. You see the cans, the colorful labels.
> 
> You know you usually prefer the sweeter, less carbonated taste of Pepsi, but you assure yourself you'll be unbiased.
> 
> Thoughts of those silly superbowl ads pass through your mind.
> 
> The Pepsi can was in the fridge and is chilled, the Coke can was right off the shelf and is room temperature. When the cans get poured for you to sample, half of the Pepsi can is poured into a clean, clear glass. The full can of Coke is poured into 16oz red Solo cup.
> 
> Suddenly you're reminded of your college days and the late nights of beer pong in the dorm. Those were fun nights.
> 
> You hear the pop and crackle of those carbonated beverages as the bubbles rise to the surface.
> 
> "Hmm, I haven't had Rice Crispies in a while" you think to yourself. "Better pick up some milk while I'm here before I leave."
> 
> As you're instructed to start the tasting, you bring the first drink up to your mouth. The smell of vanilla and maple is sweet and the nice cold soda soothes your throat a bit as it's quite hot and dry in this market.
> 
> "I wonder how high they have the heat turned up in here"
> 
> You record your results of the first soda.
> 
> You pick up the second drink. The Solo cup flexes in your hand a bit under the weight of the full 12 ounces. As you take a whiff you get some hints of vanilla which are soon trampled by the pungent smell of cheese penetrating the air as the Deli clerk slices into a half spent brick of Roquefort for a waiting customer.
> 
> "Man that stuff smells. Who would actually eat that?"
> 
> The soda has some bite and good sweetness. You record your remarks on the sheet.
> 
> You pick up your things and finish your business at the market and then leave.
> _
> 
> 
> Look at the plethora of outside influences and variables that were not controlled. This makes the data that you've supplied meaningless, outside of a little entertainment.
> 
> 
> 
> When you try to critically evaluate the sound of amplifiers without putting proper controls in place, you introduce variables that produce too many inaccuracies and inconsistencies to make the data that you collect meaningful.


My college days were nothing like yours .. lol


----------



## cajunner

again, the devil is in the details.

marketing copy does not prove itself factually correct, unless explicitly stated.

you will see subjective criteria thrown about with abandon, because nobody can haul you into court for fraud on a "warmth/transparent/grainy/smudged" beef.

look very closely at the wording of these cable companies, these amp designers' advertising departments, the general high end expository, it's all couched in deception.

That's not to say there is complete invalidity, but when it counts, where it counts, it's just not there.

That's why you see so much emphasis on slew rate and damping factor, these are measurable characteristics that can be tied to a specific attribute, that cannot be easily disputed or denied by the "truth in advertising" camps.

Is there correlation? 

Who knows? I have yet to see a definitive proof of slew rate being audible, to the point a person can hear the difference between settings of say, 20 or 150 volt/msec.

I mean, a quick wiki shows that it should be audible, since you can see the difference on a graph of square waves, but is that really audible with music?

which brings us to square waves.


wait, about that logic that something you see measurably differs from another, means you totally should be able to audibly detect it too....


the meat of the argument is there, in that mild overreach, in that expectation, in that unassuming determination based in non-factual errors...


----------



## Jepalan

Elektra said:


> <SNIP>
> Installed the Z amp and there was a audible problem with the Z amp
> <SNIP>
> All I had to do is level match and literally 15min later - from rubbish to brilliant!
> <SNIP>
> Can anyone explain this? Without saying psychology!


Impossible to explain without more facts.
Which EOS?
"from rubbish to brilliant" <--- what does this mean exactly?
Send me both amps... 
Something measurable changed.
Maybe something was wrong with the Z amp?
Who knows?


----------



## Carlton8000

Here we go again.
Around and Around is a Circle that takes you nowhere.


----------



## JVD240

Victor_inox said:


> It seems that every explanation to your question was copied from wikipedia or something.... in plain language what damping factor is controlling movement of your speaker. example how to put 100W rated speaker on 300W rated amplifier. If you match your speaker capability to amplifier you have damping factor is marketing buzz. if you have powerful amp and not so powerful speakers that high damping factor come handy.
> There is absolutely no controversy in listing power and damping factor in specs.


Wiki. Lol. The little bit I learned about DF was at some in person training. General gist I got was that I shouldn't worry about it when selecting an amplifier.

I was more curious about the spec itself. Like what a value of 100 vs 500 means. REAL WORLD. Should have clarified.

My last comment was just poking at the fact that MFGs get caught up in the marketing race... Always wanting to tout bigger numbers than their competitors. A voltage rating is perfectly adequate for a loudspeaker... but 50V doesn't look as sweet on the spec sheet as 300W. I understand what you mean about them being accurate numbers though.


----------



## Victor_inox

Consumers are confused butch as is, do you really think giving them voltage and current figures gonna help understanding what is going on? 300W here you have it- easy!.
Information revolution is wonderful thing but it can be manipulated easily as well.


----------



## cubdenno

Victor_inox said:


> Consumers are confused butch as is, do you really think giving them voltage and current figures gonna help understanding what is going on? 300W here you have it- easy!.
> Information revolution is wonderful thing but it can be manipulated easily as well.


Absolutely true!! On all accounts. I blame the marketing departments of companies for the depth of consumer confusion. 


I am looking at another thread on another forum on cables where I saw this quote.

A music lover listens to music with his sound system.

An audiophile listens to his sound system with music."

Totally how I feel. 

And in that cable thread some very good info and measurements...


----------



## miniSQ

cubdenno said:


> Absolutely true!! On all accounts. I blame the marketing departments of companies for the depth of consumer confusion.
> 
> 
> I am looking at another thread on another forum on cables where I saw this quote.
> 
> A music lover listens to music with his sound system.
> 
> An audiophile listens to his sound system with music."
> 
> Totally how I feel.
> 
> And in that cable thread some very good info and measurements...


i would say i listen to music and try to get the sound system itself out of the way. i dont want to "hear" my amps...i want to hear fingers on guitar strings...and i want hear when a drum stick is struck off center, or how a singer sounds in one venue vs how he sounds in a different venue.

i sometimes find myself listening to my mids...or different frequencies, or i try and see if my soundstage is placing people where i know they should be.

But i personally feel better about my system when i forget its playing.


----------



## Victor_inox

If someone want to believe in passive components as cable do anything to music let them, why not it`s their money they spending not yours.


----------



## cubdenno

Victor_inox said:


> If someone want to believe in passive components as cable do anything to music let them, why not it`s their money they spending not yours.


Totally agree.

Until there is a request for advice. And god help you if you mention monoprice or zip cord of adequate gauge.


----------



## cubdenno

miniSQ said:


> i would say i listen to music and try to get the sound system itself out of the way. i dont want to "hear" my amps...i want to hear fingers on guitar strings...and i want hear when a drum stick is struck off center, or how a singer sounds in one venue vs how he sounds in a different venue.
> 
> i sometimes find myself listening to my mids...or different frequencies, or i try and see if my soundstage is placing people where i know they should be.
> 
> But i personally feel better about my system when i forget its playing.


Is there anything better than getting lost in the music?

reletively speaking of course


----------



## Victor_inox

cubdenno said:


> Totally agree.
> 
> Until there is a request for advice. And god help you if you mention monoprice or zip cord of adequate gauge.


It`s opposite, God help you if you mention hi- end cable priced at active component level. A while ago member here was seling active HDMI cables very cheaply, about 1/10 of retail. Since it was cheap I bought one just because.
I cut supposedly active ends of that cable just to see what is inside ( sometimes I do stupid things destroying stuff to see what's inside). guess what was there? Nothing- fat rubber ends with power supply connector and nothing else.


----------



## miniSQ

cubdenno said:


> Is there anything better than getting lost in the music?
> 
> reletively speaking of course


where is the like button?


----------



## Hanatsu

Victor_inox said:


> It seems that every explanation to your question was copied from wikipedia or something.... in plain language what damping factor is controlling movement of your speaker. example how to put 100W rated speaker on 300W rated amplifier. If you match your speaker capability to amplifier you have damping factor is marketing buzz. if you have powerful amp and not so powerful speakers that high damping factor come handy.
> There is absolutely no controversy in listing power and damping factor in specs.


Here's a non-wiki answer then:

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/449977-post34.html

I can sometimes feel there are some controversy in the way manufacturers listing specs.

*Damping factor does not tell us anything useful really. Especially the way the majority of manufacturers tend to spec it. 

Alpine does a better job at speccing it properly than the majority of manufacturers do:



> Damping Factor (10W into 4 Ohms at 100Hz): > 750


Many other manufacturers tend to just spec, "Damping factor > 500". No other elaborations than that. Useful? No.


----------



## JVD240

^^^Nice!

Great post from Andy. (as usual)

Thanks Han.


----------



## Elektra

Jepalan said:


> Impossible to explain without more facts.
> Which EOS?
> "from rubbish to brilliant" <--- what does this mean exactly?
> Send me both amps...
> Something measurable changed.
> Maybe something was wrong with the Z amp?
> Who knows?


EOS BF-980G ....

It means the EOS sounded much better in all facets - don't think anything was wrong with the Z as a friend of mine bought the same amp at the same time - he had similar results 

2 bad amps? That's a stretch...


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> It`s opposite, God help you if you mention hi- end cable priced at active component level. A while ago member here was seling active HDMI cables very cheaply, about 1/10 of retail. Since it was cheap I bought one just because.
> I cut supposedly active ends of that cable just to see what is inside ( sometimes I do stupid things destroying stuff to see what's inside). guess what was there? Nothing- fat rubber ends with power supply connector and nothing else.


What was the brand?


----------



## Elektra

cubdenno said:


> Is there anything better than getting lost in the music?
> 
> reletively speaking of course


Isn't that what it is all about?


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> If someone want to believe in passive components as cable do anything to music let them, why not it`s their money they spending not yours.


Exactly - and if it's only in your mind... And you hear the effect every time you listen to the music - then why not?


----------



## Elektra

captainobvious said:


> I truly hope that you do. If/when you do, make it a properly controlled blind AX and it will provide much more useful info for you.
> 
> You can set one up fairly easily and have a friend, wife, etc do the switching for you.


Just to clarify...

We saying a $100 amp sounds the same $1500 amp - right? 

So if I find one at a flea market similar or same output as my $1500 amp in a blind test I won't be able to pick it out?

Are we on the same page?


----------



## rxonmymind

miniSQ said:


> i would say i listen to music and try to get the sound system itself out of the way. i dont want to "hear" my amps...i want to hear fingers on guitar strings...and i want hear when a drum stick is struck off center, or how a singer sounds in one venue vs how he sounds in a different venue.
> 
> i sometimes find myself listening to my mids...or different frequencies, or i try and see if my soundstage is placing people where i know they should be.
> 
> But i personally feel better about my system when i forget its playing.



So true. Recently I was listening to Rebecca Pidgeon and a Cello playing and one can hear the fingers picking on the instrument. More intriguing was the slight scrape of him moving the cello into position and a member of the audience moving a chair WAY in the back round. I'm not too interested in debating an amps sig as a lot of this debate is dependent on the quality of the recording. I don't believe I could have heard these unique qualities within my mediocre system without the outstanding tuning and stellar recording. Combined I'm very happy with the JL audio amps. One day without changing my speakers I'd like to try some Sinfoni and see if there is a difference.

But many thanks to the members here for dispensing excellent information freely. Good stuff.


----------



## RobERacer

Elektra said:


> Actually no.. The Utopias honestly are the smoothest most natural sounding speakers I have heard to date..
> 
> In fact I find the Morels to be brighter sounding speakers - but you would not say that by looking at the graph..
> 
> The Beryllium tweeter was so smooth and natural - I had to put my ear right up to the tweeter to check if it was playing...
> 
> I didn't use the crossblock on the Focals as I didn't have one so the speakers were/are playing through the Elate Passives - which had more or less the correct frequencies and slopes Focal recommend
> 
> Playing the Focals off my ONKYO amp at home the speakers sound fine - no complaints - but off my simulated car setup it was another level completely those speakers really sounded magnificent
> 
> Almost like the Grande Utopia set I demod a few months back (obviously not as good)
> 
> I really don't get the "bright" tweeter sound everyone complains about ... As I don't hear it and neither does the RTA show it?
> 
> I would like to say it's the quality of the amp I used to play the speakers (which by the way Focal actually do say)
> 
> But they going into my car next month so results could be different - but I suspect it would be better considering the setup I am going to use with it...
> 
> My cross block should be here as well by then so lots of exciting things going to happen in the next month..
> 
> I'll give you guys a review once it's in...



I have Focal KRX's and after a number of acoustical treatment tweaks to undo some of the eq I am liking them more and more every day. I went with them over the new Flax's. The KRX's had better resolution although I would say the Flax's had a more rounded tone. Pretty, but not quite so true to the input though. I am certain the Utopia's are awesome. They better be for 5 grand. That mid spike looks pretty menacing though. I have to ask. Are those the manufacturers anechoic plots?


----------



## Elektra

RobERacer said:


> I have Focal KRX's and after a number of acoustical treatment tweaks to undo some of the eq I am liking them more and more every day. I went with them over the new Flax's. The KRX's had better resolution although I would say the Flax's had a more rounded tone. Pretty, but not quite so true to the input though. I am certain the Utopia's are awesome. They better be for 5 grand. That mid spike looks pretty menacing though. I have to ask. Are those the manufacturers anechoic plots?


No they are the plots I measured in self made hifi enclosures ... Mids have a sealed enclosure of 1lt.. Woofers 30lts.. Sealed

I find the KRX speakers to be a bit clinical - I have heard a very good SQ car with them in and they do become overly clinical...

The Utopias are very smooth - but do require good amplification and source to work properly - which is the reason why some don't have good success with them..


----------



## RobERacer

Elektra said:


> You see the graph and the process of interpreting it you already deriving a mental assessment of what you will hear... Like a perceived peak in a certain range already tells you the sound will be bright or brital..
> 
> What do you think you are listening to when you listen to that amp - your expecting a bright sound?
> 
> Is it actually bright or is your brain convincing you its bright? Lol
> 
> So much for science... Lol



HUH? Dude, I have spent way to many years twisting knobs to adjust for what I am hearing and seeing on RTA's. I would have to go back and look at the graph (and I am just not going back through 20 pages to find it) but from memory that was in the area of 1 or 2K and with a quick glance it looked to be in the area of +3 or 4 db. That isn't a little bit. No, with it being in the mids like that it is not going to make it sound bright or brittle. Throaty would be a good explanation. Bright and brittle would be like 4 - 8K. All that would happen is that it would just have a loud spot whenever the program material utilised that frequency grouping. Sometimes (oops the art thing again) I would choose to push that area on a vocal to give it a more throaty sound. Alanis Morrisette like. An accent like that really sucks though when it isn't used tastefully in context. Forget the fried brain bs. So many folks on here trying to confuse everyone by telling them that what they are hearing is all imaginary. Yup, I image what I am hearing everyday then? Strange how what I heard yesterday is exactly the same thing today and the same thing the producer sitting beside me is giving me **** for not fixing. Sometimes people fool themselves but if you spend enough time with audio the lies become bold faced and you never forget them from there. Sound is pretty constant and hearing is far less variable than folks on here seem to think. Let's face it records that folks on this very site listen to everyday are made every single day by a lot of different people. In fact most records are made by numerous people as a collective. Somehow, someway all of those highly opinionated and btw experienced people are able to come to a consensus as to what sounds good and what does not regularly. If what you were saying about our brains fooling us was true the entire recording industry wouldn't be able to get nothing done. Ever!!! No offence, this is not specifically directed at you but the only placebo that I am seeing is that which is being verbally injected on this site. Physics is physics. Scientific laws. Remember, they taught us that in grade 8? It won't change no matter what you will it to. If your hyper flat measurement mic measured a spike at 1k then it is there for you to hear unless some related parameter changed. IE the speaker moved to a different space that is not causing the spike, the mic moved or you turned the eq point back down (there are a hundred things that could cause that). Christ, the only other guys I ever hear say things like that are the ones sitting with their bong in their hand and really they clearly have no idea what or if they are hearing anything at all.


----------



## RobERacer

miniSQ said:


> Tuesday i am going to switch out my front amp...( sub amp switch will come later when its warmer ), but for now i am going to switch a Jl 300/4 running active with a Mosconi AS 100.4..it will be a completely drop in switch...nothing else will change.
> 
> Anyone want to come up to Vermont and do some A/B testing?


I should be blowing through there by about 8 am on Sunday.


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> I stand by my signature, thank you!


As well you should because the best sounding stuff has always been the least complicated.


----------



## RobERacer

JVD240 said:


> Can someone please explain damping factor to me again?
> 
> From what I remember from a training seminar I attended it was basically a pointless measurement as all amps now have very high DF ratings because of their low output impedance. It's very possible I misinterpreted that though. I've always understood all audio systems to go from low - high impedance. That will always result in a high DF as far as I know.
> 
> It seems MFGs brag about the high DF... but these are the same people who list max power. Lol.


Are the brakes on your car as important as the gas pedal? It far more complicated but the simplest explanation is just that. Damping factor is kinda like an amps ability to decelerate where slew rate is like an amps ability to accelerate. An amp that translates high resolution makes sound quickly and also stops very quickly. Most folks don't understand that DF has little to now effect at higher frequencies. It is all about impulse time. The faster the amp can do what it does the more details get through. Does that sound like it has no importance to you?


----------



## RobERacer

cubdenno said:


> I have to disagree. And sure we can blame the internet for a lot of it. The availability of information currently has pretty much rendered those that sell snake oil and voodoo, impotent.
> 
> Now people have access to measurement equipment with capabilities that you had to drop the cash that would buy a car, 20 years ago.
> 
> Science, information availability, knowledge. That is what is killing the HIFI industry.
> 
> Art? Sorry. I still love the craftmanship and cabinet design that is out there.
> 
> And it sounds like you are trying to define what is art.
> Is it not still art when my daughter draws a picture on a tablet connected to a computer verses doing it on an easel? Technology as allowed advances in even art. It allows me to have reproductions of art that I have an appreciation of. Maybe I misunderstood.
> 
> Making music is art. Reproducing music is science.


Firstly, creating anything is art be it drawing on your computer or whatever. I hate it when people put words into my mouth. Recreating music. Well the fact is that we actually don't have the ability to "recreate" it the way it was in the studio. Totally impossible with current technology. I already explained how gear choices change that and can be used in a number of different ways actually. Yes, I get it. The unknowledgable can't understand how we could use audio signal paths in a manipulative fashion so from that perspective an eq is an eq. An amp is an amp. A speaker is a speaker. Any one will do and with that this 106 pages of blah blah is pointless. Believe what you like but if you care to look into what I am saying deeper you will find that your audio nirvana experiences will expand ten fold. It's your choice though.


----------



## RobERacer

cubdenno said:


> yeah damping factor is a marketing buzzword and unless the circuitry is just bad, slew rate is another spec that is basically meaningless now. But it could affect the upper frequency response of the amplifier. Again, now days, you should be OK.


WRONG!!!


----------



## RobERacer

Hanatsu said:


> Speaker load divided by the output impedance is the damping factor. It's a BS spec that people tend to crazy over, moderate or extremely high is of no consequence at all. The only thing an extremely low DF can result in is alteration in the FR. Low DF will show itself at speaker resonances (impedance peaks) and raise Q the lower DF gets. This affect the frequency response, another symptom can be a very low Q attenuation of the mid-frequency band. This has almost zero relevance to solid-state amplifiers though. The output impedance varies with frequency and load (obviously). It's also affected by the electrical resistance in the cable connected between the amp/speakers.
> 
> Damping Factor: Effects On System Response | Audioholics


You know in the entire audio industry the only group of guys that are saying this stuff are car guys. Why is that do you suppose? 

Crown (JBL) is very proud of the fact that their Itech amps have an unmeasurable damping factor! 20 years ago they had the K series with a 3000:1. Common to most of the amps that list it in car audio is 200:1 (which by the way in pro audio is considered a pretty ****ty number) I wonder what the rating is on the ones that hide that detail? These Itechs are also well known for producing very deep but extremely tight bass that does not ring on like other amps. They sound different?

Hafler (now Rockford corps) DIABLO was for a long time the most commonly chosen amp to run mid high speakers in high end studios. They had a slew rate of 150 volts per microsecond. The reason was the amount of noticeable detail that the speakers produced was like someone took the wool blanket off of your head when listening and this is on notably higher resolution monitors (their design favors driver speed and flat frequency response as opposed to "pretty sound" like in typical home and car audio).

Your statement precludes that all amps are capable of these kinds of specs now. Show me one unit with a spec like that!!! Just one. I think you will find that they in fact are not even close to that and with that are also not capable of that level of resolution. BTW Brax is owned by Rockford corps as well. Some of the lesser Hafler tech was used in the Rockford Fosgate amps. Brax doesn't say but they are known for their superior accuracy and resolution. I wonder?

[Edit:] I thought I should ask one more thing. What is your personal experience with high slew rate and damping factor amps and how did you find that compared when you listened? What were the specs too please. I would like to know how you arrived at your opinion.


----------



## Elektra

RobERacer said:


> You know in the entire audio industry the only group of guys that are saying this stuff are car guys. Why is that do you suppose?
> 
> Crown (JBL) is very proud of the fact that their Itech amps have an unmeasurable damping factor! 20 years ago they had the K series with a 3000:1. Common to most of the amps that list it in car audio is 200:1 (which by the way in pro audio is considered a pretty ****ty number) I wonder what the rating is on the ones that hide that detail? These Itechs are also well known for producing very deep but extremely tight bass that does not ring on like other amps. They sound different?
> 
> Hafler (now Rockford corps) DIABLO was for a long time the most commonly chosen amp to run mid high speakers in high end studios. They had a slew rate of 150 volts per microsecond. The reason was the amount of noticeable detail that the speakers produced was like someone took the wool blanket off of your head when listening and this is on notably higher resolution monitors (their design favors driver speed and flat frequency response as opposed to "pretty sound" like in typical home and car audio).
> 
> Your statement precludes that all amps are capable of these kinds of specs now. Show me one unit with a spec like that!!! Just one. I think you will find that they in fact are not even close to that and with that are also not capable of that level of resolution. BTW Brax is owned by Rockford corps as well. Some of the lesser Hafler tech was used in the Rockford Fosgate amps. Brax doesn't say but they are known for their superior accuracy and resolution. I wonder?
> 
> [Edit:] I thought I should ask one more thing. What is your personal experience with high slew rate and damping factor amps and how did you find that compared when you listened? What were the specs too please. I would like to know how you arrived at your opinion.


Ok I agree with you here..

but its a tough crowd here.. 

Technical difficulties solved by swoping amps or cables are not your mind playing tricks on you..

When I say technical difficulties I mean - siblilance on the female voice the "S" sound which can can annoying.. Separation, bass etc are all technical difficulties that are not imagined as they are referenced to each other..

It's either better or the same.. Finished! 

If technical problems are sorted by either amp or cable replacement - how is this explained? 

You have to concede something other than faith here.. 

I am going to do a fourth test - all the tests have the SAME outcome - no reason for the fourth , fifth or tenth test to be any different...


----------



## miniSQ

RobERacer said:


> I should be blowing through there by about 8 am on Sunday.


going skiing? what mountain? I work at Okemo...stop by and say hi.


----------



## Hanatsu

Slew rate is simply a measure of much power that the amp can muster at higher frequencies. This might be a useful thing if you're pushing tons of power into the last octave. The thing we don't do that in car audio, in a normal system the power output in the 10-20kHz region would range anything from 5-10 times less than in the lower frequencies if we assume the energy in recording would equal/octave. If we then takes a look at how most recordings are, there are even less energy up there.
DF can be lowered into small numbers if you use very long cables. With the lengths used within car audio this is not an issue if you use adequate wire thickness. Any values above ~20 in real life scenarios won't affect system resonances enough to be considered an issue. Both these parameters can have effects under specific conditions that alter the frequency response. 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> You know in the entire audio industry the only group of guys that are saying this stuff are car guys. Why is that do you suppose?


Rob. I'm just addressing your comment above about Damping Factor^^^. 

It is not just the car audio guys. Below are two examples. I don't see anything wrong with the math in the Butler discussion, but I am happy to discuss other viewpoints...

Butler Audio

"Damping factor" - another great audiophile myth?


----------



## captainobvious

Carlton8000 said:


> Here we go again.
> Around and Around is a Circle that takes you nowhere.



Yep.

That's because many of the vehement supporters for "hearing differences" skip over the questions asked that they don't want to provide answers to. If they answered the tough questions, this thread would be able to move forward.


----------



## captainobvious

Elektra said:


> Just to clarify...
> 
> We saying a $100 amp sounds the same $1500 amp - right?
> 
> So if I find one at a flea market similar or same output as my $1500 amp in a blind test I won't be able to pick it out?
> 
> Are we on the same page?


Assuming the $100 amplifier is designed for accurate/flat response (no goofy eq curve built int), is not having noise issues/malfunctioning and provided that you perform the proper steps to properly setup, level match, and conduct the blind test- I'm saying you will learn for yourself what you can and cannot hear.


----------



## lup31337

captainobvious said:


> Assuming the $100 amplifier is designed for accurate/flat response (no goofy eq curve built int), is not having noise issues/malfunctioning and provided that you perform the proper steps to properly setup, level match, and conduct the blind test- I'm saying you will learn for yourself what you can and cannot hear.


I'm agreeing with this. You pay extra for more power and better components / built quality. But if you pay ridiculous prices for an exotic amp you will get no actual benefit versus a good quality, normal priced amp.


----------



## Hanatsu

Jepalan said:


> Rob. I'm just addressing your comment above about Damping Factor^^^.
> 
> It is not just the car audio guys. Below are two examples. I don't see anything wrong with the math in the Butler discussion, but I am happy to discuss other viewpoints...
> 
> Butler Audio
> 
> "Damping factor" - another great audiophile myth?


Looked through it quickly. Looks valid to me. As I said, a really low DF can alter the FR of the system. Above ~20 at the terminals it pretty much just numbers for bragging rights.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Elektra

captainobvious said:


> Assuming the $100 amplifier is designed for accurate/flat response (no goofy eq curve built int), is not having noise issues/malfunctioning and provided that you perform the proper steps to properly setup, level match, and conduct the blind test- I'm saying you will learn for yourself what you can and cannot hear.


Lol.. I'll let you know about the results...


----------



## JVD240

RobERacer said:


> You know in the entire audio industry the only group of guys that are saying this stuff are car guys. Why is that do you suppose?
> 
> Crown (JBL) is very proud of the fact that their Itech amps have an unmeasurable damping factor! 20 years ago they had the K series with a 3000:1. Common to most of the amps that list it in car audio is 200:1 (which by the way in pro audio is considered a pretty ****ty number) I wonder what the rating is on the ones that hide that detail? These Itechs are also well known for producing very deep but extremely tight bass that does not ring on like other amps. They sound different?
> 
> Hafler (now Rockford corps) DIABLO was for a long time the most commonly chosen amp to run mid high speakers in high end studios. They had a slew rate of 150 volts per microsecond. The reason was the amount of noticeable detail that the speakers produced was like someone took the wool blanket off of your head when listening and this is on notably higher resolution monitors (their design favors driver speed and flat frequency response as opposed to "pretty sound" like in typical home and car audio).
> 
> Your statement precludes that all amps are capable of these kinds of specs now. Show me one unit with a spec like that!!! Just one. I think you will find that they in fact are not even close to that and with that are also not capable of that level of resolution. BTW Brax is owned by Rockford corps as well. Some of the lesser Hafler tech was used in the Rockford Fosgate amps. Brax doesn't say but they are known for their superior accuracy and resolution. I wonder?
> 
> [Edit:] I thought I should ask one more thing. What is your personal experience with high slew rate and damping factor amps and how did you find that compared when you listened? What were the specs too please. I would like to know how you arrived at your opinion.


It is not only car audio guys saying this, Rob. You are incorrect.

Do a quick Google search.

Andy Wehmeyer himself said that. He(Andy) worked for The Harman Group when he stated that. As you should know from your many years "in the business" engineers do not write the literature.

One of the least biased and most knowledgeable people I've ever met in the business has preached the same thing. Yes, it is important... until you have DFs of huge proportions. Then the difference is immeasurable/inaudible.

EDIT:



Hanatsu said:


> Looked through it quickly. Looks valid to me. As I said, a really low DF can alter the FR of the system. Above ~20 at the terminals it pretty much just numbers for bragging rights.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


I just looked back through some of my old notes. The little bit I found actually stated the same number. 20.


----------



## RobERacer

Elektra said:


> Ok I agree with you here..
> 
> but its a tough crowd here..
> 
> Technical difficulties solved by swoping amps or cables are not your mind playing tricks on you..
> 
> When I say technical difficulties I mean - siblilance on the female voice the "S" sound which can can annoying.. Separation, bass etc are all technical difficulties that are not imagined as they are referenced to each other..
> 
> It's either better or the same.. Finished!
> 
> If technical problems are sorted by either amp or cable replacement - how is this explained?
> 
> You have to concede something other than faith here..
> 
> I am going to do a fourth test - all the tests have the SAME outcome - no reason for the fourth , fifth or tenth test to be any different...


HUH? I have never known anyone to deal with Sibilance that way. What is the electronic reason for an upper mid resonance (sibilance) that cable resistance is creating? In my experience high frequency drivers can have resonances in those zones. Microphones likewise but more often than not those effects are the direct result of eq distortion creating added partials in that frequency zone and/or compression derived distortion. I usually look to solve it at it's source if I can. Swap the mic out for something else as an example. Otherwise in the case of it being it being a driver issue mask it by sucking the volume out of that frequency zone. Of course that is going to not help it's sonics any but it will sound more even. Retest? Who has time. find the source and fix it. That's it, that's all.


----------



## RobERacer

miniSQ said:


> going skiing? what mountain? I work at Okemo...stop by and say hi.


Oh God no. I hate winter! The other half drove to Florida the other day but I have to take care of a few clients before I can get my ass out of the snow. I am literally getting in my car after we pull the line arrays out of the air at this gig in Hamilton and driving right on. BTW I prefer to drive. Got good audio. I think I am actually going to go by way of Pittsburgh though. From there it should be a little quicker. Hamilton is not even an hour from Niagara Falls/Buffalo area. As I live in the east end of Toronto I would often go by way of Vermont though. Probably six of one or a half a dozen of the other.


----------



## RobERacer

Hanatsu said:


> Slew rate is simply a measure of much power that the amp can muster at higher frequencies. This might be a useful thing if you're pushing tons of power into the last octave. The thing we don't do that in car audio, in a normal system the power output in the 10-20kHz region would range anything from 5-10 times less than in the lower frequencies if we assume the energy in recording would equal/octave. If we then takes a look at how most recordings are, there are even less energy up there.
> DF can be lowered into small numbers if you use very long cables. With the lengths used within car audio this is not an issue if you use adequate wire thickness. Any values above ~20 in real life scenarios won't affect system resonances enough to be considered an issue. Both these parameters can have effects under specific conditions that alter the frequency response.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


Yes, Yes. I know that some car audio guys believe that measured with pink noise the higher frequencies should not measure the same as the mids or low. I have had many laughs with the guys about that. You can have it sound however you like. I don't want nor need to do that in my car. I like full even frequency response just like I have in studio, at home and on shows. In fact car audio is the only place I have ever heard of doing that. Of course most audio folks don't point drivers at untuned reflective dishes hoping to get better sonics. What I mean by that is that a parabolic dish is a very specific shape for a very important reason. What two windshield/dashboard cavities are the same much less designed to reflect sound with even frequency response in any way shape or form? Most audio engineers I know think it a completely ridiculous notion. I won't tell you what they think about the guys who do that. 

Damping factor, factors in with 200 foot cables or 2 foot cables. Amplifiers expert a back force on speakers when in motion. It has to do with inertia. IE things keep moving after you stop pushing them. It acts like a brake. I said that didn't I? 200:1 sucks 1000:1 is really good. You really didn't understand what your source was saying. I did a quick google just now for a better explanation that laymen could understand. Here's what Crown (JBL) has to say. <http://www.crownaudio.com/media/pdf/amps/damping_factor.pdf>


Slew Rate is measured in VOLTS PER MICROSECOND. Where do you see it is limited to high frequencies? Hello??? It is exactly that! How much rise in voltage the output of an amplifier can make in one microsecond. There is no way to say this politely. If you don't know it is easiest just to say you don't know of don't say anything at all. Googling Audioholics or whatever and reading a bit clearly doesn't bring one an understanding of how this stuff works and certainly is not enough so as to make you capable of carrying on a logical debate on a forum with folks about experiential issues. There are plenty of folks on here who do in fact personal experience with this stuff and are in the know. They aren't saying anything because I am not saying anything that is not fact. Damping Factor and slew rate together give some understanding of an amps ability to react to voltage swing and therefore tell a bit of a storey of it's ability to resolve program material. That's it!!! We asked for measurement parameter examples that I thought were important but were omitted. There you go.


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> Rob. I'm just addressing your comment above about Damping Factor^^^.
> 
> It is not just the car audio guys. Below are two examples. I don't see anything wrong with the math in the Butler discussion, but I am happy to discuss other viewpoints...
> 
> Butler Audio
> 
> "Damping factor" - another great audiophile myth?


All discussions aside when you listened and compared what did you hear? I have played with this very thing a lot. In fact put together whole systems using my findings and it's pretty night and day. If we directly swapped a Crown Macrotech for a same powered QSC PL series we get a clear difference in how tight the bottom end is and how hard the subs impact. Oh, yes. We know how to level match to compensate for input sensitivity in pro audio too. It's just gain structure. Nothing we don't deal with every single day. Folks on here try to make it out like it is quantum physics or something. 

Myth... Wrong. Experience it and say that! It is clear as day and even moreso now that we have ITechs that recycle the back voltage created by the driver in it's inertia state to power the outputs of the amp. Why does and home audio usually omit that info? They wouldn't want to tell you what they don't do well would they?


----------



## RobERacer

JVD240 said:


> It is not only car audio guys saying this, Rob. You are incorrect.
> 
> Do a quick Google search.
> 
> Andy Wehmeyer himself said that. He(Andy) worked for The Harman Group when he stated that. As you should know from your many years "in the business" engineers do not write the literature.
> 
> One of the least biased and most knowledgeable people I've ever met in the business has preached the same thing. Yes, it is important... until you have DFs of huge proportions. Then the difference is immeasurable/inaudible.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> 
> I just looked back through some of my old notes. The little bit I found actually stated the same number. 20.


Did he work on the Crown Itech design? That is Crown's claim to fame.


----------



## Victor_inox

Rob explained it very well. Thank you!.


----------



## RobERacer

Elektra said:


> Ok I agree with you here..
> 
> but its a tough crowd here..
> 
> Technical difficulties solved by swoping amps or cables are not your mind playing tricks on you..
> 
> When I say technical difficulties I mean - siblilance on the female voice the "S" sound which can can annoying.. Separation, bass etc are all technical difficulties that are not imagined as they are referenced to each other..
> 
> It's either better or the same.. Finished!
> 
> If technical problems are sorted by either amp or cable replacement - how is this explained?
> 
> You have to concede something other than faith here..
> 
> I am going to do a fourth test - all the tests have the SAME outcome - no reason for the fourth , fifth or tenth test to be any different...


I just realised that maybe you were referring more to changing the amp to solve sibilance artifacts. That could do that as amps create weird distortions which especially with digital switched amps is often true. That is another parameter that we need a measurement of in amps. They measure harmonic distortion but what about artifacts like that or gritty sounding amps. It would be measurable but they don't. Of course the back argument to that will be that it is all in my head ya? I am dreaming it. Whatever.


----------



## captainobvious

RobERacer said:


> Yes, Yes. I know that some car audio guys believe that measured with pink noise the higher frequencies should not measure the same as the mids or low. I have had many laughs with the guys about that.



I'm curious why? Do you dismiss equal loudness contour and the fact that our ears perceive some frequencies as louder than others? Because "flat" on a measurement is different from "flat" to the ear.
Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you...?







RobERacer said:


> Of course most audio folks don't point drivers at untuned reflective dishes hoping to get better sonics. What I mean by that is that a parabolic dish is a very specific shape for a very important reason. What two windshield/dashboard cavities are the same much less designed to reflect sound with even frequency response in any way shape or form? Most audio engineers I know think it a completely ridiculous notion. I won't tell you what they think about the guys who do that.


For the very fact that you pointed out- no two vehicles of different model will have the same reflective or absorptive characteristics- experimentation is necessary. What seems correct or conventional is tossed out the window when you're dealing with the highly destructive environment of the vehicle.


----------



## captainobvious

RobERacer said:


> All discussions aside when you listened and compared what did you hear? I have played with this very thing a lot. In fact put together whole systems using my findings and it's pretty night and day. If we directly swapped a Crown Macrotech for a same powered QSC PL series we get a clear difference in how tight the bottom end is and how hard the subs impact. Oh, yes. We know how to level match to compensate for input sensitivity in pro audio too. It's just gain structure. Nothing we don't deal with every single day. Folks on here try to make it out like it is quantum physics or something.
> 
> Myth... Wrong. Experience it and say that! It is clear as day and even moreso now that we have ITechs that recycle the back voltage created by the driver in it's inertia state to power the outputs of the amp. Why does and home audio usually omit that info? They wouldn't want to tell you what they don't do well would they?



Verified through properly controlled blind AX/ABX evaluations?


----------



## Jepalan

captainobvious said:


> I'm curious why? Do you dismiss equal loudness contour and the fact that our ears perceive some frequencies as louder than others? Because "flat" on a measurement is different from "flat" to the ear.


Not only that, but tuning target for a system with left tweeter 12" from the ear, right tweeter 3.5' from the ear, mid-bass drivers fired at the shins, and room Fs somewhere around 40~70Hz has got to be different than the typical pro-audio tune. Doesn't it


----------



## Hanatsu

RobERacer said:


> Slew Rate is measured in VOLTS PER MICROSECOND. Where do you see it is limited to high frequencies?


No it's *YOU *who don't understand what this means.

Slew rate is indeed measured in V/microseconds and is connected to the power bandwidth of the amplifier. Let me quote this for you:



> Power Bandwidth: This is usually taken as the maximum frequency at which the amplifier can produce 1/2 of its rated output power (this is the -3dB frequency). A 100W amplifier that can produce 50W at 50kHz will be deemed as having a 50kHz power bandwidth.
> 
> Slew Rate: Closely related to power bandwidth, the slew rate is the maximum rate of change (measured in Volts per microsecond) of the amplifier output. The higher the amplifier power, the higher the slew rate must be to obtain the same power bandwidth.


and...



> You’ll notice that as you go up in frequency, the value of the sine wave changes at a greater rate than at lower frequencies: this is what slew rate is all about. Simply, slew rate tells us how high in frequency an amplifier can play for a given voltage level.


Understand? Slew rate is NOTHING else but this. The amp being able to keep a certain voltage as frequency goes UP (high frequencies).

I won't even bother to quote the rest of your nonsense.


----------



## Elektra

RobERacer said:


> HUH? I have never known anyone to deal with Sibilance that way. What is the electronic reason for an upper mid resonance (sibilance) that cable resistance is creating? In my experience high frequency drivers can have resonances in those zones. Microphones likewise but more often than not those effects are the direct result of eq distortion creating added partials in that frequency zone and/or compression derived distortion. I usually look to solve it at it's source if I can. Swap the mic out for something else as an example. Otherwise in the case of it being it being a driver issue mask it by sucking the volume out of that frequency zone. Of course that is going to not help it's sonics any but it will sound more even. Retest? Who has time. find the source and fix it. That's it, that's all.


Dunno.. But it sorted the siblilance out on 2 occasions - just changing cable... Go figure?


----------



## RobERacer

Hanatsu said:


> Looked through it quickly. Looks valid to me. As I said, a really low DF can alter the FR of the system. Above ~20 at the terminals it pretty much just numbers for bragging rights.
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk


I just took time out to read it. George Augspurger is one of the great speaker designers and his monitors are still highly sought after in higher end studios even today. A highly celebrated and decorated man for sure. Any good audio guy needs to pay attention to what that guy would have to say. Did you notice that was written in 1967? Firstly, hi res audio back then was anything but. In fact the cheapest car stereo systems now would rival (and possibly surpass) their best studio systems at that time. That is saying a lot too because car audio is miniature. Amps back then were huge and only outputted a fraction of what amps did even 20 years ago. We have blown those numbers away more recently too. We now can make things smaller that sound better than some of the big things that we thought were awesome before. That is the largest movement in tech in recent history near as I can see.
Science never changes. Rather the actual physics doesn't change. That said our understandings of how physics works changes. Now, I will qualify what I have to say with this; what I learned about slew rate and damping factor goes back to College in the late 80's. This for me is the first time I have ever run into anyone ever disputing what we learned then. In fact Crown came out with the first Itech amps maybe 10 years ago. I worked for a company in Canada that was a development partner with Harman on the software that is in those amps today. The way our engineer on the project explained it to me made it sound like they work largely based around the notion of damping factor. As I already explained when the free moving driver is no longer being pushed with that inertia the motor structure then becomes a generator. The amp uses that very energy to help power itself thereby absorbing that energy away from the driver. It isn't just me here either we had a staff of 50 audio guys. That company bought 200 $5000+ power amps to power all of their speakers because everyone that worked there heard it. 200 x $5000 = a lot of money to spend on a placebo don't you think? Much research went into that purchase believe me. Everyone made a point to look for "the fly in the ointment". We compared them against Carver, QSC, Crest and some of the older Crowns. There were more but I don't remember them all. I don't think it matters either. Nothing and I mean nothing could touch the bottom end definition that they induced in every speaker we had and then some (we borrowed). They were run right through their paces. The only complaint was there initial failure rate but to Harman's credit they came to the table with a fair solution which was not cheap for them. As for higher frequency resolution. Like 1Khz and up is noticeable. It is far more substantial an issue than one might think. I have never seen a measurement on the Itech for slew rate. Traditionally Crowns have really not done well in that department. Their slew rate on the Macrotech line measured 25 v/ms. Crest were the preferred unit sonically for years in that regard and that was backed by their measurement of 50 v/ms. They also offered a class AB design which was preferred for higher frequencies. QSC were a little less than that but they were a little gritty sounding so many folks didn't like them. There were a few other players out there like Chevin (which I think are still alive) and they had some amps that measured 75 v/ms that looked really interesting and from what folks said were amazing but expensive. Hafler were kind of known as the king of that but they didn't make anything big enough for applications outside of home and studio. Same with Bryston although they were often used in smaller installations because of how robust they are. Also no fan! Crowns are noisey when they get hot. I am referring to physical noise not signal noise of course. So how does all of this relate to car audio? Well, pro audio develops the tech that is miniaturized to be used in cars. The same physics apply to all audio. Sometimes I wish that weren't true but it is. It is just that in pro audio the proportions are enormous as compared to a car. 50 watts is a joke in live production sound. I still have yet to understand how someone can stand to be anywhere near a car that generates 150 db. That is similar to standing next to a jet plane on take off. I hate mixing above 100 db at FOH ("A" weighted BTW) and really don't ever want to be on the stage when the band is playing because it hurts me. 150 db? All of that is not to say that there are no differences between car and pro applications. There are but the same physics are in play in all arenas. The trick is to understand what physics actually applies to what. Car interiors exhibit effects similar to that which are often seen in speaker cabinetry and particularly in PA speakers as the resonant cavities are bigger. We can use similar methods to deal with similar issues. Live sound has had lots of time to play with different ways of solving problems with small cavity (to them) resonance and horn flare generated artifacts as an example. Amplifier designs factor in just as importantly there as they do in a car. Studios are a really great testing ground for that kind of thing as the critical listening space doesn't impede the performance of the audio system the way it does in other environments. In short we can isolate things far more effectively there and that is often why they are used for critical testing purposes. The only problem is that it is an expensive environment to use so the test better count as someone is inevitably going to have to pay for it. 
Myth? Well, maybe but as I keep saying the proof is in the pudding. Why are we hearing a difference if it isn't that and why can we apply those theories and get the correlating predictable result? Our understanding of why might be wrong but the result isn't. I am not so sure the designers even really know but it would be cool to hear from some of them.


----------



## cubdenno

Powersoft has a good write up regarding damping factor and their amplifiers.


----------



## RobERacer

captainobvious said:


> I'm curious why? Do you dismiss equal loudness contour and the fact that our ears perceive some frequencies as louder than others? Because "flat" on a measurement is different from "flat" to the ear.
> Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the very fact that you pointed out- no two vehicles of different model will have the same reflective or absorptive characteristics- experimentation is necessary. What seems correct or conventional is tossed out the window when you're dealing with the highly destructive environment of the vehicle.


The very difference between "Pink Noise" and "White Noise" is that pink noise was developed as a mathematical constant to compensate for the way we perceive sound. What I mean is that the higher we go in frequency the more actual frequencies there are. If we had them all at equal energy we would hear an imbalance. Pink noise is sonically even energy throughout the human hearing range. It is a bit hard to wrap your head around at first but 10hz to 100hz is an octave of music. Likewise 100 hz to 1000 hz and 1000 to 10000 hz. Do you see what is happening? Pink noise compensates and is designed in such a way to be used as a yardstick. Flat response with pink would mean 0 dbu (not - or + anything) at 100 hz, 1k, 10K and 20K or anything in between evenly. If it sounds unbalanced to you with that then there is probably another reason. It should sound very unbalanced the other way. (unless you are using white noise and not pink)

The second part you wrote about experimenting: What if I told you that it's predictable and actually if one had all of the data it's even calculable. JBL (and many others but folks here seem to like JBL. I like Harman too so we will use them as an example.) has a system called Vertec for pro audio. It functions hand in hand with it's prediction software called LAC II because in the world of line arrays the angle differences necessary between the elements (speakers) changes depending on the characteristics of the space they are needed to be used in. The calculations are so intense that us field guys couldn't be taught to do it without the software so we plug the measurements in and poof we get "here is what you need to do with this space." Yup, Betty Crocker does know how to bake a cake best with her mix. In their case they put immense effort into figuring out how their system is going to best do what it does. Who is going to know better than them? Hang on though that is the finesse side of audio. We can still look at a situation and make an educated guess based on what we know as to how things are going to function and JBL asks us field guys to do that first. Also back to it our ears can tell us a lot if we pay attention. If we sit in a car and talk to someone we can hear much of what things are going to sound like in that space. Only? No but it is enough to be usable as it represents what optimal within that space without any changes will be. Now, If we direct audio (and that involves physics) directly at the listeners and away from the reflective surfaces the way we do it in pro audio what we in fact hear is going to end up being very similar to a combination of what the system sounds like and what the space where your ears are sound like. Where we get into trouble is when we don't control the dispersion and start bouncing stuff off of windows, dashes and pillars. This is particularly an issue with higher frequencies as lower frequencies are largely omni directional in nature and are much harder to control anyway. You won't find a design engineer come on here and tell you that you are better to make a sonic mess and try to clean it up later than to have it closer to right already. JBL and L'Acoustics scream that at us field guys. It isn't the systems fault that we installed it in such a way as to inhibit it from doing what it does. Same physics apply with speakers in cars. Most speakers are designed to be pointed at your head. They did that for a reason.


----------



## RobERacer

cubdenno said:


> Powersoft has a good write up regarding damping factor and their amplifiers.


Ya. Do they mention anything about distortion induced by the digital switching in their amps? They are small but if I were to use that to give me a clue as to what digital car amps sound like I would run away, really fast. That is just my own opinion though. A lot of companies have them now so somebody is making them work. The truth is it is only one piece of a system. Every part factors in. If you are weak in one area your strengths in others can make up for it on the whole. Also they may be better than they were years ago. I haven't paid much attention to them since I first played with them. They were really not a friend to AMT drivers. Got to dig for that one I see. It isn't in your face that for sure.


----------



## captainobvious

RobERacer said:


> Why are we hearing a difference if it isn't that and why can we apply those theories and get the correlating predictable result? Our understanding of why might be wrong but the result isn't. I am not so sure the designers even really know but it would be cool to hear from some of them.


The proof is in the pudding if you're comparing puddings properly with controls. How did you evaluate the amplifiers to arrive at your conclusion that they "sounded better"? 

Did they also measure better?



Thanks for sharing your input/story. Sounds like it's been a fun ride over the years for you.


-steve


----------



## Elektra

RobERacer said:


> The very difference between "Pink Noise" and "White Noise" is that pink noise was developed as a mathematical constant to compensate for the way we perceive sound. What I mean is that the higher we go in frequency the more actual frequencies there are. If we had them all at equal energy we would hear an imbalance. Pink noise is sonically even energy throughout the human hearing range. It is a bit hard to wrap your head around at first but 10hz to 100hz is an octave of music. Likewise 100 hz to 1000 hz and 1000 to 10000 hz. Do you see what is happening? Pink noise compensates and is designed in such a way to be used as a yardstick. Flat response with pink would mean 0 dbu (not - or + anything) at 100 hz, 1k, 10K and 20K or anything in between evenly. If it sounds unbalanced to you with that then there is probably another reason. It should sound very unbalanced the other way. (unless you are using white noise and not pink)
> 
> The second part you wrote about experimenting: What if I told you that it's predictable and actually if one had all of the data it's even calculable. JBL (and many others but folks here seem to like JBL. I like Harman too so we will use them as an example.) has a system called Vertec for pro audio. It functions hand in hand with it's prediction software called LAC II because in the world of line arrays the angle differences necessary between the elements (speakers) changes depending on the characteristics of the space they are needed to be used in. The calculations are so intense that us field guys couldn't be taught to do it without the software so we plug the measurements in and poof we get "here is what you need to do with this space." Yup, Betty Crocker does know how to bake a cake best with her mix. In their case they put immense effort into figuring out how their system is going to best do what it does. Who is going to know better than them? Hang on though that is the finesse side of audio. We can still look at a situation and make an educated guess based on what we know as to how things are going to function and JBL asks us field guys to do that first. Also back to it our ears can tell us a lot if we pay attention. If we sit in a car and talk to someone we can hear much of what things are going to sound like in that space. Only? No but it is enough to be usable as it represents what optimal within that space without any changes will be. Now, If we direct audio (and that involves physics) directly at the listeners and away from the reflective surfaces the way we do it in pro audio what we in fact hear is going to end up being very similar to a combination of what the system sounds like and what the space where your ears are sound like. Where we get into trouble is when we don't control the dispersion and start bouncing stuff off of windows, dashes and pillars. This is particularly an issue with higher frequencies as lower frequencies are largely omni directional in nature and are much harder to control anyway. You won't find a design engineer come on here and tell you that you are better to make a sonic mess and try to clean it up later than to have it closer to right already. JBL and L'Acoustics scream that at us field guys. It isn't the systems fault that we installed it in such a way as to inhibit it from doing what it does. Same physics apply with speakers in cars. Most speakers are designed to be pointed at your head. They did that for a reason.


Very interesting ... Good read

Just put more paragraphs for us IPhone users..


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> Amplifiers expert a back force on speakers when in motion. It has to do with inertia.


Amplifiers exert a backforce on speakers? Really? I think you meant that the other way around. Yes?



> 200:1 sucks 1000:1 is really good. You really didn't understand what your source was saying.


200:1 DF is just as good as 1000:1 DF - when put into play in a *real* system. What part of the math and explanation do you disagree with in the Butler article I referenced? It is the damping factor of the *system* that matters. 



> Slew Rate is measured in VOLTS PER MICROSECOND. Where do you see it is limited to high frequencies?


You do understand V/uS is *rate of change* - right? The first thing to suffer from slew rate limiting - by definition - is full-power high frequency performance. You get that - right? 



> Damping Factor and slew rate together give some understanding of an amps ability to react to voltage swing and therefore tell a bit of a story of it's ability to resolve program material. That's it!!! We asked for measurement parameter examples that I thought were important but were omitted. There you go.


I would venture to say that just about everyone here understands what DF and slew rate *are*. The discussion was about whether they *matter* in the use cases at hand. Do you understand the difference? 

Your whole post could have been summed up as: "I think DF & slew rate matter". <--- back that up with some math and science please.

Some of us, for those most part, think they do not matter (for the most part) and have provided clear logic and science as to why they don't. 

Exceptions being: 1) one should understand the implications of low DF in certain tube/valve topologies and select speakers and compensate bass response accordingly, and 2) watch for slew limiting effects on high frequencies if you trying to generate tremendous amounts of clean power in applications like arena concerts and home theaters.


----------



## captainobvious

RobERacer said:


> The very difference between "Pink Noise" and "White Noise" is that pink noise was developed as a mathematical constant to compensate for the way we perceive sound. What I mean is that the higher we go in frequency the more actual frequencies there are. If we had them all at equal energy we would hear an imbalance. Pink noise is sonically even energy throughout the human hearing range. It is a bit hard to wrap your head around at first but 10hz to 100hz is an octave of music. Likewise 100 hz to 1000 hz and 1000 to 10000 hz. Do you see what is happening? Pink noise compensates and is designed in such a way to be used as a yardstick. Flat response with pink would mean 0 dbu (not - or + anything) at 100 hz, 1k, 10K and 20K or anything in between evenly. If it sounds unbalanced to you with that then there is probably another reason. It should sound very unbalanced the other way. (unless you are using white noise and not pink)


Have you ever tried doing spacial averages with RTA for your listening position in a vehicle using pink noise and then EQing the system to as flat as possible? What did you notice about the sound? Because in every system I've done that with, I'm left with an anemic lower frequency spectrum, thin lower midrange and overly bright mid-high frequencies. This is consistent across MANY vehicles I have worked on and tuned. Measured flat response in a vehicle does not sound like the reference source.








RobERacer said:


> The second part you wrote about experimenting: What if I told you that it's predictable and actually if one had all of the data it's even calculable. JBL (and many others but folks here seem to like JBL. I like Harman too so we will use them as an example.) has a system called Vertec for pro audio. It functions hand in hand with it's prediction software called LAC II because in the world of line arrays the angle differences necessary between the elements (speakers) changes depending on the characteristics of the space they are needed to be used in. The calculations are so intense that us field guys couldn't be taught to do it without the software so we plug the measurements in and poof we get "here is what you need to do with this space." Yup, Betty Crocker does know how to bake a cake best with her mix. In their case they put immense effort into figuring out how their system is going to best do what it does. Who is going to know better than them? Hang on though that is the finesse side of audio. We can still look at a situation and make an educated guess based on what we know as to how things are going to function and JBL asks us field guys to do that first. Also back to it our ears can tell us a lot if we pay attention. If we sit in a car and talk to someone we can hear much of what things are going to sound like in that space. Only? No but it is enough to be usable as it represents what optimal within that space without any changes will be. Now, If we direct audio (and that involves physics) directly at the listeners and away from the reflective surfaces the way we do it in pro audio what we in fact hear is going to end up being very similar to a combination of what the system sounds like and what the space where your ears are sound like. Where we get into trouble is when we don't control the dispersion and start bouncing stuff off of windows, dashes and pillars. This is particularly an issue with higher frequencies as lower frequencies are largely omni directional in nature and are much harder to control anyway. You won't find a design engineer come on here and tell you that you are better to make a sonic mess and try to clean it up later than to have it closer to right already. JBL and L'Acoustics scream that at us field guys. It isn't the systems fault that we installed it in such a way as to inhibit it from doing what it does. Same physics apply with speakers in cars. Most speakers are designed to be pointed at your head. They did that for a reason.



Yes, but in a mobile environment the vehicle is not designed to suit the sound system being installed; the sound system is bound by the constraints of the available physical locations for drivers and the surfaces that affect the natural response of said drivers. We're not dealing with large flat surfaces and consistent angles and materials. We're dealing with compound shapes and curved surfaces, materials of different thicknesses and densities- let alone the parameters that change- Altitudes, temperatures, windows up/down, rear-view mirror position, sun visors, the person listening to the system, their physical dimensions, where their head/ears are at at a given time, etc. the list goes on. I would say this makes it (if not impossible) unlikely to calculate with any certainty.

That point aside, I agree that there are probably things that-with an understanding of the vehicle interior, you can form some general guidelines on depending on what your goal is with a system.

There are some different schools of thought in how to approach the design of systems in cars. An example of this would be crossovers and passbands with relation to directivity control. Some people will say that it is more important to have more even power response, utilizing crossovers below the beaming point of speakers to allow direct sound and reflected sound to be more similar. This option forces drivers to play a narrower passband and can introduce crossover issues in the critical vocal range.
Others may state that it's more important to avoid crossovers in the vocal range and to run speakers with a much larger passband, despite the inconsistency in power response and the differences caused in direct vs reflected sound.

There are merits to both. In the first case, it might be argued that more drivers covering more of the vocal range-especially when separated any significant distance, may create more issues in the crossover region. 

In the second case, you have reflected sound with a different frequency response than the direct sound and moreso as frequency rises. As we know, you can't EQ reflected sound separate of direct sound so this also poses a problem. What happens if the listener moves their head a little this way or that way, adjusts their seat a tad or if a different listener of a smaller or larger size gets in? By using large passbands, drivers are playing into their beaming range and then will need to be aimed more and more on axis, requiring more physical and visual real estate in the cabin- often problematic for drivers located in the pillar and dash regions.


My point being that there are many reasons to mount/aim drivers in unusual locations in vehicles that may not be readily apparent when pointing and laughing with the buddies.


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> The very difference between "Pink Noise" and "White Noise" is that pink noise was developed as a mathematical constant to compensate for the way we perceive sound. What I mean is that the higher we go in frequency the more actual frequencies there are. If we had them all at equal energy we would hear an imbalance. Pink noise is sonically even energy throughout the human hearing range. It is a bit hard to wrap your head around at first but 10hz to 100hz is an octave of music. Likewise 100 hz to 1000 hz and 1000 to 10000 hz. Do you see what is happening? Pink noise compensates and is designed in such a way to be used as a yardstick. Flat response with pink would mean 0 dbu (not - or + anything) at 100 hz, 1k, 10K and 20K or anything in between evenly. If it sounds unbalanced to you with that then there is probably another reason. It should sound very unbalanced the other way. (unless you are using white noise and not pink)


I am thankful that this discussion has allowed me to increase my self-awareness of a personality flaw I was not aware I had. 

I have come to realize that (link) >Illusory superiority< in others, triggers me to have unwanted homicidal and/or suicidal thoughts of surprising magnitude. 

I am now committed to finding ways to be more tolerant and less reactive to these kinds of stimulants. I am finding certain single-malt scotch in proper doses is quite effective. 

Rock on Rob! You go girl!


----------



## Hanatsu

White noise = Constant energy vs Frequency
Pink noise = Constant energy per Octave.

*Pink Noise is the type you want to measure your system with. Compared with white noise, PN got a power spectrum that decreases with -3dB/octave. It's indeed a more accurate representation of how we perceive the intensity of sound in different frequency ranges.

*If you tune your car flat with white noise as excitation signal, then it will slope downwards you later would measure using pink noise. Flat response, even if you use white noise is not enough to make a car audio system sound balanced. All car audio systems require a bare minimum of 15dB downward slope from 20-20kHz (using pink noise). Anyone who have tuned a good sounding car knows this.

Why are we discussing this again?


----------



## Hanatsu

RobERacer said:


> It is a bit hard to wrap your head around at first but 10hz to 100hz is an octave of music. Likewise 100 hz to 1000 hz and 1000 to 10000 hz. Do you see what is happening?


No we don't see this happening. An octave is certainly not 100-1000Hz or 1000-10000Hz per ANY definition.


----------



## RobERacer

Elektra said:


> Very interesting ... Good read
> 
> Just put more paragraphs for us IPhone users..


Sorry ADHD. It is hard to keep up with the spin sometimes. I will try harder. OH BTW I realised I just made a mistake. Musical octaves. 10-20hz would be and octave, 20-40hz the next doubling and so on and so on. I knew that. Just spun. I rarely get to think in terms of musical notes. It is all just numbers on a graph anymore. Anyway, fixed. Sorry for the confusion folks.


----------



## Jepalan

cleansoundz said:


> I have used several amps over the past 6 years ranging from RF, LP, McIntosh, MTX, PPI, ARC AUDIO, POLK AUDIO, JBL, ZED, LANZAR OPTI, JL AUDIO, KICKER, ECLIPSE, Etc, Etc. While some amps did have a sound that was pleasing to the ear, I noticed that amps with higher power ratings set to a decent pair of speakers whether they were separates or coaxials sounded just as good as the so called higher end amps. My point is an 100 watt x 4 channel of a good brand sounded just as clean, crisp and clear as the so called higher end brands such as Brax, McIntosh, etc. The same applied to bass as well. I swapped out several good brand of amps with higher end amps to notice very little difference in sound quality using a sealed enclosure. *If this is the case, why spend so much money on the so-called higher end brands?*


I realized I never actually addressed the OP's question.

Seems OP is comparing 'Good' amps to so-called 'High-end' brands. I'm not exactly sure where the dividing line is for grouping the brands he listed, but I get the general idea. 

I think the simple answer to his final question is that everyone's perceived price-to-value ratio for a purchase is different - and is based on *many* factors. There is no right or wrong answer to his question, only personal opinions and shades of grey. 

I will also say that I agree with his observations regarding SQ performance of amplifiers. In my personal experience the total system's SQ has more to do with install, Speakers, EQ, DSP, Tuning and Source than with choice of amplifier. 

***As long as I use a 'decent' amp that is not operated 'under stress'***. 

IME it has never made sense to spend top dollar for 'high-end' amps for my car system. Alpine, PPI and the like have always worked well for me - JL XD series amps are the most expensive I have ever used and I never felt compelled to spend more (haven't even jumped on the HD bandwagon yet). 

I'm not really sure I have much more to say in direct response to OP.


----------



## Niebur3

RobERacer said:


> The very difference between "Pink Noise" and "White Noise" is that pink noise was developed as a mathematical constant to compensate for the way we perceive sound. What I mean is that the higher we go in frequency the more actual frequencies there are. If we had them all at equal energy we would hear an imbalance. Pink noise is sonically even energy throughout the human hearing range. It is a bit hard to wrap your head around at first but 10hz to 100hz is an octave of music. Likewise 100 hz to 1000 hz and 1000 to 10000 hz. Do you see what is happening? Pink noise compensates and is designed in such a way to be used as a yardstick. Flat response with pink would mean 0 dbu (not - or + anything) at 100 hz, 1k, 10K and 20K or anything in between evenly. If it sounds unbalanced to you with that then there is probably another reason. It should sound very unbalanced the other way. (unless you are using white noise and not pink)
> 
> The second part you wrote about experimenting: What if I told you that it's predictable and actually if one had all of the data it's even calculable. JBL (and many others but folks here seem to like JBL. I like Harman too so we will use them as an example.) has a system called Vertec for pro audio. It functions hand in hand with it's prediction software called LAC II because in the world of line arrays the angle differences necessary between the elements (speakers) changes depending on the characteristics of the space they are needed to be used in. The calculations are so intense that us field guys couldn't be taught to do it without the software so we plug the measurements in and poof we get "here is what you need to do with this space." Yup, Betty Crocker does know how to bake a cake best with her mix. In their case they put immense effort into figuring out how their system is going to best do what it does. Who is going to know better than them? Hang on though that is the finesse side of audio. We can still look at a situation and make an educated guess based on what we know as to how things are going to function and JBL asks us field guys to do that first. Also back to it our ears can tell us a lot if we pay attention. If we sit in a car and talk to someone we can hear much of what things are going to sound like in that space. Only? No but it is enough to be usable as it represents what optimal within that space without any changes will be. Now, If we direct audio (and that involves physics) directly at the listeners and away from the reflective surfaces the way we do it in pro audio what we in fact hear is going to end up being very similar to a combination of what the system sounds like and what the space where your ears are sound like. Where we get into trouble is when we don't control the dispersion and start bouncing stuff off of windows, dashes and pillars. This is particularly an issue with higher frequencies as lower frequencies are largely omni directional in nature and are much harder to control anyway. You won't find a design engineer come on here and tell you that you are better to make a sonic mess and try to clean it up later than to have it closer to right already. JBL and L'Acoustics scream that at us field guys. It isn't the systems fault that we installed it in such a way as to inhibit it from doing what it does. Same physics apply with speakers in cars. Most speakers are designed to be pointed at your head. They did that for a reason.



I have been waiting a while for the perfect opportunity to use this movie quote.....

"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."


----------



## RobERacer

Niebur3 said:


> I have been waiting a while for the perfect opportunity to use this movie quote.....
> 
> "At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."


Right, It was quite coherent. Why don't you be honest? In saying what I said I stepped on you and your obvious limited understanding. You are offended by that because it makes you 1. look foolish because you employ what I was talking about in the incorrect fashion I mentioned and 2. you feel stupid because you didn't know this stuff. It's basic audio 101. If your here inferring that you are some kind of expert then you bloody well should already know this stuff.


----------



## Jepalan




----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> Amplifiers exert a backforce on speakers? Really? I think you meant that the other way around. Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 200:1 DF is just as good as 1000:1 DF - when put into play in a *real* system. What part of the math and explanation do you disagree with in the Butler article I referenced? It is the damping factor of the *system* that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand V/uS is *rate of change* - right? The first thing to suffer from slew rate limiting - by definition - is full-power high frequency performance. You get that - right?
> 
> 
> 
> I would venture to say that just about everyone here understands what DF and slew rate *are*. The discussion was about whether they *matter* in the use cases at hand. Do you understand the difference?
> 
> Your whole post could have been summed up as: "I think DF & slew rate matter". <--- back that up with some math and science please.
> 
> Some of us, for those most part, think they do not matter (for the most part) and have provided clear logic and science as to why they don't.
> 
> Exceptions being: 1) one should understand the implications of low DF in certain tube/valve topologies and select speakers and compensate bass response accordingly, and 2) watch for slew limiting effects on high frequencies if you trying to generate tremendous amounts of clean power in applications like arena concerts and home theaters.



Look, I read your rude bits below too. **** off! The reality is this is an ongoing "DEBATED" issue because the actual experts can't come to an agreement on it. You re-verbalised and reiterated what I said and went ahead and said that I was not speaking the same thing. Either you weren't paying attention or you had another agenda. Both Damping factor and slew rate are rating that are used to measure impulse rates of amplifiers in order to try to distinguish whether an amp can resolve detail well or not. It is clear that some amps do in fact resolve detail to the speaker better than others. It is hard to measure that as drivers effect that. Damping factor notes that. That said to what degree is that effectual. It depends on which "Expert" you talk to. Does slew rate factor in? Yup, we established that. The only thing is that I and many like me see it as affecting intelligibility far below 10Khz. What is the difference between you and me in this. I come to this from seeing it for myself and talking to experienced folks around me about it. You read about it, now your a ****ing expert and think you have the right to run people down with your newly acquired understanding that I might add had limited ability to explain in such a way so as to make it understandable even to someone who knows something about it. What about those who don't? It's all good. I covered that for ya. *******!!! 

Why I brought up Damping Factor and Slew Rate in the first place was to simply illuminate the fact that yes, we can do measurements to amps to try to show how they sound different. Someone asked for examples of specs that might help that aren't listed as according to what I am getting from you the only valid specs really only show that all amps are created equal. In fact I would be wholeheartedly surprised if you were willing to allow any other measurements. Listening tests are taboo to you and most specs are "erroneous"! K Doc do tell how the **** are we going to know that your amps are ****! You sure as hell don't want us to plug them in before we hand you a wad of cash. Who is pulling the wool over who's eyes???


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> Look, I read your rude bits below too. **** off! The reality is this is an ongoing "DEBATED" issue because the actual experts can't come to an agreement on it. You re-verbalised and reiterated what I said and went ahead and said that I was not speaking the same thing. Either you weren't paying attention or you had another agenda. Both Damping factor and slew rate are rating that are used to measure impulse rates of amplifiers in order to try to distinguish whether an amp can resolve detail well or not. It is clear that some amps do in fact resolve detail to the speaker better than others. It is hard to measure that as drivers effect that. Damping factor notes that. That said to what degree is that effectual. It depends on which "Expert" you talk to. Does slew rate factor in? Yup, we established that. The only thing is that I and many like me see it as affecting intelligibility far below 10Khz. What is the difference between you and me in this. I come to this from seeing it for myself and talking to experienced folks around me about it. You read about it, now your a ****ing expert and think you have the right to run people down with your newly acquired understanding that I might add had limited ability to explain in such a way so as to make it understandable even to someone who knows something about it. What about those who don't? It's all good. I covered that for ya. *******!!!
> 
> Why I brought up Damping Factor and Slew Rate in the first place was to simply illuminate the fact that yes, we can do measurements to amps to try to show how they sound different. Someone asked for examples of specs that might help that aren't listed as according to what I am getting from you the only valid specs really only show that all amps are created equal. In fact I would be wholeheartedly surprised if you were willing to allow any other measurements. Listening tests are taboo to you and most specs are "erroneous"! K Doc do tell how the **** are we going to know that your amps are ****! You sure as hell don't want us to plug them in before we hand you a wad of cash. Who is pulling the wool over who's eyes???


I know you are but what am I?


----------



## RobERacer

Oh, Backforce, I know you don't understand but your lack of understanding seems to give you the right to be a dick! Speakers are like springs. We push them and they pull themselves (spring) back. An amp uses electricity to push with a motor (the coil/magnet structure in the driver). When the speaker springs backwards that movement is generating electricity instead of using it because a motor and a generator are the same device used in opposite applications. Speakers are and electrical piston type motor instead of a standard rotary motor that we are far more familiar with . As I said Itech uses that which is normally dissipated electricity as feed power to the amp according to Crown. Of course that is the over simplified explanation and all us users really need to understand is that it ****ING does what it says it ****ING well does! Of course you would like to claim that everyone but you is either lying or a total blooming ****ing idiot.


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> I know you are but what am I?


Of course this would be your reply. To me it just clearly shows that your agenda was not to discuss this at all but to derail the discussion entirely with your rhetoric. You are a dick! That is all.
:surprised:


----------



## Niebur3

RobERacer said:


> Right, It was quite coherent. Why don't you be honest? In saying what I said I stepped on you and your obvious limited understanding. You are offended by that because it makes you 1. look foolish because you employ what I was talking about in the incorrect fashion I mentioned and 2. you feel stupid because you didn't know this stuff. It's basic audio 101. If your here inferring that you are some kind of expert then you bloody well should already know this stuff.


:stupid:

My limited understanding??? You are a very funny guy. Figure out what an octave is yet? Or that an EQ is actually a very valuable piece in a car? (Or how to hit "enter" on your computer once in a while?)


----------



## JVD240

RobERacer said:


> Look, I read your rude bits below too. **** off! The reality is this is an ongoing "DEBATED" issue because the actual experts can't come to an agreement on it. You re-verbalised and reiterated what I said and went ahead and said that I was not speaking the same thing. Either you weren't paying attention or you had another agenda. Both Damping factor and slew rate are rating that are used to measure impulse rates of amplifiers in order to try to distinguish whether an amp can resolve detail well or not. It is clear that some amps do in fact resolve detail to the speaker better than others. It is hard to measure that as drivers effect that. Damping factor notes that. That said to what degree is that effectual. It depends on which "Expert" you talk to. Does slew rate factor in? Yup, we established that. The only thing is that I and many like me see it as affecting intelligibility far below 10Khz. What is the difference between you and me in this. I come to this from seeing it for myself and talking to experienced folks around me about it. You read about it, now your a ****ing expert and think you have the right to run people down with your newly acquired understanding that I might add had limited ability to explain in such a way so as to make it understandable even to someone who knows something about it. What about those who don't? It's all good. I covered that for ya. *******!!!
> 
> Why I brought up Damping Factor and Slew Rate in the first place was to simply illuminate the fact that yes, we can do measurements to amps to try to show how they sound different. Someone asked for examples of specs that might help that aren't listed as according to what I am getting from you the only valid specs really only show that all amps are created equal. In fact I would be wholeheartedly surprised if you were willing to allow any other measurements. Listening tests are taboo to you and most specs are "erroneous"! K Doc do tell how the **** are we going to know that your amps are ****! You sure as hell don't want us to plug them in before we hand you a wad of cash. Who is pulling the wool over who's eyes???


Easy, Robbie. Let's all relax. Haha.

I believe it originally started when you said power, distortion, etc. aren't great indicators of the quality of an amplifier. That's when you brought up DF and slew.

Your experience in the field is great to have. Absolutely. And I respect that. But experience does not automatically mean expertise. I've seen the work of many experienced people in this field and been unimpressed. Where(who) did they learn from? Were they aware of their mistakes? Maybe not... 

I'm not saying you're wrong. Rather, I'm reminding you to keep an open mind. 

Yes, a lot of us read posts, white papers, books, etc. to learn this stuff. That shouldn't automatically be discounted by someone such as yourself. That's generally always been the way people educate themselves, hasn't it? We share posts like Andy's because they're informative and unbiased. Obviously we have to weed through junk because of how easy it is to share "facts" online.

The reason I originally questioned the DF spec was because I was basically taught it was a spec listed for marketing reasons. This was from people with no interest or affiliation with the sales of any particular equipment. They are educators. You work in live sound... which as you know is pretty much the epitome of a dick swinging contest. Lol. 

Anyway. Enough of my ramblings.


----------



## rton20s

You know, I haven't checked in on DIYMA in a few days, I wonder if that "HIGHER END AMP SQ IS A MYTH" thread is still going?

Yep.


----------



## Elektra

Hanatsu said:


> White noise = Constant energy vs Frequency
> Pink noise = Constant energy per Octave.
> 
> *Pink Noise is the type you want to measure your system with. Compared with white noise, PN got a power spectrum that decreases with -3dB/octave. It's indeed a more accurate representation of how we perceive the intensity of sound in different frequency ranges.
> 
> *If you tune your car flat with white noise as excitation signal, then it will slope downwards you later would measure using pink noise. Flat response, even if you use white noise is not enough to make a car audio system sound balanced. All car audio systems require a bare minimum of 15dB downward slope from 20-20kHz (using pink noise). Anyone who have tuned a good sounding car knows this.
> 
> Why are we discussing this again?


Explain 15db downward slope please...


----------



## JVD240

Elektra said:


> Explain 15db downward slope please...


Tune a system to be ruler flat playing pink noise in a car and you'll know what he means.

There's also been MANY threads on this topic.

Search for house or target curves.


----------



## RobERacer

JVD240 said:


> Easy, Robbie. Let's all relax. Haha.
> 
> I believe it originally started when you said power, distortion, etc. aren't great indicators of the quality of an amplifier. That's when you brought up DF and slew.
> 
> Your experience in the field is great to have. Absolutely. And I respect that. But experience does not automatically mean expertise. I've seen the work of many experienced people in this field and been unimpressed. Where(who) did they learn from? Were they aware of their mistakes? Maybe not...
> 
> I'm not saying you're wrong. Rather, I'm reminding you to keep an open mind.
> 
> Yes, a lot of us read posts, white papers, books, etc. to learn this stuff. That shouldn't automatically be discounted by someone such as yourself. That's generally always been the way people educate themselves, hasn't it? We share posts like Andy's because they're informative and unbiased. Obviously we have to weed through junk because of how easy it is to share "facts" online.
> 
> The reason I originally questioned the DF spec was because I was basically taught it was a spec listed for marketing reasons. This was from people with no interest or affiliation with the sales of any particular equipment. They are educators. You work in live sound... which as you know is pretty much the epitome of a dick swinging contest. Lol.
> 
> Anyway. Enough of my ramblings.


Once again. This all started with a note that Frequency Response and distortion levels alone were not enough information by themselves to tell you if one amp sounded better over another. To some they don't sound any different at all. I was asked if I could suggest what other measurements could be used to factor in. Logically I suggested those parameters only as a partial indicator of an amps ability to resolve detail on output. Then of course it became "you are lying, you can't hear a difference" yet again. What is most annoying about it is that argument always ends up with "you're imagining it because you want to hear a difference". Good god I know what I am hearing and I am not confused. Not in the least. What I want to get truly great sound into my car. Unfortunately for me I actually know what that could be if I arrive there. It would be nervana to not know I think. I am convinced we have the ability with the tech that is available. I just need to find it. Despite my best efforts that tidbit is illusive. All I want to know is which amps do what. I can take it from there myself.


----------



## RobERacer

Niebur3 said:


> :stupid:
> 
> My limited understanding??? You are a very funny guy. Figure out what an octave is yet? Or that an EQ is actually a very valuable piece in a car? (Or how to hit "enter" on your computer once in a while?)


Ya I was actually man enough to note my mistake long before anyone said anything. More than that an eq is vital in an great audio system as a final polishing device. It does not replace proper design and good acoustic treatment. Of course you knew that right?


----------



## RobERacer

captainobvious said:


> The proof is in the pudding if you're comparing puddings properly with controls. How did you evaluate the amplifiers to arrive at your conclusion that they "sounded better"?
> 
> Did they also measure better?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing your input/story. Sounds like it's been a fun ride over the years for you.
> 
> 
> -steve


We didn't measure them. The propeller heads already did that. We just plugged them in and listened. The reason we decided to bother with them because they should have been better according to the blah blah. If anything we expected them just to be more of the same. They weren't. By the way at one point I was a "a good amp is a good amp is a good amp" guy. This stuff changed my mind. I'm all about the fairy dust **** now. All in perspective of course. If it is your money you can have whatever you deem good enough. If it's mine I hate buying **** that I don't like. I have seen the light.


----------



## cajunner

why does it always have to be the "piece of ****" amp, vs. the higher end?

or "flea market quality" vs. Sinfoni, to make the contest valid, why is it that nobody from the golden ear side is ready to give their daddy warbucks a go, against the middle tier?


----------



## Niebur3

cajunner said:


> why does it always have to be the "piece of ****" amp, vs. the higher end?
> 
> or "flea market quality" vs. Sinfoni, to make the contest valid, why is it that nobody from the golden ear side is ready to give their daddy warbucks a go, against the middle tier?


I actually had, on my demo board, a Tru Steel S45, ARC 2075se and Sinfoni Allegro, all level matched as perfect as you can. I had the exact same signal going to all 3 amps simultaneously via a Sinfoni Premire One Line driver. The connections to the speakers were direct and switchable within 2-3 seconds. 

This made a comparison between the amps very easy and accurate.

The ARC and the TRU were VERY VERY close in sound. It would be hard to tell and virtually a guess on which was which, considering I was running them very easy, at 4ohm and about 90dB. The Sinfoni stood out, in a good way. Tonally, it was better, deal was better and the biggest difference was the soundstage. The stage was about 1-2 feet higher and much larger. This alone would allow you to pick it out 10/10 times from the other 2, IMHO. 

I had my wife listen (who knows nothing about amps) and her findings matched mine. I also had many customers hear the exact same difference, without me prompting them. 

Anyway, just my $.02!


----------



## subwoofery

cajunner said:


> why does it always have to be the "piece of ****" amp, vs. the higher end?
> 
> or "flea market quality" vs. Sinfoni, to make the contest valid, why is it that nobody from the golden ear side is ready to give their daddy warbucks a go, against the middle tier?


What about High-end VS High-end? I did that a couple of years ago: 


subwoofery said:


> I can surely hear a difference in sonic signature between my Milbert BaM-235ab (30 watts @ 8 ohm) VS my Sinfoni Prestigio (also something like 30 watts @ 8 ohm, maybe more like 35 watts) on my ID Horn Ultra... Gains checked before unplugging and plugging the new amp in
> My wife can too since the horn system is in her car
> 
> Kelvin
> 
> PS: difference weren't subtle either... Associated to distortion from tubes? Maybe but if we agree that the difference comes from distortion then we can agree that there's differences in sound from 1 amp to another...





subwoofery said:


> Milbert BaM-235ab (tube) VS Sinfoni Prestigio (A) VS DLS A2 (A/B) VS Genesis DMX (G/H)
> 
> Own those and tested them powering ES horns in my girlfriend's car with gains set so that the output was the same as the amp that's permanently mounted in (the DLS A2) - very DISTINCT sound signature. Easy to tell really.
> Test was changing the amp without my wife knowing yet she asked me what I've done to the sound
> 
> Kelvin


No clipping since I'm using those amps on horns 
Gains set correctly - I might not know how to tune like Scott Buwalda but I do know how to set my gains  
System tuned to its fullest and best of my abilities - stages @ eye level with nothing coming from below the dash - perfect transition (by my standards) from sub to midbass frequencies... 

Kelvin


----------



## Niebur3

RobERacer said:


> Ya I was actually man enough to note my mistake long before anyone said anything. More than that an eq is vital in an great audio system as a final polishing device. It does not replace proper design and good acoustic treatment. Of course you knew that right?


Ummmm yeah. I have known that for a very long time. 

Now, please school me on what to do with the windows, plastic dash (other than a dash pad), steering wheel, instrument hump, center console, and countless other various surfaces and shapes in each and every vehicle that I haven't already done! 

My speakers are placed and angled in a fashion to best keep them away, as much as possible, from reflective surfaces. I have reduced back waves, treated plastic surfaces so they don't resonate, etc. I have spent the better of 2 months playing with crossover frequencies, slopes and time alignment. What is left when I am done, will need an eq to fix. 

Now, may I see your build log and hear what you have done in your vehicle?


----------



## cajunner

Niebur3 said:


> I actually had, on my demo board, a Tru Steel S45, ARC 2075se and Sinfoni Allegro, all level matched as perfect as you can. I had the exact same signal going to all 3 amps simultaneously via a Sinfoni Premire One Line driver. The connections to the speakers were direct and switchable within 2-3 seconds.
> 
> This made a comparison between the amps very easy and accurate.
> 
> The ARC and the TRU were VERY VERY close in sound. It would be hard to tell and virtually a guess on which was which, considering I was running them very easy, at 4ohm and about 90dB. The Sinfoni stood out, in a good way. Tonally, it was better, deal was better and the biggest difference was the soundstage. The stage was about 1-2 feet higher and much larger. This alone would allow you to pick it out 10/10 times from the other 2, IMHO.
> 
> I had my wife listen (who knows nothing about amps) and her findings matched mine. I also had many customers hear the exact same difference, without me prompting them.
> 
> Anyway, just my $.02!


to me, TRU and Arc SE, is still pretty high up in the middle tier, I'd consider them to be high end.

Considering how you came to recognize the difference, (sighted test, bias, whatever) and using the height of the soundstage as your tell, do you believe you could pick out the TRU or the Arc, in comparison to say, a SoundStream Reference?

my question relates to significance, do you believe there is no amp that will display the Sinfoni's soundstage height bar, such that you can pick it out in blind comparisons?

we may be on to something here.

whatever artifact or synergy is created by a specific amp/speaker combination, such that it produces a signature that is identifiable, against a slew of good, competitors...

should mean the Sinfoni has a tell, and you're paying for the tell.


You're paying for the coloration, vs. the competition's standardized performance envelope.


So, if you've identified the tell, and in a battery of 15 amplifiers, you look for that signature height of the soundstage, do you feel confident that I can't find an amplifier that costs less than half of the Sinfoni and also displays the stage of the Sinfoni?

this is more the issue, if you have a coloration that you like, can it be found in a lower cost item, much the same as you find Behringer producing products that look a lot, and perform a lot, like noted brands?

if there was a compendium of these colored amplifiers, be they highest end pieces or just stuff like RF's weird pre-amp FR curves, it could answer the thread title question definitively, people could qualify their higher end product purchases as being a choice of coloration they prefer, now wouldn't that be better than what we have now?


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> Oh, Backforce, I know you don't understand but your lack of understanding seems to give you the right to be a dick! Speakers are like springs. We push them and they pull themselves (spring) back. An amp uses electricity to push with a motor (the coil/magnet structure in the driver). When the speaker springs backwards that movement is generating electricity instead of using it because a motor and a generator are the same device used in opposite applications. Speakers are and electrical piston type motor instead of a standard rotary motor that we are far more familiar with . As I said Itech uses that which is normally dissipated electricity as feed power to the amp according to Crown. Of course that is the over simplified explanation and all us users really need to understand is that it ****ING does what it says it ****ING well does! Of course you would like to claim that everyone but you is either lying or a total blooming ****ing idiot.


Rob - I simply pointed a out a mistake in your original post and was trying to correct it. I didn't question whether you knew what back force was, just thought you made a typo.

You originally wrote "*Amplifiers* expert a back force on *speakers* when in motion. It has to do with inertia."

I think you meant to write that "*Speakers* exert a back force on *amplifiers* when in motion." aka Back EMF. Yes?

Why are you getting all bent out of shape? I will stop the clowning around if you will carry on a civil discussion without all the expletives and stay on-topic. 

Can you understand when you drop into a car audio forum and start bragging about how you and your buddies stand around and 'laugh at the car audio guys' that you might put some of us on the defensive?


----------



## RobERacer

captainobvious said:


> Have you ever tried doing spacial averages with RTA for your listening position in a vehicle using pink noise and then EQing the system to as flat as possible? What did you notice about the sound? Because in every system I've done that with, I'm left with an anemic lower frequency spectrum, thin lower midrange and overly bright mid-high frequencies. This is consistent across MANY vehicles I have worked on and tuned. Measured flat response in a vehicle does not sound like the reference source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but in a mobile environment the vehicle is not designed to suit the sound system being installed; the sound system is bound by the constraints of the available physical locations for drivers and the surfaces that affect the natural response of said drivers. We're not dealing with large flat surfaces and consistent angles and materials. We're dealing with compound shapes and curved surfaces, materials of different thicknesses and densities- let alone the parameters that change- Altitudes, temperatures, windows up/down, rear-view mirror position, sun visors, the person listening to the system, their physical dimensions, where their head/ears are at at a given time, etc. the list goes on. I would say this makes it (if not impossible) unlikely to calculate with any certainty.
> 
> That point aside, I agree that there are probably things that-with an understanding of the vehicle interior, you can form some general guidelines on depending on what your goal is with a system.
> 
> There are some different schools of thought in how to approach the design of systems in cars. An example of this would be crossovers and passbands with relation to directivity control. Some people will say that it is more important to have more even power response, utilizing crossovers below the beaming point of speakers to allow direct sound and reflected sound to be more similar. This option forces drivers to play a narrower passband and can introduce crossover issues in the critical vocal range.
> Others may state that it's more important to avoid crossovers in the vocal range and to run speakers with a much larger passband, despite the inconsistency in power response and the differences caused in direct vs reflected sound.
> 
> There are merits to both. In the first case, it might be argued that more drivers covering more of the vocal range-especially when separated any significant distance, may create more issues in the crossover region.
> 
> In the second case, you have reflected sound with a different frequency response than the direct sound and moreso as frequency rises. As we know, you can't EQ reflected sound separate of direct sound so this also poses a problem. What happens if the listener moves their head a little this way or that way, adjusts their seat a tad or if a different listener of a smaller or larger size gets in? By using large passbands, drivers are playing into their beaming range and then will need to be aimed more and more on axis, requiring more physical and visual real estate in the cabin- often problematic for drivers located in the pillar and dash regions.
> 
> 
> My point being that there are many reasons to mount/aim drivers in unusual locations in vehicles that may not be readily apparent when pointing and laughing with the buddies.


Firstly, you should know that when I approached this originally I was very respectful and open minded with these guys. They immediately came at me all pious and rude so they earned all the attitude they get from me and then some all on their own. The problem I keep coming to is that there seem to be this notion that we actually hear differently in a car than we do anywhere else. That is evidenced by the fact that you guys say that standard RTA measurement procedures can’t be followed. If that were true our voices would reflect that difference just sitting in the car talking. They are definitely colored by the environment but not nearly in the way you describe. When I sit and talk to people in cars our voices don't sound thin and airy l in fact if anything on mass the opposite is typically more true. With what you are saying this should be the case. I have found in most cars voices take on the lower resonant tones found within that space. No shock there. That is what we would expect to see. Color preference? That is on the outside a 10 db thing and usually a db if we choose the right one is lots if not too much so doesn't explain it. This same set of findings should be in play in my own cars as we speak yet it is not. To add to that speaker manufacturers would have to design passive speakers with their crossovers adjusted in the same way as you speak. This is not the case either although what spurred the discussion was the fact that speakers seem to come with a 3db attenuation switch commonly which all things being equal should be pointless. Altogether this would indicate that there is something else at work. We need to use a different set of parameters to utilize an RTA in a car than in any other environment known to man? The environment changes not our hearing. Honestly, I am not sure what you guys are doing? If you're using a 15db/octave slope from 20hz to 20Khz with pink noise and a properly calibrated mic and that sounds even close to right to you I am baffled because it would not, no could not work anywhere else and somehow I have the only two cars on the planet that seem to follow what we know as the laws of physics.

Now the multiple driver firing in on each other thing would create phase cancellations that would need compensation but the mic should be hearing that as well. Something is definitely amiss.


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> Rob - I simply pointed a out a mistake in your original post and was trying to correct it. I didn't question whether you knew what back force was, just thought you made a typo.
> 
> You originally wrote "*Amplifiers* expert a back force on *speakers* when in motion. It has to do with inertia."
> 
> I think you meant to write that "*Speakers* exert a back force on *amplifiers* when in motion." aka Back EMF. Yes?
> 
> Why are you getting all bent out of shape? I will stop the clowning around if you will carry on a civil discussion without all the expletives and stay on-topic.
> 
> Can you understand when you drop into a car audio forum and start bragging about how you and your buddies stand around and 'laugh at the car audio guys' that you might put some of us on the defensive?


Sure, can't you understand that if I come on a forum and ask a few simple questions and you guys start piously making rude know it all and often ******** statements like "all gear sounds the same or no amp is going to sound better than the next" that is going to cause folks like me to get their backs up?

You can actually have an opinion on something and disagree without having to be rude about it too. 

EMF: yes they do. Amps to speakers too no? Actually, isn't that how they work? Amp supplies a positive voltage speaker moves out, amp supplies a negative voltage speaker moves back. Speaker tries to keep moving although amp has stopped voltage? The amp just lets it go entirely? Isn't this where we see damping factor in play? Without the amp doing any part the driver is free to do whatever no?


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> Now the multiple driver firing in on each other thing would create phase cancellations that would need compensation but the mic should be hearing that as well. Something is definitely amiss.


Rob - This is a great question. It is similar to the discussion of "house curves" in pro audio. Tuning to "target curves" is debated as much here in the car audio world as it is in the pro audio world. I'm not even sure I have a firm personal stance on 'target' versus 'flat', I just know that my personal preference after tuning my system is a curve that has some bass emphasis and downward tilt in the high-end, much like (but not exactly like) the various targets discussed elsewhere.

The quickest way to read various viewpoints on this subject is to look through this discussion:

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/technical-advanced-car-audio-discussion/131029-target-curve-comparison.html#post1648112

I'm not saying anything posted there ^^^ is right or wrong, just that it is a good discussion.


----------



## Orion525iT

Niebur3 said:


> I was running them very easy, at 4ohm and about 90dB. The Sinfoni stood out, in a good way. Tonally, it was better, deal was better *and the biggest difference was the soundstage. The stage was about 1-2 feet higher and much larger.*


How does an amp effect stage height? I have never heard anybody make that claim. So, those people who have issues with stage height in their installs should switch to a Sinfoni amp? 

I feel like something else must be going on here. Did you do RTA and polars of each amp playing?


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> EMF: yes they do. Amps to speakers too no? Actually, isn't that how they work? Amp supplies a positive voltage speaker moves out, amp supplies a negative voltage speaker moves back. Speaker tries to keep moving although amp has stopped voltage? The amp just lets it go entirely? Isn't this where we see damping factor in play? Without the amp doing any part the driver is free to do whatever no?


Sorry, yes, I generally agree with your explanation here, I was just pointing out what I saw as a grammatical error in your sentence, I wasn't saying you were wrong and I won't say your explanation above is wrong. I have a tendency to be pedantic - many years in technical careers have made me this way. I pick at language and wording that isn't "precise". This is *my* flaw, not yours. I "split hairs" It is who I am.

In general, from my personal experience, when the term "back force" or "back EMF" is used, we are only talking about energy generated by the speaker's motion that is imposed back into the amplifier's output. That said, yes - you are correct, of course the amplifier output also imposes force on the speaker.

My original point was never to question your understanding of damping factor. I was expressing a technical opinion that it isn't much of an issue in today's solid state push-pull amplifier topologies (especially those that use negative feedback in the output stage). And in addition, when speaker cable impedance is taken into account, there is a point of diminishing return where higher DF just doesn't matter as the total system DF is not affected. This was the point of the Butler article I linked. Again, not to prove anyone wrong, just to express my opinion and spark some technical discussion. I am sorry if that post came off as 'pious' or as some sort of an attack. It was not intended to be.


----------



## captainobvious

RobERacer said:


> We didn't measure them. The propeller heads already did that. We just plugged them in and listened. The reason we decided to bother with them because they should have been better according to the blah blah. If anything we expected them just to be more of the same. They weren't. By the way at one point I was a "a good amp is a good amp is a good amp" guy. This stuff changed my mind. I'm all about the fairy dust **** now. All in perspective of course. If it is your money you can have whatever you deem good enough. If it's mine I hate buying **** that I don't like. I have seen the light.



Which brings me back to my point about nearly every response in this thread about hearing differences- Unless you use proper controls/blind evaluation methods, the results are insignificant and meaningless on the basis of an accurate comparison.


----------



## captainobvious

cajunner said:


> to me, TRU and Arc SE, is still pretty high up in the middle tier, I'd consider them to be high end.
> 
> Considering how you came to recognize the difference, (sighted test, bias, whatever) and using the height of the soundstage as your tell, do you believe you could pick out the TRU or the Arc, in comparison to say, a SoundStream Reference?
> 
> my question relates to significance, do you believe there is no amp that will display the Sinfoni's soundstage height bar, such that you can pick it out in blind comparisons?
> 
> we may be on to something here.
> 
> whatever artifact or synergy is created by a specific amp/speaker combination, such that it produces a signature that is identifiable, against a slew of good, competitors...
> 
> should mean the Sinfoni has a tell, and you're paying for the tell.
> 
> 
> You're paying for the coloration, vs. the competition's standardized performance envelope.
> 
> 
> So, if you've identified the tell, and in a battery of 15 amplifiers, you look for that signature height of the soundstage, do you feel confident that I can't find an amplifier that costs less than half of the Sinfoni and also displays the stage of the Sinfoni?
> 
> this is more the issue, if you have a coloration that you like, can it be found in a lower cost item, much the same as you find Behringer producing products that look a lot, and perform a lot, like noted brands?
> 
> if there was a compendium of these colored amplifiers, be they highest end pieces or just stuff like RF's weird pre-amp FR curves, it could answer the thread title question definitively, people could qualify their higher end product purchases as being a choice of coloration they prefer, now wouldn't that be better than what we have now?



I'd argue that these questions don't even matter, unless the groundwork has been properly laid. Which in the case of nearly every supporter here in this thread- has not. This is like trying to troubleshoot a problem from the middle of the chain instead of at the start. Unless comparisons are based off of properly controlled blind evaluations (AX/ABX), then they're already starting off with invalid information.


----------



## Orion525iT

captainobvious said:


> Which brings me back to my point about nearly every response in this thread about hearing differences- Unless you use proper controls/blind evaluation methods, the results are insignificant and meaningless on the basis of an accurate comparison.


Yep. As I have stated a million times over, I am not on any side of this debate. The only "side" I am on is the side of science; evidence, data, and statistical analysis. 

But, repeatedly people keep popping up with "I heard this with this amp". There are a million different ways to show how flawed that approach is and how it adds nothing but chaff and fluff to the discussion.

Again, this is not a personal attack. I understand that in daily life people are not accustom to thinking like this, and this gets people upset. But it is the way this must be pursued and without it, the discussion goes nowhere: 100+ pages of discussion prove this point.


----------



## Jepalan

cubdenno said:


> Powersoft has a good write up regarding damping factor and their amplifiers.


Thanks for the link! Definitely one of the best articles on DF I have read. Covers the subject well.


----------



## captainobvious

Orion525iT said:


> Yep. As I have stated a million times over, I am not on any side of this debate. The only "side" I am on is the side of science; evidence, data, and statistical analysis.
> 
> But, repeatedly people keep popping up with "I heard this with this amp". There are a million different ways to show how flawed that approach is and how it adds nothing but chaff and fluff to the discussion.
> 
> Again, this is not a personal attack. I understand that in daily life people are not accustom to thinking like this, and this gets people upset. But it is the way this must be pursued and without it, the discussion goes nowhere: 100+ pages of discussion prove this point.



I couldn't agree more. I don't understand why noone else is addressing this. The supporters for "hearing differences" always pass right by that point of the discussion as if having a proper evaluation method is unnecessary for them to arrive to an accurate conclusion. It boggles my mind. 

How did you arrive at your conclusion? Because the conclusion is only as concrete as the foundation it was built upon.




Hence why I posted these 2 posts which seem to have been overlooked by those who have been the loudest supporters of this argument in the thread. (You know who you are).




captainobvious said:


> Thanks for sharing.
> 
> Here's part of the problem -and don't take this as a knock on you specifically, as many of the people in this thread claiming to hear differences have had, I'm sure, very similar experiences whether in an audio shop, a demo room, someones car, their OWN car...etc. - myself included !
> 
> These demo's that people base their opinion on this topic about, are NOT properly controlled blind tests that eliminate outside variables and isolate only the amplifiers to be the sole differential. Therein is where the largest disparity arises.
> 
> 
> 
> Have all amplifiers been _*properly *_level matched?
> Are all amplifiers being fed the exact same source output?
> Are all amplifiers using the exact same source cables and length?
> Are all amplifiers using the exact same speaker wire size and length?
> Are all amplifiers playing through the exact same speakers?
> Are switches between amplifier A and amplifier X being conducted immediately- no waiting period?
> 
> These are just a few of the questions that need to be answered with a YES for you to gain any significant or valid information from the demoing process. Controls _*must *_be in place, or you're not comparing apples to apples.
> 
> In your demo room example there are several things I'm going to point out that made this a poor evaluation to draw meaningful conclusions from. And again, please don't take this as any slight on you, I'm pointing these out for people to understand WHY this isn't a good way to evaluate amplifiers on merits of "sound". We've all been there, and it's fun to do demo's. But there's a difference between enjoying the experience and what you heard, versus drawing *accurate *information from the session to base decisions off of.
> 
> 
> 1. There was no way for you to know that all of the amps were properly level matched. If any of those amps had more output than another, the louder amplifier will almost always sound "better" to the listener. Particularly in audio shops, it is a common practice to raise the output slightly on an amplifier they may want to move on the sales floor.
> 
> 2. There was no way to verify that the cables- both signal and speaker- were the same length, size and construction and provided a consistent resistance/impedance.
> 
> 3. Adjusting the volume- You need to set the volume of the source at a fixed point and then keep it there for the duration of the evaluations. Here's the reason why- Different amplifiers will produce more, or less power based on the input voltage supplied. Meaning if I have 4 amplifiers I'm demoing, they will have different power outputs and efficiencies. The difference could be slight or it could be vast. This is why we level match the output, because with 1 volt of input signal voltage, some amps will produce quite a bit more output than others. If you go back then and adjust the volume from the source at some point during the evaluations, then you've skewed the relative output between each of the 4 amplifiers.
> 
> 4. Not blind- Seeing and knowing which amp is playing affects your perception of what you think you hear. Psychoacoustics must be taken into consideration to remove that variable to make any of these tests legitimate and to make the information you take away from them accurate and meaningful.
> 
> These are just a few, but you can hopefully see what I'm trying to point out.
> 
> Like you, I had shared that same belief that these amplifiers do sound different. It was an eye (or rather ear) opening experience when I did the proper blind testing and learned for myself.





captainobvious said:


> When you don't have proper controls in place for doing critical evaluations like these, how can you expect your information to be accurate? Let me provide an example...
> 
> Let's assume your a soda drinker.
> _
> You're asked to do a taste test at a local market. You sit at a table and have a can of Pepsi in front of you and a can of Coke. You see the cans, the colorful labels.
> 
> You know you usually prefer the sweeter, less carbonated taste of Pepsi, but you assure yourself you'll be unbiased.
> 
> Thoughts of those silly superbowl ads pass through your mind.
> 
> The Pepsi can was in the fridge and is chilled. They ran out of Coke in the fridge so they grabbed one off of the shelf so it is room temperature. When the cans get poured for you to sample, half of the Pepsi can is poured into a clean, clear glass. The full can of Coke is poured into a 16oz red Solo cup.
> 
> Suddenly you're reminded of your college days and the late nights of beer pong in the dorm. Those were fun nights.
> 
> You hear the pop and crackle of those carbonated beverages as the bubbles rise to the surface.
> 
> "Hmm, I haven't had Rice Crispies in a while" you think to yourself. "Better pick up some milk while I'm here before I leave."
> 
> As you're instructed to start the tasting, you bring the first drink up to your mouth. The smell of vanilla and maple is sweet and the nice cold soda soothes your throat a bit as it's quite hot and dry in this market.
> 
> "I wonder how high they have the heat turned up in here"
> 
> You record your results of the first soda.
> 
> You pick up the second drink. The Solo cup flexes in your hand a bit under the weight of the full 12 ounces. As you take a whiff you get some hints of vanilla which are soon trampled by the pungent smell of cheese penetrating the air as the Deli clerk slices into a half spent brick of Roquefort for a waiting customer.
> 
> "Man that stuff smells. Who would actually eat that?"
> 
> The soda has some bite and good sweetness. You record your remarks on the sheet.
> 
> You pick up your things and finish your business at the market and then leave.
> _
> 
> 
> Look at the plethora of outside influences and variables that were not controlled. This makes the data that you've supplied meaningless, outside of a little entertainment.
> 
> 
> 
> When you try to critically evaluate the sound of amplifiers without putting proper controls in place, you introduce variables that produce too many inaccuracies and inconsistencies to make the data that you collect meaningful.


----------



## rton20s




----------



## captainobvious

rton20s said:


>




The Dude is a step in the right direction over the infinity faceplam. I'll take it. :laugh:


----------



## rton20s

captainobvious said:


> The Dude is a step in the right direction over the infinity faceplam. I'll take it. :laugh:


----------



## Jepalan

Orion525iT said:


> How does an amp effect stage height?


Interesting question actually. Any hypotheses? 
I think a better question is "What might have caused the change in sound stage (height & width) *relative to the other two amps in the specific test Niebur3 described*?" 

I would assume the listening point was centered between speakers, so maybe (just maybe) there was some subtle change in L-R phase (or delay) relationship that affected the stage? Farfetched, maybe, but we're hypothesizing against assumptions anyway. 

Of course, that doesn't mean the Sinfoni was necessarily doing something magical that could be replicated in any other setup. In fact it could be that there was something *wrong* with the feed to the other two amps instead. Regardless, I still think if the difference was pronounced and repeatable, it could have been pinpointed with the proper measurements.


----------



## cubdenno

Jepalan said:


> Interesting question actually. Any hypotheses?
> I think a better question is "What might have caused the change in sound stage (height & width) *relative to the other two amps in the specific test Niebur3 described*?"
> 
> I would assume the listening point was centered between speakers, so maybe (just maybe) there was some subtle change in L-R phase (or delay) relationship that affected the stage? Farfetched, maybe, but we're hypothesizing against assumptions anyway.
> 
> Of course, that doesn't mean the Sinfoni was necessarily doing something magical that could be replicated in any other setup. In fact it could be that there was something *wrong* with the feed to the other two amps instead. Regardless, I still think if the difference was pronounced and repeatable, it could have been pinpointed with the proper measurements.


On the amps not Sinfoni, one speaker could have been out of phase. That is usually something that gets checked first. When I find a change has caused a drastic degradation in sound.

Who here has never oopsied a speaker wire termination?!


----------



## cajunner

but I am addressing the issue, albeit in a more polite way, sensitive to Niebur3's personal motives and willingness to share.


the fact that Niebur3 has developed a sighted bias for Sinfoni's apparent height of soundstage, means that he should then be able to defend the claim.

this is tantamount to introducing science to his theorizing.

if Sinfoni cannot be "figured out" by any scientific means other than apparent height of soundstage, if science is lacking and Niebur3 has hit the comparison sweepstakes jackpot because he can find Waldo in a pack of contemporaries, then let's pursue it as if it were blind truth.

let's let that metric divide the competition that formerly were specified by noise, gain, distortion curve, and FR specifications, and let's do a real test where height of stage is the only determinant of an amp's worth, as it extends to value or merit.


then we can legitimize the soundstage height category as not being a coloration, or not being anomalous to the Sinfoni but in fact, is a shared distinguishing characteristic among a slew of heretofore, unremarked specimens in the marketplace.

now, are we ready to introduce pseudo-scientific methodologies, to the realm of audio?


I think we can, if we try...


----------



## Jepalan

cajunner said:


> <snipped the good stuff> now, are we ready to introduce pseudo-scientific methodologies, to the realm of audio?


cajunner - I always love reading your creative prose, but I'm afraid your point is lost on me (my fault, not the author's) 

Why would ABX comparison of subjective criteria (stage height/width) across a statistically significant population be "pseudo-scientific"?


----------



## schmiddr2




----------



## Victor_inox

schmiddr2 said:


>


:mean:I`m about to pull that trigger.


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> Sorry, yes, I generally agree with your explanation here, I was just pointing out what I saw as a grammatical error in your sentence, I wasn't saying you were wrong and I won't say your explanation above is wrong. I have a tendency to be pedantic - many years in technical careers have made me this way. I pick at language and wording that isn't "precise". This is *my* flaw, not yours. I "split hairs" It is who I am.
> 
> In general, from my personal experience, when the term "back force" or "back EMF" is used, we are only talking about energy generated by the speaker's motion that is imposed back into the amplifier's output. That said, yes - you are correct, of course the amplifier output also imposes force on the speaker.
> 
> My original point was never to question your understanding of damping factor. I was expressing a technical opinion that it isn't much of an issue in today's solid state push-pull amplifier topologies (especially those that use negative feedback in the output stage). And in addition, when speaker cable impedance is taken into account, there is a point of diminishing return where higher DF just doesn't matter as the total system DF is not affected. This was the point of the Butler article I linked. Again, not to prove anyone wrong, just to express my opinion and spark some technical discussion. I am sorry if that post came off as 'pious' or as some sort of an attack. It was not intended to be.


The amp doesn't make power against the speaker it just stops. The speaker tries to pull the amp and either the weak amp let's it or the strong amp stops it. That was all I was getting at there. Most of us use well oversized cable so so as to not limit performance by something so cheap and trivial. This in a car especially when we are talking distances of 5 or 10 feet. Our findings in the field were more readily explained away by this. Apparently it doesn't count. Hmm. What did then do you suppose. Our great friend powersoft fell down on almost every count. If anything were a marketing ploy them using the df explanation to discount Crowns statements sure doesn't look in there favor now does it? All math asside it happened and continues to today? I will have a couple of racks of Itechs tomorrow. They are better amps than most In the field.


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> why does it always have to be the "piece of ****" amp, vs. the higher end?
> 
> or "flea market quality" vs. Sinfoni, to make the contest valid, why is it that nobody from the golden ear side is ready to give their daddy warbucks a go, against the middle tier?


I am currently running a rebadged Sound stream Picasso Nano. I got it because I was unsure what to buy and I got it cheap. Once again all amps say the same specs 20-20k, under .01% THD. And rated power. How do you know without listening? It is ok. With dense program I hear a few strange artifacts and it is a little sterile but it is all there. I wouldn't even look at anything with lesser as I personnally would prefer better thaN that. Hence I am here. Again for a lower cost unit it is ok and the word is that it still should outperform anything in it's class.


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> The amp doesn't make power against the speaker it just stops.


Rob, I'm a circuit designer - been doing it for 20+ yrs. I don't really need a laymen's lesson in how amps do or do not drive speakers. The statement above is just plain wrong. In many modern topologies the amp can *actively* sink the current generated by the speaker's back-EMF to hold the output voltage against the speaker-generated energy. This is how push-pull topologies with active feedback in the output stage can claim "infinite" DF. In these cases, the amp *most certainly generates power against the speaker*. We aren't talking about single-ended triode outputs here.


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> I am currently running a rebadged Sound stream Picasso Nano. I got it because I was unsure what to buy and I got it cheap. Once again all amps say the same specs 20-20k, under .01% THD. And rated power. How do you know without *MEASURING*?


Fixored ^^^


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> :mean:I`m about to pull that trigger.


How is the Brax Matrix X4? I saw on another thread you bought one..


----------



## cajunner

Jepalan said:


> cajunner - I always love reading your creative prose, but I'm afraid your point is lost on me (my fault, not the author's)
> 
> Why would ABX comparison of subjective criteria (stage height/width) across a statistically significant population be "pseudo-scientific"?


I posit that soundstage height is relatively benign as a metric, it is identifiable and it is being used by Jerry as a defining attribute of a supposedly superior amplifier.

And it is not so subjective as most people who listen actively can identify the height of a soundstage within a couple of inches, so that makes it statistically viable.

ABX comparison of soundstage height, moves past the pale of soundstage "clarity" or "size of instrumentation" or width, even depth is more or less subjective but height is clearer, more clean...


as to whether it's pseudo-scientific, I'd suggest that we cannot truly isolate the height variable among population, since we have various oddness in our ear pinna (pinnae?) design by our maker, and it introduces a degree of fuzziness, but perhaps much less than "resolving detail" or "blackness of background" that we tend towards in describing characteristic differences of amplifiers.


----------



## Elektra

cajunner said:


> why does it always have to be the "piece of ****" amp, vs. the higher end?
> 
> or "flea market quality" vs. Sinfoni, to make the contest valid, why is it that nobody from the golden ear side is ready to give their daddy warbucks a go, against the middle tier?


Because all amps sound the same ... So it makes no difference what you use $100 - $15000....

Have you not been following the thread? Lol..


----------



## miniSQ

Elektra said:


> Because all amps sound the same ... So it makes no difference what you use $100 - $15000....
> 
> Have you not been following the thread? Lol..


actually the original post (2 and a half years ago) asked if there was really a big difference between a really nice high powered amp and the much more expensive boutique amps.


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> How is the Brax Matrix X4? I saw on another thread you bought one..


 I love square Braxs


----------



## cajunner

RobERacer said:


> I am currently running a rebadged Sound stream Picasso Nano. I got it because I was unsure what to buy and I got it cheap. Once again all amps say the same specs 20-20k, under .01% THD. And rated power. How do you know without listening? It is ok. With dense program I hear a few strange artifacts and it is a little sterile but it is all there. I wouldn't even look at anything with lesser as I personnally would prefer better thaN that. Hence I am here. Again for a lower cost unit it is ok and the word is that it still should outperform anything in it's class.



according to Ryan at SoundStream, the Tarantula Nano is the superior line, I would highly suggest a comparison between the amp you now own with the corresponding amp from that line, then form an opinion about the size/power package being offered by the Power Acoustik team of engineers...


wait, that's a bit harsh.

I feel like if the manufacturer rep says Tarantula Nano is the flagship, then that's where I want to be.

I don't see enough of a money swap to make Picasso Nano a choice, since it looks like on secondary markets the range is under 30% difference for a stated, superior product.

Give the Tarantula Nano it's day in court, and I'll entertain the possibility that a low cost option to the JL XD/HD line, and the Alpine PDX, exists.

That's where we should be by now, identifying the point at which most of us can or can't in the fiscal sensitivity, I certainly can push 200 bucks at a problem but go above 400 and I'm scratching blackboards with my nails...


----------



## cajunner

Elektra said:


> Because all amps sound the same ... So it makes no difference what you use $100 - $15000....
> 
> Have you not been following the thread? Lol..


there's this mindset of people who own the higher end, incredulous at the assertion that their bedazzler megaduckies stakehorse, is in the same stable at the end of the day as the *******.

sure, their stallion can ride three riders and pass up my donkey carrying one, but eventually the goal of getting to where you're going is reached.

the point, is that people who have dropped a **** ton of dough on the prospects of having a winner, don't want an even race or even a fair one, they want to rig it so that their horse is a winner and that's where I come in.

I'm going to dismantle the notion that in the mobile audio markets, the variation, the spectrum of good down to bad, is not a huge margin and that as long as we have good working examples of the audio, people can be happy knowing their amp is hardly distinguishable from the guys in the magazines running the uber-spec or the funny Italian flag wear, their dinky Chinese product is capable, and it's repeatable and shouldn't cause despair that they could only aspire to middle tier performance envelopes.


----------



## subwoofery

SO??? WHICH COLOR IS THAT F..CKING DRESS???!!!!! 

Kelvin


----------



## cajunner

subwoofery said:


> SO??? WHICH COLOR IS THAT F..CKING DRESS???!!!!!
> 
> Kelvin


hold it together man! You've got a signature link to defend.

by the way, all amps do not sound the same.


----------



## subwoofery

cajunner said:


> hold it together man! You've got a signature link to defend.
> 
> by the way, all amps do not sound the same.


lol 

I guess if a thread were to open about that dress, there would be @ least a 100 pages like this one 

Kelvin


----------



## Elektra

cajunner said:


> there's this mindset of people who own the higher end, incredulous at the assertion that their bedazzler megaduckies stakehorse, is in the same stable at the end of the day as the *******.
> 
> sure, their stallion can ride three riders and pass up my donkey carrying one, but eventually the goal of getting to where you're going is reached.
> 
> the point, is that people who have dropped a **** ton of dough on the prospects of having a winner, don't want an even race or even a fair one, they want to rig it so that their horse is a winner and that's where I come in.
> 
> I'm going to dismantle the notion that in the mobile audio markets, the variation, the spectrum of good down to bad, is not a huge margin and that as long as we have good working examples of the audio, people can be happy knowing their amp is hardly distinguishable from the guys in the magazines running the uber-spec or the funny Italian flag wear, their dinky Chinese product is capable, and it's repeatable and shouldn't cause despair that they could only aspire to middle tier performance envelopes.


You can't say it's not fair to compare an uber amp to a bottom feeder - as that's what audio is all about. A lot of guys here have stated if it measures the same and is clean power you won't hear the difference?

You can't have double standards.. The flea market special maybe be clean 20- 20khz why not compare them..

It's either the same or not..


----------



## Elektra

miniSQ said:


> actually the original post (2 and a half years ago) asked if there was really a big difference between a really nice high powered amp and the much more expensive boutique amps.


That's not what some have been saying here.. Sure a decent amp mid tier can sound within 90% of the most uber exotic high $$ amp.. Nobody is disputing that. 

But to get that 10% you 9 times out of 10 have to start looking at the uber high$$ amps to get it 

Just saying..


----------



## cajunner

Elektra said:


> That's not what some have been saying here.. Sure a decent amp mid tier can sound within 90% of the most uber exotic high $$ amp.. Nobody is disputing that.
> 
> But to get that 10% you 9 times out of 10 have to start looking at the uber high$$ amps to get it
> 
> Just saying..


this is math from the wild.

I'm a big user of math from the wild, but let's examine this hypothesis.

if 10% is the margin, does that then mean that 90 out of 100 amps are decent, and 10 out of 100 are *better*?

you see where I'm going with this?

my point is that we have to qualify what testing confirms, when mangling the statistics with 10% and 90% assertions.

testing confirms that most people will have trouble identifying that 10% of amps, 99.97% of the time.

if we consider use of the amps in their linear operating regions.


now I have been told that my point of amps creating their "signature" at clipping, is a bad metric since we're not supposed to drive our amps hard to make that consideration of blind tests.

but isn't that precisely what we're doing, isn't that always where one amp can be demonstrably different from another?

and isn't that what we base our buying decisions on, what that amp sounds like when twisting the knob and hearing it scream?

I think once we step outside of the linear, we can truly appreciate good "genetics" and execution/quality of components/materials.


----------



## Souldrop

Is this applicable in the HT world as well?


----------



## Victor_inox

Souldrop said:


> Is this applicable in the HT world as well?


what do you think?


----------



## Souldrop

Was a sorry attempt at trolling, but to be honest I'm surprised this thread has reached 110 pages. HT aspect should be the end all be all to this argument as they have a less dynamic environment to make comparisons. I wouldn't be surprised if it's been brought up, but don't have the time investment to read the entire thread as I'm currently procrastinating...


----------



## captainobvious

Souldrop said:


> Was a sorry attempt at trolling, but to be honest I'm surprised this thread has reached 110 pages. HT aspect should be the end all be all to this argument as they have a less dynamic environment to make comparisons. I wouldn't be surprised if it's been brought up, but don't have the time investment to read the entire thread as I'm currently procrastinating...


It shouldn't matter if you're testing the amps in your car, in your home or in an anechoic chamber- provided the testing is done properly.

Again, I must simply assume that those vehement supporters in this thread simply have not done the properly controlled blind evaluations as- since this has been brought up multiple times, they have not yet confirmed as such. My point- the argument made is moot since those individuals have failed to eliminate the variables and rely simply on their ears- which I thought was the same argument they were making.

 




:surprised:


----------



## Victor_inox

What conclusions we reached so far?
1.$100 insigna receiver sound just the same as $4000 Denon unit. 
2. every person hearing is exactly the same.
3.better engineering is a marketing gimmick to part you with your money.
15W chip amp sounds the same as first 15W of any amplifier. 
4. never argue with idiots, they drag you to their level and beat with experience.


----------



## Souldrop

Thanks for the summary. 

Personally I would rather fork over a bit more money and get a quality product whether or not it's psychoacoustics at play in perceived sound. Knowing the build quality is better makes it worth the premium to me.


----------



## Victor_inox

Souldrop said:


> Thanks for the summary.
> 
> Personally I would rather fork over a bit more money and get a quality product whether or not it's psychoacoustics at play in perceived sound. Knowing the build quality is better makes it worth the premium to me.


5. you don`t have to justify where you spent your money to a bunch of strangers on internet forum.


----------



## Souldrop

I thought justifying yourself to a group of strangers about inconclusive topics were one of the defining tenets of the internet community at large.  

I'll try and internet more responsibly in the future.


----------



## Elektra

captainobvious said:


> It shouldn't matter if you're testing the amps in your car, in your home or in an anechoic chamber- provided the testing is done properly.
> 
> Again, I must simply assume that those vehement supporters in this thread simply have not done the properly controlled blind evaluations as- since this has been brought up multiple times, they have not yet confirmed as such. My point- the argument made is moot since those individuals have failed to eliminate the variables and rely simply on their ears- which I thought was the same argument they were making.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :surprised:


Big difference in hearing a difference and imagining a difference....

Irrespective of how the test was done...


----------



## Victor_inox

Souldrop said:


> I thought justifying yourself to a group of strangers about inconclusive topics were one of the defining tenets of the internet community at large.


good one!


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> What conclusions we reached so far?
> 15W chip amp sounds the same as first 15W of any amplifier.



see, when a guy gets in his pirogue and pushes off from the bank, he don't want ah see a 6 foot pushpole dere, by his feet. He like a 10 foot or better, cuzz getting from dat launch to dem duck pond, dere's a coulee or two to get by...

dem ponds are usually 1 foot deep or less, so no problem but what you gonna do with a 6 foot pushpole, standing in yo' pirogue, and dat trenasse is 5 foot? And dat bottom is boo-pourdee, you gone take a swim, dat's what you gone do...


huh?

a 10 foot push pole, now that works.


you don't always need 10 feet but...


----------



## Souldrop

a tube amplifier, now that works.

I don't always salivate over an inanimate object, but when I do it's over tube amplifiers.


----------



## sbeezy

I was watching an episode of how its made and they built tubes.... Very interesting. I still like transistor amps though.


----------



## Victor_inox

Souldrop said:


> a tube amplifier, now that works.
> 
> I don't always salivate over an inanimate object, but when I do it's over tube amplifiers.


It`s like starring on fire isn`t it. I can do that for hours.


----------



## Souldrop

Victor_inox said:


> It`s like starring on fire isn`t it. I can do that for hours.


There is something timeless and entrancing about them. Wish I had one to gaze at now.


----------



## Victor_inox

Souldrop said:


> There is something timeless and entrancing about them. Wish I had one to gaze at now.


Ask and you shall receive. http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/car-audio-classifieds/173646-victory-sonics-tube-amplifiers.html#post2247929


----------



## Souldrop

I saw those. I'm seriously debating selling some of my old school amps and trying to pony up for one. Not looking for an intern/assistant for the summer are ya?  you can pay me in amps.


----------



## Victor_inox

Souldrop said:


> I saw those. I'm seriously debating some of my old school amps and trying to pony up for one. Not looking for an intern/assistant for the summer are ya?  you can pay me in amps.


I`m one man show and prefer to keep it that way for time being. THanks for the offer though.


----------



## soleh

cleansoundz said:


> I have used several amps over the past 6 years ranging from RF, LP, McIntosh, MTX, PPI, ARC AUDIO, POLK AUDIO, JBL, ZED, LANZAR OPTI, JL AUDIO, KICKER, ECLIPSE, Etc, Etc. While some amps did have a sound that was pleasing to the ear, I noticed that amps with higher power ratings set to a decent pair of speakers whether they were separates or coaxials sounded just as good as the so called higher end amps. My point is an 100 watt x 4 channel of a good brand sounded just as clean, crisp and clear as the so called higher end brands such as Brax, McIntosh, etc. The same applied to bass as well. I swapped out several good brand of amps with higher end amps to notice very little difference in sound quality using a sealed enclosure. If this is the case, why spend so much money on the so-called higher end brands?


I mean, who makes juicier looking gear than the sour krauts.







:laugh:


----------



## captainobvious

Elektra said:


> Big difference in hearing a difference and imagining a difference....
> 
> Irrespective of how the test was done...



Precisely my point. 

There is a very big difference in _thinking _you hear something vs _confirming _it and _knowing_. Hence the reason why I've stated multiple times that demoing amplifiers will-nilly and thinking that you're getting anything meaningful out of it is nonsensical. 

The way you compare them is absolutely important.

This point is either glazed over or intentionally ignored by many here- possibly because there is no solid argument yet made against it.


----------



## Elektra

captainobvious said:


> Precisely my point.
> 
> There is a very big difference in _thinking _you hear something vs _confirming _it and _knowing_. Hence the reason why I've stated multiple times that demoing amplifiers will-nilly and thinking that you're getting anything meaningful out of it is nonsensical.
> 
> The way you compare them is absolutely important.
> 
> This point is either glazed over or intentionally ignored by many here- possibly because there is no solid argument yet made against it.


Don't think anyone ignored it ... So much as people disagree with the findings

Albeit a personal experience which may be seen as subjective.. 

The simple concept of belief is being disregarded here.. If you say I think there is a difference as apposed to wow .. This is the problem here..

Comparing products blind folded IMHO is not telling you the whole story. We all have our reasons and theories etc.. Which have discussed already 

It would be great to get insight on this topic from the designers themselves... But I feel it would just end up in another 100 page debate that goes nowhere..

The question I have to ask you is that have you ever heard a difference in an amp blind or not?

If you did and it was a sighted test was the difference a perception or could you write down notes on the differences that are not based on feelings or thoughts but hard cold facts? 

How did this change being blind folded?


----------



## JVD240

Elektra said:


> Comparing products blind folded IMHO is not telling you the whole story. We all have our reasons and theories etc.. Which have discussed already


Do you see sound?

Sniff it?

Touch it?

Maybe you're confusing a blindfold with earplugs?


----------



## rton20s

JVD240 said:


> Do you see sound?
> 
> Sniff it?
> 
> Touch it?
> 
> Maybe you're confusing a blindfold with earplugs?


When is the next ABX comparison? I am ready!


----------



## cajunner

Elektra said:


> Comparing products blind folded IMHO is not telling you the whole story. We all have our reasons and theories etc..
> 
> How did this change being blind folded?


an amplifier doesn't do anything for your eyes when it's tucked away in the trunk.

so why would you insist on sighted testing?

and if you're not saying that, then what are you saying?


It IS the whole story. ABX testing is where the proverbial rubber meets the road.

IF the significance of that eludes you, just understand this:

If you can't escape 50% in test after test, and if your hearing shows the difference between a 100 dollar amp and a 5000 dollar amp as exactly the same as a flip of a coin, then there's no upside for you to take the test.

this is the reason most audiophiles won't engage.


----------



## hot9dog

Ive really enjoyed this post, its been a good read..... im going to put my drink down now-

The subjective views of a variable, degradable tool such as our own ears should not be the holy grail to persuade the hearts and/or the pocketbooks of the flock.
Electro-mechanical testing can have its own biased results also.. (calibration of equipment, environmental differences, marketing goals, etc...)
There is no sure fire way to validate an amps superiority over an other one in theory and in practice. 
The quality of components used in assembly, assembly techniques, and solid engineering of design, should be our only guidepost our choosing of amplifiers. 
Just my opinion. ...
Can i have another margarita over here please???? 
Lol


----------



## JVD240

Hanatsu stated earlier that he took part in blind testing and did much worse than expected. He learned from that and focused on the things he could change.

Elektra stated earlier that he took part in blind testing and did much worse than expected. He automatically attributed that to flawed(unfair) testing procedures.


----------



## 1996blackmax

hot9dog said:


> Ive really enjoyed this post, its been a good read..... im going to put my drink down now-
> 
> The subjective views of a variable, degradable tool such as our own ears should not be the holy grail to persuade the hearts and/or the pocketbooks of the flock.
> The quality of components used in assembly, assembly techniques, and solid engineering of design, should be our only guidepost our choosing of amplifiers.
> Just my opinion. ...
> Can i have another margarita over here please????
> Lol


I'll take one as well! 

Well said....I've certainly changed my point of view over the years. Reason I am using what I have now.


----------



## Elektra

JVD240 said:


> Hanatsu stated earlier that he took part in blind testing and did much worse than expected. He learned from that and focused on the things he could change.
> 
> Elektra stated earlier that he took part in blind testing and did much worse than expected. He automatically attributed that to flawed(unfair) testing procedures.


I was WITNESS in a blind test as my amp was being used against another - I was asked not to participate...

I was confused in the test - did not understand the procedure of the test.. So were the others.. It was flawed.


----------



## Elektra

cajunner said:


> an amplifier doesn't do anything for your eyes when it's tucked away in the trunk.
> 
> so why would you insist on sighted testing?
> 
> and if you're not saying that, then what are you saying?
> 
> 
> It IS the whole story. ABX testing is where the proverbial rubber meets the road.
> 
> IF the significance of that eludes you, just understand this:
> 
> If you can't escape 50% in test after test, and if your hearing shows the difference between a 100 dollar amp and a 5000 dollar amp as exactly the same as a flip of a coin, then there's no upside for you to take the test.
> 
> this is the reason most audiophiles won't engage.


Food for thought...

Both my 4 year old twins need glasses.. Which they getting today..

I asked the specialist about the correlation between sight and hearing - the answer was simple kids struggle to understand school work when they not able to see - EVEN though they can hear the teacher!

Make the kid see properly and school results improve! 

You cannot deny the value of being able to see what you hear... You cannot deny that your ability to focus better when you can see what your listening to - like kids reading along and listening to a story

These are elementary concepts that we have all forgotten as we take it for granted in our daily lives..

Yes we can't see what we are listening to in our boots but then we are not doing blind tests in our cars as well - are we?


----------



## cajunner

Elektra said:


> Food for thought...
> 
> Both my 4 year old twins need glasses.. Which they getting today..
> 
> I asked the specialist about the correlation between sight and hearing - the answer was simple kids struggle to understand school work when they not able to see - EVEN though they can hear the teacher!
> 
> Make the kid see properly and school results improve!
> 
> You cannot deny the value of being able to see what you hear... You cannot deny that your ability to focus better when you can see what your listening to - like kids reading along and listening to a story
> 
> These are elementary concepts that we have all forgotten as we take it for granted in our daily lives..
> 
> Yes we can't see what we are listening to in our boots but then we are not doing blind tests in our cars as well - are we?


so, using the logic capability built into our brains, does this make any sense at all to you?


by this reasoning, you:

1.) have to be in the room with your amplifier, and see it playing so you can focus.

2.) understand a blind test to be one that you can see your amplifier... or, can't listen to amplifiers in a car's trunk so the idea of blind testing is moot, or....

no, you lost me there.

If there is an audiophile perspective to what you just posted, I'm not seeing the correlation.

It just looks like an attempt to squirrel, because looking at your amplifier is not part of any listening requirement I've ever heard of, and calling it a part of listening to music is not how 99% of the car driving public does it.

but whatever. If you can't fathom how anyone can mistake a 5000 dollar amp for a 100 dollar one, perhaps it's best to stay that way, instead of learn the truth.


----------



## claydo

See what you hear....ugh...did you really just compare seeing someone speaking in front of a group....to staring at an electronic device?


----------



## Elektra

claydo said:


> See what you hear....ugh...did you really just compare seeing someone speaking in front of a group....to staring at an electronic device?
> [/QUOTE
> 
> I can't Believe you guys can't accept sight as a PART of your mechanism to hear effectively - try walk around for a day blind folded - I guarentee you a completely different story in what you picked up on your hearing..
> 
> In fact I guarentee that you will miss out on details that you were not aware of at the time..
> 
> But continue doing blind tests if that makes you happy - I prefer to see what I am doing.. You either hear it or not!
> 
> Am I fooling myself? That remains to be seen... i guess it's my $$$ isn't it?


----------



## claydo

Walking around blindfolded......yer missing my point. Of course sight is valuable reference when conducting your daily rituals.......when listening to music, it only gets in the way. The last thing you want impeding on your listening is visual cues. Why?, because visual can overcome auditory every time......we're funny like that. There are filters between the info the ears take in, and how our mind perceives it.....the sum of these two is what's known as hearing. The difference in peoples ears doesent offer near the discrepancies that our own brains do after filtering. This is why blind testing is the only way to get the true story of what we're hearing.....because it removes preconceptions of what we are gonna hear. Preconceptions influence the filter....the filter controls what you hear...period.


----------



## el_bob-o

Why is everyone completely discounting taste when it comes to picking an amplifier? Am I really the only one that licks every amplifier in the store before settling on a purchase?


----------



## Elektra

claydo said:


> Walking around blindfolded......yer missing my point. Of course sight is valuable reference when conducting your daily rituals.......when listening to music, it only gets in the way. The last thing you want impeding on your listening is visual cues. Why?, because visual can overcome auditory every time......we're funny like that. There are filters between the info the ears take in, and how our mind perceives it.....the sum of these two is what's known as hearing. The difference in peoples ears doesent offer near the discrepancies that our own brains do after filtering. This is why blind testing is the only way to get the true story of what we're hearing.....because it removes preconceptions of what we are gonna hear. Preconceptions influence the filter....the filter controls what you hear...period.


Do you think you could pick out the differences heard in a sighted test again in a blind test - knowing what you heard before? You can focus on those aspects?

Would the test be flawed? As its no longer about just listening your now confirming what you heard before? Call it a reference? 

Does that defeat the purpose of testing blind or is it confirmation that your not imagining it? 

What if you can pick out those specific differences?


----------



## claydo

If you can't pick em out blind....they don't exist. They are preconceptions. Imaginary differences created in your mind due to some sort of bias. If you hear them blind, without knowledge of what is playing, therefore eliminating any preconceived filters due to brand/cost bias, then you have shown that there is arguable evidence and can base an argument upon it.

Also, I'm not choosing a side.....simply stating one side has test after well documented test of proof....the other side has opinion.

Pick your amps....pick your listeners. Go about an honest well documented test. Get your proof........show peoples what it's all about. One thing for certain tho, to have any validity.....it must be blind, void of any and all opinion. Go in with an open mind....you've got nothing to lose, you'll either learn something, or attain your proof to back your arguement.


----------



## Elektra

claydo said:


> If you can't pick em out blind....they don't exist. They are preconceptions. Imaginary differences created in your mind due to some sort of bias. If you hear them blind, without knowledge of what is playing, therefore eliminating any preconceived filters due to brand/cost bias, then you have shown that there is arguable evidence and can base an argument upon it.
> 
> Also, I'm not choosing a side.....simply stating one side has test after well documented test of proof....the other side has opinion.


Point taken...

What blind tests don't do is eliminate all the influences that could influence the results.. Such as

1) hearing ability - has all people conducting the test done hearing tests? Do they all have the same ability in hearing? I read a test when they specifically stated all judges had hearing tests to confirm whether or not they should be judging anything

2) individual stress/mood/fatigue - is everyone the same in this respect?

3) does everyone have the ability to listen properly? 

And so on.. There are so many variables to satisfy before a test can be called scientific and legit. 

Getting a group of 10 guys at random isn't scientific at all in fact 10 people doesn't constitute anything more like 100 people makes it more believable as it rules out false negatives and positives and guessing...

What percentage is the game changer 51% or 80% results?


----------



## Elektra

claydo said:


> If you can't pick em out blind....they don't exist. They are preconceptions. Imaginary differences created in your mind due to some sort of bias. If you hear them blind, without knowledge of what is playing, therefore eliminating any preconceived filters due to brand/cost bias, then you have shown that there is arguable evidence and can base an argument upon it.
> 
> Also, I'm not choosing a side.....simply stating one side has test after well documented test of proof....the other side has opinion.


Point taken...

What blind tests don't do is eliminate all the influences that could influence the results.. Such as

1) hearing ability - has all people conducting the test done hearing tests? Do they all have the same ability in hearing? I read a test when they specifically stated all judges had hearing tests to confirm whether or not they should be judging anything

2) individual stress/mood/fatigue - is everyone the same in this respect?

3) does everyone have the ability to listen properly? 

And so on.. There are so many variables to satisfy before a test can be called scientific and legit. 

Getting a group of 10 guys at random isn't scientific at all in fact 10 people doesn't constitute anything more like 100 people makes it more believable as it rules out false negatives and positives and guessing...

What percentage is the game changer 51% or 80% results? 

Also new studies are emerging which deals with sight and hearing correlation - to be more specific - Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder have both stated they have more musical ability BECAUSE they can't see - a lot of studies suggest the usage of parts of your brain etc.. 

Ray and Stevie will be much more qualified to do a blind test (not because they can't see) but because they know how to use their brains more effectively... There is a study on this actually - it's on the net..


----------



## claydo

I'm guessing 80 percent would be a decisive victory for your side, just some proof to present would be something to take notice of. I'm thinking the number of people involved would not be as important as the number of amplifiers involved, because a higher number of amplifiers would increase the difficulty of guessing, proving validity far better than a larger group of people. As far as hearing ability, you don't need a human rta to show a reasonable difference. Like i said, pick your panel, load it up with what you consider to be top notch listeners.......just keep it honest, and I think your results may mirror the work already done on the matter.......but I could be wrong. I still feel the filters our minds apply are much more powerful than the differences in hearing ability that some claim to have. Other than obvious hearing damage........


----------



## Elektra

claydo said:


> I'm guessing 80 percent would be a decisive victory for your side. I'm thinking the number of people involved would not be as important as the number of amplifiers involved. As far as hearing ability, you don't need a human rta to show a reasonable difference. Like i said, pick your panel, load it up with what you consider to be top notch listeners.......just keep it honest, and I think your results may mirror the work already done on the matter.......but I could be wrong. I still feel the filters our minds apply are much more powerful than the differences in hearing ability that some claim to have. Other than obvious hearing damage........


Going to try this on my brother this weekend - going to swop out an amp in his car - without him knowing what I am doing (he will be in the car me in the boot) I'll swop out cabling (RCA) and see what he says...

I'll also see what he says about the amp - both the same brand and range so it will be interesting to see what he says - I know it's not scientific..


----------



## claydo

If ya want to make it a lil better.....swap amps...then cables....then amps....... then cables.......then amps......then cables....then do and don't swap a few times.....record his answers and tally the results as far as percentage he nailed exactly what you've done. Pay particular attention to his remarks when you did or didnt change things.......see if he is fooled. This will not be proof of argument by any means, being far from well documented following a written procedure, but have him perform the same for you........and see what you hear, should be fun and enlightening.


----------



## Elektra

claydo said:


> If ya want to make it a lil better.....swap amps...then cables....then amps....... then cables.......then amps......then cables....then do and don't swap a few times.....record his answers and tally the results as far as percentage he nailed exactly what you've done. Pay particular attention to his remarks when you did or didnt change things.......see if he is fooled. This will not be proof of argument by any means, being far from well documented following a written procedure, but have him perform the same for you........and see what you hear, should be fun and enlightening.


Might be hard to swop and swop etc.. But I'll see how it goes..


----------



## cajunner

read this guy's blog:

Audio Musings by Sean Olive


----------



## Hanatsu

Elektra said:


> I can't Believe you guys can't accept sight as a PART of your mechanism to hear effectively - try walk around for a day blind folded - I guarentee you a completely different story in what you picked up on your hearing..


I don't understand how sight has anything at all to with 'hearing efficiently'. If anything it would the exact opposite. If you can't see you need to focus more with the other senses you got access to. 

Sight is only a distraction. Every time I critically listen to anything I close my eyes, because it only distracts. Knowing what gear I listen to also distracts in a slightly different way. When I demo peoples audio systems I don't even want to know what they got until after I've listened to it. Of course, this isn't always possible unfortunately. 

If you wanna swap amps and make someone else evaluate it in the car - at least try to level match them as good as you possibly can...


----------



## captainobvious

Elektra said:


> Don't think anyone ignored it ... So much as people disagree with the findings
> 
> Albeit a personal experience which may be seen as subjective..
> 
> The simple concept of belief is being disregarded here.. If you say I think there is a difference as apposed to wow .. This is the problem here..
> 
> Comparing products blind folded IMHO is not telling you the whole story. We all have our reasons and theories etc.. Which have discussed already
> 
> It would be great to get insight on this topic from the designers themselves... But I feel it would just end up in another 100 page debate that goes nowhere..
> 
> The question I have to ask you is that have you ever heard a difference in an amp blind or not?
> 
> If you did and it was a sighted test was the difference a perception or could you write down notes on the differences that are not based on feelings or thoughts but hard cold facts?
> 
> How did this change being blind folded?


I have. The testers in my group did as well and the results did significantly change between sighted non-blind tests and blind testing.


----------



## captainobvious

Elektra said:


> Point taken...
> 
> What blind tests don't do is eliminate all the influences that could influence the results.. Such as
> 
> 1) hearing ability - has all people conducting the test done hearing tests? Do they all have the same ability in hearing? I read a test when they specifically stated all judges had hearing tests to confirm whether or not they should be judging anything


One thing you must understand about these tests is that you're not comparing your hearing to others. You're comparing the "sound" of one device vs another _using _your hearing.



Elektra said:


> 2) individual stress/mood/fatigue - is everyone the same in this respect?



Again, you're not comparing yourself to another. The comparison is between the amplifiers. 




Elektra said:


> 3) does everyone have the ability to listen properly?
> 
> And so on.. There are so many variables to satisfy before a test can be called scientific and legit.
> 
> Getting a group of 10 guys at random isn't scientific at all in fact 10 people doesn't constitute anything more like 100 people makes it more believable as it rules out false negatives and positives and guessing...
> 
> What percentage is the game changer 51% or 80% results?



More samples will make a test more statistically significant, that is true. However, the examples you made above are not really relevant because they compare testers to one another. There will ALWAYS be people who hear differently. The test is not to measure how you hear vs another person, it's to determine what differences- if any you can hear between two devices.


----------



## Elektra

Well I want to try a passive setup in my brothers car on Saturday - he is running supremos I want to see how a 4x100 amp compares to a 2x170 amp as the supremos like power. I also think the Passives will blend the tweeters and woofer better so if it works out for him I'll take the 4 channel as its more useful to me than the 2 channel.. 

I'll level match both amps to start off with but I'll turn up the power on the 2 channel to see how it sounds 

I am expecting the 2 channel to be more mellow - based on my previous tests with these amps the 4 channel is the "reference" amp - but somehow his car doesn't sound as good as mine with the same amp.. Granted I had different speakers and HU...


----------



## Elektra

Has anyone heard the Morel Supremo 602 set? They retail here for $1300 but your side $5000 - is there a difference in SQ?


----------



## rton20s

There is so much failure in this thread that is hard to keep up! So, I'll provide a visual demonstration for Elektra to address his point of comparing his children needing glasses to aid in learning and needing to see _something?_ when listening to a car stereo. 

This is a typical classroom environment. They vary, yes, but it is usually something along these lines. (I even chose younger kids to coincide with Elektra's children's age.)








While auditory instruction is taking place, there are constant visual cues that are *relative* to the auditory instruction. These visual cues provide context and expound on what is being perceived by our ears. In many cases our other senses (touch, smell, taste) are also incorporated into the teaching environment. They all play a key role. 

This is a live musical performance. 








Like the teaching environment, there are visual (and other sensory) cues that contribute to the performance as a whole. Closing your eyes (or even being blind) in this environment may change the overall perception of the performance, but it has much less impact than an environment like the classroom where sensory cues outside of hearing are key. 

And finally, this is a typical automobile while driving. 








The audio taking place in this environment does not (or should not) have any visual cues. The focus is typically the road, and when it isn't it can be catastrophic. The real key here is that even if you could see the speakers, the amplifier, etc. they do not provide any actual context to what you are hearing. The only thing they may do is activate a psychological trigger of pleasure or displeasure depending on your opinion of what you are observing visually.


----------



## JVD240

Elektra said:


> Well I want to try a passive setup in my brothers car on Saturday - he is running supremos I want to see how a 4x100 amp compares to a 2x170 amp as the supremos like power. I also think the Passives will blend the tweeters and woofer better so if it works out for him I'll take the 4 channel as its more useful to me than the 2 channel..
> 
> I'll level match both amps to start off with but I'll turn up the power on the 2 channel to see how it sounds
> 
> I am expecting the 2 channel to be more mellow - based on my previous tests with these amps the 4 channel is the "reference" amp - but somehow his car doesn't sound as good as mine with the same amp.. Granted I had different speakers and HU...


You guys drive the same car too?


----------



## Elektra

JVD240 said:


> You guys drive the same car too?


No he has a Audi A3 - I had a E39 BMW he had a sub I didnt


----------



## rton20s

Elektra said:


> No he has a Audi A3 - I had a E39 BMW he had a sub I didnt


What he is alluding to is that until you eliminate all other factors, you are not comparing amplifiers.


----------



## Elektra

rton20s said:


> What he is alluding to is that until you eliminate all other factors, you are not comparing amplifiers.


So many constraints... 

It's not going to be a scientific exercise - just which sounds better exercise that's it.. 

Going to Such lengths isn't required - I have already heard both amps out the car in a more controlled environment with perfectly matched gains and the 4 channel def sounds better to all that heard it..

Yes it was informal and yes it was sighted but the exercise wasn't to write a review on the amps as we tested a 5 channel as well..

The 4 channel sounded more dynamic, fuller, more natural - filled the room better and soundstage was more defined.

The 2 channel was a competent warm sounding amp but lacked the above in comparison.. 

These were the points we all agreed on... I did this test with the same guy who picked out the correct results 28/30 times in a DBT ABX test.. So I trust his ears as well...

The tests I conducted was merely to establish how they sounded - the "Reference" amp which it is affectionately called was because it sounded better than all the other amps it was tested against in other tests

And before you guys jump on the DBT as the only valid form of testing - this is how we did it..

Result was the 3 amps all sounded good and would happily make anyone happy - but if you had to be picky the 4 channel was superior...

These were our results.. And is valid for me and all that heard it... Was it scientific? Not really did we have 100 people testing it? No we didn't... Are the results valid? To you no... To me yes... As I have always been a high priced name brand person.. But if I could get a product that does it for me at lower prices then I am all in..


----------



## Hanatsu

rton20s said:


> What he is alluding to is that until you eliminate all other factors, you are not comparing amplifiers.


I believe most of these beliefs that some amplifiers sound superior to others come from people comparing systems, not equipment. If people claims one amp is better than another since the system did sound better they are mainly comparing;

1. Tuning of system.
2. Installation/environment related deviations.
3. Speakers.

Even IF it's a sighted test, it's absolutely paramount that the testing conditions remain 100% the same. There are countless possibilities for people's "findings" and none can be TRULY valid unless;

*It's a blind-test (AX or ABX)
*Conditions remain 100% the same

So, in some cases it's perfectly understandable why two 'systems' sound different - because they really do. Measurements WILL confirm it, they always do.

If measurements doesn't confirm it - i.e deviations are below human audibility threshold and someone still hear a difference under a sighed test. Then it should be repeated under blind-testing. If the results are conclusive of hearing the same differences here, then I cannot do anything but congratulate whoever pulls that off 

I suggest making a psychoacoustics thread and discussing how good people's hearing actually is, I might do that myself when I think of it. The biggest myth in the entire audio world is in my opinion people's belief in the human hearing superiority. High end amplifiers are certainly not a myth, but hearing the differences are (again imo).


----------



## sbeezy

Elektra I have a superior micro SD card for ya. Its made for premium sound.

http://bgr.com/2015/02/19/sony-premium-sound-memory-card/


----------



## Elektra

sbeezy said:


> Elektra I have a superior micro SD card for ya. Its made for premium sound.
> 
> Sony just unveiled the stupidest product in the history of the universe | BGR


I know a place that sells hearing aids would you like the number?


----------



## sbeezy

Elektra said:


> I know a place that sells hearing aids would you like the number?


Actually my hearing is pristine! I know this because we have to get audiometric testing done every year. Its required by the company I work for.


----------



## JVD240

Elektra said:


> I know a place that sells hearing aids would you like the number?


That's only for when you're wearing a blindfold, though, right?


----------



## sbeezy

JVD240 said:


> That's only for when you're wearing a blindfold, though, right?


Pow! Lmao!


----------



## cubdenno

Elektra said:


> I know a place that sells hearing aids would you like the number?


If you are hearing things, I have the number of a good psychiatrist!


----------



## Elektra

cubdenno said:


> If you are hearing things, I have the number of a good psychiatrist!


Your gonna need them...


----------



## rton20s

Elektra said:


> Your gonna need them...


You're...


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> high damping factor was a specification that only higher cost amps used to be able to brag about, as they used better grade parts that allowed for their circuits to be optimized.
> 
> as has been reiterated many times, today's amp designs and today's available parts, do not suffer from the same vulnerability as when solid state was just getting good, and especially not when tube design was being compared to solid state...
> 
> today we have people touting the sonic characteristics of tube amps with intrinsic low damping factors, as having some of the "tube goodness" that everyone wants but can't seem to define in scientific, measurable criteria.
> 
> so, as a rule an amplifier with a high damping factor uses good parts and design, and all amplifiers built after say, 1998 that are solid state and not crap amps, will display "high enough" of a damping factor as to be not a viable stat when comparing amps.
> 
> it's great that a amp you own is able to produce a high damping factor, but it's not a sign of audibly superior characteristics. It's just a way of verifying that the amp is measurably better, along with low THD and IMD specs, or channel separation.
> 
> which, channel separation can be a pain to discuss, some people say anything over 50 db is not noticeable and others want to punch you in the nose for even suggesting it, and put a mono amp on every speaker because you know, that's like nearly 100 dee beez, of channel separation, haha...


Just so I understand what you are claiming correctly. What I got from above says to me is that ALL amps made after 1998 with the exception of retro tube type designs are going to have no sonic difference be they higher end units or lower. Interesting.

I have been on this earth approaching 50 years and have heard that same argument regurgitated and reiterated a hundred times, one hundred different ways and the one truth I have seen from all of this is that the lower end marketers are the ones who say that and the higher end focus manufacturers note it not being true all along. Especially in high end power amp technology not much is different since 1985. IC chips are miniaturized transister circuits which by nature can't peform to the level of spec that their big brotherd can and we have spent little time developing new transister designs largely because the drive is for smaller footprint and not better sonics than what we had. The lower end of Sonics has improved from where it was greatly but the top end is still better. It is the mid level that is going away because the lower end stuff I'd I'd just as good. in short the overall difference is less but not gone!
In higher end audio applications it has been a long standing practice to overpower subs for example by a factor of 2 or more. This keeps the amp out of clip even with very transient program material. In high spec audio an amps abitity to accurately track high speed transients is one of the most important specs there is becuase like I say it equates to a more accurate reproduction of the source material. Measure it how ever you like but cheap amps don't do it where better amps more often do and it is very audible if you want to hear it.


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> Just so I understand what you are claiming correctly. What I got from above says to me is that ALL amps made after 1998 with the exception of retro tube type designs are going to have no sonic difference be they higher end units or lower. Interesting.


No. That is not what he said. When I read it, it seems to me he said...

"*If* any of these amps sounds differently, then it is not because of damping factor"

Do you see the difference? I don't see where he said "all these amps sound the same". He only said that "Damping factor is inconsequential".


----------



## cajunner

RobERacer said:


> Just so I understand what you are claiming correctly. What I got from above says to me is that ALL amps made after 1998 with the exception of retro tube type designs are going to have no sonic difference be they higher end units or lower. Interesting.
> 
> I have been on this earth approaching 50 years and have heard that same argument regurgitated and reiterated a hundred times, one hundred different ways and the one truth I have seen from all of this is that the lower end marketers are the ones who say that and the higher end focus manufacturers note it not being true all along. Especially in high end power amp technology not much is different since 1985. IC chips are miniaturized transister circuits which by nature can't peform to the level of spec that their big brotherd can and we have spent little time developing new transister designs largely because the drive is for smaller footprint and not better sonics than what we had. The lower end of Sonics has improved from where it was greatly but the top end is still better. It is the mid level that is going away because the lower end stuff I'd I'd just as good. in short the overall difference is less but not gone!
> In higher end audio applications it has been a long standing practice to overpower subs for example by a factor of 2 or more. This keeps the amp out of clip even with very transient program material. In high spec audio an amps abitity to accurately track high speed transients is one of the most important specs there is becuase like I say it equates to a more accurate reproduction of the source material. Measure it how ever you like but cheap amps don't do it where better amps more often do and it is very audible if you want to hear it.


one issue, or problem that never seems to get addressed in the debate, is that the power ratings on the amps don't mean anything in this debate.

cheap power amps are normally rated well over their capability, but if you take a distortion analyzer and measure the amp's output, and find 500 watts is available under .5% distortion, it doesn't matter if the amps have 2000 watts on the heatsink.

You take a high end amp that's rated at 400 watts, and get 500 watts out of it before .5% distortion, you're still dealing with inaudible thresholds for everything under 500 watts unless there's some gross misadjustment or out of spec build.

put the cheap 2000 watt amp against the high range 400 watt amp, and because there's 500 watts of clean coming from both, you're going to have a problem noticing the differences.


Is there going to be indistinguish-ability, *heh* or not?

I couldn't say, for sure but there are people here who have gone through the rigors of testing in a mostly formal manner, where the results have more than anecdotal significance, and they say that they weren't able to tell with certainty.


and if that's a fact, Jack...


----------



## cajunner

Jepalan said:


> No. That is not what he said. When I read it, it seems to me he said...
> 
> "*If* any of these amps sounds differently, then it is not because of damping factor"
> 
> Do you see the difference? I don't see where he said "all these amps sound the same". He only said that "Damping factor is inconsequential".


that's pretty much what I'm saying.

however, I come from the old school of reading magazines, and I still believe there is correlation between some of the old testing specs and what we hear.

it's just that we've gotten further along in the homogenization of the art, and for the most part if an amp is from a legitimate source the odds are good that it will have nearly the same sonic potential at or up to clipping, as almost any other amp given the wattage is similar.


so if we used to be able to tell a good amp from bad using the specs, the margins that divided our ability to tell them apart, shrank into near non-significance, as human hearing is a constant, and the nature of electronic circuit design is always evolving with the use of faster, cleaner, more consistent parts coming available.


and what I'm saying, is that all the amp manufacturers are both tied to, and supported by, the quality of the parts.

the low end gets the benefit of decent parts, while the high end is hamstrung by the lack of differences in parts.

you take the 5532 audio op-amp. It's been around a while, has been used in some of the most respected designs on the planet, and although there are measurably better op amps available today, if you swap out a 5532 for some of these esoteric bad asses, you don't really get to some new level of clean, you may just get "different, but similar" instead.


----------



## Jepalan

cajunner said:


> that's pretty much what I'm saying.
> 
> however, I come from the old school of reading magazines, and I still believe there is correlation between some of the old testing specs and what we hear.
> 
> it's just that we've gotten further along in the homogenization of the art, and for the most part if an amp is from a legitimate source the odds are good that it will have nearly the same sonic potential at or up to clipping, as almost any other amp given the wattage is similar.
> 
> 
> so if we used to be able to tell a good amp from bad using the specs, the margins that divided our ability to tell them apart, shrank into near non-significance, as human hearing is a constant, and the nature of electronic circuit design is always evolving with the use of faster, cleaner, more consistent parts coming available.
> 
> 
> and what I'm saying, is that all the amp manufacturers are both tied to, and supported by, the quality of the parts.
> 
> the low end gets the benefit of decent parts, while the high end is hamstrung by the lack of differences in parts.
> 
> you take the 5532 audio op-amp. It's been around a while, has been used in some of the most respected designs on the planet, and although there are measurably better op amps available today, if you swap out a 5532 for some of these esoteric bad asses, you don't really get to some new level of clean, you may just get "different, but similar" instead.


OK, I see. I did miss your point re differences in parts. Not sure I agree 100%, but I get what you are saying. I don't know whether components have gotten better (with less variance) or whether the 'old school' high-end component trend was just hype. As a circuit designer, I feel the most important step (after circuit architecture itself) is selecting the right component *types* and *tolerances* to ensure a reproducible design that meets the target performance specs. <-- no magic here, just good science.


----------



## cajunner

Jepalan said:


> OK, I see. I did miss your point re differences in parts. Not sure I agree 100%, but I get what you are saying. I don't know whether components have gotten better (with less variance) or whether the 'old school' high-end component trend was just hype. As a circuit designer, I feel the most important step (after circuit architecture itself) is selecting the right component *types* and *tolerances* to ensure a reproducible design that meets the target performance specs. <-- no magic here, just good science.


look at the recent thread pitting the SoundStream 2.370 REF vs. the Punch 300.

you have in the SoundStream, marketing claims for 5% tolerance on caps, and 1% on resistors. 

the DSM architecture in the Punch, being several generations old, is touting 1% on everything.

that's huge, and the old school can't really compete with the placement machines that check tolerance during manufacture.

so, there has been an advancement in the art of building amps, that is separate from component quality, in the actual testing of parts.

I mean, you used to specify 1% tolerance, and you'd get a reel of 'em, then you'd place them because they were built to 1% specs, but they weren't measured one-by-one, a sample was selected from each run and if it met spec, you passed the reel.

now, amp designs are maximized to 1% tolerance for each component, tested.

isn't that true? Isn't that a wild change?

So that's part of the reason we have mid-tier amps today that can hang with marketing hype from the high dollar outfits.

that, and any number of sims can be run on a board, before it even gets printed, there's no more need for breadboarding and jumper wires, or whatever.

computers have tripped the genetics of good designer artistry, so any shmuck can run their sims until a bunch of green checkmarks run down the screen at virtual troubleshooting time.

hell, I bet I could even design amp circuits, with a 2 month enhanced course using waterboards and good drugs...


----------



## Victor_inox

Are you sure machines testing values of smd part while placing them on PCB?


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Are you sure machines testing values of smd part while placing them on PCB?


that's what I've read?

I'm sure that there are machines not doing it, and there probably are machines that do it, and who knows when they turn on the "1%" clicker, or let it go at the parts tolerance level of ~20% because that's good enough...

I don't build the amps, I read about them, haha...


----------



## Jepalan

cajunner said:


> look at the recent thread pitting the SoundStream 2.370 REF vs. the Punch 300.
> 
> you have in the SoundStream, marketing claims for 5% tolerance on caps, and 1% on resistors.
> 
> the DSM architecture in the Punch, being several generations old, is touting 1% on everything.
> 
> that's huge, and the old school can't really compete with the placement machines that check tolerance during manufacture.
> 
> so, there has been an advancement in the art of building amps, that is separate from component quality, in the actual testing of parts.
> 
> I mean, you used to specify 1% tolerance, and you'd get a reel of 'em, then you'd place them because they were built to 1% specs, but they weren't measured one-by-one, a sample was selected from each run and if it met spec, you passed the reel.
> 
> now, amp designs are maximized to 1% tolerance for each component, tested.
> 
> isn't that true? Isn't that a wild change?
> 
> So that's part of the reason we have mid-tier amps today that can hang with marketing hype from the high dollar outfits.
> 
> that, and any number of sims can be run on a board, before it even gets printed, there's no more need for breadboarding and jumper wires, or whatever.
> 
> computers have tripped the genetics of good designer artistry, so any shmuck can run their sims until a bunch of green checkmarks run down the screen at virtual troubleshooting time.
> 
> hell, I bet I could even design amp circuits, with a 2 month enhanced course using waterboards and good drugs...


I think you are over generalizing. And I think you may have missed my point.

1% components does not automatically mean better sound. Nor does it automatically mean a better amp. 

You only need precision components where precision is called for to meet a design goal. This is why we simulate circuits with component variance before going to manufacturing. 

And don't be fooled into thinking a 1% part is "higher quality" than a 10% part - in many cases they are the *exact* same components that have been pre-screened for value match.

As with all good things, there is a point of diminishing return beyond which no audible difference will be heard and beyond which we enter the land of marketing hype.


----------



## cajunner

Jepalan said:


> I think you are over generalizing. And I think you may have missed my point.
> 
> 1% components does not automatically mean better sound. Nor does it automatically mean a better amp.
> 
> You only need precision components where precision is called for to meet a design goal. This is why we simulate circuits with component variance before going to manufacturing.
> 
> And don't be fooled into thinking a 1% part is "higher quality" than a 10% part - in many cases they are the *exact* same components that have been pre-screened for value match.
> 
> As with all good things, there is a point of diminishing return beyond which no audible difference will be heard and beyond which we enter the land of marketing hype.



these are good points.

I'm only fooled into believing that 1% tolerance, means something.

I also have been led to believe, that most of the time an amplifier relies on circuits that can swing wildly in and out of tolerance and yet you will never hear it.

And that if an amp circuit is so exacting and precise that 1% tolerance parts are necessary in the build, then it's a compromised design not capable of being commercially produced at a reasonable profit margin.

I do, however believe that amp designers use the higher tolerance parts to exert a control, and even if it's not necessary the amount of room for the circuit to "float" using high tolerance parts, means that there is a cushion, or a level to which parts can drift out of spec and still function as needed.

When I first started reading about amps and seeing the guts, I used to wonder why the amp bias circuits were almost always using cheap little pots with the directions from people towards adjusting them, always "make a small turn, and wait," and I wonder why we don't see Bourns 10 turn, or 25 turn pieces in these spots, since it would allow a finer adjustment frame for the amount of incremental increases...

but those cost a few pennies more, right?

I mean, sometimes there isn't even an adjustment for bias, you just get what you get with a resistor network?

so...

where was I, oh yeah...

is the diy guy the right guy to take a screwdriver to his amp's bias twisty knobs?

if he has a decent DMM could he really eek out a few more clean watts, or get a little more sweetness from his amp, if he brings the bias up to let a few more micro-volts/amps/watts through, in class A mode?

and can you hear it, hahaha...


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> Rob - This is a great question. It is similar to the discussion of "house curves" in pro audio. Tuning to "target curves" is debated as much here in the car audio world as it is in the pro audio world. I'm not even sure I have a firm personal stance on 'target' versus 'flat', I just know that my personal preference after tuning my system is a curve that has some bass emphasis and downward tilt in the high-end, much like (but not exactly like) the various targets discussed elsewhere.
> 
> The quickest way to read various viewpoints on this subject is to look through this discussion:
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/technical-advanced-car-audio-discussion/131029-target-curve-comparison.html#post1648112
> 
> I'm not saying anything posted there ^^^ is right or wrong, just that it is a good discussion.


Sorry. just trying to get caught up here. I am going tI I call them alternate tunings. That is color and just so we understand one specific type of color actually. Distortion can also be a color as an example. It is harder to paint with a colored canvas than it is with a solid white one. This is why th I vs are based around flat. More than that though if a decibel of difference is so critical then how much difference is 15 or 20 db going to make? It's a ton really. One of the engineers I worked with when I first got into the industry told me that "if you have to move it more Than 3 db you probably have the wrong frequency". You know in 25 or so years I can't say I I have found that to be incorrect. 
Amp tonal coloration. Out side of transducers amplifiers make more tonal alterations as a raw inserted device than just about any other circuit. I mentioned earlier about choosing equipment to create a specific tonal response. The artistic side of system design. Just the same as painting one needs to be cautious as to what color they add as if one adds too many colors or more to the point the wrong colors or too much of any specific color they will ruin the project. That was precisely what I was talking about before. The truth is assuming FR response is one of your colors you just made a non-linearity so it is actually incorrect in terms of science. "Inferior" Is probably more to the point but we are choosing for that very reason. 
Art and science are sometimes opposed. The point is that we like to hear certain emphasises but it can and does get out of hand. Pink noise flat is balanced. We can deviate but if we are deviating too much we need to ask ourselves why. Often people train themselves to not hear flat anymore and they have to untrain themselves by forcing themselves to uneq everything and listen to it raw for a while. Basically it is a desensitization issue. They aren't hearing like everyone else (which btw is very close to the same not this giant chasm of difference that we are often led to believe) It is kinda one of the first processes folks go through in our business.


----------



## captainobvious

RobERacer said:


> Out side of transducers amplifiers make more tonal alterations as a raw inserted device than just about any other circuit. I mentioned earlier about choosing equipment to create a specific tonal response.



EQs? DSPs?



This makes no sense.

Car audio amplifiers are not meant for production, they're meant for _accurate reproduction_. They are designed for flat frequency response. Where is the significant "tonal alteration" coming from if not from frequency response changes?


----------



## thehatedguy

Distortion artifacts could for one.


----------



## RobERacer

Orion525iT said:


> Yep. As I have stated a million times over, I am not on any side of this debate. The only "side" I am on is the side of science; evidence, data, and statistical analysis.
> 
> But, repeatedly people keep popping up with "I heard this with this amp". There are a million different ways to show how flawed that approach is and how it adds nothing but chaff and fluff to the discussion.
> 
> Again, this is not a personal attack. I understand that in daily life people are not accustom to thinking like this, and this gets people upset. But it is the way this must be pursued and without it, the discussion goes nowhere: 100+ pages of discussion prove this point.


To do the kind of testing you are talking about on the level you are talking about requires both facilities and specifically personal and with all of that FUNDING. To give the accurate answers to what is being discussed as many units as possible must be tested under unbiased, complately controlled conditions with the scientific data held to it's most accurate. No-one here is or even can do that. If the installers want that information that badly they are making the big bucks from car audio so maybe they should pay for it! Supply and demand right? Of course if you want to volunteer your time to the project you can. 
This site is called what? Yes, "Do It Yourself Mobile Audio". Of course we would all love to have access to the data and would gladly add that to the arsenal of data we all piece together in order to make our purchasing decisions but it is only a piece of what ist of us are looking to find. I came on here looking for educated end user experiences with said equipment. The propeller heads did some of the scientific stuff and the rest well... it is missing data. We will just have to work around it till someone decides it should come along. 

Elecktra's "real world experience" was a reasonably well controlled test and with that more valid than most I have seen. Especially the wall of the installers shop where who knows starboard going on where the listener can't see. As stated earlier retailers don't traditionally care too much to be honest. Do they? 

In short I don't agree one bit that we should throw out the "real world opinions" that educated end users here provide as they are equally as usable and in some instances more so than what the scientists do.


----------



## captainobvious

thehatedguy said:


> Distortion artifacts could for one.




Audible?


Unless the amplifier is exceeding the range of its intended use, I don't see where that would be a problem.


----------



## captainobvious

RobERacer said:


> To do the kind of testing you are talking about on the level you are talking about requires both facilities and specifically personal and with all of that FUNDING. To give the accurate answers to what is being discussed as many units as possible must be tested under unbiased, complately controlled conditions with the scientific data held to it's most accurate. No-one here is or even can do that. If the installers want that information that badly they are making the big bucks from car audio so maybe they should pay for it! Supply and demand right? Of course if you want to volunteer your time to the project you can.
> This site is called what? Yes, "Do It Yourself Mobile Audio". Of course we would all love to have access to the data and would gladly add that to the arsenal of data we all piece together in order to make our purchasing decisions but it is only a piece of what ist of us are looking to find. I came on here looking for educated end user experiences with said equipment. The propeller heads did some of the scientific stuff and the rest well... it is missing data. We will just have to work around it till someone decides it should come along.
> 
> Elecktra's "real world experience" was a reasonably well controlled test and with that more valid than most I have seen. Especially the wall of the installers shop where who knows starboard going on where the listener can't see. As stated earlier retailers don't traditionally care too much to be honest. Do they?
> 
> In short I don't agree one bit that we should throw out the "real world opinions" that educated end users here provide as they are equally as usable and in some instances more so than what the scientists do.



Your logic is flawed. I didn't see any response from you on this post. This is a link direct to the specific post in this thread:

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/2246672-post2718.html

There are very valid reasons why evaluations must be done properly.
This is exactly why "chaff and fluff" (as Orion put it) continues to propagate here and in this thread.

Doing a proper evaluation is not as difficult as you make it out to be. A simple speaker switcher box from Amazon for $20 and a little time is all that's needed.


----------



## thehatedguy

Not unless it was designed that way.

Could have crossover distortion as well, but hearing that in speakers that aren't very efficient could be a problem.

But there are other factors than just FR that could effect things.



captainobvious said:


> Audible?
> 
> 
> Unless the amplifier is exceeding the range of its intended use, I don't see where that would be a problem.


----------



## captainobvious

thehatedguy said:


> Not unless it was designed that way.


Do you mean not designed for flat frequency response? sorry, just want to make sure we're on the same page.




thehatedguy said:


> Could have crossover distortion as well, but hearing that in speakers that aren't very efficient could be a problem.
> 
> But there are other factors than just FR that could effect things.


I guess I should add that I'm basing my comments on amplifiers not having crossovers/tone controls, etc enabled.


----------



## thehatedguy

I am not talking about crossovers as in filters or processing in the amp. I am talking about crossover distortion, which is vastly different...not even related.


----------



## thehatedguy

What I am talking about is the distortion that is created when the waveform "crosses over" to the output devices. You have a positive side and a negative side of the waveform, and each side is handled by separate devices...in a single ended amp, the output device handles the whole waveform and is not split between the complimentary pairs. But in an a/b or b amp, the signal is split between devices...half going to one side and half going to the other side. You can lower that by increasing bias. But more bias creates heat and increases current consumption...and if you have a cool running a/b amp, you aren't getting much bias. Most a/b amps are biased more towards b for that reason.

The crossover distortion is why high efficiency drivers can sound harsh on a/b amps, and why most people prefer class A on those kinds of speakers. But some a/b type amps are better than others in this regard, and have very low crossover distortion.

Victor...am I missing anything here? It's been a while since I've read up on amplifiers, and that's just arm chair quarterbacking...no formal training.


----------



## thehatedguy

What is Crossover Distortion?

Crossover Distortion in Class-B Power Amplifiers

So, I would be curious as to how that would be fixed with EQ and level matching...


----------



## Jepalan

thehatedguy said:


> What is Crossover Distortion?
> 
> Crossover Distortion in Class-B Power Amplifiers
> 
> So, I would be curious as to how that would be fixed with EQ and level matching...


Also called "zero-crossing" distortion.

I don't think anyone here has argued that different amplifier classes/topologies can/will *never* sound different - and crossover distortion is certainly a potential contributor to differences if and when they occur. 

This type of distortion is well known and there are many ways to minimize its effects in the amplifier design itself (biasing techniques, etc.). Of course some topologies do not suffer from it. 

There is plenty of debate as to how much crossover distortion is audible <-- and this is where we are going to get right back into the ABX versus subjective listening debate again.

There has also been plenty of discussion about "A" versus "AB" versus "D", preferences.

If crossover distortion is an (audible) problem in a given amp, surely it is not going to be "fixed" with EQ and/or level matching. Get a different amp.


----------



## thehatedguy

My comment about the EQ is this whole thread is centered around level matching and FR matching...which is needed, but isn't the only part of the puzzle.


----------



## cajunner

RobERacer said:


> To Of course *we would all love to have access to the data *and would gladly add that to the arsenal of data we all piece together in order to make our purchasing decisions but it is only a piece of what ist of us are looking to find. I came on here looking for educated end user experiences with said equipment. The propeller heads did some of the scientific stuff and the rest well... it is missing data. We will just have to work around it till someone decides it should come along.


Andy Wehmeyer posted studies undertaken by Harman, and his colleagues use information from statistics regarding listener preferences, to write their books.

Alpine's research and development used large listener studies to develop their Imprint algorithm.

for you to say we would love to have access, is just you not knowing that we do have access.

Check out Sean Olive's blog, and look at some of the data in the bibliographies of some of the technical articles available from Kef, Harman, Audyssey, etc.

there's a ton of stuff drifting out in cyberspace for you to make informed decisions, you just have to pull it down and absorb it.


----------



## captainobvious

I absolutely say you need to level match as one of your controls when blind evaluating amplifiers. But certainly not EQ match. What I'm getting at is that there is no need to even do that.


The largest problem in this thread is that people seem to put the cart before the horse. You simply can't determine anything meaningful unless you do properly controlled blind evaluations, so a proper testing methodology is a requirement. I'm extremely confident that if people actually did this, they would not only come away with a great experience (learning for themselves), but would also have a different view of this whole debate. We're talking about what we can hear in this debate. But first people need to understand how to control their experiment and why it is necessary.

If we can't agree that you need proper controls when making these evaluations, well then this thread will certainly not go anywhere productive.


----------



## thehatedguy

I don't think anyone is saying that you don't need controls and a standardized method for a test to be valid.

But what I am saying is there is more to the picture than just level matching.

FWIW, current source amplifiers were not allowed in the infamous RC amp challenge because they behave differently than voltage source amplifiers. So that knocked a whole category out for blind comparisons. Which leads me to believe those amps for good or bad would easily distinguishable in such tests. Doesn't matter much since I can count those kinds of amplifiers for cars on one hand and have fingers left over...actually I can only think of one off of the top of my head- the Phass RE2. 

Well Phass has a couple now...some cool esoteric designs too- SEPP amps with no negative feedback too. That's one brand of amp that I have always wanted to use but never have.


----------



## captainobvious

I don't know...the people in this thread who have been the biggest supporters about hearing differences between amplifiers have not responded to the repeated questions about their evaluation methodology. This leads me to believe that they are avoiding the question because they didn't use proper controls or have ulterior motives for making the claims they do.

Until that is verified, I think it's not possible to move forward with the discussion because it potentially invalidates their "opinion".


We used 8 different car audio amplifiers in my tests- a mix of old, new class A/B and class D, lower price and expensive premium amps - all in a blind AX comparison and still a coin flip of whether evaluators could discern any differences.


----------



## subwoofery

Is there a flaw to this methodology? 



subwoofery said:


> Milbert BaM-235ab (tube) VS Sinfoni Prestigio (A) VS DLS A2 (A/B) VS Genesis DMX (G/H)
> 
> Own those and tested them powering ES horns in my girlfriend's car with gains set so that the output was the same as the amp that's permanently mounted in (the DLS A2) - very DISTINCT sound signature. Easy to tell really.
> Test was changing the amp without my wife knowing yet she asked me what I've done to the sound
> 
> Kelvin


Going from a DLS to the Milbert. She did not see me do the switch, she did not see me enter the car to work on it. She tought I was in the garden... 
The next day, she goes to work and called me to ask what I've done to the car... 

Kelvin


----------



## cajunner

subwoofery said:


> Is there a flaw to this methodology?
> 
> 
> 
> Going from a DLS to the Milbert. She did not see me do the switch, she did not see me enter the car to work on it. She tought I was in the garden...
> The next day, she goes to work and called me to ask what I've done to the car...
> 
> Kelvin


hahahaha..

first off, she probably was aware of where you were at 80% of the time you were "in the garden" and she probably wanted to make you feel good, you know how our partners do, back each other up even if they know there's "NO CHANGE" at all...



but that's not what happens at your house, amI'RIGHT?

I mean, there's this penis-lengthening cream I get at a special rate out of the back of those foreign nudie magazines, and I swear every time I put it on, she knows...





:laugh:


----------



## DLO13

cajunner said:


> hahahaha..
> 
> first off, she probably was aware of where you were at 80% of the time you were "in the garden" and she probably wanted to make you feel good, you know how our partners do, back each other up even if they know there's "NO CHANGE" at all...
> 
> 
> 
> but that's not what happens at your house, amI'RIGHT?
> 
> I mean, there's this penis-lengthening cream I get at a special rate out of the back of those foreign nudie magazines, and I swear every time I put it on, she knows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :laugh:


And i had previously thought this thread covered it all...


----------



## cajunner

DLO13 said:


> And i had previously thought this thread covered it all...


it was time for a change...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bKwRW0l-Qk


----------



## captainobvious

subwoofery said:


> Is there a flaw to this methodology?
> 
> 
> 
> Going from a DLS to the Milbert. She did not see me do the switch, she did not see me enter the car to work on it. She tought I was in the garden...
> The next day, she goes to work and called me to ask what I've done to the car...
> 
> Kelvin



Yes, simply put- there is.


But you know this


----------



## Elektra

What correlation is their to power vs driver..

I mean you can take 10 amps and level match them to the lowest power rates amp - say 50rms. Use them all on a notoriously hard power hungry set of speakers - Dynaudio, Morel etc - it's possible that the power limitation on the speakers is going to negate some of the differences heard

Use 150rms on the same set and things may be more apparent?

I say this because a lot of my testing was done on Scanspeak Revelators which are not power hungry and 50rms will be perfect.. Significant differences can be heard between amps.. 

Was is easy driven speakers? Did a test in my brothers car with his Supremos and the SQ improved with much more power - from 100rms to 170rms... They sounded like they could take more.. My gains were 3/4 so I was giving them plenty...

If I have another amp I would have loved to try mono bridged on each side - 700rms per side to experiment..

I actually did that with 3 Brax x2000 amps bridged each amp per side so 750rms per side and sub - the front stage was warmer

Spoke to Brax about this and they said it was something to do with increased dynamics from more power..

More things to consider? Maybe not..


----------



## captainobvious

Elektra said:


> What correlation is their to power vs driver..
> 
> I mean you can take 10 amps and level match them to the lowest power rates amp - say 50rms. Use them all on a notoriously hard power hungry set of speakers - Dynaudio, Morel etc - it's possible that the power limitation on the speakers is going to negate some of the differences heard
> 
> Use 150rms on the same set and things may be more apparent?
> 
> I say this because a lot of my testing was done on Scanspeak Revelators which are not power hungry and 50rms will be perfect.. Significant differences can be heard between amps..
> 
> Was is easy driven speakers? Did a test in my brothers car with his Supremos and the SQ improved with much more power - from 100rms to 170rms... They sounded like they could take more.. My gains were 3/4 so I was giving them plenty...
> 
> If I have another amp I would have loved to try mono bridged on each side - 700rms per side to experiment..
> 
> I actually did that with 3 Brax x2000 amps bridged each amp per side so 750rms per side and sub - the front stage was warmer
> 
> Spoke to Brax about this and they said it was something to do with increased dynamics from more power..
> 
> More things to consider? Maybe not..



You're not testing them properly so it's understandable that you heard "significant differences".


----------



## cajunner

Elektra said:


> They sounded like they could take more.. My gains were 3/4 so I was giving them plenty...


this right here, right here.

if everything else you say makes sense to you, please look at this again.

any time someone says where they put the amp gains as a clue to what was happening at the speakers, they give themselves away.


"how could I have blown these tweeters? I put the gains only half way"

"my buddy's system is twice as loud as mine because he only has his gains at 1/4 and I have to set mine at 1/2"

I've seen a lot of people fall victim to the gains structure fallacy and when someone who seems to know something, comes out with such a simple error I have to wonder about the rest of what they are putting out there.

but that's just me?


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> You're not testing them properly so it's understandable that you heard "significant differences".



Do you dismiss power requirements and sensitivity of speakers as non essential for amp test?


----------



## rton20s

Elektra said:


> My gains were 3/4 so I was giving them plenty...


This means absolutely nothing. I still don't understand how people who have spent any amount of time in a forum such as this can still make this type of statement. 

Gains should be set to match the voltage of the incoming signal. You can back them off as wanted/needed, but the position of the gains doesn't tell us anything without knowing what input voltage they were dealing with, what voltage range the gain pots were designed for, were you receiving a clipped signal, etc. Gains set at 1/4 on the same exact amp in a different installation could very well be putting out even more power than your amp at 3/4.

EDIT: I guess cajunner and I are pretty well on the same page with this one.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> this right here, right here.
> 
> if everything else you say makes sense to you, please look at this again.
> 
> any time someone says where they put the amp gains as a clue to what was happening at the speakers, they give themselves away.
> 
> 
> "how could I have blown these tweeters? I put the gains only half way"
> 
> "my buddy's system is twice as loud as mine because he only has his gains at 1/4 and I have to set mine at 1/2"
> 
> I've seen a lot of people fall victim to the gains structure fallacy and when someone who seems to know something, comes out with such a simple error I have to wonder about the rest of what they are putting out there.
> 
> but that's just me?


 Not just you, you are correct, gain works not always as volume, often it backwards, clockwise motion- lowering sensitivity not increasing it. 
manufacturers stopped marking gains a while ago I`m not sure why and that confused customers.


----------



## Elektra

cajunner said:


> this right here, right here.
> 
> if everything else you say makes sense to you, please look at this again.
> 
> any time someone says where they put the amp gains as a clue to what was happening at the speakers, they give themselves away.
> 
> 
> "how could I have blown these tweeters? I put the gains only half way"
> 
> "my buddy's system is twice as loud as mine because he only has his gains at 1/4 and I have to set mine at 1/2"
> 
> I've seen a lot of people fall victim to the gains structure fallacy and when someone who seems to know something, comes out with such a simple error I have to wonder about the rest of what they are putting out there.
> 
> but that's just me?


What are you on about..

All my amps are level matched to 20v at 4v output.. That amp I installed was already set to previous testing voltage.. That was about just over 1/3 gain setting (almost 50%) so I increased it to 3/4 settings .... The speakers didn't flinch with the extra power...

Absolutely no distortion at 3/4 volume on the HU...


Nothing was going to get damaged...

To know your speakers is to know what amp to use on them ... Pointless using a 2x50 watt amp on them - they sound better with 150rms on them...

Low sensitivity drivers with large voice could need power - I pretty bet a 50 watt amp of any sort in any testing won't yield anything.. 

Put 150 - 200 watts on them then they come alive - so test amps with that power ratings.. Not so many are there... 

Also test amps that put out 150-200rms with low distortion as well ... Makes the selection pool even smaller..


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> Do you dismiss power requirements and sensitivity of speakers as non essential for amp test?


I'm assuming the same speakers and same amplifier output power is being used consistently in the testing. That's part of the control.

That said, you should be testing with 80db efficient speakers on 1 watt of consistent amplifier power if you want to demo at any real volume- You have to use your noggin'.




Do you dismiss my previous post about needing to have properly controlled evaluations to extract meaningful data from them?


----------



## Elektra

rton20s said:


> This means absolutely nothing. I still don't understand how people who have spent any amount of time in a forum such as this can still make this type of statement.
> 
> Gains should be set to match the voltage of the incoming signal. You can back them off as wanted/needed, but the position of the gains doesn't tell us anything without knowing what input voltage they were dealing with, what voltage range the gain pots were designed for, were you receiving a clipped signal, etc. Gains set at 1/4 on the same exact amp in a different installation could very well be putting out even more power than your amp at 3/4.
> 
> EDIT: I guess cajunner and I are pretty well on the same page with this one.


Amp was previously set to 20v off 4v input - in fact the car had a Mosconi 6to8 8V DSP so the voltage was double (I would assume as the DSp was the 8v version) 

It also replaced the same brand amp so their is consistency in power to gain relationship...

Bottom line the amp pushed a lot more current into the speakers than the previous amp. 

No distortion was heard... It was so much that it was louder but you can hear the amount of control the amp was producing which warmed up the sound also enhanced the soundstage as before the stage was a lot lower now it's above the dash 

I used not different settings on the DSP - just power!


----------



## Victor_inox

I have HT speakers with eton drivers in them, they sounds fantastic with 200-250W feed to them and dull and lifeless with 80W. 
I bet most of the time 250W amplifier was pushing 10-15Watt into them anyway.
yet it sounded terrific in comparison with 80W amp. When I lowered sensitivity of big amp to precisely match smaller amp gain it still sounded better(different).
ONly difference in manufacturer specs was damping factor.800 vs 200. 
So enlighten me why I came to such results?


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> Not just you, you are correct, gain works not always as volume, often it backwards, clockwise motion- lowering sensitivity not increasing it.
> manufacturers stopped marking gains a while ago I`m not sure why and that confused customers.



I actually applaud that. It may make them learn what they actually do and how to set them properly


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> I'm assuming the same speakers and same amplifier output power is being used consistently in the testing. That's part of the control.
> 
> That said, you should be testing with 80db efficient speakers on 1 watt of consistent amplifier power if you want to demo at any real volume- You have to use your noggin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you dismiss my previous post about needing to have properly controlled evaluations to extract meaningful data from them?


"properly" doesn`t necessarily means we agreed on what proper and what not.


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> I actually applaud that. It may make them learn what they actually do and how to set them properly


 that is to assume they read user manual..


----------



## captainobvious

Elektra said:


> What are you on about..
> 
> All my amps are level matched to 20v at 4v output.. That amp I installed was already set to previous testing voltage.. That was about just over 1/3 gain setting (almost 50%) so I increased it to 3/4 settings .... The speakers didn't flinch with the extra power...
> 
> Absolutely no distortion at 3/4 volume on the HU...
> 
> 
> Nothing was going to get damaged...
> 
> To know your speakers is to know what amp to use on them ... Pointless using a 2x50 watt amp on them - they sound better with 150rms on them...
> 
> Low sensitivity drivers with large voice could need power - I pretty bet a 50 watt amp of any sort in any testing won't yield anything..
> 
> Put 150 - 200 watts on them then they come alive - so test amps with that power ratings.. Not so many are there...
> 
> Also test amps that put out 150-200rms with low distortion as well ... Makes the selection pool even smaller..



Measurements are key.

I've watched the oscilloscope go from a clean sine wave to extremely clipped with the slightest move of the gain knob. As in about 1/16th of a turn. You can't look at an amplifiers gain knob as a percentage of its power output. It simply doesn't work that way. Just because its at half gain doesn't mean your making half the power its capable of. The amount of power the amplifier outputs is dependent on how strong the input voltage is.


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> I have HT speakers with eton drivers in them, they sounds fantastic with 200-250W feed to them and dull and lifeless with 80W.


If they are played louder, this would make sense.

If you're only supplying them say, 40 watts from the 80w amp, or 40w from the 250w amp, then there should be no difference. 





Victor_inox said:


> So enlighten me why I came to such results?



For the same reason I've been harping on for many pages here. You need to do a properly controlled blind evaluation to draw a meaningful conclusion. This is not a proper experiment. You introduce too many variables and this could very easily cause you to hear- or think you hear differences.


----------



## rton20s

I just want to make sure I understand all of this correctly...



Elektra said:


> Amp was previously set to 20v off 4v input - in fact the car had a Mosconi 6to8 8V DSP so the voltage was double (I would assume as the DSp was the 8v version)


So did you set your gains for a 4V input and then switch to an 8v input (6to8) without ever adjusting the gains or checking for distortion/clipping from the original setting? 



Elektra said:


> It also replaced the same brand amp so their is consistency in power to gain relationship...


Is it really safe to make assumptions about gain pots based solely on whose name is on the heatsink? 



Elektra said:


> Bottom line the amp pushed a lot more current into the speakers than the previous amp.


OK



Elektra said:


> No distortion was heard... It was so much that it was louder but you can hear the amount of control the amp was producing which warmed up the sound also enhanced the soundstage as before the stage was a lot lower now it's above the dash


So, you never actually checked for distortion outside of your listening tests with music after no adjustments to gain settings? Or just matched your gain settings to your previous amp by eye? 



Elektra said:


> I used not different settings on the DSP - just power!


OK

It is nice that you are attempting to clarify now, but you should understand why your original statement of... "My gains were 3/4 so I was giving them plenty..." has caused us to call your posts into question. Especially when you purport to be fairly knowledgeable on the subject matter.


----------



## cajunner

Elektra said:


> What are you on about..
> 
> All my amps are level matched to 20v at 4v output.. That amp I installed was already set to previous testing voltage.. That was about just over 1/3 gain setting (almost 50%) so I increased it to 3/4 settings .... The speakers didn't flinch with the extra power...
> 
> Absolutely no distortion at 3/4 volume on the HU...
> 
> 
> Nothing was going to get damaged...
> 
> To know your speakers is to know what amp to use on them ... Pointless using a 2x50 watt amp on them - they sound better with 150rms on them...
> 
> Low sensitivity drivers with large voice could need power - I pretty bet a 50 watt amp of any sort in any testing won't yield anything..
> 
> Put 150 - 200 watts on them then they come alive - so test amps with that power ratings.. Not so many are there...
> 
> Also test amps that put out 150-200rms with low distortion as well ... Makes the selection pool even smaller..


the point, is that using the gain control knob's relative position to show an increase in power to the speakers, is all wrong.

anyone who uses the gain control as a volume knob, and then claims various things about power, sound quality, etc. is discrediting themselves.

I see a LOT of these misinformed statements about gains, all over this site so don't feel bad.

just saying something like 

"All my amps are level matched to 20v at 4v output" doesn't qualify anything.

and the idea that the same brand amp, will have 

"It also replaced the same brand amp so their is consistency in power to gain relationship."

anything in common, when it comes to the gain structure of that amp vs. any other, ...

when we're talking miniscule changes to gain making large differences to loudness, you can't be approximate.


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> If they are played louder, this would make sense.
> 
> If you're only supplying them say, 40 watts from the 80w amp, or 40w from the 250w amp, then there should be no difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason I've been harping on for many pages here. You need to do a properly controlled blind evaluation to draw a meaningful conclusion. This is not a proper experiment. You introduce too many variables and this could very easily cause you to hear- or think you hear differences.


 Gains were matched precisely to match on the scope, I don`t remember what number that was but more powerful amp sounded different supplying exactly the same power. what variable you talking about? speakers were the same, power the same.even amp manufacturer the same- different designers though.
Power supplies were vastly different.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Gains were matched precisely to match on the scope, I don`t remember what number that was but more powerful amp sounded different supplying exactly the same power. what variable you talking about? speakers were the same, power the same.even amp manufacturer the same- different designers though.
> Power supplies were vastly different.


did one amp have dynamic compensation circuit and the other didn't?

you know Bose does this thing with their pre-amp section, it adjusts various tone controls/loudness contour, according to pre-set voltages.

this could be what you heard.


haha...


(I know, Victor. You're too swooft a cat to get caught in a trap...)


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> did one amp have dynamic compensation circuit and the other didn't?
> 
> you know Bose does this thing with their pre-amp section, it adjusts various tone controls/loudness contour, according to pre-set voltages.
> 
> this could be what you heard.
> 
> 
> haha...
> 
> 
> (I know, Victor. You're too swooft a cat to get caught in a trap...)


You can`t caught me with bose anything.I hate company and everything they done since 901.
Amps were adcoms 5200 and 5800, no preamps in them. I still have them both. here is one








and other


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> Gains were matched precisely to match on the scope, I don`t remember what number that was but more powerful amp sounded different supplying exactly the same power. what variable you talking about? speakers were the same, power the same.even amp manufacturer the same- different designers though.
> Power supplies were vastly different.


You're part of the way there. Having the equipment and setting consistent is a big first step. Same signal and voltage feeding both amps, same cables and length, same speaker wire construction, type and length, etc. Next, you need to have the amplifiers on a simple switcher so that you can switch back and forth in real time, quickly to change which amplifier supplies the power to the speakers.

Next, you need to have someone else do the switching (so you don't know/see which amplifier is being played) and making the source random with each selection. (I recommend AX type blind testing method as it should be easier to discern differences)

Your tester plays you a sample from amplifier A (maybe 20-30 seconds), then switches to the unknown (X- could be amplifier A or a different amplifier). Is it the same as what you just heard or different? You record what you think and the tester records what it actually was.

Do about 20 samples, take a short break. Come back and do 20 more and then see how you fared number-wise. You'll get a much closer idea of whether you were able to hear differences between the amplifiers at that point.



Once you determine IF you can hear a difference, then you can figure out why you do or do not. 





.


----------



## captainobvious

I'm also going to state some of the reasons WHY these are important as part of the process...



Having the equipment and setting consistent is a big first step. 

*Same signal and voltage feeding both amps*: If the voltage is not level matched, then one amplifier can play louder than the other. The louder amplifier will normally be chosen as "better sounding".


_* Same cables and length, construction, etc*_:
Different signal or speaker cables, types, lengths can result in different resistance, different noise rejection/shielding, etc. Better to keep it consistent to eliminate a variable.

* Next, you need to have the amplifiers on a simple switcher so that you can switch back and forth in real time, quickly to change which amplifier supplies the power to the speakers: *Put simply, you can't make long term memory recalls of things you've heard. You need to compare back to back to get the best comparison of what you're hearing without trying to remember what you heard.


_*Next, you need to have someone else do the switching (so you don't know/see which amplifier is being played) and making the source random with each selection. (I recommend AX type blind testing method as it should be easier to discern differences)*_: This is pretty standard. If you're in control of the testing, you will know what is being played and when which will affect your impressions- no matter how unbiased you may try to be. Psychoacoustics.



_*Your tester plays you a sample from amplifier A (maybe 20-30 seconds), then switches to the unknown (X- could be amplifier A or a different amplifier). Is it the same as what you just heard or different? You record what you think and the tester records what it actually was.*_ Testing should be conducted randomly to avoid any pattern guessing, etc. 


_*Do about 20 samples, take a short break. Come back and do 20 more and then see how you fared number-wise. You'll get a much closer idea of whether you were able to hear differences between the amplifiers at that point: *_Good to take a break to avoid listener fatigue.


----------



## Victor_inox

I was testing amps probably before most members here were born. Trust me I know the drill. I`ve had my wife were switching on professional mixing console and does not give a damn about sound as iphone speaker sounds just fine to her. You just trying to find fault in my testing not even remotely considering that perhaps you don`t know something vital.
if I have time I`d make true random switcher to switch between components without any human interaction and keep a log of what sounded at what time code. but I don`t, sorry. 
Free idea for you sceptic types...


----------



## CDT FAN

Victor_inox said:


> You can`t caught me with bose anything.I hate company and everything they done since 901.
> Amps were adcoms 5200 and 5800, no preamps in them. I still have them both. here is one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and other


That a purty amp. Which model is it?


----------



## Victor_inox

CDT FAN said:


> That a purty amp. Which model is it?


adcom 5200 top, 5800 bottom.
5800 was sold in 96 for 1700 retail. . 1 Ohm no problem, stable to about short.


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> I was testing amps probably before most members here were born. Trust me I know the drill. I`ve had my wife were switching on professional mixing console and does not give a damn about sound as iphone speaker sounds just fine to her. You just trying to find fault in my testing not even remotely considering that perhaps you don`t know something vital.
> if I have time I`d make true random switcher to switch between components without any human interaction and keep a log of what sounded at what time code. but I don`t, sorry.
> Free idea for you sceptic types...



So you *do* understand why proper testing is, in fact critical to accurate results? Or you _do not_? I'm unclear.


----------



## CDT FAN

Victor_inox said:


> adcom 5200 top, 5800 bottom.
> 5800 was sold in 96 for 1700 retail. . 1 Ohm no problem, stable to about short.


lol

With that many T-03s, it should be handle enough current to melt the wires.


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> So you *do* understand why proper testing is, in fact critical to accurate results? Or you _do not_? I'm unclear.


I never disagreed with that. Elektra test was not proper, his finding however- meaningless to me so is yours. His cable comparisons for example makes me chuckle. and gain settings. 
design- construction- craftsmanship play a role in amplifier perceived sound quality. 
In fact Amp performance can be predicted solely based on those 3 things, specifications on paper means nothing to me as well. 
I would never ask anyone how an amp sounds- other people opinion meaningless. MOst people think that 200W sounds 8 times louder than 30.
You think that that both 30 sounds the same, I don`t.


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> I never disagreed with that. Elektra test was not proper, his finding however- meaningless to me so is yours. His cable comparisons for example makes me chuckle. and gain settings.
> design- construction- craftsmanship play a role in amplifier perceived sound quality.
> In fact Amp performance can be predicted solely based on those 3 things, specifications on paper means nothing to me as well.
> I would never ask anyone how an amp sounds- other people opinion meaningless. MOst people think that 200W sounds 8 times louder than 30.
> You think that that both 30 sounds the same, I don`t.



We've all got opinions. That's why proper testing provides proof. So that we can take opinion out of the equation and turn it into valuable information to make informed decisions in the future. 

For me personally, it doesn't mean I'm going to go buy Jensen or Boss amplifiers simply because of my experience. I (like you, I believe) value craftsmanship, aesthetics, reliability, manufacturer support, service, etc. and find those to add a lot of value to the purchase. I've used many higher end amplifiers for these very reasons, and continue to do so. But my decision is certainly not based on the "sound" of the amplifier any longer. Without doing those tests, I would still be ill-informed and purchasing based on some marketing and forum hyped unobtanium.


----------



## Victor_inox

we agreed on something- that is progress.


----------



## rxbike

LISTEN, do you see that ?


----------



## thehatedguy

Why is it so hard to accept the fact that Kelvin's G/f heard differences in the amps on the horns? I have been saying this all a long...the higher in sensitivity you go with the speakers, the easier it will be to discern differences. The science is there to support that claim.


----------



## Victor_inox

CDT FAN said:


> lol
> 
> With that many T-03s, it should be handle enough current to melt the wires.


They are unobtanium these days and I`ll keep this one until I deaf or dead. 
but you right I can probably weld some metal with current this baby provide.


----------



## subwoofery

thehatedguy said:


> Why is it so hard to accept the fact that Kelvin's G/f heard differences in the amps on the horns? I have been saying this all a long...the higher in sensitivity you go with the speakers, the easier it will be to discern differences. The science is there to support that claim.


Thinking about it... I think that our camp has been providing more than enough graphs, testings and "proof" than the other camp: 
- distortion profile over the whole bandwith 
- crossover distortion 
- even blind testing situation 
- flaws in Richard Clark's test + 2 people DID guess which amp was which) 
^ unless I'm mistaken, those are not opinions, those are childish claims, only objective infos - yet dismissed by those saying that it is impossible to hear a difference... THEY tell US that OUR hearing is not good since THEIR ears and OUR ears are the same - NO ONE has better hearing than THEIRS  

Yet we are the one not providing enough "science" and link about everything. 

I don't get it :mean: lol

Kelvin


----------



## SouthSyde

lets just all go camping...


----------



## captainobvious

thehatedguy said:


> Why is it so hard to accept the fact that Kelvin's G/f heard differences in the amps on the horns? I have been saying this all a long...the higher in sensitivity you go with the speakers, the easier it will be to discern differences. The science is there to support that claim.



If the test was conducted as a proper blind AX/ABX, then there is validity to the claim. I didn't read where he said this was the case...?

Again, we can go off about how this measures and that measures and post all kinds of graphs (as has been done)- what matters is what your ears can _*actually *_hear and if you've isolated the other variables to make it a meaningful test. This is expressly why I've been stating that people need to find this out for themselves.

I'm not guaranteeing that anyone WILL or WILL NOT hear something different. I'm saying that I personally did not hear differences in proper controlled blind AX testing and that others will not know what they can and can't hear until they do as well. 

There is also plenty of science to back up psychoacoustics as well as testing controls.


----------



## Jepalan

I love popping back into this thread after being away for a week. 
Every page is like deja vu all over again. 
Like Ground Hog Day (the movie).
Will I stop aging if I keep posting here


----------



## rton20s

Jepalan said:


> I love popping back into this thread after being away for a week.
> Every page is like deja vu all over again.
> Like Ground Hog Day (the movie).
> Will I stop aging if I keep posting here


Ground Hog Day or Edge of Tomorrow? I feel like I die just a little bit every time I come back in here.


----------



## Jepalan

rton20s said:


> Ground Hog Day or Edge of Tomorrow? I feel like I die just a little bit every time I come back in here.
> <snipped image for cleanliness>


Ooh - MUCH better analogy! :beerchug:

Really liked that movie too.


----------



## rton20s

Jepalan said:


> Ooh - MUCH better analogy! :beerchug:
> 
> Really liked that movie too.


I watched it for the first time the other night so it was fresh in my mind. It actually surprised me a bit, as I wasn't expecting much from it. Especially after the name change to "Live Die Repeat" for the DVD/Blu-ray release.


----------



## captainobvious

rton20s said:


> Ground Hog Day or Edge of Tomorrow? I feel like I die just a little bit every time I come back in here.


lol

both good movies though 



.


----------



## Jepalan

The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite.

You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.

Robert M. Pirsig - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance


----------



## Victor_inox

Jepalan said:


> The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite.
> 
> You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.
> 
> Robert M. Pirsig - Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance



Zen of motorcycle maintenance? really? 
Funny thing, you people measured 3 parameters, declared it Scientifically proven and created yourself a dogma, yet have balls accusing others of religious beliefs in differences in amplification.


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> Zen of motorcycle maintenance? really?
> Funny thing, you people measured 3 parameters, declared it Scientifically proven and created yourself a dogma, yet have balls accusing others of religious beliefs in differences in amplification.


I haven't accused anyone of anything. Defensive much?

And to clarify.... my quote applies equally to all sides of this argument.

Have you read the book?


----------



## Victor_inox

I haven't read that book, true that, perhaps as motorcycle enthusiast I should. 
Not defencive- protective.


----------



## XSIV SPL

So, what was decided here? Nobody seems to be talking about amps anymore...


----------



## subwoofery

XSIV SPL said:


> So, what was decided here? Nobody seems to be talking about amps anymore...


Maybe because higher-end amps aren't for pussies :surprised: 

 

:laugh:

Kelvin


----------



## Victor_inox

Maybe? Most definitely!:laugh:


----------



## Victor_inox

XSIV SPL said:


> So, what was decided here? Nobody seems to be talking about amps anymore...


 Listen to no one, learn as much as you can, make your own decisions.


----------



## Jepalan

> So, what was decided here? Nobody seems to be talking about amps anymore...





Victor_inox said:


> Listen to no one, learn as much as you can, make your own decisions.


^^^ I think "listen to no one" comes off as a little paranoid and/or anti-social. Personally, I would alter it slightly:

Listen to everyone, question everything, draw your own conclusions, seek to learn first, and be respectful.


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> that's pretty much what I'm saying.
> 
> however, I come from the old school of reading magazines, and I still believe there is correlation between some of the old testing specs and what we hear.
> 
> it's just that we've gotten further along in the homogenization of the art, and for the most part if an amp is from a legitimate source the odds are good that it will have nearly the same sonic potential at or up to clipping, as almost any other amp given the wattage is similar.
> 
> 
> so if we used to be able to tell a good amp from bad using the specs, the margins that divided our ability to tell them apart, shrank into near non-significance, as human hearing is a constant, and the nature of electronic circuit design is always evolving with the use of faster, cleaner, more consistent parts coming available.
> 
> 
> and what I'm saying, is that all the amp manufacturers are both tied to, and supported by, the quality of the parts.
> 
> the low end gets the benefit of decent parts, while the high end is hamstrung by the lack of differences in parts.
> 
> you take the 5532 audio op-amp. It's been around a while, has been used in some of the most respected designs on the planet, and although there are measurably better op amps available today, if you swap out a 5532 for some of these esoteric bad asses, you don't really get to some new level of clean, you may just get "different, but similar" instead.


So I am finally home to address some of this without having to use my two fingers on my phone and with 5 minute breaks to do so. You mentioned the 5532 op amp here. A great example. As I remember it we saw mic amp designs that used that dating back to the 70's when IC's first came online. I remember reading an article about them specifically as folks would use their presence in a circuit as a clue to determine it's sonic footprint. The thing is the 5532 was used in both some of the best sounding mic amps as well as some of the worst. I wish I knew where the article was but it would have been one of the trade mags and is long destroyed I am sure. Both Analogue Devices and Burr Browns at the time had made available far better op amps but good mic amps were still being made out of 5532's. The author's point was that it is not only the parts that are used but the layout and circuit design that also have a great effect on what an amp circuit sounds like. "Cheap parts" (which in the late 80's when that article was written is what the 5532 was considered) can be used to make decent sounding audio gear if the sum of the parts is overall better and the correct attention has be given to the circuit design and layout. Of course we went on from there and built even better sounding mic amps and continue to even today. The 5532 has largely been replaced in favor of superior op amp designs of more recent years.


----------



## RobERacer

captainobvious said:


> EQs? DSPs?
> 
> 
> 
> This makes no sense.
> 
> Car audio amplifiers are not meant for production, they're meant for _accurate reproduction_. They are designed for flat frequency response. Where is the significant "tonal alteration" coming from if not from frequency response changes?



What part of it makes no sense? Audio electronics is an very imperfect science! The propeller heads are rarely chosen to mix records because they just don't get it. The best in mixing, tuning and system design look at the imperfections and try to figure out how to make the resulting sonics pretty by combining components with other imperfections. All that statement made was that outside of speakers power amplifiers have a far greater ability to deviate the sonics of a system from it's input over other devices that may be placed in the signal chain. It is a little hazy of an explanation because I am trying to point out that if you insert an eq and make no adjustment to it the resulting sonic degradation is likely to be less than swapping a power amp even when the amps are both installed with the correct gain structure. More voltage/amperage swing = greater chance of sonic degradation. Speakers (and microphones) of course are the most imperfect devices and win overall but next to that amps typically do. The point here is that for that reason alone changing an amp can make a significant sonic alteration to a system. 
We can call the sonic inferiorities "color" (we often refer to it that way in pro audio) and use that color to make the overall resulting sonic more to our taste. I would say doing that has nothing to do with science and points to the art side of audio and why the better paid individuals are more often than not less tech and more art oriented.


----------



## thehatedguy

Victor, it's a great book...not much about motorcycle maintenance though. But it's one of my all time favorites.


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> one issue, or problem that never seems to get addressed in the debate, is that the power ratings on the amps don't mean anything in this debate.
> 
> cheap power amps are normally rated well over their capability, but if you take a distortion analyzer and measure the amp's output, and find 500 watts is available under .5% distortion, it doesn't matter if the amps have 2000 watts on the heatsink.
> 
> You take a high end amp that's rated at 400 watts, and get 500 watts out of it before .5% distortion, you're still dealing with inaudible thresholds for everything under 500 watts unless there's some gross misadjustment or out of spec build.
> 
> put the cheap 2000 watt amp against the high range 400 watt amp, and because there's 500 watts of clean coming from both, you're going to have a problem noticing the differences.
> 
> 
> Is there going to be indistinguish-ability, *heh* or not?
> 
> I couldn't say, for sure but there are people here who have gone through the rigors of testing in a mostly formal manner, where the results have more than anecdotal significance, and they say that they weren't able to tell with certainty.
> 
> 
> and if that's a fact, Jack...


What you are neglecting to tell here is that high end amps all too often are also able to produce transient power spikes far beyond their power ratings just the same as the cheap amps. The 2000 watt spike is insignificant as it is basically useless and as it is far more uncontrolled in typical cheaper amp it making it actually detrimental.


----------



## thehatedguy

Not that the 5532 is bad...lot of people use them, Brax had them in the regular (non Graphic) edition amps. The Graphics I had were upgraded to Ti 2604s...which still aren't "state of the art."

But sometimes state of the art doesn't mean the best sound. Have to look at the surrounding circuit too. You wouldn't drop a Ferrari V-12 into a Pinto and expect to have a Ferrari-esque experience.


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> What you are neglecting to tell here is that high end amps all too often are also able to produce transient power spikes far beyond their power ratings just the same as the cheap amps. The 2000 watt spike is insignificant as it is basically useless and as it is far more uncontrolled in typical cheaper amp it making it actually detrimental.


Rob, I acknowledge that you have a lot of field experience, but with all due respect, what is your basis for a statement like this? I will allow that maybe I'm just not understanding the point you are making (my failure, not yours), but from an engineering perspective, it just doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jepalan said:


> ^^^ I think "listen to no one" comes off as a little paranoid and/or anti-social. Personally, I would alter it slightly:
> 
> Listen to everyone, question everything, draw your own conclusions, seek to learn first, and be respectful.


 too long....
question everything.


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> No. That is not what he said. When I read it, it seems to me he said...
> 
> "*If* any of these amps sounds differently, then it is not because of damping factor"
> 
> Do you see the difference? I don't see where he said "all these amps sound the same". He only said that "Damping factor is inconsequential".


Yes, yes. You guys showed the math as to how damping factor means nothing. The problem is that even amp designers are saying "nope I can still hear a difference". As they would have a far better ability to figure out why the difference I am inclined to still use that as a clue. BTW it was never more than a clue to me anyway. Same with slew rate which BTW in the "Audioholics Article" argues that it basically amounts to an eq thing is very misleading. Yes if an amp tracks the transient of the wave envelope closer it is going to reproduce the top end better but with that especially with percussive sounds that attack will not be minimised as much and therefore become more distinctive and more intelligible. Again, I said that too but as it is a listening thing you won't notice that from numbers. A dual trace oscilloscope showing the input compared to the output would show that but you guys are claiming it is "inaudible". Turning up the top end does not do the same thing either so that ain't the reason either my friend. I can hear it and so can most of the folks I work with (some of those are propellerhead designers too) so who is actually incorrect? 

If you scroll down the article in Audioholics you will notice a string of posts pointing to all of this so this discussion is really about accuracy of information. Slew rate as a valid spec is very widely accepted in the industry and still not generally in dispute other than in pockets like "Audioholics". My take is it is more of an issue of folks not understanding it's validity than anything. Also propellerheads like to confuse issues like that by cheating while taking the measurements. It was meant that one would measure the outputs but depending on where it is measured in the amp's internal circuit a different number can be arrived at. How about starting with not lying is my thought! In fact the spec inconsistency and unusability thing is mostly skewed because of the propellerheads which I am starting to feel disdain for again. As we have pointed out previous much study has gone into determining if humans can actually "hear" above 20 khz. We have proven that the answer in a literal and direct sense is "no" however it is also proven that humans do discern information well beyond the human hearing range although we arrive at that through a different mechanism. The *effective reality* however is that we do in fact hear far beyond 20khz. This was in dispute same as the damping factor thing for many years and it took science a long time to figure out that they were in fact "WRONG"! I think we are eventually going to see that damping factor is going to be proven one of these situations.


----------



## Jepalan

thehatedguy said:


> Victor, it's a great book...not much about motorcycle maintenance though. But it's one of my all time favorites.


One of my all time favorites as well. I thought the early discussions of Quality in the book were similar to the this discussion (especially the Q&A scenes with his college class).


----------



## RobERacer

thehatedguy said:


> Not that the 5532 is bad...lot of people use them, Brax had them in the regular (non Graphic) edition amps. The Graphics I had were upgraded to Ti 2604s...which still aren't "state of the art."
> 
> But sometimes state of the art doesn't mean the best sound. Have to look at the surrounding circuit too. You wouldn't drop a Ferrari V-12 into a Pinto and expect to have a Ferrari-esque experience.


That was basically my point. What parts are included is not the only factor involved and therefore is not so much a usable tell.


----------



## RobERacer

I would like to know one thing designer folks. I have forgiven the liars so we can move on. In amps much is gained by having higher available supply voltage. It is my understanding that slew rate is a product of that very thing for one and why some higher end mixing console manufacturers used 28 volt rails. In cars there is 12 volts as a supply. Do car power amps step the voltage up?


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> too long....
> question everything.


Perfect.
Looks like our work is done here. 
We can close this thread now.


----------



## Victor_inox

RobERacer said:


> I would like to know one thing designer folks. I have forgiven the liars so we can move on. In amps much is gained by having higher available supply voltage. It is my understanding that slew rate is a product of that very thing for one and why some higher end mixing console manufacturers used 28 volt rails. In cars there is 12 volts as a supply. Do car power amps step the voltage up?


“Things should be made a simple as possible, but no simpler”
Surprisingly power supplies wasn`t mentioned a lot in this thread.
power supply is most important part of any amplifier car or not, ability to provide required current and do it quickly is essential.
28V rails? Try-100/+100V rails, seen often in high power amps. 
that stands for 200V to power up that long line of power transistors.

Typically, a Class AB stereo amplifier rated at 200 watts per channel continuously should be capable of delivering 700 watts or so, and this means a transformer rating of about 2000 watts. Anything less means non-continuous operation. This might be alright for a class AB amplifier where maximum continuous operation is not required.
If the stereo amplifier is rated 200 watts per channel pure Class A, it will draw about 1000 watts all the time, meaning that about 3000 watts of power transformer is called for, no less.
Now a toroidal transformer delivers about 30 watts per pound, so a 3000 watt toroid will weight about 100 lbs, maybe more. The rest of such an amplifier will probably weigh about as much, so if you are looking at a 200 watt per channel stereo Class A amplifier, you will want to see if it weighs at least 200 lbs.
One pound of weight for every 2 watts is a good litmus test for evaluating Class A amplifiers. An amplifier weighing less might not be pure Class A. It might be almost Class A, or it might be one of the many products which achieve a Class A designation through trick circuitry.
To lower noise still further, toroids are sometimes encapsulated in metal cans. To reduce magnetic radiation, these cans are usually, but not always, made of steel. This is good, but be aware that in the past, at least one company has used a small transformer in a big can, and made up the difference with sand.


----------



## thehatedguy

Yeah, they have to. 12 volts is only +/-6 volts, which isn't much .


----------



## RobERacer

captainobvious said:


> Your logic is flawed. I didn't see any response from you on this post. This is a link direct to the specific post in this thread:
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/2246672-post2718.html
> 
> There are very valid reasons why evaluations must be done properly.
> This is exactly why "chaff and fluff" (as Orion put it) continues to propagate here and in this thread.
> 
> Doing a proper evaluation is not as difficult as you make it out to be. A simple speaker switcher box from Amazon for $20 and a little time is all that's needed.


WE have already gone over the fact that science doesn't know enough of what they need to know in order to definitively determine what needs to be measured. Worse we argue in regard to what is valid and what is invalid as money hungry folks lie to us with the very numbers that you argue are the ONLY thing we need in order to make purchasing decisions. Who's logic is flawed??? In pro audio "NO" purchases are made without *LISTENING TESTS*. Specifically this puts a stop to the marketing department twisting the propellerheads arms to lie about their data along with the fact that it in fact proves definitively where a specific unit outperforms others and where they don't. I keep hearing about how listening tests can be set up flawed. Sure they can but I think most folks on here are quite well educated enough in that regard to be able to set up an accurate test. You guys keep trying to make it out like it is some kind of rocket science to do a direct amp swap in order to compare. It just isn't! It's basic audio knowledge that is all that is needed and some due diligence. Get over it. My way is more than reasonable an very logical. Especially when in my case performance matters more than anything.


----------



## RobERacer

RobERacer said:


> WE have already gone over the fact that science doesn't know enough of what they need to know in order to definitively determine what needs to be measured. Worse we argue in regard to what is valid and what is invalid as money hungry folks lie to us with the very numbers that you argue are the ONLY thing we need in order to make purchasing decisions. Who's logic is flawed??? In pro audio "NO" purchases are made without *LISTENING TESTS*. Specifically this puts a stop to the marketing department twisting the propellerheads arms to lie about their data along with the fact that it in fact proves definitively where a specific unit outperforms others and where they don't. I keep hearing about how listening tests can be set up flawed. Sure they can but I think most folks on here are quite well educated enough in that regard to be able to set up an accurate test. You guys keep trying to make it out like it is some kind of rocket science to do a direct amp swap in order to compare. It just isn't! It's basic audio knowledge that is all that is needed and some due diligence. Get over it. My way is more than reasonable an very logical. Especially when in my case performance matters more than anything.


Oh I forgot to address the part about the speaker switcher. The issue there is that some folks on here want to claim that amount of difference induced by cable and lengths there of is going to greatly change the sonic so to eliminate that as a factor and eliminating a change of environment as a factor I like the amp swap most. Oh BTW as someone with the years of listening experience I have I have to tell you that I emphatically disagree with the notion that "we can only remember sound for mere seconds at a time". As I work in both recording and live audio I regularly get to revisit my work from previous days. I can totally hear the same issues from one day to the next. Sometimes it is months or even years between revisiting recordings. If there is one thing I have learned about sound over the years it is that folks try to make it a whole lot more confusing that it really actually is. We can hear the same from minute to minute and notice differences even a half an hour apart if we know what we are looking for.


----------



## RobERacer

thehatedguy said:


> What I am talking about is the distortion that is created when the waveform "crosses over" to the output devices. You have a positive side and a negative side of the waveform, and each side is handled by separate devices...in a single ended amp, the output device handles the whole waveform and is not split between the complimentary pairs. But in an a/b or b amp, the signal is split between devices...half going to one side and half going to the other side. You can lower that by increasing bias. But more bias creates heat and increases current consumption...and if you have a cool running a/b amp, you aren't getting much bias. Most a/b amps are biased more towards b for that reason.
> 
> The crossover distortion is why high efficiency drivers can sound harsh on a/b amps, and why most people prefer class A on those kinds of speakers. But some a/b type amps are better than others in this regard, and have very low crossover distortion.
> 
> Victor...am I missing anything here? It's been a while since I've read up on amplifiers, and that's just arm chair quarterbacking...no formal training.


Also hi res drivers and I think exactly why many folks have a hate on for Focal tweeters as an example. The reality is that they don't hide the distortion like the more inaccurate designs do. I am not a big fan of horn loading and compression drivers in cars as increasing efficiency like that creates it's own distortions but with higher efficiency drivers the core device is usually a higher res design so the efficiency loading will only make crossover distortion (in terms of a/, b amp designs) sonically worse.


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> Andy Wehmeyer posted studies undertaken by Harman, and his colleagues use information from statistics regarding listener preferences, to write their books.
> 
> Alpine's research and development used large listener studies to develop their Imprint algorithm.
> 
> for you to say we would love to have access, is just you not knowing that we do have access.
> 
> Check out Sean Olive's blog, and look at some of the data in the bibliographies of some of the technical articles available from Kef, Harman, Audyssey, etc.
> 
> there's a ton of stuff drifting out in cyberspace for you to make informed decisions, you just have to pull it down and absorb it.



Hang on here. The Key point is "UNBIASED". More to that they would need to be a recognized accredited organisation. It can't say Harman International or KEF or Alpine on the door! Sean Olive? Is he that well known and widely trusted as an honest and competent individual in Car Audio. This is the first time I've ever heard his name. I don't just take people at their word. Can't. They are too often full of ****! Back to listening as proof!


----------



## Victor_inox

RobERacer said:


> I don't just take people at their word. Can't. They are too often full of ****! Back to listening as proof!



true that!.


----------



## RobERacer

captainobvious said:


> I absolutely say you need to level match as one of your controls when blind evaluating amplifiers. But certainly not EQ match. What I'm getting at is that there is no need to even do that.
> 
> 
> The largest problem in this thread is that people seem to put the cart before the horse. You simply can't determine anything meaningful unless you do properly controlled blind evaluations, so a proper testing methodology is a requirement. I'm extremely confident that if people actually did this, they would not only come away with a great experience (learning for themselves), but would also have a different view of this whole debate. We're talking about what we can hear in this debate. But first people need to understand how to control their experiment and why it is necessary.
> 
> If we can't agree that you need proper controls when making these evaluations, well then this thread will certainly not go anywhere productive.


If you are Eq'ing for one amp over another there is a sign of a problem isn't there? Some amps do have a brighter sound and that can be for a number of reasons some of which are good reasons too. If you had boost in the top that you needed to take away that is an interesting difference and worth exploring to determine why.


----------



## RobERacer

thehatedguy said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that you don't need controls and a standardized method for a test to be valid.
> 
> But what I am saying is there is more to the picture than just level matching.
> 
> FWIW, current source amplifiers were not allowed in the infamous RC amp challenge because they behave differently than voltage source amplifiers. So that knocked a whole category out for blind comparisons. Which leads me to believe those amps for good or bad would easily distinguishable in such tests. Doesn't matter much since I can count those kinds of amplifiers for cars on one hand and have fingers left over...actually I can only think of one off of the top of my head- the Phass RE2.
> 
> Well Phass has a couple now...some cool esoteric designs too- SEPP amps with no negative feedback too. That's one brand of amp that I have always wanted to use but never have.


That was why I used the wording "gain structure" instead. Sometimes gains throughout the system need to be adjusted to compensate for amp changes. That is why we have SPL Meters. I have meters and use them too but you can hear it right away. It feels wrong. I use the "it feels wrong" as a clue to look for a problem.


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> hahahaha..
> 
> first off, she probably was aware of where you were at 80% of the time you were "in the garden" and she probably wanted to make you feel good, you know how our partners do, back each other up even if they know there's "NO CHANGE" at all...
> 
> 
> 
> but that's not what happens at your house, amI'RIGHT?
> 
> I mean, there's this penis-lengthening cream I get at a special rate out of the back of those foreign nudie magazines, and I swear every time I put it on, she knows...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :laugh:


You know. I have to say I found your reply rude actually. You almost out and out called him a liar. Maybe what he is saying is fact. What about your theory then? The vast majority of very credible and knowledgeable folks say there is a significant sonic difference between amps. The nay sayers are actually the minority here and the most vocal I might add. You even alluded to the fact that your experience is largely based upon what you have read rather than experience. You really didn't have the right to say what you said above and I think you owe Kelvin an apology. He deserves to be taken at his word on this as there is no evidence to the contrary.


----------



## RobERacer

captainobvious said:


> You're not testing them properly so it's understandable that you heard "significant differences".


So he didn't change the speakers, cable or the environment in which he was listening. I would assume his crossover settings didn't change nor did his eq either. Changing to a higher powered amp can increase voltage swing so that could effect a significant change that way and as it is aimed at improving sonics that makes going to a higher output amp a valid test. What would you do different? You keep saying the tests are invalid but you haven't said what will make them valid in your mind. I think we should have the right to explore that too.


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> Yes if an amp tracks the transient of the wave envelope closer it is going to reproduce the top end better but with that especially with percussive sounds that attack will not be minimized as much and therefore become more distinctive and more intelligible.


From this statement I have to conclude that you clearly do not understand what transient response, frequency response, and slew-rate are, nor how they are related to one another. 

I do enjoy reading about research into human hearing. I agree there has been much interesting research that suggests we can sense very precise temporal characteristics. Anything by Kunchur is an interesting read.

As to your statements that it has long been "proven" we can hear beyond 20KHz, would you be so kind as to provide some references I might study? 

Thanks.


----------



## RobERacer

captainobvious said:


> You're part of the way there. Having the equipment and setting consistent is a big first step. Same signal and voltage feeding both amps, same cables and length, same speaker wire construction, type and length, etc. Next, you need to have the amplifiers on a simple switcher so that you can switch back and forth in real time, quickly to change which amplifier supplies the power to the speakers.
> 
> Next, you need to have someone else do the switching (so you don't know/see which amplifier is being played) and making the source random with each selection. (I recommend AX type blind testing method as it should be easier to discern differences)
> 
> Your tester plays you a sample from amplifier A (maybe 20-30 seconds), then switches to the unknown (X- could be amplifier A or a different amplifier). Is it the same as what you just heard or different? You record what you think and the tester records what it actually was.
> 
> Do about 20 samples, take a short break. Come back and do 20 more and then see how you fared number-wise. You'll get a much closer idea of whether you were able to hear differences between the amplifiers at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> Once you determine IF you can hear a difference, then you can figure out why you do or do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


That is great if you are writing a review. If the data is for your own purposes what he did was enough to tell him what he needed to know. He was just sharing his experience. I think you need to set up a lab and have at the program. With enough of you folks out there doing it we are bound to finally get some information from people who aren't worried about looking like a fool for arriving at conclusions that contradict their original theories and with that end up with some real usable data. Until then I have more use for Kelvin's test than I have for many that I have seen.


----------



## cajunner

RobERacer said:


> That is great if you are writing a review. If the data is for your own purposes what he did was enough to tell him what he needed to know. He was just sharing his experience. I think you need to set up a lab and have at the program. With enough of you folks out there doing it we are bound to finally get some information from people who aren't worried about looking like a fool for arriving at conclusions that contradict their original theories and with that end up with some real usable data. Until then I have more use for Kelvin's test than I have for many that I have seen.


don't you get it?

captain obvious is the guy that did the ABX testing and invalidated his own previously held beliefs on amp sonics.

he didn't look like a fool but he was surprised.

he shares his experience as a result of his findings, which were validated by others who did the test with him.

the idea that you are unaware of the players in the debate, leads me to believe you are blindly lashing out at whatever you can in the frustrating effort of deflecting the truth from your views.

and that is okay, we need people like you because it gets a lot of otherwise unemployable people a chance at making a living in sales.


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> I would like to know one thing designer folks. I have forgiven the liars so we can move on. In amps much is gained by having higher available supply voltage. It is my understanding that slew rate is a product of that very thing for one and why some higher end mixing console manufacturers used 28 volt rails. In cars there is 12 volts as a supply. Do car power amps step the voltage up?


I agree with the response Victor already provided. Adding some of my own thoughts here...

For the most part, in our world (modern solid-state audio amplifiers for car, pro, or home) we are talking about amplifiers being voltage output devices. 

The supply-rail voltage needed in a given amp design is determined from knowing the load it is expected to drive and the amount of power desired to deliver to that load, plus some "overhead". This is not a "more voltage is better" situation - there is a point where enough is enough. 

Yes, car amplifiers step up the input voltage to generate the rail voltage for the output stages. If not then all car amps could only deliver a maximum of 36 W-RMS into a 4-Ohm speaker (ignoring losses). P=(V^2)/R

As far as the relationship between supply voltage and slew rate, I hinted at this in my earlier responses when I said slew-rate is something to consider when trying to create a LOT of power in large venue type applications. This is because the amps used in those applications are trying to achieve much higher output voltage swings and by definition require a very high slew rate. This is more of a "you need to do more work to move a heavier object" situation than it is a " more slew-rate is better" situation. 

I'm not sure I agree completely with your relating of slew-rate to high-end console design. I thought the primary reason for higher rails (+/- 28v) in pro consoles was to keep the signal levels high and maintain very high signal-to-noise ratios throughout the processing path. This is not a slew-rate thing. (other than the fact that you need devices with appropriate slew-rate to generate +/-28v swings verus say +/-5v swings, but again, that is the *definition* of slew-rate)


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> That was why I used the wording "gain structure" instead. Sometimes gains throughout the system need to be adjusted to compensate for amp changes. That is why we have SPL Meters. I have meters and use them too but you can hear it right away. It feels wrong. I use the "it feels wrong" as a clue to look for a problem.


Sorry, but I don't understand. 

Would you please elaborate on amp changes, gain structure and SPL meters? 

And in particular, how these relate to 'level matching' in a blind ABX test (which was the topic at hand)?


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> Rob, I acknowledge that you have a lot of field experience, but with all due respect, what is your basis for a statement like this? I will allow that maybe I'm just not understanding the point you are making (my failure, not yours), but from an engineering perspective, it just doesn't make sense to me.


The OP that I pulled that from stated that some cheap amps can create 2000 watts of power with less than .5% distortion and that that could make them sound better than a higher end amp. What do you conclude he was implying there? All I was saying that any amp prettymuch does that same trick and it is not limited to cheap or good therefore it is a completely useless statement to make. So, actually you and I completely agree on that part. It doesn't make any sense other than that I think it may have been injected just to generate confusion in less knowledgeable readers.


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> too long....
> question everything.


That is what I am saying. I have a tendency to not believe more than trust. Hence why I like to "try before I buy".


----------



## cajunner

RobERacer said:


> The OP that I pulled that from stated that some cheap amps can create 2000 watts of power with less than .5% distortion and that that could make them sound better than a higher end amp. What do you conclude he was implying there? All I was saying that any amp prettymuch does that same trick and it is not limited to cheap or good therefore it is a completely useless statement to make. So, actually you and I completely agree on that part. It doesn't make any sense other than that I think it may have been injected just to generate confusion in less knowledgeable readers.


I said a cheap amp is RATED for 2000 watts of peak.

so they can sell the amps. It only can muster 500 watts of power under .5% distortion.

I think you need to read more closely, or...


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> “Things should be made a simple as possible, but no simpler”
> Surprisingly power supplies wasn`t mentioned a lot in this thread.
> power supply is most important part of any amplifier car or not, ability to provide required current and do it quickly is essential.
> 28V rails? Try-100/+100V rails, seen often in high power amps.
> that stands for 200V to power up that long line of power transistors.
> 
> Typically, a Class AB stereo amplifier rated at 200 watts per channel continuously should be capable of delivering 700 watts or so, and this means a transformer rating of about 2000 watts. Anything less means non-continuous operation. This might be alright for a class AB amplifier where maximum continuous operation is not required.
> If the stereo amplifier is rated 200 watts per channel pure Class A, it will draw about 1000 watts all the time, meaning that about 3000 watts of power transformer is called for, no less.
> Now a toroidal transformer delivers about 30 watts per pound, so a 3000 watt toroid will weight about 100 lbs, maybe more. The rest of such an amplifier will probably weigh about as much, so if you are looking at a 200 watt per channel stereo Class A amplifier, you will want to see if it weighs at least 200 lbs.
> One pound of weight for every 2 watts is a good litmus test for evaluating Class A amplifiers. An amplifier weighing less might not be pure Class A. It might be almost Class A, or it might be one of the many products which achieve a Class A designation through trick circuitry.
> To lower noise still further, toroids are sometimes encapsulated in metal cans. To reduce magnetic radiation, these cans are usually, but not always, made of steel. This is good, but be aware that in the past, at least one company has used a small transformer in a big can, and made up the difference with sand.


Ya, console are only dealing with line level though which is kinda why I brought it up. I knew power amps were much higher. The power supplies for those consoles are a lot like power amps and weigh about the same too. Not so much fun to have to move around.



thehatedguy said:


> Yeah, they have to. 12 volts is only +/-6 volts, which isn't much .


My dad is long retired but he dealt with high tech electronics for the military like guidance systems and complicated communications stuff. He's always been a wealth of information to me other than that he has a tendency to bring me to the blank stare at times. Extracting information can be difficult sometimes because I just want the practical explanation nevermind the details. I asked him how they might do that in a car amp. Of course that is not his background but he thought using a step up x-former would be too impractical and that they were probably using inverters. The only issue there is the distortion factor that can induce. I realised this would be a big challenge for car audio and I am curious as to how they overcame and how effective it was. Pro audio at one point had to use 3 phase to power their stuff. Now most of the stuff is single phase 120 volt compliant although 20 amp connections are pretty common. (In Canada we don't use 20 amp circuits much so that requires them to have their own distro system.) The issue here is that is a lot of supply that a car just can't do and these amps are claiming a ton of power that most home amps don't even come close to. It makes me question things... A lot. Here's a few:
1. with the limited supply push (voltage) do car amps ever get anywhere near to the 100 volt rails in order to create the kinds of slew rates that studio amps regularly run at? (Again it is not about high frequencies and more about transient response) (B) if they don't they obviously get part way there as a compromise. What is typical?
2. Assuming they don't ever get to that kind of supply (obviously this question is only valid depending on the answer from the above) in basic, practical terms how would they overcome the blurred image that slowed attack is going to create? Yes, yes this can be more of a slight difference than some would make it out to be so the "nay sayers" can relax for a minute.


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> From this statement I have to conclude that you clearly do not understand what transient response, frequency response, and slew-rate are, nor how they are related to one another.
> 
> I do enjoy reading about research into human hearing. I agree there has been much interesting research that suggests we can sense very precise temporal characteristics. Anything by Kunchur is an interesting read.
> 
> As to your statements that it has long been "proven" we can hear beyond 20KHz, would you be so kind as to provide some references I might study?
> 
> Thanks.


HMM. The very article that you referred to in "Audioholics" showed a direct comparison of an input to an output square waveform. They are graphs. Voltage over time. Ya? The input waveform was square showing a rise time that is almost instantaneous. The output side showed that as being on an up angle of something less than 45 degrees. This shows the time for the voltage to rise as much slower ya? Transients are almost instantaneous. For the amp to rise slower means it is in fact *NOT TRACKING THE TRANSIENTS* at the same rate of speed and therefore changing the envelope of the waveform and with that it would then blur the audio image slightly. There are plenty of textbooks on this out there and it is all directly related to audio engineering more than electronics as it is deeply rooted in synthesis as well. Are you claiming I am wrong in this? Trust me I am not. 
The next part of this is can it be heard. Well that is possibly where you and I differ. I hear it. I know what I am listening for and why I hear it. I am also not alone either. More than that I have yet to meet anyone in my field who doesn't recognise that! In fact car audio is the first time I have ever heard a claim that "Slew Rate was erroneous as we can't hear that fast".


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> don't you get it?
> 
> captain obvious is the guy that did the ABX testing and invalidated his own previously held beliefs on amp sonics.
> 
> he didn't look like a fool but he was surprised.
> 
> he shares his experience as a result of his findings, which were validated by others who did the test with him.
> 
> the idea that you are unaware of the players in the debate, leads me to believe you are blindly lashing out at whatever you can in the frustrating effort of deflecting the truth from your views.
> 
> and that is okay, we need people like you because it gets a lot of otherwise unemployable people a chance at making a living in sales.



Hmm. That would preclude that folks go an buy higher end amps and replace them with cheaper ones. What actually happens and we have seen reference to this in this very thread is that folks actually buy lower end amp after lower end amp after lower end amp and just get frustrated. Most of those folks are the ones making the claims you are.
Also along with this one person screaming about testing procedures who is claiming there is no difference sonically we have a whole host of folks some of those actual designers who clearly note big differences. These are folks who are on here seemingly just to keep up with what is going on. Designers don't know how to isolate in testing? I don't? Like I said I haven't bought into any amp for the car yet but I am getting closer to finding it. Come on buddy. Who is lashing out and deflecting the truth?


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> I agree with the response Victor already provided. Adding some of my own thoughts here...
> 
> For the most part, in our world (modern solid-state audio amplifiers for car, pro, or home) we are talking about amplifiers being voltage output devices.
> 
> The supply-rail voltage needed in a given amp design is determined from knowing the load it is expected to drive and the amount of power desired to deliver to that load, plus some "overhead". This is not a "more voltage is better" situation - there is a point where enough is enough.
> 
> Yes, car amplifiers step up the input voltage to generate the rail voltage for the output stages. If not then all car amps could only deliver a maximum of 36 W-RMS into a 4-Ohm speaker (ignoring losses). P=(V^2)/R
> 
> As far as the relationship between supply voltage and slew rate, I hinted at this in my earlier responses when I said slew-rate is something to consider when trying to create a LOT of power in large venue type applications. This is because the amps used in those applications are trying to achieve much higher output voltage swings and by definition require a very high slew rate. This is more of a "you need to do more work to move a heavier object" situation than it is a " more slew-rate is better" situation.
> 
> I'm not sure I agree completely with your relating of slew-rate to high-end console design. I thought the primary reason for higher rails (+/- 28v) in pro consoles was to keep the signal levels high and maintain very high signal-to-noise ratios throughout the processing path. This is not a slew-rate thing. (other than the fact that you need devices with appropriate slew-rate to generate +/-28v swings verus say +/-5v swings, but again, that is the *definition* of slew-rate)


\

Actually at one studio I was working at they had an old D&R console that we were looking into modifying. We had some interesting conversations with the designer who suggested that we do that very thing to that desk in order "tighten up the low end and also increase intelligibility". You may not know who D&R was but suffice it to say they were a well respected higher end manufacturer. We made a lot of great records out of that studio too. I was in my early twenties then so that was pretty new to me at that time in that we never talked much about slew rates in mic amps before that. The console was actually very quiet already. We just wanted it more open sounding than it was. Cost of doing it vs cost of replacing it and longevity came into the equation and the owners decided replacement was a better choice. Didn't hurt my feelings any but I learned a lot from the experience. Suffice it to point out that the designer of the console himself was talking to us about this stuff and spoke in terms of as to why he would do the specific mods.

Most consoles use rails of +18 volts.


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> I said a cheap amp is RATED for 2000 watts of peak.
> 
> so they can sell the amps. It only can muster 500 watts of power under .5% distortion.
> 
> I think you need to read more closely, or...


I re read it a few times before I commented. Sorry if I missunderstood.


----------



## cajunner

RobERacer said:


> Hmm. That would preclude that folks go an buy higher end amps and replace them with cheaper ones. What actually happens and we have seen reference to this in this very thread is that folks actually buy lower end amp after lower end amp after lower end amp and just get frustrated. Most of those folks are the ones making the claims you are.
> Also along with this one person screaming about testing procedures who is claiming there is no difference sonically we have a whole host of folks some of those actual designers who clearly note big differences. These are folks who are on here seemingly just to keep up with what is going on. Designers don't know how to isolate in testing? I don't? Like I said I haven't bought into any amp for the car yet but I am getting closer to finding it. Come on buddy. Who is lashing out and deflecting the truth?


it's interesting to me, that you get me to answer since I believe on some levels, I'm impervious to these childish attempts to deflect.

on the one hand, motorcycle maintenance notwithstanding, I feel like it's my duty to provide truth, or at least truth-i-ness, here.

on the other hand, I should let all the audiophoolery happen, and just be amused at the subjective "findings" that correlate with non-scientific assumptions and sales gimmick, bandwagoneering.

in truth, I land between the two, looking for a little bit of internet grandeur as I rope in the outlaw believers of the absolute sound, and wholly interject on personal, albeit slightly selfish reasoning.

so, in that skein, I think my "lashing out" is at least tempered with sane, prudent advisement to go along with the chicanery and the obsequiousness, especially since I'm now dealing with an "experienced hand with superdaddy syndrome" as a combatant in the prose...


I'll make it easy, no.... I'll let you make it easy.


you figure out what it is that I want, from you.

if you get it right, then we'll make progress, if you don't...

well, whatever.


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> \
> 
> Actually at one studio I was working at they had an old D&R console that we were looking into modifying. We had some interesting conversations with the designer who suggested that we do that very thing to that desk in order "tighten up the low end and also increase intelligibility". You may not know who D&R was but suffice it to say they were a well respected higher end manufacturer. We made a lot of great records out of that studio too. I was in my early twenties then so that was pretty new to me at that time in that we never talked much about slew rates in mic amps before that. The console was actually very quiet already. We just wanted it more open sounding than it was. Cost of doing it vs cost of replacing it and longevity came into the equation and the owners decided replacement was a better choice. Didn't hurt my feelings any but I learned a lot from the experience. Suffice it to point out that the designer of the console himself was talking to us about this stuff and spoke in terms of as to why he would do the specific mods.
> 
> Most consoles use rails of +18 volts.


Hmm. Interesting story. How much did that console designer get paid for helping make the console more "open, with tighter low end and increased intelligibility"? I might be in the wrong business


----------



## Hanatsu

You can discuss how incredibly important all of these specs such as DF, slew rate etc is all you want. If people in a blind-test (such as the one captainobvious has presented) still can't hear any differences between the amps in question any logical thinking person can pretty much conclude that these parameters are good enough to not affect any audible aspect of the sound. 

Also, differentiate experience from knowledge. They do not always go hand in hand. Experienced people often rely on their knowledge to make conclusions, knowledgeable people often rely on their knowledge to determine if someones experience can be considered facts.


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> it's interesting to me, that you get me to answer since I believe on some levels, I'm impervious to these childish attempts to deflect.
> 
> on the one hand, motorcycle maintenance notwithstanding, I feel like it's my duty to provide truth, or at least truth-i-ness, here.
> 
> on the other hand, I should let all the audiophoolery happen, and just be amused at the subjective "findings" that correlate with non-scientific assumptions and sales gimmick, bandwagoneering.
> 
> in truth, I land between the two, looking for a little bit of internet grandeur as I rope in the outlaw believers of the absolute sound, and wholly interject on personal, albeit slightly selfish reasoning.
> 
> so, in that skein, I think my "lashing out" is at least tempered with sane, prudent advisement to go along with the chicanery and the obsequiousness, especially since I'm now dealing with an "experienced hand with superdaddy syndrome" as a combatant in the prose...
> 
> 
> I'll make it easy, no.... I'll let you make it easy.
> 
> 
> you figure out what it is that I want, from you.
> 
> if you get it right, then we'll make progress, if you don't...
> 
> well, whatever.


Y know. I think it is pretty clear that this is far more personal to you than I. Here is the thing. I think we both agree that there is an amount of Marketing Driven Lies that are in play in this. I feel that some folks have in this conversation tainted and twisted that truth to look more like the marketing information is either all lies or mostly lies. That is not truth. To me I am just on a fact finding mission. I come back to it. I am looking to build a system in my car that I am actually going to really like. As the auto audio industry basically refuses to let me hear what I might buy before I buy it I need to discover what the potential contenders are another way and that involves weeding out the ********.


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> Hmm. Interesting story. How much did that console designer get paid for helping make the console more "open, with tighter low end and increased intelligibility"? I might be in the wrong business



He was the owner of the company. They had a number of newer and probably better designs. He was happy to take a bit of time and talk to us about ours and how we could improve it though. Cost to us...NOTHING. He was just happy to help. It's something that folks don't seem to understand. In business it is just as much about relationship as it is product. Since then my opinion of D+R went way up. They always sounded good but that action topped them out for me. If I was buying a console they would for sure be one of the manufacturers I would be considering and I was an all NEVE guy before that.


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> Hmm. Interesting story. How much did that console designer get paid for helping make the console more "open, with tighter low end and increased intelligibility"? I might be in the wrong business


I am not a designer so I won't say who is right or wrong but in my career I have had to eat my hat a few times. We understand things based on the perspective we see them from. Once someone points out things from another angle what didn't seem to make sense sometimes suddenly does. I might be wrong but maybe Mr. De Rijk has a differing perspective or understanding from you? Apparently Mr. Rupert Neve does as he designs all of his equipment so as to have frequency response well beyond the human hearing range and ever since the late 60's his gear has been known as that best there ever was bar none. D&R were also heavy hitters for many years and a widely accepted alternate as they sounded similar. Yes, all high end consoles sounded different. No audio engineers have ever disputed that.


----------



## RobERacer

Hanatsu said:


> You can discuss how incredibly important all of these specs such as DF, slew rate etc is all you want. If people in a blind-test (such as the one captainobvious has presented) still can't hear any differences between the amps in question any logical thinking person can pretty much conclude that these parameters are good enough to not affect any audible aspect of the sound.
> 
> Also, differentiate experience from knowledge. They do not always go hand in hand. Experienced people often rely on their knowledge to make conclusions, knowledgeable people often rely on their knowledge to determine if someones experience can be considered facts.


Not to be rude but again we have the issue that unless one knows what they are looking for they might not find it. I am not attaching you here! If you didn't know what black levels were and how they depict picture resolution in video you might not know why a broadcast level monitor is better than one you can typically buy at Future Shop. It isn't just build quality. Which brings me to the second point in your reply. 
Knowledge is the product of what we learn from others and the experiences we have on our own. Hang on I said something here... "Audioholics" teaches that "Slew Rate" only really affects high frequency content. The whole first paragraph of the article was devoted to just that! I believe it was you who highlighted that wasn't it? Do you not see how in your own case experience could have trumped just reading about it? Reading about it is a good start and I believe necessary to understanding. Don't get me wrong but you need experience to go along with that. I read about end fire sub arrays and thought it was interesting but until I actually started to design and use systems with that I really didn't understand them. Still learning more too. We all are really. (I will let you look into that one. I think you will find that interesting. It’s all physics, no art there at all. Not till we figure out how to **** with it anyway. LOL). Apparently, I am not the only one who disagrees with the theory that slew rate only really relates to hi frequencies. Just kinda hurts that some folks were all but swearing up and down that I was emphatically wrong about it. Clearly I understood more than you guys realized. It is only an estimation on my part but I am thinking the author of the audioholics article really didn't have much "EXPERIENCE" with really determining what a higher slew rate sounds like. 

This all kind of relates to my questions regarding power supplies so it is probably a good time to bring it up. As car amps clearly have less supply wattage coming to them and with that far less voltage it makes sense to me that they probably generally operate with much slower slew rates than pro or home audio. Voltage is the measurement of electrical force. It requires more force to make your car accelerate faster unless you make it lighter. I am guessing the same physics apply to electronics. Ya? (I am learning here too hence why this part is a question) Home is the same as pro audio in terms of slew rate specs. Studio amps (Hafler Transnova, Bryston 4B are common) would actually be the pinnacle of that as those amps are higher power but don't generally run anywhere near their power capacity. It is all about pure sonics in that environment. Interesting to note though 300, 400 watt/channel amps are common. (similar to cars ya?) 8 ohm loads not 4 though for less distortion which brings us to distortion and just how much of that is too much. 
I actually don't think we need to discuss distortion levels. All I am saying is that in some situations maybe distortion levels are more of a factor than we might think. I hope I have made my point clear already as it is the same as all the rest of the “pointless” spec ratings. It is all about perspectives which are based on our current understandings. What seems insignificant today might not be later when we realize why it actually is and when it is necessary to consider that aspect. In my car I am aiming to build a recording studio level sonic environment (using market available car audio equipment). “It sounds better in our cars now than it does in our homes.” If that is available I want it! This is something that is proving to be more of a challenge than I originally thought as it appears that car audio is not nearly as capable as I originally thought. I've already gotten it well past Behringer level but I am looking for Neve and in my estimation the difference is anything but slight.


----------



## RobERacer

Hmm, I guess there will be no new D+R console in my future. They only seem to do broadcast now. Bummer. I have to say I personally feel like we have stopped the search for greatness and settled for mediocrity in audio. No more Hafler, no more D+R. What next? Time will be the tell though.


----------



## Jepalan

Black level does not have anything to do with resolution of a video image. You are now speaking directly towards a discipline in which I have 24 years of career experience.

Additionally, rail voltage only determines the max output voltage - period. You need a *stiff* power supply and *fast* output devices to achieve high slew rates. More volts on the amplifier supply rail doesn't help. An amplifier with a 2 volt rail could be designed with a slew rate many times faster than an amplifier with a 1000 volt rail (if needed). Slew rate is about how *fast* the output can change, not about how much absolute voltage it can achieve. 

Inadequate slew rate capability can limit high frequency performance and cause waveform distortion.

Higher slew rate does nothing beyond the point where the desired output voltage, frequency response and distortion levels have been achieved.

Higher rail voltage does nothing beyond the point where the desired output voltage can be achieved.

Now, as far as rail voltage noise, regulation and "stiffness" <- these are important at any voltage level.


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> Black level does not have anything to do with resolution of a video image. You are now speaking directly towards a discipline in which I have 24 years of career experience.
> 
> Additionally, rail voltage only determines the max output voltage - period. You need a *stiff* power supply and *fast* output devices to achieve high slew rates. More volts on the amplifier supply rail doesn't help. An amplifier with a 2 volt rail could be designed with a slew rate many times faster than an amplifier with a 1000 volt rail (if needed). Slew rate is about how *fast* the output can change, not about how much absolute voltage it can achieve.
> 
> Inadequate slew rate capability can limit high frequency performance and cause waveform distortion.
> 
> Higher slew rate does nothing beyond the point where the desired output voltage, frequency response and distortion levels have been achieved.
> 
> Higher rail voltage does nothing beyond the point where the desired output voltage can be achieved.
> 
> Now, as far as rail voltage noise, regulation and "stiffness" <- these are important at any voltage level.



All I was getting at with video is that if you look at the blacks in the picture in order to actually be able to see shapes in them rather than a blob of black black level becomes important as to "Resolving The Image". Average Joe just doesn't see it because they don't know what they are looking at. At least that is what the video engineer at one of the television studios I was working said to me as he showed me an image on a reference monitor and then pointed to it on a lessor monitor. 
As far as the electronic side I was asking questions. Mostly I don't even care. I spent far too many years sticking my nose into every piece of literature I could find on whatever so I could learn something about it. It just got old. I woke up and realised one day that I missed all of the surfing and sky diving that my friends got up to so I could read more crap about How Donald Trump built his multibillion dollar empire or more common what gizmo was used to do what in what recording. In this case however I am intrigued. As far as "stiffening a power supply" goes how would one go about achieving that?


----------



## RobERacer

Oh Part B to this. In the case as you said there is no reason that studio level perform should not be expected from car audio amps then?


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> Oh Part B to this. In the case as you said there is no reason that studio level perform should not be expected from car audio amps then?


Yes, I do not believe car audio amps need to perform at the level of studio devices. In most cases they do not even need to approach the level of home audio. 

Some reasons I believe this...

- Car audio environment is a VERY noisy, reflective, resonant box. There is no reason for me to pay for performance I will never be able to hear. Sure I could sit and listen to the car in the garage or driveway with motor off, but I don't.
- Studio is trying to record original material at an archival quality level and dynamic range that can be re-distributed to an array of end use cases. Needs to be pristine.
- Car audio is mostly dealing with end-of-chain compressed files. All car system needs to do is reproduce what is in the file.


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> As far as "stiffening a power supply" goes how would one go about achieving that?


Depends on the topology, but in general: 
- by using appropriate capacitor values and types on the supply output
- by using very low impedance power devices, and 
- by using an active regulator circuit appropriate for the load


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> Yes, I do not believe car audio amps need to perform at the level of studio devices. In most cases they do not even need to approach the level of home audio.
> 
> Some reasons I believe this...
> 
> - Car audio environment is a VERY noisy, reflective, resonant box. There is no reason for me to pay for performance I will never be able to hear. Sure I could sit and listen to the car in the garage or driveway with motor off, but I don't.
> - Studio is trying to record original material at an archival quality level and dynamic range that can be re-distributed to an array of end use cases. Needs to be pristine.
> - Car audio is mostly dealing with end-of-chain compressed files. All car system needs to do is reproduce what is in the file.


The only environment that is currently on mass dealing with high res audio files is recording studios. It used to be that file size was the limiting factor. We now have cheap easily transportable memory and can carry our entire album collections (I have over 1000) in the palm of our hand. Just a few little usb sticks is all it takes. Yes, as of yet most car audio units don't work with anything more than 32 gigs at a time but that is still a lot of albums. I just went all the way to Florida and back without hearing the same record twice. Everything was full wave. 

A pour listening environment? That is another thread but audio is far more controllable and we understand so much more in regard to absorption of various frequency ranges and things. I will agree that it is very difficult but I have heard some damn good sounding cars. I would say it has more to do with how than if.

Equipment being minature for cars is what I am concerned about. Things like the traces on the boards being closer together and although you're saying 2 volts is enough it appears to not be enough for most decent studio electronics so I am leary about that as of yet. Also we have the issue of re-sample and solution that we covered before that even though would clearly make a vast improvement in car audio is still shunned at large. 

In short it doesn't seem an issue of can't more than it is an issue of folks not wanting it. On mass most folks have never really experienced great audio so to even know the difference. As you say they typically listen to MP3 and all too often poorly encoded ones at that. Then they have other folks who possible aren't aware or who from their perspective think it doesn't matter anyway telling them that "it can't get any better" or some derivative thereof (the name of this thread for example). I think the myth actually needs redefinition myself. I think what we are close to proving here is that the tech is all there. The belief in the tech isn't. That said clearly it will take more than a better sounding amp to make your car sound great.


----------



## cajunner

RobERacer said:


> The only environment that is currently on mass dealing with high res audio files is recording studios. It used to be that file size was the limiting factor. We now have cheap easily transportable memory and can carry our entire album collections (I have over 1000) in the palm of our hand. Just a few little usb sticks is all it takes. Yes, as of yet most car audio units don't work with anything more than 32 gigs at a time but that is still a lot of albums. I just went all the way to Florida and back without hearing the same record twice. Everything was full wave.
> 
> A pour listening environment? That is another thread but audio is far more controllable and we understand so much more in regard to absorption of various frequency ranges and things. I will agree that it is very difficult but I have heard some damn good sounding cars. I would say it has more to do with how than if.
> 
> Equipment being minature for cars is what I am concerned about. Things like the traces on the boards being closer together and although you're saying 2 volts is enough it appears to not be enough for most decent studio electronics so I am leary about that as of yet. Also we have the issue of re-sample and solution that we covered before that even though would clearly make a vast improvement in car audio is still shunned at large.
> 
> In short it doesn't seem an issue of can't more than it is an issue of folks not wanting it. On mass most folks have never really experienced great audio so to even know the difference. As you say they typically listen to MP3 and all too often poorly encoded ones at that. Then they have other folks who possible aren't aware or who from their perspective think it doesn't matter anyway telling them that "it can't get any better" or some derivative thereof (the name of this thread for example). I think the myth actually needs redefinition myself. I think what we are close to proving here is that the tech is all there. The belief in the tech isn't. That said clearly it will take more than a better sounding amp to make your car sound great.


if you look more closely at what you are saying you should be able to see how you have busied yourself with the problems that surround amp quality, in an effort to distance yourself from the inevitable conclusion that amps, aren't the weak link in the chain.

we have seen you use studio references to make a mismatch in quality differences, bring up mp3 encoding, refer to people who "haven't heard the best" as being wrong in their views, etc. and it's all because you don't want to acknowledge that the people who push higher end sound equipment are basically selling products that are actually commodity level.

commodities. DS-21 said that, so many years ago and I too, resisted the idea.

amps are commodity level items, you can interchange, swap out, or upgrade and downgrade and it won't alter the end result, if you can set your levels and the basic facts of a higher than 85 db noise floor, less than .5% THD at rated output, and ample power, are in place.

it used to be different, and there are always exceptions, but the rule has been established. Amp sonics is one of the most durable, reliable, exceptionally consistent things you can depend on in our hobby.


If you've been unlucky and have found a bad sounding amplifier it is likely you have found a defective amplifier and not the representative sample, unless it was a design level issue and there are thankfully not many of those.


----------



## DLO13

Jerk comment incoming:

Spend less time debating this topic and more time tuning. :laugh:

Clearly Class D isn't holding people back from wining in the lanes...SO regardless if a Class A/B amp sounds better than D - Tuning makes a bigger difference. 

:dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse:


----------



## Ultimateherts

DLO13 said:


> Jerk comment incoming:
> 
> Spend less time debating this topic and more time tuning. :laugh:
> 
> Clearly Class D isn't holding people back from wining in the lanes...SO regardless if a Class A/B amp sounds better than D - Tuning makes a bigger difference.
> 
> :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse: :dead_horse:


Or it could be a mass conspiracy?


----------



## rton20s

Ultimateherts said:


> Or it could be a *critical* mass conspiracy?


FTFY


----------



## Victor_inox

Only one thing High End about Critical mass gear-price, typical run of the mill chinese crap with 10000% markup.


----------



## RobERacer

Ultimateherts said:


> Or it could be a mass conspiracy?


Which is exactly what folks here are trying to say it is. I used the studio example as a reference point because that is the one situation where because the listening environment is near perfect and most of the folks listening are not novices any deficiencies are far more likely to be shown. Likewise as those same folks are in the "tell all" environment and no -one is getting rich doing it the BS factor of cheap vs expensive if there was a conspiracy would be totally thrown in the manufacturers faces as soon as it happened. Straight up Rupert Neve would have been out of business 40 years ago and never able to make recording consoles that sold for more than a Million (US) dollars a piece. NO-one wants to waist there money and as the recording business is so carefully controlled by bean counters who stop us short of doing our best work all too regularly every cent counts. All of that because of the folks who don't think they should have to pay for intellectual property. That is the irony of it all too now that I think about it. Here these folks are worried about being ripped off yet many of them regularly purposely steal the very music they listen to.

Let's face it every device in a signal chain in between the transducers (mics and speakers) incorporates at least one amplifier circuit. Be it a differential amp, a mic amp, an op amp or a power amp they are all amplifiers. The difference is that some create more gain than others. The more the gain differential the more signal degradation (alteration) there is. Are power amps a fairly reliable sonic? Sure, but if we use that as our bar of required excellence there would be far less sonic difference between a cheap head unit and a good one as they are just line amps so one can save a ton of cash there too. Wait a minute. Has no-one stood there at future shop and listened to all 20 head units on the wall? Did they all sound exactly the same to you? Could FS have done something to twist the truth. Sure, k go to any of the installers on this thread and check their **** then. Are they all liars too. I would hope not! We regularly use different sounding mic amps to record the voices that you guys listen to every day and we use those differences directly on purpose to "color" the sound (and they do, greatly) of the mic as the rest of the signal path after that and before the recording media doesn't change the sonic nearly as much. Power amps regularly create more gain than mic amps! 

If none of it matters because you believe the differences are so miniscule then there is no point in spending any more than the least money you can on any component. Stop spending your money!!! We have been through all I can think of to go through. In pro audio the differences between great and cheap are massive. Car audio has no reason to be any different so for those of us who actually care the real truth is much more likely that there is a lot more to be gained than we are being led to believe here. It's more about perspective than it is about the estimations of validity. Back to it, don't just read about it!!! Demand that you get to taste the cake before you buy it. Like every industry car audio is driven by supply and demand. If they can't sell because you won't buy without checking it out they will cave! It is only the industry's insistence that the only sources of information is what you are told that is driving this whole discussion anyway. Nothing would ever need to be said if we could all hear it for ourselves. Oh, and there are enough honest folks out there that you can get an honest showing so look around. An honest guy will walk you through the process. Show you exactly what he is doing and why. No bs.


----------



## captainobvious

RobERacer said:


> Which is exactly what folks here are trying to say it is. I used the studio example as a reference point because that is the one situation where because the listening environment is near perfect and most of the folks listening are not novices any deficiencies are far more likely to be shown. Likewise as those same folks are in the "tell all" environment and no -one is getting rich doing it the BS factor of cheap vs expensive if there was a conspiracy would be totally thrown in the manufacturers faces as soon as it happened. Straight up Rupert Neve would have been out of business 40 years ago and never able to make recording consoles that sold for more than a Million (US) dollars a piece. NO-one wants to waist there money and as the recording business is so carefully controlled by bean counters who stop us short of doing our best work all too regularly every cent counts. All of that because of the folks who don't think they should have to pay for intellectual property. That is the irony of it all too now that I think about it. Here these folks are worried about being ripped off yet many of them regularly purposely steal the very music they listen to.
> 
> Let's face it every device in a signal chain in between the transducers (mics and speakers) incorporates at least one amplifier circuit. Be it a differential amp, a mic amp, an op amp or a power amp they are all amplifiers. The difference is that some create more gain than others. The more the gain differential the more signal degradation (alteration) there is. Are power amps a fairly reliable sonic? Sure, but if we use that as our bar of required excellence there would be far less sonic difference between a cheap head unit and a good one as they are just line amps so one can save a ton of cash there too. Wait a minute. Has no-one stood there at future shop and listened to all 20 head units on the wall? Did they all sound exactly the same to you? Could FS have done something to twist the truth. Sure, k go to any of the installers on this thread and check their **** then. Are they all liars too. I would hope not! We regularly use different sounding mic amps to record the voices that you guys listen to every day and we use those differences directly on purpose to "color" the sound (and they do, greatly) of the mic as the rest of the signal path after that and before the recording media doesn't change the sonic nearly as much. Power amps regularly create more gain than mic amps!
> 
> If none of it matters because you believe the differences are so miniscule then there is no point in spending any more than the least money you can on any component. Stop spending your money!!! We have been through all I can think of to go through. In pro audio the differences between great and cheap are massive. Car audio has no reason to be any different so for those of us who actually care the real truth is much more likely that there is a lot more to be gained than we are being led to believe here. It's more about perspective than it is about the estimations of validity. Back to it, don't just read about it!!! Demand that you get to taste the cake before you buy it. Like every industry car audio is driven by supply and demand. If they can't sell because you won't buy without checking it out they will cave! It is only the industry's insistence that the only sources of information is what you are told that is driving this whole discussion anyway. Nothing would ever need to be said if we could all hear it for ourselves. Oh, and there are enough honest folks out there that you can get an honest showing so look around. An honest guy will walk you through the process. Show you exactly what he is doing and why. No bs.



You can't compare music PROduction to music REPROduction. Two very different concepts and focuses.

I'm sure you could lump plenty of studio engineers into the group of people that can't hear differences between amplifiers in these AX/ABX tests as well. This still doesn't define what each individual can hear.


Also, it's naive to think that any form of accurate comparison is being made in most demo setups at shops. And perhaps even moreso to infer that you would get a "fair shake" at these boutiques who's primary goal is to move product. Showing you that you actually _can't_ hear a difference by producing a true blind accurate test is not conducive to strengthening the bottom line. Dealers want to make money. Dealers have alliances to companies. Magazines review products for companies. Companies advertise in magazines that produce the reviews and those advertising dollars are affected by those reviews. Companies donate and sponsor gear. There are many moving pieces to the marketing whiz-bang puzzle so where does a consumer find the actual truth? 

They find it by learning for themselves.

Strip away all of that marketing allure packed into the subconscious, line up those amplifiers and produce a true blind AX comparison test to remove all of those outside variables not associated with the direct, accurate comparison of the sound of the products in question (using your ears) and that is where you will find your truth.


----------



## rton20s

Victor_inox said:


> Only one thing High End about Critical mass gear-price, typical run of the mill chinese crap with 10000% markup.


You don't say?!


----------



## cajunner

I've seen the amp guts of Critical Mass products and it looks like at the very least, high grade Chinese build house quality...

and we're not trying to make the point that MSRP is equivalent to sound quality, are we?

a fun experiment would be to take two exact same cars, put in two exact same sound systems, with the only difference being the amps.

have the same processor, and have both vehicles tuned by the same guy, who uses the same measurement gear and puts both systems within +/- .25 db from 20 - 20Khz, repeatable, measurable data.

then get a throng of audiophiles to guess which vehicle has the high-cost amp option installed.


because it basically boils down to performance, after you have tucked away the amplifiers under the nice carpeted grill covers, or beauty panels, or whatever you call your stealth hide-away.

Can the all PPI Tarantula Nano, compete with the BRAX Graphic?

can the Mosconi Zero, lay out a nice SS REF system?

can a basic set of Power Acoustik BAMF, rise to the occasion of the TRU Technology?

Arc Audio, vs. Hifonics...

haha...


----------



## rton20s

cajunner said:


> I've seen the amp guts of Critical Mass products and it looks like at the very least, high grade Chinese build house quality...
> 
> and we're not trying to make the point that MSRP is equivalent to sound quality, are we?
> 
> a fun experiment would be to take two exact same cars, put in two exact same sound systems, with the only difference being the amps.


Let's do this! Who wants my PayPal addy to start sending cash to make this happen?


----------



## Victor_inox

Who selected you for that task?


----------



## cajunner

it's rigged!


----------



## rton20s

Victor_inox said:


> Who selected you for that task?


I have two of the same car. I volunteered. Feel free to do the same. 



cajunner said:


> it's rigged!


Always.


----------



## Victor_inox

rton20s said:


> I have two of the same car. I volunteered. Feel free to do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Always.


 Just giving you hard time... I`m fine. I installed/tuned a lot of critical mass gear for local athletes, they love stupidly expensive gear regardless of value.


----------



## rton20s

Victor_inox said:


> Just giving you hard time... I`m fine. I installed/tuned a lot of critical mass gear for local athletes, they love stupidly expensive gear regardless of value.


Athletes and the sponsored rappers are the only people I ever recall running their gear. They must be some really expensive badges.


----------



## Victor_inox

lime green hummer h2 on 33" rims deserve no less.


----------



## XSIV SPL

Hmmm... I've never even heard of Critical Mass... It must be REALLY good... 

Dustin, don't do it!


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> if you look more closely at what you are saying you should be able to see how you have busied yourself with the problems that surround amp quality, in an effort to distance yourself from the inevitable conclusion that amps, aren't the weak link in the chain.
> 
> we have seen you use studio references to make a mismatch in quality differences, bring up mp3 encoding, refer to people who "haven't heard the best" as being wrong in their views, etc. and it's all because you don't want to acknowledge that the people who push higher end sound equipment are basically selling products that are actually commodity level.
> 
> commodities. DS-21 said that, so many years ago and I too, resisted the idea.
> 
> amps are commodity level items, you can interchange, swap out, or upgrade and downgrade and it won't alter the end result, if you can set your levels and the basic facts of a higher than 85 db noise floor, less than .5% THD at rated output, and ample power, are in place.
> 
> it used to be different, and there are always exceptions, but the rule has been established. Amp sonics is one of the most durable, reliable, exceptionally consistent things you can depend on in our hobby.
> 
> 
> If you've been unlucky and have found a bad sounding amplifier it is likely you have found a defective amplifier and not the representative sample, unless it was a design level issue and there are thankfully not many of those.


I'm sorry. Were we discussing system design or amplifier differences? They come hand in hand so we do need to keep referring back but as the discussion is "Do better amps actually sound better?" the aim of the discussion has to remain there. I actually think we have covered that but obscuring that seems to be something that I have seen you possibly attempt on a few occasions. Who's deflecting? I have assumed that folks have done their due-diligence and installed higher performance drivers in a way that will maximize their performance. On that note I will also say that I doubt a great amp would perform much better than a cheaper one on a speaker set that either (A) requires a lot of eq reducing their ability to resolve detail due to phase shift or (B) inherent in their design do not resolve detail on an expressive level. For a high end amp to shine the rest of the system needs to be comparable as well. I assumed that would be understood. Outside of that, it's another thread. HMM. I guess it isn't all about tuning is it?



captainobvious said:


> You can't compare music PROduction to music REPROduction. Two very different concepts and focuses.
> 
> I'm sure you could lump plenty of studio engineers into the group of people that can't hear differences between amplifiers in these AX/ABX tests as well. This still doesn't define what each individual can hear.
> 
> 
> Also, it's naive to think that any form of accurate comparison is being made in most demo setups at shops. And perhaps even moreso to infer that you would get a "fair shake" at these boutiques who's primary goal is to move product. Showing you that you actually _can't_ hear a difference by producing a true blind accurate test is not conducive to strengthening the bottom line. Dealers want to make money. Dealers have alliances to companies. Magazines review products for companies. Companies advertise in magazines that produce the reviews and those advertising dollars are affected by those reviews. Companies donate and sponsor gear. There are many moving pieces to the marketing whiz-bang puzzle so where does a consumer find the actual truth?
> 
> They find it by learning for themselves.
> 
> Strip away all of that marketing allure packed into the subconscious, line up those amplifiers and produce a true blind AX comparison test to remove all of those outside variables not associated with the direct, accurate comparison of the sound of the products in question (using your ears) and that is where you will find your truth.


Firstly, the premise of a control room in a studio is that its primary function is to be the most revealing listening environment possible. The point is to find all of the "problems" in the music and fix them before the mix (music) gets sent out the door. Actually a mastering studio would be a more hyper environment. I am not a mastering engineer and never installed anything in a mastering studio so I just don't think of them much other than to send my work onward to them. The truth there is in their hyper listening environments the gear is far more pricy and I have yet to meet an engineer much less a mastering engineer that won't swear that one amp sounds better than another in high end operations. Again we should preface this by noting that the rest of the gear is complimentary and would in fact be capable of revealing any differences. 

Clearly you have a very low opinion of retailers. I would suggest to you that installation shops make the most of their money from doing the work and that a minor amount is made on the retail end. More than that some folks are just honest folks and can't actually bring themselves to deal dishonestly. Typically those folks are not involved in the larger operations because those operations are all too often overshadowed by greed and would inherently push for greater sales regardless of honesty. Like many of us in audio the drive might be to do good work more than "sell, sell, sell"! At least it is an attempt at finding truth. You and I both know there is no way we are going to get to walk out of any retailer with a half a dozen amps under our arm in order to run "tests in a controlled environment". Throwing our arms up in the air, saying "**** it" and just buying the first one that we see is far more likely to end up with far less than satisfactory results especially when the likelihood is more for the purchaser to buy "cheap" rather than most expensive. The budget box is almost the sure bet for less performance. It is cheaper at least in part because they can make it cheaper. HMM. Wait, this is exactly what is happening already and here we have a whole host of people who swear up and down that a better amp doesn't sound any better. I wonder why?

Installers, now is your time to speak. Are you all just a pack of liars aimed at lining your pockets? You can just sit there or be proactive. I am certain you can help to come up with a viable solution that works for everyone. The $5 difference that you make on selling a better amp over a cheap one doesn't mean anything to you at the end of the day. Yes, I do know that more typically the profit margin is actually much less on high end product and all too often selling high end is more just trading dollars without a profit margin but end users don't understand that. They just see dollar signs and think they are being hosed.


----------



## Jepalan

:streeeeetch: :yaaaawn:

In everyday car audio, spend your money and time on these things, in this order...

1) good speakers
2) good install
3) a processor (or HU with built-in processing)
4) head unit
5) tuning the system
6) any old mid-line name brand amps you care to choose

In everyday car audio, you can use all but the absolute low-end for #6 and as long as you are running the amps with some headroom, amp selection won't matter one lick.

:worried:


----------



## Victor_inox

All ******** in car audio arose from conception that car audio is separate science. 
car audio is no different from any audio, it works by the same laws of physics as mastering control room or your home theater or concert hall, results might be achieved using different techniques but fundamentals is the same. 
1. tuning
2.speakers
2.head unit
3.install
5. DSP- many of them very similar or use same boards otherwise it would be one notch higher on this scale.
6. amplifiers to be matched to the rest of the system.
And Rob I do have very low opinion on retailers. not a single time I met one knowing as much about thing in question then I was.


----------



## ChrisB

rton20s said:


> Athletes and the sponsored rappers are the only people I ever recall running their gear. They must be some really expensive badges.



What about that famous rapper whose CD would come with certain Powerbass gear? I can't even remember his name, lol.


----------



## rton20s

ChrisB said:


> What about that famous rapper whose CD would come with certain Powerbass gear? I can't even remember his name, lol.


I wasn't aware, but a quick search returned "Big Deuce." 

I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> All ******** in car audio arose from conception that car audio is separate science.
> car audio is no different from any audio, it works by the same laws of physics as mastering control room or your home theater or concert hall, ......


I in no way meant to imply car audio was a separate *science*. But it certainly is a different listening room than home audio or recording studio - yes? 

I think we are mostly in agreement. 

May main point is that the every day car is *noisy*, really noisy. Most of the nuance is washed out and inaudible.


----------



## XSIV SPL

lizardking said:


> The older Dire Straits you mentioned sounds much better on the orginal...which does need turned up if you want it loud. One of the best recorded around.


And, though I'm not sure how accurate the source, I've been told that the studio bill for the recording of "Brothers in Arms" cost around $300K back in 1984. I still use this recording to evaluate various aspects of system performance.

man, what a huge return-on-investment THAT recording turned out to be.... still on the best-sellers list...


----------



## Victor_inox

Jepalan said:


> I in no way meant to imply car audio was a separate *science*. But it certainly is a different listening room than home audio or recording studio - yes?
> 
> I think we are mostly in agreement.
> 
> May main point is that the every day car is *noisy*, really noisy. Most of the nuance is washed out and inaudible.


Yes but science is the same. best noise insulation you can afford,increase SP in noisy cabin to bring those nuances back. There is a reason people love horns and pro audio drivers in their rides.
I`d take horns under dash and pro audio 8" in doors with 20W class A amplifier to power them over just about anything, dynaudio, Brax, Focal, whatever "taste of the moments" are. DSP in head unit or stand alone one for TA EQ duty or without it it there a possibility with drivers placement.
But that`s just me.


----------



## XSIV SPL

Jepalan said:


> :streeeeetch: :yaaaawn:
> 
> In everyday car audio, spend your money and time on these things, in this order...
> 
> 1) good speakers
> 2) good install
> 3) a processor (or HU with built-in processing)
> 4) head unit
> 5) tuning the system
> 6) any old mid-line name brand amps you care to choose
> 
> In everyday car audio, you can use all but the absolute low-end for #6 and as long as you are running the amps with some headroom, amp selection won't matter one lick.
> 
> :worried:


Hmm... This almost sounded sensible until item #6... You're either a visionary or you're seriously misinformed... I'm betting on the latter.


----------



## Victor_inox

XSIV SPL said:


> Hmm... It almost sounded sensible until item #6... You're either a visionary or an idiot... I'm better on the latter.


 ouch.we stayed almost civil for 119 pages let`s keep it that way if possible.


----------



## XSIV SPL

Victor_inox said:


> ouch.we stayed almost civil for 119 pages let`s keep it that way if possible.


Yeah, I thought that too... Fixed it 

You and I both know though, if you meet all of the aforementioned requirements outside of amplification, quality amps DO deliver an undeniable difference... Sorry to say, this guy seems to be babbling, at best.


----------



## Jepalan

XSIV SPL said:


> Hmm... This almost sounded sensible until item #6... You're either a visionary or you're seriously misinformed... I'm betting on the latter.


Just my opinion. Nothing more nothing less. Would love to hear your opinion regarding amp choices (#6) and reasoning. Seems a better use of forum than just trading insults.

The sentence under #6 in my post clarified that statement. Choose an appropriately powered amp running with headroom for the load it is driving, don't choose the lowest end brands/models (cheap junk), and choose the features you need (xovers, etc) and there are a lot of good amp choices. 

What about that do you not agree with?^^^


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> Yes but science is the same. best noise insulation you can afford,increase SP in noisy cabin to bring those nuances back. There is a reason people love horns and pro audio drivers in their rides.
> I`d take horns under dash and pro audio 8" in doors with 20W class A amplifier to power them over just about anything, dynaudio, Brax, Focal, whatever "taste of the moments" are. DSP in head unit or stand alone one for TA EQ duty or without it it there a possibility with drivers placement.
> But that`s just me.


Yes, I agree -> The science is the same. <- Didn't I say that? I agree with everything else you wrote here ^^^.

It is a subtle point, but I think the only place we might disagree is where the point of diminishing return is in the car environment. And by diminishing return, I mean spending $ on the highest end amps. For me, as long as the amp is running with decent headroom, is well built, and not too expensive, it does the job for me.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jepalan said:


> Yes, I agree -> The science is the same. <- Didn't I say that? I agree with everything else you wrote here ^^^.
> 
> It is a subtle point, but I think the only place we might disagree is where the point of diminishing return is in the car environment. And by diminishing return, I mean spending $ on the highest end amps. For me, as long as the amp is running with decent headroom, is well built, and not too expensive, it does the job for me.


 quantity of such subtleness (is that even a word) is irrelevant. Why is that everyone knows better where I spend my money?****ing pisses me off.
Expensive is relative term not absolute.


----------



## JVD240

Victor_inox said:


> quantity of such subtleness (is that even a word) is irrelevant. Why is that everyone knows better where I spend my money?****ing pisses me off.
> Expensive is relative term not absolute.


I agree with you here, Vic.

Totally your discretion.

My issue with the whole "SQ Amplifier" thing is that a lot of noobs show up here asking "what's the best sounding amp for xxxx setup?" and people feed them info like it will be some dramatic difference. It simply isn't.

It's like people with their crusty old Hondas discussing air intake choices. One might net you 1HP more over the other. A change in temperature the next day will do more than that. Is it worth it to some people? Sure. Is it worth it to me? Absolutely not. I buy a (turbo) platform that responds well to changes rather than eeking out 1% gains here and there for massive amounts of money. DSP, to me, = turboooooo.


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> quantity of such subtleness (is that even a word) is irrelevant. Why is that everyone knows better where I spend my money?****ing pisses me off.
> 
> Expensive is relative term not absolute.


I'm not telling you how to spend your money. Spend it how you want. I am expressing an opinion with supporting justification - isn't that what these forums are for? 

Look carefully at my post -> "For me, as long as the amp is running with decent headroom, is well built, and not too expensive, it does the job for me."

It may not do the job for you. That is OK.

IN MY OPINION, and in-general, there is a lot more to gain when buying a 4 channel amp for a daily car when spending $300 versus $90 than there is when spending $2000 versus $300.


----------



## Victor_inox

and that is OK. I can`t stand run of the mill rebadged equipment, you might be not that picky...


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> and that is OK. I can`t stand run of the mill rebadged equipment, you might be not that picky...


I'm VERY picky. When it matters


----------



## cajunner

here's a 4 channel going for 85, is that what you mean?

Polk Audio PA200 4 Car Speaker 4 Channel Amplifier 747192113605 | eBay


----------



## Victor_inox

Jepalan said:


> I'm VERY picky. When it matters


 One man's trash- another man's treasure, I`m fine with that too. 
For my OCD every single thing matters. I hate messy installs and cheaply made electronics, most like their money more then anything and compromise on luxury and sometimes necessities. Car audio hobby is a luxury, you can compromise as much as you see fit. 
here is two amps similar in size.








Most here familiar with MCIntosh. Korean made one I`ve got on ebay for $30.
enjoy
















two channels of that turd is about same power as two channels of that mac makes. sounds must be the same, isn`t it? 

Good thing I bought this korean one for heatsink only guts will be thrown in the recycling soon. poor bastard who bought it originally probably paid a couple hundred or so. 
QUESTION.. what is the better value?


----------



## sqnut

Jepalan said:


> spend your money and time on these things, in this order...
> 
> 1) tuning the system
> 3) a processor, a full processor with 31 bands and ta per channel > HU with built-in processing
> 4) good speakers and placement
> 5) a dash mat
> 6) secure, safe and correct install
> 7) any old mid-line name brand amps you care to choose
> 
> In everyday car audio, you can use all but the absolute low-end for #7 and as long as you are running the amps with some headroom, amp selection won't matter one lick.
> 
> :worried:


Fixed it a bit.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> One man's trash- another man's treasure, I`m fine with that too.
> For my OCD every single thing matters. I hate messy installs and cheaply made electronics, most like their money more then anything and compromise on luxury and sometimes necessities. Car audio hobby is a luxury, you can compromise as much as you see fit.
> here is two amps similar in size.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most here familiar with MCIntosh. Korean made one I`ve got on ebay for $30.
> enjoy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> two channels of that turd is about same power as two channels of that mac makes. sounds must be the same, isn`t it?
> 
> Good thing I bought this korean one for heatsink only guts will be thrown in the recycling soon. poor bastard who bought it originally probably paid a couple hundred or so.
> QUESTION.. what is the better value?


have you given the two examples a fair ABX test?

up to 90 db, or say, 1 watt of drive, those two amps might not be so easy to tell apart even if they are miles apart in build quality and everything else, or any metric that relies on instruments to measure and not the notoriously unreliable human hearing mechanism.

and really, is that Korean amp actually pushing the same amount of watts, or is it just plastered with a high watt figure, and can't muster even half of the under clipping performance of the Mac?


if you really want to distinguish between amps, I would take on the rash of 5-channel amps out there, and show how running off of one power supply collapses the headroom using "all channels driven" testing.

I've been converted from the idea set that says big macho amplifiers have to sound better, but I still believe in the idea set that says each channel deserves it's own independent supply. 

And on normal music, at sane levels I probably will not notice the constraint put on a 5-channel amp that uses the same toroid for all it's channels, but for the sake of argument, believe that using 2 separate 2 channels and a mono sub amp, is going to be worth the extra expense, real estate, and complexity of install to go that route.

which is probably similar as the debate of whether I should be using middle tier amps instead of the extra forte higher end since I can't distinguish the better from a blind test.


----------



## rton20s

Victor... you honestly think that ANYONE on either side of this debate has been comparing something like the JBC you posted to whatever a "higher end amp" is? 

We haven't even come to a consensus on what constitutes "higher end" yet, have we? And it is design, component selection, price tag or just a general perception?

Edit... OK, maybe cajunner is willing to make that comparison.


----------



## cajunner

rton20s said:


> Victor... you honestly think that ANYONE on either side of this debate has been comparing something like the JBC you posted to whatever a "higher end amp" is?
> 
> We haven't even come to a consensus on what constitutes "higher end" yet, have we? And it is design, component selection, price tag or just a general perception?
> 
> Edit... OK, maybe cajunner is willing to make that comparison.



that's the beauty of ABX testing, it can put any ol' POS amp in with the bestest of the best.

the saying "it's not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog" comes to mind, because as long as you demonstrate a low overall expectation, (limited to <1W, normal inefficient aftermarket speakers, and basic testing for function equivalent to the pass/fail QC of a certified refurbisher) the odds are good that an average Joe doesn't get 10 out of 10 on music.


what does that say?


not that much really, except that reasonable doubt is what we need for a guilty verdict and that is all we're saying.

If someone would submit to testing and kindly demonstrated they could not distinguish a clear best option, would we call them out as having terrible hearing and not a valid test, or would we just try to bury the unfortunate results under a mountain of specs, build photographs, and user testimonies?


I think this thread is the proof of that, I mean unless anyone cares enough to do the testing, they are just resisting the obvious, captain obvious...


haha...


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> have you given the two examples a fair ABX test?
> 
> up to 90 db, or say, 1 watt of drive, those two amps might not be so easy to tell apart even if they are miles apart in build quality and everything else, or any metric that relies on instruments to measure and not the notoriously unreliable human hearing mechanism.
> 
> and really, is that Korean amp actually pushing the same amount of watts, or is it just plastered with a high watt figure, and can't muster even half of the under clipping performance of the Mac?
> 
> 
> if you really want to distinguish between amps, I would take on the rash of 5-channel amps out there, and show how running off of one power supply collapses the headroom using "all channels driven" testing.
> 
> I've been converted from the idea set that says big macho amplifiers have to sound better, but I still believe in the idea set that says each channel deserves it's own independent supply.
> 
> And on normal music, at sane levels I probably will not notice the constraint put on a 5-channel amp that uses the same toroid for all it's channels, but for the sake of argument, believe that using 2 separate 2 channels and a mono sub amp, is going to be worth the extra expense, real estate, and complexity of install to go that route.
> 
> which is probably similar as the debate of whether I should be using middle tier amps instead of the extra forte higher end since I can't distinguish the better from a blind test.


 Realistically show me one modern chinese made amplifier with dedicated power supply for each channel.
Some Germans using separate PSU for each channel, Some italians...
maybe some Japanese but none of the mainstream inexpensive amps.
Problem with your question is that at 1W power most speakers will be at 80Db SP and that is not enough. 83db at 2 watt, 86 at 4 89 at 8 and so forth.

pair of transistors shown in that korean amp capable of 80watt, each ch has a pair, so theoretical max is 80watt/ch. actually it sound half decent, not as effortless as mac but usable. I bet if I redo PSU, beef it up etc etc it might be tuned to sound very close to MAC. 
most elcheapo amps build by the same principle- easy circuit- cheap parts,hefty profit. work for 6 month and that`s fine.


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Realistically show me one modern chinese made amplifier with dedicated power supply for each channel.
> Some Germans using separate PSU for each channel, Some italians...
> maybe some Japanese but none of the mainstream inexpensive amps.
> Problem with your question is that at 1W power most speakers will be at 80Db SP and that is not enough. 83db at 2 watt, 86 at 4 89 at 8 and so forth.
> 
> pair of transistors shown in that korean amp capable of 80watt, each ch has a pair, so theoretical max is 80watt/ch. actually it sound half decent, not as effortless as mac but usable. I bet if I redo PSU, beef it up etc etc it might be tuned to sound very close to MAC.
> most elcheapo amps build by the same principle- easy circuit- cheap parts,hefty profit. work for 6 month and that`s fine.


my point is that I believe in separation, and I believe in it more than I can pass formal testing to prove separation is worth the cost and trouble.

I understand how hard it is to acknowledge that at any reasonable volume level with other people in the car, the cheap amp can hang with the big boys.

I mean, conversational volume, of course.

If the music is louder than me being able to be heard while talking at a slightly elevated level, then it's getting above 80 db and into those "more than 1W of output" zones.

that's not what I'm suggesting.

I also believe that 90 db is a good average for OEM spec'ed speakers in the 200 to 5K range, with say, 2.83V of drive.

is that really 2W of power? I don't know, 4 ohm, 8 ohm...

anyways, the point is that at low power, even the most humble of amp designs being made for 6 month warranty periods, is still good enough when we are establishing the baseline for human hearing margins.


this is the stickler, it's not that some people can't tell, it's that the average person can't tell.

and if we're in an informal environment and we do the tuning required, an aftermarket installation using cheaply made, cheaply designed, and cheaply bought amplifiers will not out the system as being bad overall.


you can say it will, but tests prove otherwise. I say it like this, if you find a guy with a kickass system using the very best of everything and his amps are used as gain blocks, with his tuning equipment outboard from the amps, you can switch out the uber monsters with a middle tier equivalent and not really impact the sound to the point that someone will get in and say, "yep, cheap amps are ruining it for me" and that's the division bell.


everyone will hear a great system, the amps won't make the difference.


----------



## DLO13

rton20s said:


> Victor... you honestly think that ANYONE on either side of this debate has been comparing something like the JBC you posted to whatever a "higher end amp" is?
> 
> We haven't even come to a consensus on what constitutes "higher end" yet, have we? And it is design, component selection, price tag or just a general perception?
> 
> Edit... OK, maybe cajunner is willing to make that comparison.


I think a class D Zapco, vs a non class D zapco would be a reasonable comparison....

I think i know a group that has access to both....


----------



## omnibus

I have noticed a tad difference among modern class D amps on fronts. I can't put my finger on anything specific but nothing that I would say sounded worse over the other...just a tad bit different. I bought JL Audio C3-600 fronts and you know I don't really think they are much if any better than the much cheaper Memphis coaxials I had before it. But comparing in a car isn't quite the same as comparing headphones in your home.

I once compared my old punch 60ix to a 2009'ish Alpine mrv I think it was. The alpine was cleaner, more defined but both sounded just fine and were close in output power. Not that anything I have is high end. I would consider Audison or Brax high end stuff as being real high end but that's me.

Next time I'm definitely going cheaper on the fronts and cheaper amps. I also probably won't bother with silver cladded copper, triple shielded RCA's either nor worry about getting knuconcepts OFC power wires or some brand like that....Scosche amp kits seem to work just fine.


----------



## Jepalan

sqnut said:


> Fixed it a bit.


I can get onboard with those tweaks.


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> :streeeeetch: :yaaaawn:
> 
> In everyday car audio, spend your money and time on these things, in this order...
> 
> 1) good speakers
> 2) good install
> 3) a processor (or HU with built-in processing)
> 4) head unit
> 5) tuning the system
> 6) any old mid-line name brand amps you care to choose
> 
> In everyday car audio, you can use all but the absolute low-end for #6 and as long as you are running the amps with some headroom, amp selection won't matter one lick.
> 
> :worried:


And of course yes, you should achieve "generally acceptable results". "Acceptable" compared to what? Dr DRE. headphones? Do we at least agree that there is far better audio readily available than what Dr. Dre headphones can deliver? What if we are looking to achieve the sonic we have with your high end system in your living room? You skidded around it. Are you emphatically saying it is "Unachievable"? I doubt you are but what I did get from you is that in your opinion the pursuit of high end audio (and possibly not just related to cars) is pointless. It is a perspective thing. Some folks are more driven to it than others and that is ok. Is it not also ok to pursue excellence too though?
I don't think I am alone in that I personally know that amp specs really amount to only as much as a TV add and are only really the manufacturer putting there hand up and saying "I am part of the low cost crowd, try me" or "I am the best ever, check me out". As far as how true or false they are even when they are true we still hear a valid difference. According to this we are back to it being a big mystery as to why in that a $5K Brax Matrix really doesn't have any better spec than a $400 DLS Ref. I think the fact that most amps are hiding under seats and carpet makes the point that size (smaller) is more of a concern than what they look like for most of us. To me I don't find either to be an exciting visual work of art anyway. It's a freakin tin box man! That said there is sure to be a difference and it may not only be sonics but that is likely to be part of it. Maybe the Brax guys are con artists. Maybe the DLS guys are. Maybe they both are? The only way we as end users get to find out is to plug the ****ers in and to do that we have to buy it. I don't know about you but I am not inclined to throw hundreds of dollars away on a trial. When I buy I want it to be the right one the first time! At the very least it had better be a damn good alternate. I think many of us come on here to hear the stories from experienced users and get the low down on who is full of **** and who isn't in the manufacturing world. We have heard from the crowd who has bought low end junk and replaced it with more low end junk finding little to no difference but I can get that talking to folks on the street. Actually I don't need to ask I would have guessed that conclusion without any research at all. 

We see how this conversation went from "there is no difference" to "there is no point in putting in the effort (and money) to try to make it better"! Notice the second quote. It implies that there is in fact better. That would indicate that "it is admittedly so"! Now in this thread we have thrown out every shred of data that we have traditionally used as indicators. There are NO industry folks who tell the truth and most likely we will never be able to run a valid trial. More than that the gist of the more vocal folks (notice I didn't say the most accurate folks here) is that car audio is the same ****ty sounding crap that it has always been just shinier and a whole lot more expensive. Car audio has for decades been the joke of the audio industry because of that very stigma and the very reason many (maybe most) folks refused to spend any money on car audio at all. I was one of those many. I came to the conclusion that it isn't the truth anymore but folks here are lobbying hard for it to be understood as still true today. I think this discussion is more about "uncovering the lies about audio as it relates to cars" more than it is about anything else.


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> All ******** in car audio arose from conception that car audio is separate science.
> car audio is no different from any audio, it works by the same laws of physics as mastering control room or your home theater or concert hall, results might be achieved using different techniques but fundamentals is the same.
> 1. tuning
> 2.speakers
> 2.head unit
> 3.install
> 5. DSP- many of them very similar or use same boards otherwise it would be one notch higher on this scale.
> 6. amplifiers to be matched to the rest of the system.
> And Rob I do have very low opinion on retailers. not a single time I met one knowing as much about thing in question then I was.


1-5, my point exactly! #6 I have mostly had the same experience. The jury is not out on the most recent folks I have been working with but cross your fingers there. The only issue is they are a repairs based operation. Not that it is always true but I have found as a rule that repair folk's brains are wired slightly differently to folks who approach from the listening side. My dad never noted the differences of high spec audio until I had him in the control room with my and showed him stuff. His "oh, that doesn't matter" tone stopped and made an about face really fast after that. The most successful repair guys that work in pro audio typically work with us to source the problems. We note things that are often hard to find because to us the little things matter too. The statement that "the devil is in the details" is very applicable here. Little things often turn into big things so it helps to get on it when it is less of a problem. Do I really need the lead vocal mic amp to quit before I deem it a problem that it is starting to sound thin and distorted? It happened in the middle of a show with a Focusrite ISA channel strip. Not cool! Lesson there? I should have jumped on it right away rather than thinking "well that needs to be looked at" and cross my fingers. In this case the console, a Soundcraft Series 5 had a pretty reasonable mic amp in it already so it would have been preferable over a dying strip $4 grand or not! It sounded great at sound check though. LOL. Oh, BTW yes both are notably good mic amps but the Focusrite ISA has a sound of it's own. Part of that is that is a little better with the "Deets". Is it worth the money difference? Better audio costs exponentially more the more high end you go. Again another example of better amp = improved sonic. Even if it was only temporary. High end **** can be so temperamental. LOL.


----------



## Victor_inox

It`s much easier to justify low cost solution than high cost one.

***** is a ***** yet we prefer good looking package, good soul and whole lot of other things despite the fact that ugly girls usually better in bed and less trouble overall.


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> I in no way meant to imply car audio was a separate *science*. But it certainly is a different listening room than home audio or recording studio - yes?
> 
> I think we are mostly in agreement.
> 
> May main point is that the every day car is *noisy*, really noisy. Most of the nuance is washed out and inaudible.


They were and still are but you have noticed an improvement in that area as well. NO? Obviously it depends on the car. Typically higher end cars are quieter and "more neutral sounding" in the interior. That is all it takes. We know enough about sound and how to control it to take over from there. Better is that we learn more every day. Cars can be damn good. I've heard a few myself and I have never gone to a competition. What I am saying there is I probably have not even heard the best of the best either.


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> Yes but science is the same. best noise insulation you can afford,increase SP in noisy cabin to bring those nuances back. There is a reason people love horns and pro audio drivers in their rides.
> I`d take horns under dash and pro audio 8" in doors with 20W class A amplifier to power them over just about anything, dynaudio, Brax, Focal, whatever "taste of the moments" are. DSP in head unit or stand alone one for TA EQ duty or without it it there a possibility with drivers placement.
> But that`s just me.


Hmm. Horns typically generate artifacts. Now these would be well designed horns so they will sound much better than something not so well designed but they are horns none the less. Folks note how the Focal K2P's tweeters exhibit a more harsh characteristic to tweeters in speakers like Dynaudio or JL Audio. I attribute that in part to the flex of the cone with the soft dome tweeters but it may also have to do with the fact that the K2P's use (harder) inverted domes which direct the waves off of the outside of the driver in at itself rather than spherically out like a normal dome. The Focals require a slight message with eq to compensate in my opinion and most certainly are not forgiving for bad placement. Point them at a window and see what happens! We apparently agree that splattering audio all over the place in a car is probably not a good idea in general. With that directional control might be a far better approach but there is a trade off there too. I worry about the amount of eq compensation for the horn characteristics. What are you seeing typically? What I really have trouble with is compression driven high frequency horns in cars. Point blank throw? Ouch!!! Not that you said you do that but I have heard of folks who do.


----------



## RobERacer

XSIV SPL said:


> And, though I'm not sure how accurate the source, I've been told that the studio bill for the recording of "Brothers in Arms" cost around $300K back in 1984. I still use this recording to evaluate various aspects of system performance.
> 
> man, what a huge return-on-investment THAT recording turned out to be.... still on the best-sellers list...


Ah those were the good old days. An industry poised at promoting cocaine sales, record sales at their very highest across the board and with that budgets that were well... Obscene. Air Montserrat (where that was recorded) was possibly one of the most expensive studios ever built. No expense spared on any circuit. Did it not show in the end product?


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> Just my opinion. Nothing more nothing less. Would love to hear your opinion regarding amp choices (#6) and reasoning. Seems a better use of forum than just trading insults.
> 
> The sentence under #6 in my post clarified that statement. Choose an appropriately powered amp running with headroom for the load it is driving, don't choose the lowest end brands/models (cheap junk), and choose the features you need (xovers, etc) and there are a lot of good amp choices.
> 
> What about that do you not agree with?^^^


I would like to hear people's personal assessments of mid level amps as well. For the most part in audio if you throw enough money at it you are probably going to get a better sounding end product (not always be as a general rule). The problem is most of us don't have a well that deep.


----------



## RobERacer

JVD240 said:


> I agree with you here, Vic.
> 
> Totally your discretion.
> 
> My issue with the whole "SQ Amplifier" thing is that a lot of noobs show up here asking "what's the best sounding amp for xxxx setup?" and people feed them info like it will be some dramatic difference. It simply isn't.
> 
> It's like people with their crusty old Hondas discussing air intake choices. One might net you 1HP more over the other. A change in temperature the next day will do more than that. Is it worth it to some people? Sure. Is it worth it to me? Absolutely not. I buy a (turbo) platform that responds well to changes rather than eeking out 1% gains here and there for massive amounts of money. DSP, to me, = turboooooo.


I am thinking if folks have gone as far as to spend the cash on doing most of what we are talking about and discussing higher end power amps it is a forgone conclusion that they are going to look at dsp if they haven't already. Of course tuning is going to be a big important step but if you are talking about doing high end audio all of the parts matter and play to the big picture. 
I bought $1000 + speakers and had them installed I haven't heard too many speakers that I have not had the need to tune to the environment. I think what we are talking about is a next step in that process. A lessor sounding amp at that point is going to way more apparent when 4K isn't trying to rip your head off because the system has not been tuned yet. 
Would you race an aftermarket turbo charged engine that was originally naturally aspirated over one that was stock turbo from the factory? Subaru EJ25 out of an Outback Vs EJ25 out of an STI. You do know that a turbo engine block has thicker walls ya? One that was not designed for the stress of turbo will burn up under stress because it can't handle it. In audio it probably won't burn up over it but you are bottlenecking your potential performance by using limited equipment where better equipment would allow better performance to start with and enhance what you are doing with the processing because of that.


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> I'm not telling you how to spend your money. Spend it how you want. I am expressing an opinion with supporting justification - isn't that what these forums are for?
> 
> Look carefully at my post -> "For me, as long as the amp is running with decent headroom, is well built, and not too expensive, it does the job for me."
> 
> It may not do the job for you. That is OK.
> 
> IN MY OPINION, and in-general, there is a lot more to gain when buying a 4 channel amp for a daily car when spending $300 versus $90 than there is when spending $2000 versus $300.


Quite probably, in audio (video too. no?) across the board better performance costs exponentially more the better you go.


----------



## rton20s




----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> have you given the two examples a fair ABX test?
> 
> up to 90 db, or say, 1 watt of drive, those two amps might not be so easy to tell apart even if they are miles apart in build quality and everything else, or any metric that relies on instruments to measure and not the notoriously unreliable human hearing mechanism.
> 
> and really, is that Korean amp actually pushing the same amount of watts, or is it just plastered with a high watt figure, and can't muster even half of the under clipping performance of the Mac?
> 
> 
> if you really want to distinguish between amps, I would take on the rash of 5-channel amps out there, and show how running off of one power supply collapses the headroom using "all channels driven" testing.
> 
> I've been converted from the idea set that says big macho amplifiers have to sound better, but I still believe in the idea set that says each channel deserves it's own independent supply.
> 
> And on normal music, at sane levels I probably will not notice the constraint put on a 5-channel amp that uses the same toroid for all it's channels, but for the sake of argument, believe that using 2 separate 2 channels and a mono sub amp, is going to be worth the extra expense, real estate, and complexity of install to go that route.
> 
> which is probably similar as the debate of whether I should be using middle tier amps instead of the extra forte higher end since I can't distinguish the better from a blind test.


So basically you believe in multi channel amps that have more or less separate power supplies for each channel. Is that common in mid line amps?


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> that's the beauty of ABX testing, it can put any ol' POS amp in with the bestest of the best.
> 
> the saying "it's not the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog" comes to mind, because as long as you demonstrate a low overall expectation, (limited to <1W, normal inefficient aftermarket speakers, and basic testing for function equivalent to the pass/fail QC of a certified refurbisher) the odds are good that an average Joe doesn't get 10 out of 10 on music.
> 
> 
> what does that say?
> 
> 
> not that much really, except that reasonable doubt is what we need for a guilty verdict and that is all we're saying.
> 
> If someone would submit to testing and kindly demonstrated they could not distinguish a clear best option, would we call them out as having terrible hearing and not a valid test, or would we just try to bury the unfortunate results under a mountain of specs, build photographs, and user testimonies?
> 
> 
> I think this thread is the proof of that, I mean unless anyone cares enough to do the testing, they are just resisting the obvious, captain obvious...
> 
> 
> haha...


If the findings were reverse would the outcome be any different? Honestly, they would be bastardised and beat up all the same. Wouldn't they?


----------



## Victor_inox

Rob are you going to address all 120 pages now? Just wondering. 
I can answer your last question though... separate power supplies is not common in mid line amplifiers as you probably already knew. It`s more common in high grade amplifiers as well and never happening in basic cheap amps.
To discuss that further linear power supply transformer must be sufficient for all ch working at rated power at the same time or copper loss will occur over time. whoever interested in details google the term.


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> Realistically show me one modern chinese made amplifier with dedicated power supply for each channel.
> Some Germans using separate PSU for each channel, Some italians...
> maybe some Japanese but none of the mainstream inexpensive amps.
> Problem with your question is that at 1W power most speakers will be at 80Db SP and that is not enough. 83db at 2 watt, 86 at 4 89 at 8 and so forth.
> 
> pair of transistors shown in that korean amp capable of 80watt, each ch has a pair, so theoretical max is 80watt/ch. actually it sound half decent, not as effortless as mac but usable. I bet if I redo PSU, beef it up etc etc it might be tuned to sound very close to MAC.
> most elcheapo amps build by the same principle- easy circuit- cheap parts,hefty profit. work for 6 month and that`s fine.


Hmm. You mentioned a short life span of performance. Is that because things like the caps and transistors being lower costing units breakdown at an accelerated rate thereby changing their values? Is this why people seem to be buying new amps at very short intervals? I am a "Buy it for life" kinda guy. I hate replacing stuff "just because" and oddly enough I resent obsolescence although in tech it is a necessary evil. That said what I have found in audio is that buying high end increases the "usable lifespan" of most of the gear that I have. What is up with car amps?


----------



## captainobvious

RobERacer said:


> If the findings were reverse would the outcome be any different? Honestly, they would be bastardised and beat up all the same. Wouldn't they?


If the testing was conducted properly, I don't see why anyone would be beat up over it. The results would speak for themselves.


----------



## Victor_inox

RobERacer said:


> Hmm. You mentioned a short life span of performance. Is that because things like the caps and transistors being lower costing units breakdown at an accelerated rate thereby changing their values? Is this why people seem to be buying new amps at very short intervals? I am a "Buy it for life" kinda guy. I hate replacing stuff "just because" and oddly enough I resent obsolescence although in tech it is a necessary evil. That said what I have found in audio is that buying high end increases the "usable lifespan" of most of the gear that I have. What is up with car amps?


silicon technology were constantly changing for the last 40 years, transistors of the past believed to be sounding better than modern replacements .
That should be a topic by itself.... I can only say that every modern replacement I dealt with has been superior to classic one.
opamps designed in 1970th is crap in comparison with designed in 2000th. 
people still paying a lot of money for older classic opamps despite that.
Problem with modern amp manufacturers is that when you buy supposedly higher end amplifier made in PRC and caps marked Mundorf germany are they really germany? I doubt it as I bought some I believe stolen from the same factory and they are doesn`t look like once I bought from mundorf directly.
I can`t measure their value without desoldering from the board something i won`t do on 2 grand amp for the sake of experiment. 
I`m sure most people around won`t mind chinese stealing Intellectual property.I do. Do they produce parts to fail on purpose? I don`t think so.
they care to pass quality control at the time of sale and return period.
I read somewhere that silicon purity is vary by manufacturer greatly.
that`s why I love buying military surplus electronics, very high QC.


----------



## gstokes

Keep in mind this is only my humble opinion and should be construed as fact... Small improvements will continue to be made as new technology such as SMT becomes available, currently the higher levels of SQ will be found with a Class A or possibly Class A/B design but Class D is not far behind and making continuous advancements, Class D and their variants are very possibly a good candidate for the future of car audio, we shall see. What you get with a high/er end amplifier is quality and accurate specifications along with a lengthy warranty but sound quality is mostly a factor of amplifier class and design whether it be Class A, B, A/B, D, A/B/D or one of the many variants. Many of the cheaper amplifiers blow up the specs and list a unreasonably high damping factor or wattage figures the amplifier can't even dream of producing or inaccurate THD measurements. A high/er end amplifier will make rated power and possibly more, be stable at 1 ohm and below, have a lengthy service life and generous warranty, you really do get the quality that you pay for but don't switch from a popular name brand Class A amplifier to a more exotic Class A amplifier and expect huge increases in SQ, the differences in quality will most surely be visible but the differences in SQ may or may not be audible to the listener, just my $.02.
If you want the absolute best SQ don't even bother with an exotic Class A design when a modern tube amplifier such as the offerings from McIntosh, Milbert, Zendar, Butler Audio, Helix and many others simply blow transistor amplifiers right out of the water, the differences in SQ are so apparent it's not even worth comparing but once again you will get what you pay for..


----------



## rton20s

captainobvious said:


> If the testing was conducted properly, I don't see why anyone would be beat up over it. The results would speak for themselves.


----------



## Victor_inox

rton20s said:


>


 Sure is! whatever!


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> Rob are you going to address all 120 pages now? Just wondering.
> I can answer your last question though... separate power supplies is not common in mid line amplifiers as you probably already knew. It`s more common in high grade amplifiers as well and never happening in basic cheap amps.
> To discuss that further linear power supply transformer must be sufficient for all ch working at rated power at the same time or copper loss will occur over time. whoever interested in details google the term.


Lol. No had to take a break for a few days. Had a lot to add as I read along catching up. I could have limited that more but I felt much of it was important. I tried to ignore the ******* stuff from certain dick heads who I noticed never have anything of any value to add to the conversation either. 

As far as the power supply thing goes that was part of my point as you guessed. IC chip output section vs all discrete and on and on and on. It all makes a difference. My point is it is not only possible to make a better car amp. Despite some folk's insistence they exist already. I don't have access so I have to ask guys like you for information. I just wanted to know some higher end options for great detail mid high amps and punchier sounding sub amps. I know, pandora's freaking box (which definitely sticks like trout) is open but let's just go with the little notion that some amps do certain things better than others. The truth is we don't even need to know why just the what. We can leave out the part about whether or not there is a cheshire cat in the storey. I know the low down in the pro audio end as I am in that but I am looking to find the low down with car audio. Finally at page 120 we are starting to get to a place where we can have that conversation without folks screaming "********"... I hope. I am just curious why it would seem that discussing the guts part of all of this was so top secret all the way along? Please understand I am not blaming you at all. It looked to me like you got pretty beat up for your opinions and it appears you would be someone with the kind of experience to speak most knowledgeably about this very thing. The issue was skirted around a lot of times the way I read things. It would be real nice to have a few other designer/manufacturers add their thoughts in as to what they think makes a better amp better.


----------



## rton20s

Victor_inox said:


> Sure is! whatever!


----------



## rton20s

RobERacer said:


> I tried to ignore the ******* stuff from certain dick heads who I noticed never have anything of any value to add to the conversation either.


----------



## Victor_inox

RobERacer said:


> Lol. No had to take a break for a few days. Had a lot to add as I read along catching up. I could have limited that more but I felt much of it was important. I tried to ignore the ******* stuff from certain dick heads who I noticed never have anything of any value to add to the conversation either.
> 
> As far as the power supply thing goes that was part of my point as you guessed. IC chip output section vs all discrete and on and on and on. It all makes a difference. My point is it is not only possible to make a better car amp. Despite some folk's insistence they exist already. I don't have access so I have to ask guys like you for information. I just wanted to know some higher end options for great detail mid high amps and punchier sounding sub amps. I know, pandora's freaking box (which definitely sticks like trout) is open but let's just go with the little notion that some amps do certain things better than others. The truth is we don't even need to know why just the what. We can leave out the part about whether or not there is a cheshire cat in the storey. I know the low down in the pro audio end as I am in that but I am looking to find the low down with car audio. Finally at page 120 we are starting to get to a place where we can have that conversation without folks screaming "********"... I hope. I am just curious why it would seem that discussing the guts part of all of this was so top secret all the way along? Please understand I am not blaming you at all. It looked to me like you got pretty beat up for your opinions and it appears you would be someone with the kind of experience to speak most knowledgeably about this very thing. The issue was skirted around a lot of times the way I read things. It would be real nice to have a few other designer/manufacturers add their thoughts in as to what they think makes a better amp better.


Almost no one interested in longevity anymore, cheap **** replaced at earliest occasion is all we want.
Better is a relative term, for 99% better is a price question first everything else second. same power for 100 bucks sounds better than 1000 isn`t it?
It will last a year or before next car trade in and that is ok with most people.
in any case it could be only 100 loss at worst.


----------



## cajunner

RobERacer said:


> So basically you believe in multi channel amps that have more or less separate power supplies for each channel. Is that common in mid line amps?


both you and Victor have misread, I believe?

I believe in separation, and that means separate amp chassis for each channel.

not multi-channel amps.

theoretically, of course.

the whole point of saying this, is to show that although it can be proved that channel separation greater than 50 db is unnecessary based on testing, I want, I require more than that.

I grew up believing mono-blocks was the purest fidelity because no matter what you always had separation.

So I push that, I say I believe in that, even if blind testing shows I can't tell when a 6 channel amp using a single power supply is substituted for a system with discrete amps at each speaker.

This is the failpoint of audio belief structures, and I adhere to them readily and in error of the blind test proof.

The idea that blind testing is all there is, and if I can't tell them apart in a trial, means I can't justify the cost of one system over another, is also a failpoint in audio belief structures.

Simply because even if I prove to not be able to beat the switcher in short term listening tests, the long-term option of switching amps out over long periods without the inconvenience of momentary stops and starts, is being overlooked.

I feel like the blind test, as it has been demonstrated, is also a flawed methodology for differentiating between amp sonics.

I think that over longer periods, even if the blind switch still occurs, the better amps will shine, you will pick up the quality the amp is able to put down, and cheaper amps will prove to out themselves because over long term listening periods, we will put the amp through more than testing variables, we will have loud days and we will have quiet days. We will notice when we are being shorted on quality but it won't be evident from a 30 second blip to another 30 second blip, but of course this all does go back to the "all amps that measure the same, sound the same" debate.

I'm saying over longer periods we figure out what is missing from the cheap amps, and why a designer's circuit sounds better when using the amp in a normal way, over high and low demands, coming near to clipping at times and possibly over clipping, haha..


the good amps are better, and ABX testing is not the one sleuth option it has been portrayed to be here in this thread.

But if anyone wants to bet on it, ABX testing is available to prove that we can't cut the mustard as a test group as it is applied to the human hearing mechanism. Average Joe is going to lose, because ABX tests only separate the short term differences and leave the rest of it, hidden behind the testing protocols.


----------



## Victor_inox

Finally we getting somewhere...
I agree with that, switching between amps comparison is pointless. only long term listening.
monoblocks rule!


----------



## cajunner

Victor_inox said:


> Finally we getting somewhere...
> I agree with that, switching between amps comparison is pointless. only long term listening.
> monoblocks rule!


honestly, it was more fun when it was just shooting fish in a barrel...



and yet, we have a pretty smart crowd here, as very few want to get in the barrel...

:laugh:


it is cheap entertainment, regardless. 


The people who swear by ABX testing, and the facile notion that auditory memory span remains truthful to about 20 seconds, or whatever...

do miss the boat when it comes to justifying price points, because audio is an esoteric occupation.

If we're trying to define the best, we go down so many rabbit holes, there's the temptation to find the silver bullet, the effective proof, the truth of it all.


that in itself is the folly, we are more sophisticated than that, even if our testing protocol is only able to identify gross changes that measurements by instruments can divide much further.


----------



## Victor_inox

Free entertainment indeed.


----------



## XSIV SPL

I honestly wonder... Is there anything left to be said here? Haven't we heard just about everything from every angle by now?

The outcome from all of this was predictable, and nobody agrees more than they did when this all started... Success?


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> Almost no one interested in longevity anymore, cheap **** replaced at earliest occasion is all we want.
> Better is a relative term, for 99% better is a price question first everything else second. same power for 100 bucks sounds better than 1000 isn`t it?
> It will last a year or before next car trade in and that is ok with most people.
> in any case it could be only 100 loss at worst.



Interesting then that this site isn't littered with threads of cheap amplifiers lasting only a year or two. The simple truth is that even the cheaper models are fairly reliable these days.


----------



## captainobvious

cajunner said:


> But if anyone wants to bet on it, ABX testing is available to prove that we can't cut the mustard as a test group as it is applied to the human hearing mechanism. Average Joe is going to lose, *because ABX tests only separate the short term differences and leave the rest of it, hidden behind the testing protocols.*



This is simply because short term comparison is the proper way to do it. Trying to recall and remember what you heard to make a comparison in the long term is a horrible way to make a comparison. I believe there is plenty of science to back that up.

Not sure what you mean by "hidden behind the protocols". The protocols are there specifically to remove influences not related to the "hearing mechanism".


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> This is simply because short term comparison is the proper way to do it. Trying to recall and remember what you heard to make a comparison in the long term is a horrible way to make a comparison. I believe there is plenty of science to back that up.
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "hidden behind the protocols". The protocols are there specifically to remove influences not related to the "hearing mechanism".


Yet here we go again.... So you believe that your testing protocol is the only way to go and base it on some kind of "science"?
Any amp of the same power for every music in every car sounds the same, we all got that. you can stick to that. Some of us will disagree. can we be cool with that?


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> Interesting then that this site isn't littered with threads of cheap amplifiers lasting only a year or two. The simple truth is that even the cheaper models are fairly reliable these days.


THis site represent 1% of car audio community,you can`t base your reliability report on lack of statistic.


----------



## cajunner

captainobvious said:


> This is simply because short term comparison is the proper way to do it. Trying to recall and remember what you heard to make a comparison in the long term is a horrible way to make a comparison. I believe there is plenty of science to back that up.
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "hidden behind the protocols". The protocols are there specifically to remove influences not related to the "hearing mechanism".


the simple fact that ABX testing is able to be statistically significant due to repeatable results, means that it will be first in the list of choices we have at our disposal, but it doesn't mean that other methods are not correct.

Other methods are indeed, correct and although there is some evidence to suggest that our listening recall adjusts, or self-corrects and skews the statistical data set, the ABX test is not the final word on quality.

Just because someone cannot pick out an amplifier during short term tests where all parameters are controlled and protocols manage whatever negatives that do exist, down to the most insignificant digit, or below audible thresholds, does not mean that in a test of longer duration one cannot make the grade and divide the lesser from the greater.

You just don't see those unless you're reading a magazine and the test is sighted, subject to listener conformation bias, confirmation bias, etc. or it's something we all do during the first week with a new component in the chain, we listen for a difference but if we were more scientific about it, we'd listen for similarity instead.


We'd have to set up a blind long-term test, where we didn't know which amp was running for say, all day and after the period, we'd guess out of 2 possibles which one for the day.


that would more closely represent the buyer's experience where subjective expression of value in the buying decision, is taken out of the equation and one might be able to just pick the better unit from it's sound alone.


----------



## XSIV SPL

Victor_inox said:


> Finally we getting somewhere...
> I agree with that, switching between amps comparison is pointless. only long term listening.
> monoblocks rule!


I have to agree, with only one small exception...

(The exception Sometimes the difference between amps is so undeniable that it can be identified almost instantly.

However, it is very true that you cannot truly evaluate the audio characteristics of almost anything without extended, long term listening. In fact, it often takes a week or so for me to decide whether a system adjustment was good or bad, based upon much listening and different musical sources.

These long term evaluations, I feel, are much more reliable and the overall impression of a system through extended listening sticks with you much longer than does a quick AB.

This is one of the most valid points I've read here in the last MANY pages. Thanks for that, Victor!


----------



## Victor_inox

There is no exception but rather addition I agree with. That addition is their favorite to argue. Your test was done improperly......


----------



## lsm

Victor_inox said:


> THis site represent 1% of car audio community,you can`t base your reliability report on lack of statistic.


This site prob represents 1% of the 1%...


----------



## Victor_inox

lsm said:


> This site prob represents 1% of the 1%...


cream of the crop...with some bass heads in between


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

152 pages and this circle jerk is still going on? I bet this thread has AT LEAST 200 pages left in it as long as it doesn't get heated and locked:laugh:


----------



## XSIV SPL

Hillbilly SQ said:


> 152 pages and this circle jerk is still going on? I bet this thread has AT LEAST 200 pages left in it as long as it doesn't get heated and locked:laugh:


Didn't you know? MSNBC has this thread on their front page right now...

Fox, on the other hand, has summed it up so accurately that it's not news...


----------



## captainobvious

cajunner said:


> the simple fact that ABX testing is able to be statistically significant due to repeatable results, means that it will be first in the list of choices we have at our disposal, but it doesn't mean that other methods are not correct.
> 
> Other methods are indeed, correct and although there is some evidence to suggest that our listening recall adjusts, or self-corrects and skews the statistical data set, the ABX test is not the final word on quality.
> 
> Just because someone cannot pick out an amplifier during short term tests where all parameters are controlled and protocols manage whatever negatives that do exist, down to the most insignificant digit, or below audible thresholds, does not mean that in a test of longer duration one cannot make the grade and divide the lesser from the greater.
> 
> You just don't see those unless you're reading a magazine and the test is sighted, subject to listener conformation bias, confirmation bias, etc. or it's something we all do during the first week with a new component in the chain, we listen for a difference but if we were more scientific about it, we'd listen for similarity instead.
> 
> 
> We'd have to set up a blind long-term test, where we didn't know which amp was running for say, all day and after the period, we'd guess out of 2 possibles which one for the day.
> 
> 
> that would more closely represent the buyer's experience where subjective expression of value in the buying decision, is taken out of the equation and one might be able to just pick the better unit from it's sound alone.



When you talk about a long duration test, are you talking about many hours in the same day, or over a period of days/ weeks/months, etc?


----------



## captainobvious

There are many reasons why long term comparison tests are a poor choice and less accurate than a short comparison. The simple fact is that you introduce too many variables to make the comparison a fair one. Think of all the different things that can change from an environmental and physiological standpoint and how that will affect the way you hear things from one day to the next. You're unlikely to hear things the exact same way on day one of your demoing as you are on day 15...no? Also consider that now you're trying to remember and recall what you heard to compare it to what you hear now. By limiting the window (ie -introducing controls), you limit the number and extent of the variables affecting the comparison.




I'm actually surprised anyone is even debating this point.


----------



## Elektra

cajunner said:


> both you and Victor have misread, I believe?
> 
> I believe in separation, and that means separate amp chassis for each channel.
> 
> not multi-channel amps.
> 
> theoretically, of course.
> 
> the whole point of saying this, is to show that although it can be proved that channel separation greater than 50 db is unnecessary based on testing, I want, I require more than that.
> 
> I grew up believing mono-blocks was the purest fidelity because no matter what you always had separation.
> 
> So I push that, I say I believe in that, even if blind testing shows I can't tell when a 6 channel amp using a single power supply is substituted for a system with discrete amps at each speaker.
> 
> This is the failpoint of audio belief structures, and I adhere to them readily and in error of the blind test proof.
> 
> The idea that blind testing is all there is, and if I can't tell them apart in a trial, means I can't justify the cost of one system over another, is also a failpoint in audio belief structures.
> 
> Simply because even if I prove to not be able to beat the switcher in short term listening tests, the long-term option of switching amps out over long periods without the inconvenience of momentary stops and starts, is being overlooked.
> 
> I feel like the blind test, as it has been demonstrated, is also a flawed methodology for differentiating between amp sonics.
> 
> I think that over longer periods, even if the blind switch still occurs, the better amps will shine, you will pick up the quality the amp is able to put down, and cheaper amps will prove to out themselves because over long term listening periods, we will put the amp through more than testing variables, we will have loud days and we will have quiet days. We will notice when we are being shorted on quality but it won't be evident from a 30 second blip to another 30 second blip, but of course this all does go back to the "all amps that measure the same, sound the same" debate.
> 
> I'm saying over longer periods we figure out what is missing from the cheap amps, and why a designer's circuit sounds better when using the amp in a normal way, over high and low demands, coming near to clipping at times and possibly over clipping, haha..
> 
> 
> the good amps are better, and ABX testing is not the one sleuth option it has been portrayed to be here in this thread.
> 
> But if anyone wants to bet on it, ABX testing is available to prove that we can't cut the mustard as a test group as it is applied to the human hearing mechanism. Average Joe is going to lose, because ABX tests only separate the short term differences and leave the rest of it, hidden behind the testing protocols.


My amp has a separate power supply per channel...


----------



## Jepalan

captainobvious said:


> If the testing was conducted properly, I don't see why anyone would be beat up over it. The results would speak for themselves.


Somebody would claim the ABX listeners were not trained properly, or had some sort of genetic hearing deficiency, or were secretly selected to bias the results. There will always be an "out" for those that choose to believe their own dogma in the face of hard science and logic. It is human nature - and the stuff that wars are made of.


----------



## Victor_inox

It`s Ok to believe in your dogma then? 
That what you called science is so perfect that there no unanswered questions left.
What you guys preaching here is anti science as science is to never believe in anything unconditionally.


----------



## rton20s




----------



## Victor_inox

Wtf r u doing with that poor kitty?


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> What you guys preaching here is anti science as science is to never believe in anything unconditionally.


Absolutely, unequivocally- no.


Mirriam-Webster
*science*
_noun_ sci·ence \ˈsī-ən(t)s\

-knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.

*:* knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> It`s Ok to believe in your dogma then?
> That what you called science is so perfect that there no unanswered questions left.
> What you guys preaching here is anti science as science is to never believe in anything unconditionally.


Whoa Vic. You are putting a lot of words in my mouth there. 
FWIW - I wasn't addressing anyone specifically with my comment. I didn't even have you in mind when I wrote it.

Dogma is dogma. Scientific dogma, religious dogma, whatever. 

Question everything. Please. Everything. Especially anything I post. Research it, debate it, present a well thought out argument <-- this is what I want. This is how new ideas are born.

And as long as we are defining terms...

DOGMA:


a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> Absolutely, unequivocally- no.
> 
> 
> Mirriam-Webster
> *science*
> _noun_ sci·ence \ˈsī-ən(t)s\
> 
> -knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.
> 
> *:* knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method


exactly- none of you conducted scientific experiment-observation at best.
THat is the problem with modern education system - you people get told what to believe without questioning authorities in the field.Someday someone`s conducted experiment might be considered scientific fact of it might be not for a variety of reasons.

Be you own scientist, listen for yourself is the only viable scientific prove one must need.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jepalan said:


> Whoa Vic. You are putting a lot of words in my mouth there.
> FWIW - I wasn't addressing anyone specifically with my comment. I didn't even have you in mind when I wrote it.
> 
> Dogma is dogma. Scientific dogma, religious dogma, whatever.
> 
> Question everything. Please. Everything. Especially anything I post. Research it, debate it, present a well thought out argument <-- this is what I want. This is how new ideas are born.
> 
> And as long as we are defining terms...
> 
> DOGMA:
> 
> 
> a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
> a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted


Well my post was not directed at you but rather at camp you represented.
Without adequate grounds meaning that any religion is Dogma, right?
now go tell that to religious fanatics. 
Adequate grounds is debatable, what you or cap obvious find adequate I might find not.


----------



## Victor_inox

Someone here were saying that they want new members to stop asking questions like "what amp would be better for my system" and the answer should be "any" once and for all. 
I suggest whoever is tired answering such question to just ignore them because despite your efforts those questions will always pop up. 
Such posts doing disservice to community and sooner you guys realise that better will be for everyone.


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> exactly- none of you conducted scientific experiment-observation at best.
> THat is the problem with modern education system - you people get told what to believe without questioning authorities in the field.Someday someone`s conducted experiment might be considered scientific fact of it might be not for a variety of reasons.
> 
> Be you own scientist, listen for yourself is the only viable scientific prove one must need.


Vic. How can you make such sweeping generalizations about a person from reading a few posts on the internet? How do you know what scientific experiments I have conducted or not? How do you know I have not conducted hands-on open-ended experiments in pursuit of new understanding and creative idea generation? 

I built a Heathkit digital clock when I was in 6th grade, a Heathkit oscilloscope in Jr High School and many PAIA electronic music devices including several of their synthesizer kits. All were modified ad-nausea in pursuit of new knowledge. 

I've attached sensor coils to robot vehicles (ROVs) in order to flesh out ideas about how to find and track underwater cables and I have been awarded a patent for inventing a certain device related to modern digital video modulation test signals. 

Wild theory forming and creative experimentation are the very foundations of modern science and knowledge, and fundamental principals I live by.


----------



## cajunner

captainobvious said:


> There are many reasons why long term comparison tests are a poor choice and less accurate than a short comparison. The simple fact is that you introduce too many variables to make the comparison a fair one. Think of all the different things that can change from an environmental and physiological standpoint and how that will affect the way you hear things from one day to the next. You're unlikely to hear things the exact same way on day one of your demoing as you are on day 15...no? Also consider that now you're trying to remember and recall what you heard to compare it to what you hear now. By limiting the window (ie -introducing controls), you limit the number and extent of the variables affecting the comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm actually surprised anyone is even debating this point.



it is precisely why the long term test would be more valid.

the luck of amplification is that it's able to be blind, you don't have to work the controls or ergonomics of the unit. You can actually hide it away and use it as if it were a wire with gain, in the system.

this means taking away all obvious helpers, like crossovers or bass controls or whatever preamp gadget circuit is involved, if we're trying to assess Sound Quality, esquire.


but the long term occupation of a product will present you a listening experience over a long range of operating, and hearing conditions. One day you'll have a combination of earwax, high humidity and temperature, and low vehicle voltage, another day high pressure after a front and high voltage along with low temperatures, it's the beauty of a long term test that you can assess a product through environmental changes that are absent in ABX short term comparisons.

And that means you would give say, a week to each component, just long enough to get a spread, a variable of time...

but nobody would attempt this. Build an amp box that hides the amps, have a buddy install one of several, have him set the gains to the deck voltage exactly, and give it a week, then throw a different amp in the system.


take notes, listen for what you think you hear, after a week something like "this amp seems to be slightly more brittle sounding" will happen, and after you pass a few amps, over a few weeks time, you see how you fared.

This kind of test, would be even more impressive in overall in-depth "NESS" as compared to a 6 hour window, but by a single party, a completely possible opportunity to convince at least yourself, but by credibility, everyone here, of the validity of a longer test duration.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jepalan said:


> Vic. How can you make such sweeping generalizations about a person from reading a few posts on the internet? How do you know what scientific experiments I have conducted or not? How do you know I have not conducted hands-on open-ended experiments in pursuit of new understanding and creative idea generation?
> 
> I built a Heathkit digital clock when I was in 6th grade, a Heathkit oscilloscope in Jr High School and many PAIA electronic music devices including several of their synthesizer kits. All were modified ad-nausea in pursuit of new knowledge.
> 
> I've attached sensor coils to robot vehicles (ROVs) in order to flesh out ideas about how to find and track underwater cables and I have been awarded a patent for inventing a certain device related to modern digital video modulation test signals.
> 
> Wild theory forming and creative experimentation are the very foundations of modern science and knowledge, and fundamental principals I live by.


Again I was not even quoting you why would you think my generalisation is about you?It`s not. I`m thrilled that person as awesome as you came down to our indoctrinated level to tell the truth.


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> Again I was not even quoting you why would you think my generalisation is about you?It`s not. I`m thrilled that person as awesome as you came down to our indoctrinated level to tell the truth.


Thanks for the clarification. Maybe it is my lack of grasp for the English language, but when you make a statement like this it is hard to believe you aren't addressing *everyone* posting here...
"none of you conducted scientific experiment-observation at best"

Oh. And you are welcome. Happy to spend time here. Hope you are learning something.


----------



## 14642

It's ridiculous to spend a bunch of time questioning and experimenting when the subject is fully understood unless:

1. You have expertise that makes you competent to question and experiment in the interest of disproving or falsifying theory.

2. It's in the interest of gaining knowledge to develop your own expertise. 

Free time to spend twisting jargon on some forum doesn't qualify as #1. A little humility goes a long way in getting help with #2.

People aren't dogs. To not avail one's self of the canon of human knowledge is to be a dog. Questioning EVERYTHING based on one's ignorance is a waste of time.

There are differences between amplifiers and those differences can be quantified objectively.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jepalan said:


> Thanks for the clarification. Maybe it is my lack of grasp for the English language, but when you make a statement like this it is hard to believe you aren't addressing *everyone* posting here...
> "none of you conducted scientific experiment-observation at best"
> 
> Oh. And you are welcome. Happy to spend time here. Hope you are learning something.


 I`m learning something from the second I was born, finished high school, got my PHD in Physics ....still learning. 
Question is what did you learned in this thread?


----------



## Victor_inox

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> People aren't dogs. To not avail one's self of the canon of human knowledge is to be a dog. Questioning EVERYTHING based on one's ignorance is a waste of time.


No one proposed questioning fundamental laws of physics. Experiment practices. 

There are differences between amplifiers and those differences can be quantified objectively.[/QUOTE]
Which is not the question of this topic...
So is all amps sound the same subjectively to you or not?


----------



## 14642

No, they don't.


----------



## Victor_inox

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> No, they don't.


Respectable straight forward answer!


----------



## bobby23

SaturnSL1 said:


> I think you mean VLX, those things are monsters lol. I've got a USA series that's similar to the VLX in that it has a plexi bottom. Mine was broken when I got it though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incredible amplifiers though. I'm stoked that I was able to own one for so cheap.


well....


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> Almost no one interested in longevity anymore, cheap **** replaced at earliest occasion is all we want.
> Better is a relative term, for 99% better is a price question first everything else second. same power for 100 bucks sounds better than 1000 isn`t it?
> It will last a year or before next car trade in and that is ok with most people.
> in any case it could be only 100 loss at worst.


And this is why I am thinking most are largely thinking there is no difference. Truth is on mass there mostly isn't. I have found that public opinion is more often than not, not too far off the truth. That said we clearly have been developing a list of "lessor known/heard products". That was the list I have been looking to compile. In most industries we have the general money hungry suppliers who just make something to "just give em what they are asking for". That is usually a thing that is taken verbatim rather than really on a completely understood level. What we end up with is mediocrity. Eventually along comes the small group of us idiots who are actually fanatics looking for something closer to "the real deal". Within our group there are folks like you I presume that have knowledge or at least seek out enough knowledge to join the supply chain. That is where many companies got their start. Making great gear but the bean counters come in and tell em you need to make it cheaper and so the process is started again. Figuring out who the current fanatical manufacturers that are actually making great stuff and not just thinking they are is the real trick. More than that as we all prefer different flavors different manufacturers are going to focus on different aspects of the sound hence their products are going to really shine in one area over another. Obviously if as an end user we want our stuff to really shine we should figure out what to use where. It would be these higher end "boutique" manufacturers that are the ones to have. Just finding out who they are, who's product does what and how to access them takes time and effort. 

My theory so far. Average gear is going to sound... average. I think that is what seems to be being revealed in this thread is it not?


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> both you and Victor have misread, I believe?
> 
> I believe in separation, and that means separate amp chassis for each channel.
> 
> not multi-channel amps.
> 
> theoretically, of course.
> 
> the whole point of saying this, is to show that although it can be proved that channel separation greater than 50 db is unnecessary based on testing, I want, I require more than that.
> 
> I grew up believing mono-blocks was the purest fidelity because no matter what you always had separation.
> 
> So I push that, I say I believe in that, even if blind testing shows I can't tell when a 6 channel amp using a single power supply is substituted for a system with discrete amps at each speaker.
> 
> This is the failpoint of audio belief structures, and I adhere to them readily and in error of the blind test proof.
> 
> The idea that blind testing is all there is, and if I can't tell them apart in a trial, means I can't justify the cost of one system over another, is also a failpoint in audio belief structures.
> 
> Simply because even if I prove to not be able to beat the switcher in short term listening tests, the long-term option of switching amps out over long periods without the inconvenience of momentary stops and starts, is being overlooked.
> 
> I feel like the blind test, as it has been demonstrated, is also a flawed methodology for differentiating between amp sonics.
> 
> I think that over longer periods, even if the blind switch still occurs, the better amps will shine, you will pick up the quality the amp is able to put down, and cheaper amps will prove to out themselves because over long term listening periods, we will put the amp through more than testing variables, we will have loud days and we will have quiet days. We will notice when we are being shorted on quality but it won't be evident from a 30 second blip to another 30 second blip, but of course this all does go back to the "all amps that measure the same, sound the same" debate.
> 
> I'm saying over longer periods we figure out what is missing from the cheap amps, and why a designer's circuit sounds better when using the amp in a normal way, over high and low demands, coming near to clipping at times and possibly over clipping, haha..
> 
> 
> the good amps are better, and ABX testing is not the one sleuth option it has been portrayed to be here in this thread.
> 
> But if anyone wants to bet on it, ABX testing is available to prove that we can't cut the mustard as a test group as it is applied to the human hearing mechanism. Average Joe is going to lose, because ABX tests only separate the short term differences and leave the rest of it, hidden behind the testing protocols.


I agree with what you are saying on all accounts. Be it separation or whatever aspect cranks you it seems that the "it doesn't matter after whatever points" are a little inaccurate. Also there is no other true test for a unit than long term field tests in my opinion. While I find you can gather a lot of information in a few minutes when just listening you are still going to miss things that you would hear over longer periods of time. We see this all of the time in recording. We hear what are usually minor issues and gloss over them numerous times till we learn to ignore them. Walking away and revisiting later is a good cure for resetting focus. Also as you say listening to in this case a power amp day in and day out is going to more readily reveal as an example that a specific amp sounds "cheap" at lowered volume. An unexpected twist maybe but this is a very common problem with digital anything. 

I tried to say it before but I am not sure I was clear. I view specs as a clue list. If an amp has higher specs on average chances are it is a better sounding amp and worth being on the short list of trial suspects. Reviews, after endless reading reveal other traits to look for and verify in the testing phase. Part of that process for me is also getting what "pro users" have to say as they often know more of what to look for. Also often they have lived with the stuff for a while and can give long term use accounts. As a side note I often hear these kinds of folks say things like "it sucks" and don't give any further dialogue to qualify it. Doesn't speak well for them I am afraid. If it just "sucks" overall then they should have been able to pick up on that before they even bought it. Why spend the bucks in the first place then?


----------



## RobERacer

gstokes said:


> Keep in mind this is only my humble opinion and should be construed as fact... Small improvements will continue to be made as new technology such as SMT becomes available, currently the higher levels of SQ will be found with a Class A or possibly Class A/B design but Class D is not far behind and making continuous advancements, Class D and their variants are very possibly a good candidate for the future of car audio, we shall see. What you get with a high/er end amplifier is quality and accurate specifications along with a lengthy warranty but sound quality is mostly a factor of amplifier class and design whether it be Class A, B, A/B, D, A/B/D or one of the many variants. Many of the cheaper amplifiers blow up the specs and list a unreasonably high damping factor or wattage figures the amplifier can't even dream of producing or inaccurate THD measurements. A high/er end amplifier will make rated power and possibly more, be stable at 1 ohm and below, have a lengthy service life and generous warranty, you really do get the quality that you pay for but don't switch from a popular name brand Class A amplifier to a more exotic Class A amplifier and expect huge increases in SQ, the differences in quality will most surely be visible but the differences in SQ may or may not be audible to the listener, just my $.02.
> If you want the absolute best SQ don't even bother with an exotic Class A design when a modern tube amplifier such as the offerings from McIntosh, Milbert, Zendar, Butler Audio, Helix and many others simply blow transistor amplifiers right out of the water, the differences in SQ are so apparent it's not even worth comparing but once again you will get what you pay for..


Tubes are a thing we have been talking about for a long time. Few have actually been in a position to be able to A/B trial a multitude of versions of higher end units of both so it would be difficult to come to a very accurate assessment of that. What we have found I think on the pro audio side is that tubes emit a more pleasing sound. Folks often equate that to SQ but what most folks seem to have concluded in pro audio is that transistors are more readily capable of accuracy. That isn't to say that tube designs can't be very accurate because they can and some are far better than some transistor designs but the most accurate so far seem to have been the higher end transistor designs. I should point out that both are capable of accuracy levels that even higher end studios regard as a chocolate vs vanilla flavor thing rather than a usability difference issue.


----------



## RobERacer

captainobvious said:


> This is simply because short term comparison is the proper way to do it. Trying to recall and remember what you heard to make a comparison in the long term is a horrible way to make a comparison. I believe there is plenty of science to back that up.
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "hidden behind the protocols". The protocols are there specifically to remove influences not related to the "hearing mechanism".


Well, I think what we are seeing from folks is kinda saying it. Good money spend after bad and then folks that swear up and down that there is no sonic difference between amps. That said we have a huge host of other users who have continually heard differences & designers and electronics techs that swear we should hear a difference and are hearing differences themselves. The reality is these very people would feel really stupid going around swearing about the differences if that was so clearly not true like that. The problem here is that clearly either the testing that you are talking about is not being done or it doesn't work. I am thinking the problem is actually both. I don't think your testing process is fool proof as the guys are pointing out. I also already mentioned that I don't think it is viable either but that is overcomable if we want it to be bad enough. The truth is people are mostly honest and are not idiotic sheep like so many folks seem to think they are. What they have to say when they choose to say it matters. If enough folks speak we can get a pretty good idea of what is happening. The proof would be to try for yourself after that.


----------



## RobERacer

captainobvious said:


> There are many reasons why long term comparison tests are a poor choice and less accurate than a short comparison. The simple fact is that you introduce too many variables to make the comparison a fair one. Think of all the different things that can change from an environmental and physiological standpoint and how that will affect the way you hear things from one day to the next. You're unlikely to hear things the exact same way on day one of your demoing as you are on day 15...no? Also consider that now you're trying to remember and recall what you heard to compare it to what you hear now. By limiting the window (ie -introducing controls), you limit the number and extent of the variables affecting the comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm actually surprised anyone is even debating this point.


And that is why when we used to mix records in the 80's we budgeted on average 1 month of studio time to mix 8-10 songs. Mixing 1 song was done over periods of days and sometimes very long days. A song lasts 3.5 minutes on average. Just how many times do you think we heard that song? Trust me, many and by the time you were done mixing you hated the song. The point is it was done that way because we ended up with a better product. You will note that records in general took on a notably lesser polished sound by the late 90's. That was why. Less time spent on the project. Push it through became the order of the day. Fix it in mastering! Ear fatigue sets in over time but there are ways to combat that and learning to focus is part of learning audio. This "average human hearing" statistics are not necessarily accurate either as they were like all tests done under certain situations with a given group of subjects. Average Joe typically only has an attention span for music of 3.5 minutes. We have similar statistics that show this in lab tests. That is why songs were 3.5 minutes each. Does that mean a song is only good if it is only 3.5 minutes long? 

Yes, I am in fact challenging your statistic about hearing memory and it's validity because I live this every single day and I am seeing a different result than you. Completely different. If it was truth we would see that in action all of the time!


----------



## RobERacer

Elektra said:


> My amp has a separate power supply per channel...


We see that in better units a lot but it is a much more expensive option so it is uncommon. In a 4 channel that would mean 4 transformers, rectifiers, sets of caps, and on and on. It just might drive the cost of that amp to numbers like $5k or more. Hence the pricing difference in designs.


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> Someone here were saying that they want new members to stop asking questions like "what amp would be better for my system" and the answer should be "any" once and for all.
> I suggest whoever is tired answering such question to just ignore them because despite your efforts those questions will always pop up.
> Such posts doing disservice to community and sooner you guys realise that better will be for everyone.



Exactly, isn't that the point of this site?


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> exactly- none of you conducted scientific experiment-observation at best.
> THat is the problem with modern education system - *you people get told what to believe without questioning* authorities in the field.Someday someone`s conducted experiment might be considered scientific fact of it might be not for a variety of reasons.
> 
> Be you own scientist, listen for yourself is the only viable scientific prove one must need.



The industry tries to push lots of BS marketing to drive sales. The fact that we did the blind AX testing pretty much invalidates your point.

You doubly make your point moot when you say to listen for ourselves...which is exactly what we did. 





The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
The steps of the scientific method are to:
*Ask a Question*
*Do Background Research*
*Construct a Hypothesis*
*Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment*
*Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion*
*Communicate Your Results*
 
It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.

I believe this was followed fairly closely, so again...not sure where you aim to invalidate the method, but please be specific. (If you did, indeed actually read the whole process performed). Again, you endorse a method which is entirely non-scientific, nor accurate to base your conclusions on, yet condemn the method in which we performed ours. Laughable, at best.


----------



## captainobvious

cajunner said:


> it is precisely why the long term test would be more valid.
> 
> the luck of amplification is that it's able to be blind, you don't have to work the controls or ergonomics of the unit. You can actually hide it away and use it as if it were a wire with gain, in the system.
> 
> this means taking away all obvious helpers, like crossovers or bass controls or whatever preamp gadget circuit is involved, if we're trying to assess Sound Quality, esquire.
> 
> 
> but the long term occupation of a product will present you a listening experience over a long range of operating, and hearing conditions. One day you'll have a combination of earwax, high humidity and temperature, and low vehicle voltage, another day high pressure after a front and high voltage along with low temperatures, it's the beauty of a long term test that you can assess a product through environmental changes that are absent in ABX short term comparisons.
> 
> And that means you would give say, a week to each component, just long enough to get a spread, a variable of time...
> 
> but nobody would attempt this. Build an amp box that hides the amps, have a buddy install one of several, have him set the gains to the deck voltage exactly, and give it a week, then throw a different amp in the system.
> 
> 
> take notes, listen for what you think you hear, after a week something like "this amp seems to be slightly more brittle sounding" will happen, and after you pass a few amps, over a few weeks time, you see how you fared.
> 
> This kind of test, would be even more impressive in overall in-depth "NESS" as compared to a 6 hour window, but by a single party, a completely possible opportunity to convince at least yourself, but by credibility, everyone here, of the validity of a longer test duration.



Unless you're talking about doing blind AX tests multiple times over a long period, then I'd have to disagree. The whole point of the blind AX is to _*eliminate variables*_. By doing a comparison on the spot, you're comparing apples to apples in the same conditions, regardless of what they are. 

Now if you're talking about doing blind AX/ABX tests/samples in consecutive days, well then sure.


----------



## Victor_inox

and your point is what exactly? to push your test to the rest of the people as proven fact?
That what I was suggesting for everyone, read your test but listen for themselves. 
I don`t want to discuss test I haven`t witnessed,but every one I did discredited itself in one way or another, statistically I don`t believe in tests demanding listeners to choose right away base on short burst in data.


----------



## captainobvious

RobERacer said:


> Well, I think what we are seeing from folks is kinda saying it. Good money spend after bad and then folks that swear up and down that there is no sonic difference between amps. That said we have a huge host of other users who have continually heard differences & designers and electronics techs that swear we should hear a difference and are hearing differences themselves. The reality is these very people would feel really stupid going around swearing about the differences if that was so clearly not true like that. The problem here is that clearly either the testing that you are talking about is not being done or it doesn't work. I am thinking the problem is actually both. I don't think your testing process is fool proof as the guys are pointing out. I also already mentioned that I don't think it is viable either but that is overcomable if we want it to be bad enough. The truth is people are mostly honest and are not idiotic sheep like so many folks seem to think they are. What they have to say when they choose to say it matters. If enough folks speak we can get a pretty good idea of what is happening. The proof would be to try for yourself after that.



My whole point in this thread was for people to take the time to learn for themselves what they can and cannot hear. The blind AX tests are a very good way to determine that. They compare one amp to another removing virtually all other variables to help you make a valid comparison of sound vs sound. I certainly don't have "golden ears" nor would I claim it. The problem isn't the method- in my opinion. The problem is that most have not attempted it, yet criticize it with no legitimate basis. There may very well be people who can hear differences in these amplifiers. The question people need to ask is not CAN they, but *how* do they determine that? How do they *prove* that to themselves?- That's where the separation is here.


----------



## RobERacer

captainobvious said:


> The industry tries to push lots of BS marketing to drive sales. The fact that we did the blind AX testing pretty much invalidates your point.
> 
> You doubly make your point moot when you say to listen for ourselves...which is exactly what we did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
> The steps of the scientific method are to:
> *Ask a Question*
> *Do Background Research*
> *Construct a Hypothesis*
> *Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment*
> *Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion*
> *Communicate Your Results*
> 
> It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.
> 
> I believe this was followed fairly closely, so again...not sure where you aim to invalidate the method, but please be specific. (If you did, indeed actually read the whole process performed). Again, you endorse a method which is entirely non-scientific, nor accurate to base your conclusions on, yet condemn the method in which we performed ours. Laughable, at best.


Can you attach your test results, who was involved (a little about their background as it is related to audio), what units were tested (including the actual drivers, cable size/length input signal (including song + file's types if digital) they were tested on, what were the conditions etc. You see the issue here is you have a whole bunch of well seasoned audio people here telling you that your results are inaccurate. We have all experienced it for ourselves. Some of these people have PHD's in this stuff and know electronics even on a theoretical level. Designers, electronics repair folks, car audio installers and audio engineers. A well versed crowd indeed. We're not deaf, we aren't idiots and we aren't all insane. I might be the only one who is. Clearly we need all of the data so we can look at it and see where discrepancies could lie.


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> and your point is what exactly? to push your test to the rest of the people as proven fact?
> That what I was suggesting for everyone, read your test but listen for themselves.
> I don`t want to discuss test I haven`t witnessed,but every one I did discredited itself in one way or another, statistically I don`t believe in tests demanding listeners to choose right away base on short burst in data.


I've said it NUMEROUS times in this thread already Vic. The point is to listen for ourselves, yes- but to do it in a method that _produces meaningful results_ if we hope to make any _significant conclusion_. Hence why I endorse doing blind AX tests. They are simple to do and make a comparison of 2 amplifiers on the *merit of their sound alone.* 
If a person wanted to do long-term tests, they could simply perform the AX tests on multiple occasions and compare the data. 


I've stated why I think it's a good method for comparison of the devices of their own merit. What is your method? What are the specific reasons for using it and why do you feel it generates a significant and meaningful conclusion? I'm still learning and I don't know it all. I wouldn't claim to. But it would at least be helpful for everyone (myself included) if there were some kind of logic and reasoning behind other suggested methods too.

Can we not agree that if you want to make an accurate comparison, that you have to do so in some kind of controlled manner? What about the blind AX do you find fault in?


----------



## Victor_inox

As I said NUMEROUS times I conducted and participated in many comparison tests during the last 30 years, some blind with equipment behind the curtains and some open where it can be seen, result inconclusive and vary with listener more than equipment, that`s why it`s important for one person more than another. That lead me to believe it you don`t give a damn or tired, or half deaf or whatever you will give random answer. 
and that lead me to conclusion to never believe in any test performed by someone else, claiming controlled environment ,etc,etc.


----------



## captainobvious

RobERacer said:


> Can you attach your test results, who was involved (a little about their background as it is related to audio), what units were tested (including the actual drivers, cable size/length input signal (including song + file's types if digital) they were tested on, what were the conditions etc. You see the issue here is you have a whole bunch of well seasoned audio people here telling you that your results are inaccurate. We have all experienced it for ourselves. Some of these people have PHD's in this stuff and know electronics even on a theoretical level. Designers, electronics repair folks, car audio installers and audio engineers. A well versed crowd indeed. We're not deaf, we aren't idiots and we aren't all insane. I might be the only one who is. Clearly we need all of the data so we can look at it and see where discrepancies could lie.



Apparently... "well seasoned audio people" who haven't even read my test, yet claim the method and results are inaccurate.  I don't claim to be a scientist or an expert in the field. I conducted this experiment for my own edification and to the best of my ability with the time and equipment available and for the benefit/enjoyment of the community here. (This is a DIY site, afterall) 

This has been linked a few times in the thread already, but it may have only been the results portion. Here is the complete thread. The results will also be found therein. I think it's important to read the whole thing, not just results, so that you can see why certain things were done.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...-blind-tests-amplifiers-time-hear-myself.html

You'll find the answers to all of your questions there I believe. If not and you have more specific questions, feel free to ask- I'll be happy to provide answers if I'm able.

Also- I never stated anyone was deaf, insane, nor idiots.


----------



## cajunner

captainobvious said:


> If a person wanted to do long-term tests, they could simply perform the AX tests on multiple occasions and compare the data.


this is not the same thing as I propose.

the test that removes all conditional variables that would mark one amplifier as different from another, is not a test that represents reality, or the actual use of the product.

AX testing limited by output, means that the amplifiers that have more power aren't going to be used to their full potential.

AX testing limited by gain, won't allow you to define each amplifier's noise floor by checking the amount of hiss at maximum gain on zero bit tracks.

This was well discussed earlier in this behemoth of a thread, but AX testing or ABX testing has become the current fad in trying to show how similar amplifiers are.

And that's what we all should acknowledge, that amplifiers are gain devices and when functioning as designed are low in actual importance to the overall sound compared to the other things like source units and speakers and preamplifier circuits and especially, vehicle interiors...

But AX testing leaves out a lot of the performance envelope that most people explore with their equipment use, even if one were to attempt to compare scientifically the differences at clipping or over long periods where protection circuits and amplifier heating cause changes that are definitely audible.


----------



## captainobvious

I understand where you're coming from. Let me respond with my thoughts on those points...(hope you don't mind it was easier to simply type in a response in red than break it up into separate pieces.) :blush:




cajunner said:


> this is not the same thing as I propose.
> 
> the test that removes all conditional variables that would mark one amplifier as different from another, is not a test that represents reality, or the actual use of the product.
> 
> AX testing limited by output, means that the amplifiers that have more power aren't going to be used to their full potential.
> 
> Some may argue then that the larger amplifiers in the test have more headroom and would then have an advantage. Shouldn't that be evidenced in results?
> Also, aren't we listening for changes in the sound/response- not increased volume? We could only test amplifiers of the same power rating, but then poeple could say one is more underrated vs the other. I suppose it's simply a matter of doing the best we can with what's available to make the most accurate comparison.
> 
> AX testing limited by gain, won't allow you to define each amplifier's noise floor by checking the amount of hiss at maximum gain on zero bit tracks.
> 
> I try to keep the source (input) voltage high and gains low for reduced noise floor which is just good practice in an installation in general. Admittedly, this is not always going to be the case in a real world install. A user may have an older HU with a low output voltage and an amplifier that requires a higher signal voltage to produce enough power for the application. Noise floor is one area that I would expect there to be an audible difference between amplifiers. This is certainly more easily identified when playing zero bit tracks on a noisy amp although may also be identified in dynamic songs with quiet sections.
> Most modern amplifiers do have very low noise though unless they are faulty or damaged (or simply a very poor design). Interestingly enough, noise floor didn't seem to make a difference in our AX testing, but again that is with music playing and it could simply be that these amplifiers have a good power supply design.
> 
> This was well discussed earlier in this behemoth of a thread, but AX testing or ABX testing has become the current fad in trying to show how similar amplifiers are.
> 
> And that's what we all should acknowledge, that amplifiers are gain devices and when functioning as designed are low in actual importance to the overall sound compared to the other things like source units and speakers and preamplifier circuits and especially, vehicle interiors...
> 
> Couldn't agree more with this statement. They are near the bottom of the list of things that will make an impact on the overall sound of the system.
> 
> But AX testing leaves out a lot of the performance envelope that most people explore with their equipment use, even if one were to attempt to compare scientifically the differences at clipping or over long periods where protection circuits and amplifier heating cause changes that are definitely audible.
> 
> I haven't tested that, however my response would be that if a user is running an amplifier into a range outside of it's intended operation, then that would be the exception, not the rule and they have failed to select the proper equipment for the application. I wouldn't_think that* most *_people run their amplifiers into clipping and overheating, but who knows- people do silly things.


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> That what I was suggesting for everyone, read your test but listen for themselves...
> I don`t want to discuss test I haven`t witnessed...





> ...I conducted and participated in many comparison tests during the last 30 years... and that lead me to conclusion to never believe in any test performed by someone else, claiming controlled environment ,etc,etc.


Victor, I think I see a point in your last two posts, that I was not getting earlier. I would like to see if I understand correctly.

Does your skepticism about "scientific" experiments only apply to listening based tests? Or do you disbelieve any scientific experiment you did not perform yourself? 

It seems your main point of concern is that the listening panel cannot be adequately "base lined". i.e. if there are psycho-acoustic (or other) reasons we should not trust individual uncontrolled listening comparisons, then why should we trust results based on *any* human listening panel whether or not they were done with ABX methodologies? 

So the distrust in ABX listening tests really comes down to how well we *think* we understand the nominal versus exceptional capabilities of human hearing in the "average Joe" versus the "exceptional listener"? 

Am I understanding you correctly? Not trying to trap you here, genuinely trying to better understand your position. Thanks.


----------



## rton20s

Victor_inox said:


> all amps sound the same


----------



## cajunner

captainobvious said:


> I understand where you're coming from. Let me respond with my thoughts on those points...(hope you don't mind it was easier to simply type in a response in red than break it up into separate pieces.) :blush:


well, I am a silly person sometimes!



I like to run my equipment with care, but I must admit that playing music louder and louder until I actually hear distortion, is probably "not the intended functioning" as designed by the manufacturer...

but most of us do it at one time or another, if not just to know how loud is loud, but to get an idea of what distortion sounds like from good equipment. (Which I posit, is a bit different from crappy equipment distortion) and you see speaker companies building their passive crossovers with optical protection, so we the consumer, do not blow the tweeters right off...

so if the only problem with long term testing you have identified is...

wait, you haven't identified a problem with it, you just maintain the AX testing on short term tests to be valid, right?

I suggest that nobody listens to music in short term bursts, as a debate tactic...



really, we are agreed on how much importance one should weigh the amplifier's contribution in SQ, but we differ in our favored testing protocols.

We don't have long term blind tests as a matter of convenience, and the sighted testing is compromised by psychological factors that weigh heavily on a person to distinguish based on perceived value or ability. And I agree that the short term AX testing is a good start, when doing scientific-level scrutinizing over what to build into our own systems, but I can't use it as a fail-proof indicator of amp quality, or even of sonic differentiation, since all it really can do is indicate a differential, and even if a nice spread of devices under test are used, the relative ability of one from another is only valid for that test group, and another test group of amplifiers may behave differently.


----------



## Victor_inox

RobERacer said:


> Exactly, isn't that the point of this site?


Which one?


----------



## Victor_inox

Victor_inox said:


> No one proposed questioning fundamental laws of physics. Experiment practices.
> 
> There are differences between amplifiers and those differences can be quantified objectively.


 Which is not the question of this topic...
So is all amps sound the same subjectively to you or not?[/QUOTE]



rton20s said:


>


Trolling a little don`t ya? Taking my words out of context is adult way to present your argument........:laugh:


----------



## rton20s

Victor_inox said:


> Trolling a little don`t ya? Taking my words out of context is adult way to present your argument........:laugh:


----------



## RobERacer

captainobvious said:


> Apparently... "well seasoned audio people" who haven't even read my test, yet claim the method and results are inaccurate.  I don't claim to be a scientist or an expert in the field. I conducted this experiment for my own edification and to the best of my ability with the time and equipment available and for the benefit/enjoyment of the community here. (This is a DIY site, afterall)
> 
> This has been linked a few times in the thread already, but it may have only been the results portion. Here is the complete thread. The results will also be found therein. I think it's important to read the whole thing, not just results, so that you can see why certain things were done.
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...-blind-tests-amplifiers-time-hear-myself.html
> 
> You'll find the answers to all of your questions there I believe. If not and you have more specific questions, feel free to ask- I'll be happy to provide answers if I'm able.
> 
> Also- I never stated anyone was deaf, insane, nor idiots.


All I was saying was that from what you wrote before there was a lot of control data missing which did not allow anyone the opportunity to make any real valid assessments based upon them. As you yourself have pointed out numerous times if you are going to make a "purely scientific assessment" ALL of the valid data must be presented otherwise there is no way to note where findings could be flawed. Clearly you are offended and you can see how it is a bit of a stress being placed under the microscope for a mere home brew DIY website. My point in this is I think there is a certain amount of experts statements that we have to take a face value. I am not saying "listen to me just because I said so" either. Please don't misunderstand that. As I have stated before in my case specifically I am just a user but as I am involved in more complex audio functions on a daily basis it gives me a bit of a unique perspective. More what I was suggesting is that there are enough "Pro's" particularly involved in this discussion that there are certain things we can take for granted. Suffice it to say that the members of the Audio Engineer's Society aren't disputing amplifiers as not being able to pass better sonics. The AES btw is kind of the governing body for audio engineers and the like. They involve a pile of PHD type propeller heads as well as guys like myself and folks who just have great interest in audio. Suffice it to say it is a hyper science think tank totally devoted to the improvement of audio in EVERY application. They set the standards. If they aren't saying that "all power amps sound the same and that high end power amps are a marketing con" then that is likely not the case. Believe me they would be all over that if that were remotely the case but it is not! More than that there are discussions regularly for and against the validity of various specs and how they relate to our current capabilities. Yes, as we have seen huge improvements in the last oh 40 years some of the old understandings are being challenged. What used to be acceptable is no longer in a lot of cases. Some, like frequency response for example are being further studied and subsequently discussed.

As far as the test. One thing that slapped me in the face right away was the Alesis monitors. If you are going to test high end gear for sonic differences then you need all high end equipment. Alesis monitors in recording is considered MI "entry level" equipment. I realise you were also using an O scope was it a "Dual trace" scope showing the variance between the input and outputs of the amp? That would have been a nice thing to see.


----------



## RobERacer

cajunner said:


> this is not the same thing as I propose.
> 
> the test that removes all conditional variables that would mark one amplifier as different from another, is not a test that represents reality, or the actual use of the product.
> 
> AX testing limited by output, means that the amplifiers that have more power aren't going to be used to their full potential.
> 
> AX testing limited by gain, won't allow you to define each amplifier's noise floor by checking the amount of hiss at maximum gain on zero bit tracks.
> 
> This was well discussed earlier in this behemoth of a thread, but AX testing or ABX testing has become the current fad in trying to show how similar amplifiers are.
> 
> And that's what we all should acknowledge, that amplifiers are gain devices and when functioning as designed are low in actual importance to the overall sound compared to the other things like source units and speakers and preamplifier circuits and especially, vehicle interiors...
> 
> But AX testing leaves out a lot of the performance envelope that most people explore with their equipment use, even if one were to attempt to compare scientifically the differences at clipping or over long periods where protection circuits and amplifier heating cause changes that are definitely audible.


In terms of a car audio system that is utilizing external power amps the head unit it'self might be lesser of a factor to the overall sonic than the power amp. D/A converters are certainly something that changes sonics a lot but as I stated before it is widely known that high gain amp circuits are far more effectual on a whole when compared to op amps that would make up the rest of the head unit's signal path. I would suggest that between descent head units there is far less sonic differential than between power amps. Especially when considering higher end ones. The average listener is going to be more attuned to really only noting the differences between speakers but at that level we are not talking about higher fidelity audio anymore are we?


----------



## RobERacer

captainobvious said:


> My whole point in this thread was for people to take the time to learn for themselves what they can and cannot hear. The blind AX tests are a very good way to determine that. They compare one amp to another removing virtually all other variables to help you make a valid comparison of sound vs sound. I certainly don't have "golden ears" nor would I claim it. The problem isn't the method- in my opinion. The problem is that most have not attempted it, yet criticize it with no legitimate basis. There may very well be people who can hear differences in these amplifiers. The question people need to ask is not CAN they, but *how* do they determine that? How do they *prove* that to themselves?- That's where the separation is here.


The point that I have been trying to make is that as we learn to hear. That is exactly what we keep referring to by so arrogantly saying "Golden Ears". In my case I might only have Silver or Bronze ears, Maybe only copper or iron because I am not sitting on a mountain of cash from my work. My point is that it might bother you but some folks have actually put for the effort to learn differences and how to hear what you would clearly consider at best a minor differences if you are capable of hearing them at all. Where do you get off belittling people for putting more effort than you into learning more about audio? What because you are too lazy to get off your ass to aspire to become an Olympic pole vaulter all pole vaulters are arrogant poser? *******!


----------



## rton20s

RobERacer said:


> "all power amps sound the same and that high end power amps are a marketing con"


----------



## RobERacer

Jepalan said:


> Victor, I think I see a point in your last two posts, that I was not getting earlier. I would like to see if I understand correctly.
> 
> Does your skepticism about "scientific" experiments only apply to listening based tests? Or do you disbelieve any scientific experiment you did not perform yourself?
> 
> It seems your main point of concern is that the listening panel cannot be adequately "base lined". i.e. if there are psycho-acoustic (or other) reasons we should not trust individual uncontrolled listening comparisons, then why should we trust results based on *any* human listening panel whether or not they were done with ABX methodologies?
> 
> So the distrust in ABX listening tests really comes down to how well we *think* we understand the nominal versus exceptional capabilities of human hearing in the "average Joe" versus the "exceptional listener"?
> 
> Am I understanding you correctly? Not trying to trap you here, genuinely trying to better understand your position. Thanks.


My only thought is "who is doing the listening?" Clearly some people are more capable of "hearing" things than others.


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> Which one?


That folks should be able to come on hear and ask "opinion based" questions and get straight forward answers without being beat up for asking them in the first place.


----------



## RobERacer

rton20s said:


>


What is the name of this thread again???


----------



## Victor_inox

RobERacer said:


> That folks should be able to come on hear and ask "opinion based" questions and get straight forward answers without being beat up for asking them in the first place.


Correct, therefore generalisation Like title of this thread implied is poisonous to the nature of this forum.OMHO if one is too tired answering questions over and over again there is a few options.
1. find information new member asking for and link it for him/her.
2.answer it yourself.
3. Get the **** out of thread.


----------



## rton20s

RobERacer said:


> What is the name of this thread again???





Thread Title said:


> HIGHER END AMP SQ IS A MYTH














RobERacer said:


> "all power amps sound the same and that high end power amps are a marketing con"





rton20s said:


>


----------



## Jepalan

RobERacer said:


> My only thought is "who is doing the listening?" Clearly some people are more capable of "hearing" things than others.


I certainly wouldn't put much value in results of a listening test performed by only my Dad - especially if he wasn't allowed to wear both hearing-aids 

This is why I like to see statistical significance in the poll population, but I suppose an argument could be made for having every participant undergo a full-range audible threshold test and throwing out data from anyone outside of a certain 'norm'.


----------



## captainobvious

RobERacer said:


> All I was saying was that from what you wrote before there was a lot of control data missing which did not allow anyone the opportunity to make any real valid assessments based upon them. As you yourself have pointed out numerous times if you are going to make a "purely scientific assessment" ALL of the valid data must be presented otherwise there is no way to note where findings could be flawed. Clearly you are offended and you can see how it is a bit of a stress being placed under the microscope for a mere home brew DIY website. My point in this is I think there is a certain amount of experts statements that we have to take a face value. I am not saying "listen to me just because I said so" either. Please don't misunderstand that. As I have stated before in my case specifically I am just a user but as I am involved in more complex audio functions on a daily basis it gives me a bit of a unique perspective. More what I was suggesting is that there are enough "Pro's" particularly involved in this discussion that there are certain things we can take for granted. Suffice it to say that the members of the Audio Engineer's Society aren't disputing amplifiers as not being able to pass better sonics. The AES btw is kind of the governing body for audio engineers and the like. They involve a pile of PHD type propeller heads as well as guys like myself and folks who just have great interest in audio. Suffice it to say it is a hyper science think tank totally devoted to the improvement of audio in EVERY application. They set the standards. If they aren't saying that "all power amps sound the same and that high end power amps are a marketing con" then that is likely not the case. Believe me they would be all over that if that were remotely the case but it is not! More than that there are discussions regularly for and against the validity of various specs and how they relate to our current capabilities. Yes, as we have seen huge improvements in the last oh 40 years some of the old understandings are being challenged. What used to be acceptable is no longer in a lot of cases. Some, like frequency response for example are being further studied and subsequently discussed.
> 
> As far as the test. One thing that slapped me in the face right away was the Alesis monitors. If you are going to test high end gear for sonic differences then you need all high end equipment. Alesis monitors in recording is considered MI "entry level" equipment. I realise you were also using an O scope was it a "Dual trace" scope showing the variance between the input and outputs of the amp? That would have been a nice thing to see.



You see, this is why I posted the full thread for you to read which you clearly did not. The speakers used were not Alesis monitors, they were Martin Logan electrostats. My procedure and results have been posted, available and referenced in this very thread several times so I'm confused as to why you would say it wasnt provided.
I'm actually not offended in fact I have invited constructive criticism to help me further my understanding and to be able to perform more accurate tests in the future- should I do so. The measuring device was employed simply to match the output voltages of the amplifiers.


----------



## Jepalan

PLEASE NOTE: following is my personal opinion only. I am making no argument for this being "the truth", I am only relating my perception after reviewing a few pages of posts.

An attempt to summarize this thread so far:

1) Everyone agrees 'all amps do not sound the same' - as long as 'cheap junk' amps are included in the discussion of 'all amps'. 

2) There is clear disagreement as to whether there is audible difference between 'decent' amps and so called 'top-of-line', or 'elite' brands, and in particular whether any differences are worth paying for.

3) There are differences in opinion about the value of other non-audible attributes between 'decent' and 'elite' amps, but most seem to agree that build quality, features and 'styling' are mostly about personal preference or specific application and can be worth paying for. 

4) Some posters place higher value on 'audible differences' that are also measurable via instrumentation and 'well controlled & documented' listening tests

5) Some posters place higher value on 'audible differences' perceived only through personal experience.

6) The majority holding viewpoint (4) or (5) are quite passionate about their positions.

7) Those holding position (4) feel an innate need to 'educate the masses', 'sway the debate with irrefutable logic', 'convince the other side', and stick to conventional rules of debate strategy and argument types. Any departure from the process of logical debate is seen as offensive at best, an insult at worst and may invoke an emotional response. Position (4) folks are also highly dubious of any statement that sounds like "marketing jargon" and can get down right hostile towards the 'creative side' of product marketing and anything associated with it.

8) Those holding position (5) place their personal experience above all else and do not understand how anyone would think otherwise. They also seem to take any attempt at a formal debate or presentation of a contrary opinion to be a personal attack on their position or attack on their right to have an opinion. They feel no obligation whatsoever to explain or justify their opinion as everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe. 

9) I think most agree that psychological bias is a real thing, but those with position (5) don't care *why* they prefer one product over another - if they perceive a preference and are willing to pay for it, then all else is moot.

...and then there is rton20s


----------



## captainobvious

RobERacer said:


> The point that I have been trying to make is that as we learn to hear. That is exactly what we keep referring to by so arrogantly saying "Golden Ears". In my case I might only have Silver or Bronze ears, Maybe only copper or iron because I am not sitting on a mountain of cash from my work. My point is that it might bother you but some folks have actually put for the effort to learn differences and how to hear what you would clearly consider at best a minor differences if you are capable of hearing them at all. Where do you get off belittling people for putting more effort than you into learning more about audio? What because you are too lazy to get off your ass to aspire to become an Olympic pole vaulter all pole vaulters are arrogant poser? *******!


So much for a gentleman's debate I suppose? 
I don't think anyone was making an argument comparing peoples hearing or training as the wildcard, nor was anyone putting anyone else down for having inferior hearing. Well, until your post at least. Congrats. I'm sure though that it was laziness on my part. Or perhaps it was time spent actually conducting tests partaining to the topic. Please, feel free to provide the data on the blind testing you've done though. You're slamming me for an argument Im not even making.


----------



## captainobvious

rton20s said:


>



I was going to ask the same thing becasue it certainly wasn't me. :laugh:


----------



## captainobvious

cajunner said:


> so if the only problem with long term testing you have identified is...
> 
> wait, you haven't identified a problem with it, you just maintain the AX testing on short term tests to be valid, right?
> 
> I suggest that nobody listens to music in short term bursts, as a debate tactic...
> 
> 
> 
> really, we are agreed on how much importance one should weigh the amplifier's contribution in SQ, but we differ in our favored testing protocols.
> 
> We don't have long term blind tests as a matter of convenience, and the sighted testing is compromised by psychological factors that weigh heavily on a person to distinguish based on perceived value or ability. And I agree that the short term AX testing is a good start, when doing scientific-level scrutinizing over what to build into our own systems, but I can't use it as a fail-proof indicator of amp quality, or even of sonic differentiation, since all it really can do is indicate a differential, and even if a nice spread of devices under test are used, the relative ability of one from another is only valid for that test group, and another test group of amplifiers may behave differently.



I think i had identified reasons why long term tests are a poor choice (in my opinion), no? The biggest reasoning being the lack of controls for accurate comparison. i could see multiple blind AX tests being a good alternative to a single toaccount for the variables you mentioned prior. or heck, why not do the blind long term AND the AX's and see how they align. It's all for the purpose of self learning anyway, so go for it 


True it is a challenge to test a very large group of amplifiers, but in practice I would think most people are choosing between a few options. Using 8 in our testing seemed like a sizeable number to keep testing time manageable. Of course more groups could be done to validate, but again Im just a diy guy limited in time and equipment.


----------



## rton20s

Jepalan said:


> PLEASE NOTE: following is my personal opinion only. I am making no argument for this being "the truth", I am only relating my perception after reviewing a few pages of posts.
> 
> An attempt to summarize this thread so far:
> 
> 1) Everyone agrees 'all amps do not sound the same' - as long as 'cheap junk' amps are included in the discussion of 'all amps'.














Jepalan said:


> 2) There is clear disagreement as to whether there is audible difference between 'decent' amps and so called 'top-of-line', or 'elite' brands, and in particular whether any differences are worth paying for.














Jepalan said:


> 3) There are differences in opinion about the value of other non-audible attributes between 'decent' and 'elite' amps, but most seem to agree that build quality, features and 'styling' are mostly about personal preference or specific application and can be worth paying for.














Jepalan said:


> 4) Some posters place higher value on 'audible differences' that are also measurable via instrumentation and 'well controlled & documented' listening tests
> 
> 5) Some posters place higher value on 'audible differences' perceived only through personal experience.
> 
> 6) The majority holding viewpoint (4) or (5) are quite passionate about their positions.
> 
> 7) Those holding position (4) feel an innate need to 'educate the masses', 'sway the debate with irrefutable logic', 'convince the other side', and stick to conventional rules of debate strategy and argument types. Any departure from the process of logical debate is seen as offensive at best, an insult at worst and may invoke an emotional response. Position (4) folks are also highly dubious of any statement that sounds like "marketing jargon" and can get down right hostile towards the 'creative side' of product marketing and anything associated with it.
> 
> 8) Those holding position (5) place their personal experience above all else and do not understand how anyone would think otherwise. They also seem to take any attempt at a formal debate or presentation of a contrary opinion to be a personal attack on their position or attack on their right to have an opinion. They feel no obligation whatsoever to explain or justify their opinion as everyone is entitled to believe what they want to believe.
> 
> 9) I think most agree that psychological bias is a real thing, but those with position (5) don't care *why* they prefer one product over another - if they perceive a preference and are willing to pay for it, then all else is moot.















Jepalan said:


> ...and then there is rton20s


----------



## RobERacer

rton20s said:


>


So you took a line out of what I said and with the way you are portraying it you are clearly trying to make it look like I said that and am totally countering what I have been saying when in fact I was only restating and btw totally refuting that very quote. Why did you only quote that line? Because it is totally out of context this way! You wanted it to appear that I was saying the exact opposite of what I have been saying. See you constantly do this stuff. All clearly to cause people to become frustrated. You did the exact same thing yesterday with another person. Your idiotic little pictograms are not even close to amusing nor are they of any use to this otherwise useful though a bit heated discussion. Just because we are finally getting to the root of the problem you stepped right in to confuse and diffuse. Of course I am anything but surprised as this is exactly what you have always done. You really should be banned from being involved at all! With any luck you would then be disqualified from your sponsorship. You might learn a life lesson out of this then. Where are the moderators when they are needed.


----------



## Victor_inox

Thanks to rtone 20s entertaining value of this thread is going up again.
Thanks Man! reading long and mostly repeated for 2 thousand times points is depressing. 
Everyone got bling ABX blind controlled environment blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda.
Not everyone understands that ONLY unbiased opinion is you own. Other people can be biased or too passionate or golden ears or full of **** or pushing their own equipment. Or they simply read too much published reviews and present them as their own experience.

I`ve seen all of the above.


----------



## RobERacer

rton20s said:


>





Jepalan said:


> I certainly wouldn't put much value in results of a listening test performed by only my Dad - especially if he wasn't allowed to wear both hearing-aids
> 
> This is why I like to see statistical significance in the poll population, but I suppose an argument could be made for having every participant undergo a full-range audible threshold test and throwing out data from anyone outside of a certain 'norm'.


I would have to agree that if they have limited hearing range they might not be viable listening candidates but more than that what I have been saying all along is that just like singing there is a level of one just knows how but there is also another level or levels. If one hones the skill one can improve their ability to function with it. To assume that everyone is only capable of the level of discernment that they are born with is ridiculous. Moreover to be critical of folks who have put the effort in to build that kind of a skill level and call them arrogant for thinking they ever could have is... well even more arrogant. Ever watch a baby eat a dill pickle the first time. The expression is priceless. I almost rolled over dead watching my son. Some kids resent them after that and won't eat them again for years. All that to say that I think it needs to be a large panel of people who know what they are listening for, have a demonstrated skill level in that regard and have no biasing factors (Ie ties to the manufacturers) in play. then we might have a reasonable test. I also think that we are going to get the whole gamut we need the short (blind to appease people who believe this brain trickery stuff) and long term run results.


----------



## RobERacer

captainobvious said:


> You see, this is why I posted the full thread for you to read which you clearly did not. The speakers used were not Alesis monitors, they were Martin Logan electrostats. My procedure and results have been posted, available and referenced in this very thread several times so I'm confused as to why you would say it wasnt provided.
> I'm actually not offended in fact I have invited constructive criticism to help me further my understanding and to be able to perform more accurate tests in the future- should I do so. The measuring device was employed simply to match the output voltages of the amplifiers.


The link that I clicked on from your post clearly stated they were Alesis!


----------



## RobERacer

captainobvious said:


> So much for a gentleman's debate I suppose?
> I don't think anyone was making an argument comparing peoples hearing or training as the wildcard, nor was anyone putting anyone else down for having inferior hearing. Well, until your post at least. Congrats. I'm sure though that it was laziness on my part. Or perhaps it was time spent actually conducting tests partaining to the topic. Please, feel free to provide the data on the blind testing you've done though. You're slamming me for an argument Im not even making.



What was your motivation for utilizing the phrase "Golden Ears" then. I still maintain that was a total attempt at personally slagging me and possibly people like me who in fact make their entire living from the fact that they have developed their ability to hear and apply that to the use of the equipment. Now you are backing down from your statement. If you are going to throw a punch be a ****ing man about it buddy!


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> Thanks to rtone 20s entertaining value of this thread is going up again.
> Thanks Man! reading long and mostly repeated for 2 thousand times points is depressing.
> Everyone got bling ABX blind controlled environment blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda.
> Not everyone understands that ONLY unbiased opinion is you own. Other people can be biased or too passionate or golden ears or full of **** or pushing their own equipment. Or they simply read too much published reviews and present them as their own experience.
> 
> I`ve seen all of the above.


There really is no sure fire way to get an exactly perfect representation of the sound of anything without drawing your own conclusions. That was why I say I take what the maximum amount of people have to say and weed through that.


----------



## cajunner

captainobvious said:


> I think i had identified reasons why long term tests are a poor choice (in my opinion), no? The biggest reasoning being the lack of controls for accurate comparison. i could see multiple blind AX tests being a good alternative to a single toaccount for the variables you mentioned prior. or heck, why not do the blind long term AND the AX's and see how they align. It's all for the purpose of self learning anyway, so go for it
> 
> 
> True it is a challenge to test a very large group of amplifiers, but in practice I would think most people are choosing between a few options. Using 8 in our testing seemed like a sizeable number to keep testing time manageable. Of course more groups could be done to validate, but again Im just a diy guy limited in time and equipment.


yes of course, why didn't I think of that!

let's allow the possibility of both long and short term tests being not only acceptable, but required for a true representation of amplifier performance through the highs and lows of not only our own hearing, (which fluctuates greatly, just do the 'pinch nose, blow, clear' to test) but that of an environment that pitches the amps against short and long listening windows, against nothing at all but long stretches of highway and against other samples just 30 seconds from each other, let's give it all a go and let's be inclusive! Gone are the days of narrow-minded rhetoric and crusades for inequality, we've entered an era of acceptance and open slots and loose holes for all, we're greased and we're strapped and we're wearing our GoPro's, and we mean to meet the challenges and the changes with all the erected attention spans and long listening windows like the true champion ****ers we were always meant to be, dammit...


----------



## rton20s

RobERacer said:


> So you took a line out of what I said and with the way you are portraying it you are clearly trying to make it look like I said that and am totally countering what I have been saying when in fact I was only restating and btw totally refuting that very quote. Why did you only quote that line? Because it is totally out of context this way! You wanted it to appear that I was saying the exact opposite of what I have been saying. See you constantly do this stuff. All clearly to cause people to become frustrated. You did the exact same thing yesterday with another person. Your idiotic little pictograms are not even close to amusing nor are they of any use to this otherwise useful though a bit heated discussion. Just because we are finally getting to the root of the problem you stepped right in to confuse and diffuse. Of course I am anything but surprised as this is exactly what you have always done. You really should be banned from being involved at all! With any luck you would then be disqualified from your sponsorship. You might learn a life lesson out of this then. Where are the moderators when they are needed.












OK, for this one post... I'll break my "silence" and ask the question as plainly as I possibly can. It keeps getting repeated that someone, somewhere in this thread has made the statement that "all amps sound the same." I have yet to see anyone make that statement except for people who perceive themselves to be on the opposite side as a quote. There are arguing a claim that I have not seen made. 

So, once again...


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> Not everyone understands that ONLY unbiased opinion is you own.


All the world's indeed a stage
And we are merely players
Performers and portrayer
Each another's audience
Outside the gilded cage


----------



## Jesus Christ

RobERacer said:


> *******!





RobERacer said:


> Where are the moderators when they are needed.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


>


Is that all you confused by in here?


----------



## XSIV SPL

This page should be bookmarked- it's the most fun I've had while reading this thread


----------



## captainobvious

RobERacer said:


> The link that I clicked on from your post clearly stated they were Alesis!






Once again... READ THE THREAD. For someone with so much criticism to offer, I would have thought you'd have taken the time and consideration do so.


----------



## captainobvious

RobERacer said:


> What was your motivation for utilizing the phrase "Golden Ears" then.


Perhaps a good question to ask before...
















RobERacer said:


> *I still maintain that was a total attempt at personally slagging me* and possibly people like me who in fact make their entire living from the fact that they have developed their ability to hear and apply that to the use of the equipment. Now you are backing down from your statement. If you are going to throw a punch be a ****ing man about it buddy!


You would be 100% WRONG.


Ahhh, the ****ing irony here...
Guy accuses me of personally slagging him about golden ears (I didn't), then turns around and proclaims superior hearing 

Guy accuses me of personally attacking him, yet posts this:



RobERacer said:


> My point is that it might bother you but some folks have actually put for the effort to learn differences and how to hear what you would clearly consider at best a minor differences if you are capable of hearing them at all. Where do you get off belittling people for putting more effort than you into learning more about audio? What because you are too lazy to get off your ass to aspire to become an Olympic pole vaulter all pole vaulters are arrogant poser? *******!




I implied nothing of the sort. In fact, here is the quote so you can re-read it.



captainobvious said:


> My whole point in this thread was for people to take the time to learn for themselves what they can and cannot hear. The blind AX tests are a very good way to determine that. They compare one amp to another removing virtually all other variables to help you make a valid comparison of sound vs sound. *I certainly don't have "golden ears" nor would I claim it.* The problem isn't the method- in my opinion. The problem is that most have not attempted it, yet criticize it with no legitimate basis. There may very well be people who can hear differences in these amplifiers. The question people need to ask is not CAN they, but *how* do they determine that? How do they *prove* that to themselves?- That's where the separation is here.





RobERacer said:


> *******!





RobERacer said:


> If you are going to throw a punch be a ****ing man about it buddy!





RobERacer said:


> Where are the moderators when they are needed?


----------



## Victor_inox

rton20s said:


> OK, for this one post... I'll break my "silence" and ask the question as plainly as I possibly can. It keeps getting repeated that someone, somewhere in this thread has made the statement that "all amps sound the same." I have yet to see anyone make that statement except for people who perceive themselves to be on the opposite side as a quote. There are arguing a claim that I have not seen made.
> 
> So, once again...


 Captainobvious did probably 200 times saying that in properly set test, gain matched amplifiers, making exactly the same power... sound indistinguishable from each other as he seen in his comparison test, if that is not the same as all amps sounds the same I don`t know what is. 
If I were mistaken and such opinion doesn`t exist I accept that and agree that amps does not sounds the same and you people welcome to switch camps.


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> Captainobvious did probably 200 times saying that in properly set test, gain matched amplifiers, making exactly the same power... sound indistinguishable from each other as he seen in his comparison test, if that is not the same as all amps sounds the same I don`t know what is.
> If I were mistaken and such opinion doesn`t exist I accept that and agree that amps does not sounds the same and you people welcome to switch camps.


I said "all amps sound the same"?

:surprised:


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> I said "all amps sound the same"?
> 
> :surprised:


You sure sounded like it. So let`s clear it once and for all do they or don`t they? Set at the same exact power level just the way you want it. same wiring same sourse, same music.....


----------



## Jepalan

All amps sound the same*

*In general, and under the right set of conditions.

^^^ There. I said it.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jepalan said:


> All amps sound the same*
> 
> *In general, and under the right set of conditions.
> 
> ^^^ There. I said it.


 Good for you! Others abandoned ship, cowards! 
See there is always a catch, in general meaning what? they all amplify signal to certain degree and guitar sounds like guitar and not like violin?
Or when you DSP`ed said signal to death? EQ`ed moved phaze 47.5 degree in 2 drivers out of 6? because without all that amps does not sounds the same.
Perhaps we can disregard said conditions because everyone and his grandma using dsp these days and therefore higher end amps became a myth?


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> You sure sounded like it. So let`s clear it once and for all do they or don`t they? Set at the same exact power level just the way you want it. same wiring same sourse, same music.....



In the amplifiers I have done blind evaluations on, I've not heard any differences, outside of noise floor with silent tracks and that was miniscule. You might find a larger degree of variation with a poorly designed power supply though.

Again, my argument in this thread has not been "there are zero differences". I have maintained that what is important to focus on is *if* you can hear any differences, and _*how *_to determine if you can.


----------



## Victor_inox

You position is understood.


----------



## rton20s




----------



## WhereAmEye?

Said on post #3106


----------



## Jepalan

Victor_inox said:


> Good for you! Others abandoned ship, cowards!
> See there is always a catch, in general meaning what? they all amplify signal to certain degree and guitar sounds like guitar and not like violin?
> Or when you DSP`ed said signal to death? EQ`ed moved phaze 47.5 degree in 2 drivers out of 6? because without all that amps does not sounds the same.
> Perhaps we can disregard said conditions because everyone and his grandma using dsp these days and therefore higher end amps became a myth?


I think I've made myself pretty clear on what mean I by "in general" and the other caveats that apply to my statement that "all amps sound the same". 

It is just that I am such a pedantic bore it is difficult for me not to foot note a statement like that. 

I am using "in general" to exclude stupid inclusions in "all amps" conversation. Such as amps that are broken, or so cheaply made that none of us would even consider them as a paper weight, let alone a signal amplifier. I also assume we are talking about 'car audio' power amps in this thread, but if I don't state that assumption then somebody jumps all over me and starts laying out arguments about studio mixing consoles and a whole universe of pro-audio applications.

So, in general, I agree that within the range of car audio amplifiers generally discussed on this forum, when carefully configured under conditions such as those used by captainobvious in his latest most excellent test event, ALL AMPS SOUND THE SAME.

(there, I said it again)


----------



## Jepalan

captainobvious said:


> Again, my argument in this thread has not been "there are zero differences". I have maintained that what is important to focus on is *if* you can hear any differences, and _*how *_to determine if you can.


Well said. Full agreement here. :thumbsup:


----------



## Victor_inox

rton20s said:


>


More like pointless. but boring should do.:sleeping:


----------



## rton20s

Victor_inox said:


> More like pointless. but boring should do.:sleeping:


----------



## Victor_inox

rton20s said:


>


Like watching flies ****.


----------



## gstokes

This poor horse has been beaten beyond dead, it's been flattened by a crowd of car audio fanatics then run over with a steamroller, picked up off the road with a stick and a spoon, placed into a paper bag and incinerated... :dead_horse: :smash: :z:


----------



## Victor_inox

And it seems no converts in the process, just a bit more thinking...
If so my job is done here. Moving forward.


----------



## rton20s

Victor_inox said:


> And it seems no converts in the process, just a bit more thinking...
> If so my job is done here. Moving forward.


----------



## Victor_inox

Dude you make me crack every time....


----------



## gstokes

rton20s said:


>


That Gif was more funny and entertaining than the entire thread, thanks for sharing


----------



## Victor_inox

gstokes said:


> That Gif was more funny and entertaining than the entire thread, thanks for sharing


 I found your avatar more entertaining than any of your posts, thanks for that picture in my head!


----------



## gstokes

Victor_inox said:


> I found your avatar more entertaining than any of your posts, thanks for that picture in my head!


wheelchair guy meets mudflap girl, match made in heaven


----------



## Victor_inox

gstokes said:


> wheelchair guy meets mudflap girl, match made in heaven


 I agree.:laugh: I wanted to meet girl with boobs sticking up like that all my life since I`ve seen a picture of her in the movie very long time ago. She doesn`t exist, what a disappointment.
If she does that`s illegal in most countries.


----------



## thehatedguy

TC from Magnum PI for the win!


----------



## XSIV SPL

At this point, I must confess...

Since this thread began, I have changed-out EVERY amplifier in my car, but only because I felt that they sounded that much better, judged by my own ears.

This thread has been entertaining, but not so much convincing... For me, at least...

I just brought home 5 trophies from a meet in PHX this past weekend, including SQ best of show... and I didn't do it with cheap amps.

What I HAVE learned in this thread is that Dustin has a wicked sense of humor, and an apparently deep media library to back it up 

Carry-on....


----------



## Victor_inox

XSIV SPL said:


> At this point, I must confess...
> 
> Since this thread began, I have changed-out EVERY amplifier in my car, but only because I felt that they sounded that much better, judged by my own ears.
> 
> This thread has been entertaining, but not so much convincing... For me, at least...
> 
> I just brought home 5 trophies from a meet in PHX this past weekend, including SQ best of show... and I didn't do it with cheap amps.


 That is awesome! Best measuring instrument ever- your ears!
Yours seems to works in unison with your brain to achieve great result proven by 5 trophies. may we see a picture of them?
you might not needed to be convinced but your achievement certainly convincing to non believers.


----------



## XSIV SPL

Wish I knew how to do that from an I-pad.... I have photos, but not handy to post here.

I actually dropped the BOS trophy off at my audio shop this afternoon... Better venue for display than MY place...

Drop me your email and I'll send you a photo, I'll let you post it...


----------



## Victor_inox

XSIV SPL said:


> Wish I knew how to do that from an I-pad.... I have photos, but not handy to post here.
> 
> I actually dropped the BOS trophy off at my audio shop this afternoon... Better venue for display than MY place...
> 
> Drop me your email and I'll send you a photo, I'll let you post it...


i`ll do it for you, [email protected]


----------



## rayray881

I have 3 first place sq trophies from last season and used a $200 4 channel amp and tweeters ran off of deck power. All amps sound the same!


----------



## Elektra

Andy Wehmeyer said:


> No, they don't.


Hallelujah brother... I am with you!


----------



## Elektra

And I think Andy is better qualified than most on this forum I should think..


----------



## FLYONWALL9

Sweet Baby Jesus, you cats have analyzed the literal poo out of this topic.


----------



## Jepalan

Scott - sincere congrats to you & your team. I am sure a lot of time, money and hard work went into your install and system tune. Looks like it paid off.

Victor - I appreciate your attempt to use the "parable of Scott" in an attempt to sway us "non-believers", but it is my belief that his choice of amplifier had nothing to do with his wins. I choose to believe it was the quality of install and system tuning. In my opinion it didn't matter which amplifier he chose as -> all amps sound the same. So, sorry, this "non-believer" has not been converted.


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> That is awesome! Best measuring instrument ever- your ears!
> Yours seems to works in unison with your brain to achieve great result proven by 5 trophies. may we see a picture of them?
> you might not needed to be convinced but your achievement certainly convincing to non believers.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jepalan said:


> Scott - sincere congrats to you & your team. I am sure a lot of time, money and hard work went into your install and system tune. Looks like it paid off.
> 
> Victor - I appreciate your attempt to use the "parable of Scott" in an attempt to sway us "non-believers", but it is my belief that his choice of amplifier had nothing to do with his wins. I choose to believe it was the quality of install and system tuning. In my opinion it didn't matter which amplifier he chose as -> all amps sound the same. So, sorry, this "non-believer" has not been converted.


 That his believe that matters.


----------



## gstokes

Victor_inox said:


> That is awesome! Best measuring instrument ever- your ears!
> Yours seems to works in unison with your brain to achieve great result proven by 5 trophies. may we see a picture of them?


Forget the Trophies, I want to see those ears


----------



## rton20s

captainobvious said:


>





gstokes said:


> Forget the Trophies, I want to see those ears


----------



## captainobvious

rton20s said:


>


----------



## rton20s

captainobvious said:


>


----------



## Victor_inox

That commercial is so stupid, why is it so funny.....


----------



## XSIV SPL

rayray881 said:


> I have 3 first place sq trophies from last season and used a $200 4 channel amp and tweeters ran off of deck power. All amps sound the same!


How'd you manage to be the only car at the sound off 3 times in one year?


----------



## gstokes

rayray881 said:


> I have 3 first place sq trophies from last season and used a $200 4 channel amp and tweeters ran off of deck power. All amps sound the same!


What was your competition, shoulder mounted boomboxes ?


----------



## 1996blackmax

Ha! I remember people walking around with boomboxes when I was a kid.


----------



## gstokes

1996blackmax said:


> Ha! I remember people walking around with boomboxes when I was a kid.


This was state of the art 30 years ago..


----------



## captainobvious

gstokes said:


> This was state of the art 30 years ago..



It was either that or college, and he knew he had to rep the streets.





.


----------



## Victor_inox

XSIV SPL said:


> How'd you manage to be the only car at the sound off 3 times in one year?


:laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## Victor_inox

gstokes said:


> This was state of the art 30 years ago..


 After all all amps sounds the same, right?


----------



## rayray881

Hilarious, I guess some people just think they know it all when in reality are from it. Hate us cuz they anus!!


----------



## gstokes

Stuff like that ^^^^^ brings new meaning to DIY Mobile Audio


----------



## Victor_inox

is this thread finally dead after 126 pages?


----------



## Elektra

Testing the Eos tube amp in my brothers car tomorrow - it will replace a Helix A6 off Alpine F1 speakers but with the 18w Revelator woofers (2way) off the Pioneer P99 - will report the differences tomorrow..


----------



## KingDiamond

I'll add my opinion to this topic:

MOSFets, IC's, capacitors, they all affect sound in certain ways. Some transistors add harmonics that can add a pleasing sound (or not pleasing), and these harmonics don't show up on a frequency response graph, but they're there. To me, the newer amplifier technology does what it is supposed to: take the input signal and output it cleanly to the speakers. I think old amp designs strived for the same thing. The difference is that the old amp design added distortion and harmonics that sometimes had a nice effect on the output.


----------



## captainobvious

KingDiamond said:


> I'll add my opinion to this topic:
> 
> MOSFets, IC's, capacitors, they all affect sound in certain ways. Some transistors *add harmonics that can add a pleasing sound *(or not pleasing), and these harmonics *don't show up on a frequency response graph, but they're there.* To me, the newer amplifier technology does what it is supposed to: take the input signal and output it cleanly to the speakers. I think old amp designs strived for the same thing. The difference is that the old amp design added distortion and harmonics that sometimes had a nice effect on the output.




:surprised:

:uhoh:


----------



## Jepalan

Must..... resist......... urge..... to...... reply.......

:inout:


----------



## Victor_inox

Jepalan said:


> Must..... resist......... urge..... to...... reply.......
> 
> :inout:


amateur.


----------



## gstokes

Jepalan said:


> Must..... resist......... urge..... to...... reply.......
> 
> :inout:


Resistance is futile, you must be assimilated


----------



## captainobvious

Jepalan said:


> Must..... resist......... urge..... to...... reply.......
> 
> :inout:





Victor_inox said:


> amateur.


----------



## Victor_inox

It`s hard to do when nothing left to say.


----------



## captainobvious

Victor_inox said:


> It`s hard to do when nothing left to say.


:laugh:

We've already gone the 15 rounds. Now it's time to put on the ice packs and drink beers together.


----------



## Victor_inox

captainobvious said:


> :laugh:
> 
> We've already gone the 15 rounds. Now it's time to put on the ice packs and drink beers together.


first round on me.


----------



## gstokes

captainobvious said:


> :laugh:
> 
> We've already gone the 15 rounds. Now it's time to put on the ice packs and drink beers together.


I'll drink to that..

Here's to you and here's to me and if we ever disagree the hell with you and here's to me..

:beerchug:


----------



## Elektra

Elektra said:


> Testing the Eos tube amp in my brothers car tomorrow - it will replace a Helix A6 off Alpine F1 speakers but with the 18w Revelator woofers (2way) off the Pioneer P99 - will report the differences tomorrow..


Here it is:

The differences heard were VAST...

The Helix A6 is no poor amp but the EOS was everything the Helix wasn't.. 

I heard things in tracks I have never heard before , detail that never was so present before it was astonishing...

I heard echos on Tori Amos CD Live from Montreux its blew mind that I have heard this CD so many times before and never noticed how her voice echos on the stage.. 

On Adele's 21 CD Love song track the background reverb of the instruments were so prominent at first I though I was hearing distortion but it was the cymbal reverb as the drummer "scraped" it over the Cymbal and the echo of it was so prominent it actually dominated the track.. - never noticed that before!

Even my brother could not believe the detail of this EOS..

For all of you who say all amps sound the same - well you have probably never heard the EOS amp.. 

In conclusion - the difference was vast, accuracy and detail was simply in another league.. 

Would I be able to pick it out of a blind test - for sure! 

Was test done in a controlled environment - no but the difference spoke for itself..

The EOS is simply the best sounding amp I have heard - period!!


----------



## Jepalan

captainobvious said:


> :laugh:
> We've already gone the 15 rounds. Now it's time to put on the ice packs and drink beers together.





Victor_inox said:


> first round on me.


Agreed - I will get the 2nd round. 
Za vashe zdorovie !


----------



## Victor_inox

Jepalan said:


> Agreed - I will get the 2nd round.
> Za vashe zdorovie !


 usually goes like that
:beerchug::beerchug::beerchug::beerchug::beerchug::beerchug::cwm8:


----------



## sqnut

I know I'd use the mens room a few times after 6 beers, but upchuck? That is probably 12-15 beer territory

PS I'm talking 750 ml bottles


----------



## captainobvious

Elektra said:


> Here it is:
> 
> The differences heard were VAST...
> 
> ...
> 
> For all of you who say all amps sound the same - well you have probably never heard the EOS amp..
> 
> ...
> 
> Would I be able to pick it out of a blind test - for sure!
> 
> ...
> 
> Was test done in a controlled environment - no but the difference spoke for itself..


----------



## gstokes

Elektra said:


> For all of you who say all amps sound the same - well you have probably never heard the EOS amp..


Transistor amp vs Tube amp, that's not even close to being a fair fight


----------



## thehatedguy

It's not a true tube amp, but a hybrid.


----------



## gstokes

The EOS is not even a mobile amplifier, it's a home unit that runs on A/C power so i'm not sure how it even got included in the discussion in the first place..


----------



## thehatedguy

I am pretty sure they are 12 volt amplifiers for the car.

E.O.S. Amplifiers | 130.com.ua


----------



## gstokes

thehatedguy said:


> I am pretty sure they are 12 volt amplifiers for the car.
> 
> E.O.S. Amplifiers | 130.com.ua


Thanks for the link, I had no idea..


----------



## gstokes

One of the amps is listed as costing 11600 ruble but that comes out to $204 so that can't be right, maybe $2,041 is more accurate..


----------



## thehatedguy

It's really hard to find information about those amps. Victor at one point was thinking about bringing some state side.


----------



## Victor_inox

thehatedguy said:


> It's really hard to find information about those amps. Victor at one point was thinking about bringing some state side.


Still a hybrid not full tube. 
It looks like the same build house that build GZ reference amps and DLS hybrids in the past. in CHina, rebadged and sold in Ukraine. Considering current exchange rate hell of a deal.


----------



## gstokes

Victor_inox said:


> Still a hybrid not full tube.
> It looks like the same build house that build GZ reference amps and DLS hybrids in the past. in CHina, rebadged and sold in Ukraine. Considering current exchange rate hell of a deal.


What's the cost on that GX tube amp, put it on my bucket list..


----------



## FLYONWALL9

Someone please change this to read:

EVER SEE A THREAD SO LONG

IT GIVES YOU FOREST WHITAKER EYE


----------



## Victor_inox

gstokes said:


> What's the cost on that GX tube amp, put it on my bucket list..


I have no idea what GX amp you talking about.


----------



## gstokes

Victor_inox said:


> I have no idea what GX amp you talking about.


meant to say GZ, my bad..

I wish they hadn't put the X right next to the Z, gets confusing


----------



## Victor_inox

gstokes said:


> meant to say GZ, my bad..
> 
> I wish they hadn't put the X right next to the Z, gets confusing


 fat fingers syndrome, i`m speaking from experience...:laugh:
GZUSA is a forum sponsor, swing by their subforum if you want


----------



## High Resolution Audio

Elektra said:


> Testing the Eos tube amp in my brothers car tomorrow - it will replace a Helix A6 off Alpine F1 speakers but with the 18w Revelator woofers (2way) off the Pioneer P99 - will report the differences tomorrow..


Which Model Eos tube amp did you test?


----------



## Elektra

High Resolution Audio said:


> Which Model Eos tube amp did you test?


It was the EOS Verdi Tube amp.. (Hybrid)


----------



## Elektra

gstokes said:


> The EOS is not even a mobile amplifier, it's a home unit that runs on A/C power so i'm not sure how it even got included in the discussion in the first place..


Huh? Are you serious? It's identicle to the GZ2T amp... Pretty sure it's a car amp..


----------



## Elektra

gstokes said:


> One of the amps is listed as costing 11600 ruble but that comes out to $204 so that can't be right, maybe $2,041 is more accurate..


No EOS amp retails for $2000 the $204 is accurate.. They represent excellent value for money.

The downside is that they are a small company so stock is limited and most of the time the model numbers get superseded to new ones which means the amp your looking for May be out of stock and a new replacement is immanent or new stock on its way 

Typically they have to order 100+ units from China so replacing stock might take time. On the upside the company is run by a real music lover which means the new replacements always sound better than the old versions as they are continually designing better amps with superior components. They are busy with 6 new amps I believe one being a 4x130 4 channel which is considered by them to be high end and is replacing the amp I love right now the AE-980F LE which is out of stock right now. 

I expect this amp to cost around $750-$1000 which is very good considering the amps it competes with at 3 times the price. 

They reopen on the 12th after their national holidays so I can enquire on the progress - they did say around September for the first batch - but knowing how long they take to test and approve designs - it's more likely closer to December/January...

But they are worth the wait...


----------



## XSIV SPL

Elektra said:


> No EOS amp retails for $2000 the $204 is accurate.. They represent excellent value for money.
> 
> The downside is that they are a small company so stock is limited and most of the time the model numbers get superseded to new ones which means the amp your looking for May be out of stock and a new replacement is immanent or new stock on its way
> 
> Typically they have to order 100+ units from China so replacing stock might take time. On the upside the company is run by a real music lover which means the new replacements always sound better than the old versions as they are continually designing better amps with superior components. They are busy with 6 new amps I believe one being a 4x130 4 channel which is considered by them to be high end and is replacing the amp I love right now the AE-980F LE which is out of stock right now.
> 
> I expect this amp to cost around $750-$1000 which is very good considering the amps it competes with at 3 times the price.
> 
> They reopen on the 12th after their national holidays so I can enquire on the progress - they did say around September for the first batch - but knowing how long they take to test and approve designs - it's more likely closer to December/January...
> 
> But they are worth the wait...


I dunno about the rest of you, but I wouldn't be holding my breath for the next great cheap amp coming out of China... Just my own ponderings being reflected here...


----------



## Elektra

XSIV SPL said:


> I dunno about the rest of you, but I wouldn't be holding my breath for the next great cheap amp coming out of China... Just my own ponderings being reflected here...


You do realize that about 95% of all products are made in China don't you? Made in China isn't what it used to be in the past...

I would say in the next 5-10 years nothing will be made outside China... Even Audison has a production plant in China..


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Yeah you'd be amazed at how good of job robots can do and people with tiny fingers putting together boards with tiny parts.


----------



## rton20s

Hillbilly SQ said:


> Yeah you'd be amazed at how good of job robots can do and people with tiny fingers putting together boards with tiny parts.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

rton20s said:


>


If my hands could do that I could go from 40 wpm up to about 400wpm.


----------



## patrukas777

I think the speaker load will determine how the amps will behave. If the amp runs as it was designed to without drops in voltage, low noise and output impedance, then it would be difficult to distinguish. IMO


----------



## cajunner

patrukas777 said:


> I think the speaker load will determine how the amps will behave. If the amp runs as it was designed to without drops in voltage, low noise and output impedance, then it would be difficult to distinguish. IMO


well isn't the key "as it was designed to" then?

that just says that the audio circuit as applied towards and executed by the majority of amp manufacturers, is a mature technology and there isn't going to be any real "game changers" in the call for clarity or warmth or veils being lifted.


will amps get smaller?


sure.


will they run cooler, will they be more efficient, is the car itself eventually going to truncate all the excess goodie juice we have on tap at the free-running alternator, and trade it for sipping slow on fuel cell mayhem, battery charge ruining the fun of 35% efficiency turnover?

of course.


enjoy what you have today, with our internal combustion free lunch, alternators just pumping out willy nilly, hardly a regard for the Atomic Energy Commish, and coal-borne illness that simply must be countered by good ol' democratic sabotage by way of the Gore's nads, dangling by the Inconvenience of wills to power, powering wills...


eh, just figure on telling grandkids about it, but not really being able to show them the way, we were...


----------



## Golden Ears

I know it is easy to hear the differences between home amplifiers if you know what to listen for and have a very resolving system.

So for instance , I have a high end audio show coming up next weekend T.H.E. Show Newport Beach at the hotel Irvine May 29,30,31 in Irvine Ca. And I have been trying to get good sound from some tube amplifiers that I have to use. Sadly, I have a 1960s vintage rebuilt Sherwood S 5500 integrated amp that sounds better than the brand new tube amps I have to use. This is using an extremely resolving DAC strangely from Italy. The issues is ....can you get an install good enough to have the resolution and sonic detail ? I think you can but some cars have too many sonic issues...or you end up with say..drivers being inappropriately spaced and even with time alignment, the first reflections and secondary reflections will just add to the mistiming chaos...even if the direct sound is corrected.

I do think that at minimum the tweeter and mid range should be closer than 6 inches to each other and firing in the same plane and not be door panel mounted to have enough timing accuracy to make it easier to hear the difference .


----------



## Sir gill bates

How is that a myth?


----------



## Victor_inox

Sir gill bates said:


> How is that a myth?


It's not,we can go home now.


----------



## 1styearsi

this is my quote from another thread here on DIY it was a little off topic there but i think it fits in here........it's not a myth!
i just want to say alot of people run megga watt small class d's then claim they have a sq setup never take damping factors in to account.my old school MADE IN THE USA ppi 2150 class ab the type everyone hates on in favor of those class d's from china/asia has a dampining factor of 500 yeah that's right 500.that is part of why that amp was more than a dollar a watt in 1997 dollars($1 worth of 1997 dollars is now worth $1.47).
retail on a 2150 was 779 back in the day and that was not too far off of what they sold for.
i'll do the math for you in today's money that is $1145 for a 600 watt amp.
i have seen more than a few of the 100 to 300 dollar amp's that alot of guy's run with damping factors of 100 or less.
as the sating go's you get what you pay for.............
I LOVE MY OLD ASS PPI POWERCLASS AMP'S!!!!!!


----------



## rton20s




----------



## JVD240

Lol. Some really ground breaking info shared lately.


----------



## captainobvious

1styearsi said:


> this is my quote from another thread here on DIY it was a little off topic there but i think it fits in here........it's not a myth!
> i just want to say alot of people run megga watt small class d's then claim they have a sq setup never take damping factors in to account.my old school MADE IN THE USA ppi 2150 class ab the type everyone hates on in favor of those class d's from china/asia has a dampining factor of 500 yeah that's right 500.that is part of why that amp was more than a dollar a watt in 1997 dollars($1 worth of 1997 dollars is now worth $1.47).
> retail on a 2150 was 779 back in the day and that was not too far off of what they sold for.
> i'll do the math for you in today's money that is $1145 for a 600 watt amp.
> i have seen more than a few of the 100 to 300 dollar amp's that alot of guy's run with damping factors of 100 or less.
> as the sating go's you get what you pay for.............
> I LOVE MY OLD ASS PPI POWERCLASS AMP'S!!!!!!



Have you even read through the thread?


----------



## mrgreenjeans71

cleansoundz said:


> Obviously using quality speakers makes a huge difference. I know about the quality of the components in the inside makes everything different. I notice very little difference between amps in sounds with all else being equal.


Yes. I've noticed that, in the treads I've read so far, the people who think good amps don't sound better don't mention speaker? The first post even brought up coaxial drivers. I know of very few coaxial drivers that are SQ speakers. Of course, speakers make the most difference in the audio chain. If you don't have good speakers, why even bother with expensive amps. But if you do have a nice 2 or 3 way set up, You can definitely hear your high end amp. I noticed this first back in the 90's with an ADS PQ20. Much nicer sounding that the Rockford amps I replaced. Was using ADS 320is components. I think those were some of the best sounding car audio speakers ever made and I wish they still make them. The PQ20 made them sound even better.


----------



## rton20s

You quote a post from 2 years and 127 pages ago?


----------



## Dynamic SQ

rton20s said:


> You quote a post from 2 years and 127 pages ago?


So statements have a statute of limitations on the Internet?


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Dynamic SQ said:


> So statements have a statute of limitations on the Internet?


Nope... But why comment on a discussion that died out?

You can comment on the thread but don't believe the weird individual will respond


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Dynamic SQ said:


> So statements have a statute of limitations on the Internet?


Nope... But why comment on a discussion that died out?

You can comment on the thread but don't believe the quoted individual will respond.

And why not go back and read the discussion? There really isn't much to add.


----------



## omnibus

*mrgreenjeans71 casts master level 80 thread resurrection spell.*


----------



## rton20s

Dynamic SQ said:


> So statements have a statute of limitations on the Internet?












Oh... you said "statute..."


----------



## 1styearsi

Elektra said:


> You do realize that about 95% of all products are made in China don't you? Made in China isn't what it used to be in the past...
> 
> I would say in the next 5-10 years nothing will be made outside China... Even Audison has a production plant in China..


when that day happens i will no longer buy car audio .....and i think you are wrong i have faith that Americans will wise up......
please watch this people!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AlexLrZ14A


----------



## Victor_inox

1styearsi said:


> when that day happens i will no longer buy car audio .....and i think you are wrong i have faith that Americans will wise up......
> please watch this people!
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AlexLrZ14A


 Seen that, good piece... BUT... There is always big fat but.
THis country can`t sustain on it`s own right now, we don`t produce enough of everything to support our greedy culture.
Interestingly it`s not consumers who benefit from lower prices as we often told it`s ****ing corporations making killing profits coaching us to accept inferior products. and they succeeded. All of you would buy chinese crap because it`s cost less, corporations will make their cut no matter what.


----------



## Victor_inox

I made my gear in USA 100%









Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

RNBRAD said:


> Well you also have to take into affect the psychological thought processes involved which is like the "placebo effect". If you think it's better when in actuality it is not, you may still hear a perceived improvement, though there is none. It's funny how the brain will try to mimic your expectations. This is actual science!!


Bingo!

this is about speakers, but a great vid none the less. http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...t=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM


*(wow. I didn't realize this was such a long and old thread!!!)

For what its worth, I switched from a Class A amp to a class D (MTX to JL). Besides power I can't tell if one sounds better or the other. Unfortunately I couldn't do a swap/side by side test at the time :-/
But certainly the Class D sounds great right now. These are for front 2 way components.


----------



## Victor_inox

Phil Indeblanc said:


> Bingo!
> 
> this is about speakers, but a great vid none the less. http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...t=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrpUDuUtxPM
> 
> 
> *(wow. I didn't realize this was such a long and old thread!!!)
> 
> For what its worth, I switched from a Class A amp to a class D (MTX to JL). Besides power I can't tell if one sounds better or the other. Unfortunately I couldn't do a swap/side by side test at the time :-/
> But certainly the Class D sounds great right now. These are for front 2 way components.


 why is nobody considering that placebo effect work the other way around as well? it`s ironic really, people want to spent less money and their minds make them believe that cheaper amps sounds just as good if not better.
Yepp this is it!


----------



## Dynamic SQ

Victor_inox said:


> why is nobody considering that placebo effect work the other way around as well? it`s ironic really, people want to spent less money and their minds make them believe that cheaper amps sounds just as good if not better.
> Yepp this is it!




Agreed.


----------



## mrgreenjeans71

1styearsi said:


> when that day happens i will no longer buy car audio .....and i think you are wrong i have faith that Americans will wise up......
> please watch this people!
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AlexLrZ14A


Got a reply about this China business. Don't think I commented on China per se. Really? you're going to stop buying amps made in China? Don't think they deserve our business? There where we were 100 years ago, only the tech has changed. Are you just going to wrap yourself in your confederate flag and cry yourself to sleep? C'mon.


----------



## mrgreenjeans71

Dynamic SQ said:


> So statements have a statute of limitations on the Internet?



That is funny. Of course I when I started reading this thread I didn't look at the date. New here, rookie move. And I didn't think it would turn out to be 127 pages long. Guess you guys will keep beating a dead horse for years huh? And at this point, the original point probably has been lost and the conversation has devolved into, well, this silly crap. Do you realize what kind of sad geek actually takes the time to not only reply, but post a photo, twice? Have you and your therapist ever discussed how obsession and anger manifests itself in your thread posts. Your hostility is probably rooted in some sort of god aweful personality disorder, the kind that keeps you up nights picking fights with strangers on the computer. Empathy is understanding where another person is coming from, and since you chose tears to describe your anger, I'd say you probably could use a good cry, and a hug. It's going to be ok Dynamic SQ. For what it's worth, I think you have a cool UN. Hope that helps. Just remember, it's ok for a grown man to cry.


----------



## Elektra

So long as people are always bargain hunting and paying $100 for a $1000 product then I am afraid China is the only viable solution to car audio. This doesn't seem to be the problem in home audio - guys are spending $1000's on speakers alone. 

The reality is that Made In The USA doesn't mean as much as it used to.. Stuff coming out of China is cheaper, better built and better sounding.. Cheap Chinese rubbish no longer applies anymore - as quality control is done by overseas companies. Not saying no Cheap rubbish is coming from China - there is... But the better build houses in China are producing top end products that USA companies only dream of..

Unless the market changes China is a big reality...


----------



## Elektra

Also the quest for the best will soon be only limited to a very small group of companies as nobody is will to spend $$ like they used to.. Just look at Pioneer - ODR is practically no longer for sale.. Alpine? No F1 status products anymore.. Mcintosh? Last unit was like 10 years ago.. nakamichi? CD700 was the last 10 years ago.. 

So what now? P99? HX-D2/3 those units don't compare to the units 10 years ago..


----------



## Dynamic SQ

mrgreenjeans71 said:


> That is funny. Of course I when I started reading this thread I didn't look at the date. New here, rookie move. And I didn't think it would turn out to be 127 pages long. Guess you guys will keep beating a dead horse for years huh? And at this point, the original point probably has been lost and the conversation has devolved into, well, this silly crap. Do you realize what kind of sad geek actually takes the time to not only reply, but post a photo, twice? Have you and your therapist ever discussed how obsession and anger manifests itself in your thread posts. Your hostility is probably rooted in some sort of god aweful personality disorder, the kind that keeps you up nights picking fights with strangers on the computer. Empathy is understanding where another person is coming from, and since you chose tears to describe your anger, I'd say you probably could use a good cry, and a hug. It's going to be ok Dynamic SQ. For what it's worth, I think you have a cool UN. Hope that helps. Just remember, it's ok for a grown man to cry.


Seeing as you are new, may I suggest learning how to read and decifer an Internet forum post?

I was the one sticking up for you, and I also did not post the pictures.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Victor_inox said:


> why is nobody considering that placebo effect work the other way around as well? it`s ironic really, people want to spent less money and their minds make them believe that cheaper amps sounds just as good if not better.
> Yepp this is it!


I don't know, the JL amp I switched to cost another 700-900 vs the old MTX I already had. I cant hear the difference


----------



## Dynamic SQ

Phil Indeblanc said:


> I don't know, the JL amp I switched to cost another 700-900 vs the old MTX I already had. I cant hear the difference


Just because true SQ amps are normally expensive, it doesn't mean that every amp that's expensive is an SQ amp.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Dynamic SQ said:


> Just because true SQ amps are normally expensive, it doesn't mean that every amp that's expensive is an SQ amp.


My feedback wasn't expressing exclusivity


----------



## sqnut

Dynamic SQ said:


> Just because true SQ amps are normally expensive, it doesn't mean that every amp that's expensive is an SQ amp.


What????


----------



## Elektra

Phil Indeblanc said:


> I don't know, the JL amp I switched to cost another 700-900 vs the old MTX I already had. I cant hear the difference


I may be wrong here but... MTX is not a SQ amp and neither is the JL amps..


----------



## Victor_inox

Phil Indeblanc said:


> I don't know, the JL amp I switched to cost another 700-900 vs the old MTX I already had. I cant hear the difference


 Not everyone get the joke.... what amps are we talking here?
Why did you switch the amp if there is no difference, why would you pay additional thousand bucks then?


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> Not everyone get the joke.... what amps are we talking here?
> Why did you switch the amp if there is no difference, why would you pay additional thousand bucks then?


I am assuming it's the HD amps - class D well that's as far as I would go... No Class D amp beats a Class AB amp. JL HD amps are nice for the small footprint convenience that's it... 

Even Focal don't recommend those amps with there speakers...


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

My MTX is not AB, it is all A.
The MTX is a old school cheater amp rated at 37x4 at 11volts. It is clean at 1% 150% that, and tops at about 90watts/? roughly. I had hiss in my system, and I wasn't sure of the source. I also thought I could use some more comfort watts rather than max. 

Also the MTX was a bit larger. I had paid for my car to be tuned and I had one shot at it, so I was either going to tune the car with the amp that maybe causing hiss, and maybe underpowered a bit, or swap the amp out and then tune. 

So I didn't want it tuned and then having the same issue due to the amp. With some advice from here, and a bit of my inner self wanting the amp swapped. So the HD6004 went in.
Ain't got time fo dat (plug in the lady from the news fires)

Now I have a little less hiss (btw, could be due to tuning and nothing with amp), and the gains are practically off.


----------



## Elektra

Phil Indeblanc said:


> My MTX is not AB, it is all A.
> The MTX is a old school cheater amp rated at 37x4 at 11volts. It is clean at 1% 150% that, and tops at about 90watts/? roughly. I had hiss in my system, and I wasn't sure of the source. I also thought I could use some more comfort watts rather than max.
> 
> Also the MTX was a bit larger. I had paid for my car to be tuned and I had one shot at it, so I was either going to tune the car with the amp that maybe causing hiss, and maybe underpowered a bit, or swap the amp out and then tune.
> 
> So I didn't want it tuned and then having the same issue due to the amp. With some advice from here, and a bit of my inner self wanting the amp swapped. So the HD6004 went in.
> Ain't got time fo dat (plug in the lady from the news fires)
> 
> Now I have a little less hiss (btw, could be due to tuning and nothing with amp), and the gains are practically off.


Firstly with respect I doubt it's a class A... What's the model number?

2ndly to get power out of a amp rated like that you would undoubtably overdrive the gains - hence the "hiss" with a more powerful amp with less gains same output will have a lower "hiss" which is audible.

So yeah I think your mistaken about quality..


----------



## soundboy

Yes, is difference about the amps! But the system most have very good headunit , speakers first to hear all this small difference some good amp do.

I have listen a lot and also had a lot difference`s amp in my life. 

The amp I found some have all in the music , is McIntosh line. Especially the model : MC4000M!!

Have it all , power/detail/control etc.. 

Had also more less McIntosh amp later : MCC446 , sounds a like the big brother, but more less power and control.

Mac feel so close "live music" you can get in the car! 

Always could hear some new stuff from CD`s when had it. (YES, still use CD`s)


In all my test have do, used headunit/dsp : Sony Xes-Z50 with very good frontspeakers.

Can mention two other amps some are close to McIntosh too.

*Sony Xes-M50
*Soundstream Human Reign HR4 (The Face version)


----------



## Elektra

soundboy said:


> Yes, is difference about the amps! But the system most have very good headunit , speakers first to hear all this small difference some good amp do.
> 
> I have listen a lot and also had a lot difference`s amp in my life.
> 
> The amp I found some have all in the music , is McIntosh line. Especially the model : MC4000M!!
> 
> Have it all , power/detail/control etc..
> 
> Had also more less McIntosh amp later : MCC446 , sounds a like the big brother, but more less power and control.
> 
> Mac feel so close "live music" you can get in the car!
> 
> Always could hear some new stuff from CD`s when had it. (YES, still use CD`s)
> 
> 
> In all my test have do, used headunit/dsp : Sony Xes-Z50 with very good frontspeakers.
> 
> Can mention two other amps some are close to McIntosh too.
> 
> *Sony Xes-M50
> *Soundstream Human Reign HR4 (The Face version)


I guess we have our own flavor in terms of favorite products - I used to have the 6 channel Mcintosh - 4x50 2x100 MC406 something like that.. It was nice from what I can remember - but I don't think it sounds better than what I use now..


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Elektra said:


> Firstly with respect I doubt it's a class A... What's the model number?
> 
> 2ndly to get power out of a amp rated like that you would undoubtably overdrive the gains - hence the "hiss" with a more powerful amp with less gains same output will have a lower "hiss" which is audible.
> 
> So yeah I think your mistaken about quality..


When did I say anything about sound quality? If anything I mentioned my situation and experience with doubt of its value.

Your doubt of the amp's class rating is already a sense that you have this higher power of info and know-how and sounds like you spent a ton of cash on amps and need to protect that position,(either that or you sell amps, or a kid who has this goddly idea of hand made amps and its art) but I have never interacted with you on here before, so maybe I'm wrong. With respect.

The amp is a MTX 4300x Thunder 4ch.


----------



## soundboy

I think the most important in all 99.9% case, is all equipment are 100% mounted in the car and DO SOME TIME about the adjust all gear works together!!


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Elektra said:


> I may be wrong here but... MTX is not a SQ amp and neither is the JL amps..


Yes, you maybe right about that.

What are some indications for an amp to be an SQ amp? .01%thd?

Having said that I auditioned 5-6 home amps some years back...
Yamaha, Pioneer Elite, Denon, Marantz, a couple hi end 2ch amps....All about $1200 to $4000. My credit card got a workout. I ended up keeping my older Marantz which sounded really nice. Overall there was little difference between them. Acouple warmer that can come off as "better", but I think any of that can be adjusted with a eq/?

If SQ means I have to get a Rotel or Anthem with some special wires or something that will be insignificant to me at home, I'm sure a non SQ amp in the car environment will do just fine.
I like good sound, but there is a diminishing return factor that some pockets are blind to and rather pay for a pissing match.


----------



## cajunner

class A amplifiers are specialty items as it's the circuit that determines how much power the amp uses, and the biggest car audio true class A amplifiers are limited to how much constant draw they can dissipate, heat-wise.

as you go above 50 watts of pure heater, the size of the heat sink increases dramatically and once you go above a certain point, (power-wise) the amp will thermal if it's not air conditioned by the car.

And although the MTX may be a "good amp" and "high class" as far as amps go, it's not a class A amp.


----------



## Victor_inox

cajunner said:


> class A amplifiers are specialty items as it's the circuit that determines how much power the amp uses, and the biggest car audio true class A amplifiers are limited to how much constant draw they can dissipate, heat-wise.
> 
> as you go above 50 watts of pure heater, the size of the heat sink increases dramatically and once you go above a certain point, (power-wise) the amp will thermal if it's not air conditioned by the car.
> 
> And although the MTX may be a "good amp" and "high class" as far as amps go, it's not a class A amp.


 I agree, 50 W is about as much power as you can get without overheating damn thing. But 15Lb worth of radiators could be replaced by one cooling fun on peltier cooler. 20% efficiency is what killing A class in mobile applications and more so while we moving toward electric vehicles.


----------



## Elektra

Phil Indeblanc said:


> When did I say anything about sound quality? If anything I mentioned my situation and experience with doubt of its value.
> 
> Your doubt of the amp's class rating is already a sense that you have this higher power of info and know-how and sounds like you spent a ton of cash on amps and need to protect that position,(either that or you sell amps, or a kid who has this goddly idea of hand made amps and its art) but I have never interacted with you on here before, so maybe I'm wrong. With respect.
> 
> The amp is a MTX 4300x Thunder 4ch.


I have owned BRAX X2400 GE , X2000GE Zapco C2k, DC reference, Mcintosh, all high priced products - I run a product that costs a fraction of those prices.. So I don't think I am protecting anything...

That MTX amp probably compared to lower end Zapco (iforce) and entry Sony and pioneer products - hence the $150 price tags.. The fact that you didn't notice a difference in SQ to the JL amp doesn't say much for JL or your install techniques.. 

And yes it isn't a Class A amp (in fact Class A doesn't exist in car audio and certainly not at $150) ... 38watts at 0.1% THD (which isn't great TBH) - the amps I use run 120watts per channel at 0.04% THD - that may not mean much to you but it's an indication of build quality and components used.. 

With respect ...


----------



## soundboy

Not 100% sure, but is good to look about Damping factor on the amp. 

I think, if the damping so low as possible, so are amp VERY good! (correct me, if wrong)

Example :

Audison HV Venti : Damping factor 80

Soundstream Human Reign HR4 : Damping >500

Brax X2400.2 GRAPHIC EDITION : Dampin >400


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> I have owned BRAX X2400 GE , X2000GE Zapco C2k, DC reference, Mcintosh, all high priced products - I run a product that costs a fraction of those prices.. So I don't think I am protecting anything...
> 
> That MTX amp probably compared to lower end Zapco (iforce) and entry Sony and pioneer products - hence the $150 price tags.. The fact that you didn't notice a difference in SQ to the JL amp doesn't say much for JL or your install techniques..
> 
> And yes it isn't a Class A amp (in fact Class A doesn't exist in car audio and certainly not at $150) ... 38watts at 0.1% THD (which isn't great TBH) - the amps I use run 120watts per channel at 0.04% THD - that may not mean much to you but it's an indication of build quality and components used..
> 
> With respect ...


 Class A does exist for car audio but you right not at $150 price point.
Interestingly I compared Class A carvin 50W/ch tube amplifier with Crown XLS1000 supposedly 215W/ch D class and carver was a cleaner and sounded more powerful. They not car amp though but leader was obvious.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Victor_inox said:


> I agree, 50 W is about as much power as you can get without overheating damn thing. But 15Lb worth of radiators could be replaced by one cooling fun on peltier cooler. 20% efficiency is what killing A class in mobile applications and more so while we moving toward electric vehicles.


That makes sense then, and maybe not a bad move to swap out the amp. on this site the JL was the one always mentioned from members as a good 4ch alternative.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Victor_inox said:


> Class A does exist for car audio but you right not at $150 price point.
> Interestingly I compared Class A carvin 50W/ch tube amplifier with Crown XLS1000 supposedly 215W/ch D class and carver was a cleaner and sounded more powerful. They not car amp though but leader was obvious.


I've used the carver PM1.5 and it is a great amp. I think I still have it.


----------



## Victor_inox

Phil Indeblanc said:


> That makes sense then, and maybe not a bad move to swap out the amp. on this site the JL was the one always mentioned from members as a good 4ch alternative.


 I personally don`t get JL HD craze, if anything I`d prefer XD or XD2 over HD, same ****- less money.
You have to understand one thing about this site, people always favor forum boners and HD was just that for a while.


----------



## Victor_inox

Phil Indeblanc said:


> I've used the carver PM1.5 and it is a great amp. I think I still have it.


and it`s made in USA.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Victor_inox said:


> I personally don`t get JL HD craze, if anything I`d prefer XD or XD2 over HD, same ****- less money.
> You have to understand one thing about this site, people always favor forum boners and HD was just that for a while.


LOL...sense of reason you are....I like that!


----------



## Victor_inox

Phil Indeblanc said:


> LOL...sense of reason you are....I like that!


Then it was Brax now it`s Sinfoni with less known to general public exotics in between.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Elektra said:


> I have owned BRAX X2400 GE , X2000GE Zapco C2k, DC reference, Mcintosh, all high priced products - I run a product that costs a fraction of those prices.. So I don't think I am protecting anything...
> 
> That MTX amp probably compared to lower end Zapco (iforce) and entry Sony and pioneer products - hence the $150 price tags.. The fact that you didn't notice a difference in SQ to the JL amp doesn't say much for JL or your install techniques..
> 
> And yes it isn't a Class A amp (in fact Class A doesn't exist in car audio and certainly not at $150) ... 38watts at 0.1% THD (which isn't great TBH) - the amps I use run 120watts per channel at 0.04% THD - that may not mean much to you but it's an indication of build quality and components used..
> 
> With respect ...


hehe...I'm smiling as I honestly dont mean anything neg.

so...the numbers of your amp do mean things. They are very clean. 
But each site I went to indicated this as a Class A amp, not AB. 

The price of the amp is about $250 used, and $500 new 15 years ago.

(Sony Xm is the amp that came up with your spec on the amp name you left secret)


----------



## Victor_inox

$500 15 years ago easily translates to $1000 of today. a lot of Money for an amp.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

That JL hd6004 is not far in list price.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Victor_inox said:


> I personally don`t get JL HD craze, if anything I`d prefer XD or XD2 over HD, same ****- less money.
> You have to understand one thing about this site, people always favor forum boners and HD was just that for a while.


I've been "boned" by forum boners in the past. People hype things up and then that boner instantly goes limp after a good attempt to make said boner "stand up" to the hype. Even though Mosconi would be considered a boner they are really nice amps. I swear half the competition cars I get in are running either Mosconi or JL HD. At least the HD amps are reliable and seem to sound OK. Noticeably better than the first generation of PDX amps.


----------



## Victor_inox

I disagree on Mosconi but only because I took them apart and studied them.nothing to write home about. Imho jlhd are better engineered product.
Give an American an exotic name and it's instantly a better product. Like FIAT. =)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Mosconi is Italian. Which one did you take apart? And what would you compare it to? I still think for what it does it's well worth the $450 I paid for the first one new and $325 I paid for the second one used.


----------



## Dynamic SQ

Victor_inox said:


> I disagree on Mosconi but only because I took them apart and studied them.nothing to write home about. Imho jlhd are better engineered product.
> Give an American an exotic name and it's instantly a better product. Like FIAT. =)
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk



Even though I see and agree with your premise, I disagree with the statement. In electronics, especially audio, sometimes a simple well thought out circuit design and good parts is all you need. Some people think just because a PCB is stuffed with parts, it's better. That's not always the case. 

No, I do not own Mosconi.


----------



## Blu

Dynamic SQ said:


> *snip* In electronics, especially audio, sometimes a simple well thought out circuit design and good parts is all you need. *snip*


Victor's tagline quote: "The less circuitry that an audio signal sees, the less the chances of degradation. Simple circuits, implemented well, always sound better!Psychoacoustics=motherfucka"

Somehow, I think you are both on the same page....


----------



## Victor_inox

Hillbilly SQ said:


> Mosconi is Italian. Which one did you take apart? And what would you compare it to? I still think for what it does it's well worth the $450 I paid for the first one new and $325 I paid for the second one used.


 I don`t remember exact model, ZERO series. 
if you happy with a price you paid who am I to tell you otherwise.


----------



## Victor_inox

Blu said:


> Victor's tagline quote: "The less circuitry that an audio signal sees, the less the chances of degradation. Simple circuits, implemented well, always sound better!Psychoacoustics=motherfucka"
> 
> Somehow, I think you are both on the same page....


Seems like that to me as well.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Victor_inox said:


> I don`t remember exact model, ZERO series.
> if you happy with a price you paid who am I to tell you otherwise.


The ZERO series is really expensive. The way you talk it's like you're saying they're no different from something you can get from Epsilon for a couple hundred dollars. I've run a lot of different amps over the years and the Mosconi amps are by far my favorite and not that expensive for the One series if you can get them for less than retail. I've been burned too many times by lower tier amps. And to make things clear, there's no way in hell I'd pay the price the ZERO series amps cost.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Here is the amp spec from MTX....


----------



## cajunner

class A pre-amp driver circuit is a far cry from class A output stages.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

So is it false advert when they claim class A?
I donno?


----------



## cajunner

Phil Indeblanc said:


> So is it false advert when they claim class A?
> I donno?


they don't claim "CLASS A Amplifier" they are just saying that their pre-amp driver doesn't exhibit AB behavior, which can be true since we are dealing with milliwatts instead of watts.

and all the early Pass designs using vibrator drive like the Alphasonik A2125, SoundStream Class A, etc. are not actually class A either.

there are a couple of them out there, maybe a dozen or so that are all about 50W/ch or less, that can claim to be true class A but none are actually successful designs in quantity terms.

you can enjoy your amp and expect it to deliver great value since that was how MTX developed, using other company's tech and just delivering it in a cheaper less fussy package.

you can't however, continue to claim it's a real Class A amp.


----------



## 1styearsi

mrgreenjeans71 said:


> Got a reply about this China business. Don't think I commented on China per se. Really? you're going to stop buying amps made in China? Don't think they deserve our business? There where we were 100 years ago, only the tech has changed. Are you just going to wrap yourself in your confederate flag and cry yourself to sleep? C'mon.


way off topic but i felt the need to respond to this comment.
"wrap yourself in your confederate flag and cry yourself to sleep?" did you seriously just say that?????
is that because i live in N.C??? i moved here from amesberry mass dude.
don't kid yourself into thinking china is anyone's friend they keep north Korea on a leash like a mad dog and let out some slack when they want their way.
the sad fact is we have become too reliant on them (a communist nation by the way) for way too many products.wake up!:worried:
no i think i will wrap myself in my AMERICAN flag and scream from the rooftops no crying here........


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

cajunner said:


> they don't claim "CLASS A Amplifier" they are just saying that their pre-amp driver doesn't exhibit AB behavior, which can be true since we are dealing with milliwatts instead of watts.
> 
> and all the early Pass designs using vibrator drive like the Alphasonik A2125, SoundStream Class A, etc. are not actually class A either.
> 
> there are a couple of them out there, maybe a dozen or so that are all about 50W/ch or less, that can claim to be true class A but none are actually successful designs in quantity terms.
> 
> you can enjoy your amp and expect it to deliver great value since that was how MTX developed, using other company's tech and just delivering it in a cheaper less fussy package.
> 
> you can't however, continue to claim it's a real Class A amp.


Ok, It is no longer in the car, so I dont have to worry about enjoying it or not, but in specs from old sites that sold it mark it as A, not AB

Alphasonik  I have one in a closet someplace, Demon 150 , lol!


----------



## Elektra

Phil Indeblanc said:


> Ok, It is no longer in the car, so I dont have to worry about enjoying it or not, but in specs from old sites that sold it mark it as A, not AB
> 
> Alphasonik  I have one in a closet someplace, Demon 150 , lol!


Some amps have a Class A bias on the input stage - which is loosely termed Class A as all they do is turn the bias up a little which makes the amp run hot.. The more bias the more it's leaning to Class A. Some companies do make Class A amps but they are low powered as to make it powerful it will need a serious power supply. 

I believe the Audison HV Venti runs about 50watts per channel in Class A mode and when you turn up the power it goes more into Class AB.. That's a $8000 amp..


----------



## soundboy

SO far I know, some are only pure class A in the car audio world : 

Milbert bam-235 , 2x30Watt!

HSS Fidelity HT230 (2x30w) , HT240 (2x40w) , HT245 (2x45w)!

BUT this two amps is pure tube amp!

Genesis Project 15 - P15 - Class A/Tube Amplifier , have this modell. Not sure how pure Class A this are!?


----------



## cajunner

there are others.

I think PowerAmper made one, Pioneer has one that can be run as true Class A for 15W/ch and you throw a switch and it gives 50W/ch of AB.

I don't believe Sony ever tried to make a Class A amp.

there's the tube models, I think Monolithic had a model, maybe... Abyss, TRU, tube experiments.

if anyone believes they can hear crossover distortion in a car then having a class A amp would be higher on the list than some of the other fancy models out, but only in low power terms since the reality of a class A amp is the amp isn't switching, it's always burning the full draw current even at idle.

so a general observation about sound quality, is that in a quiet room if you slipped a class A amp in with some trained listener types, they probably could pick out the cleaner, albeit unusually hot running class A amp in a comparison.

not sure about in a car, but as long as we're making claims I thought it should be out there.


----------



## rton20s

mrgreenjeans71 said:


> That is funny. Of course I when I started reading this thread I didn't look at the date. New here, rookie move. And I didn't think it would turn out to be 127 pages long. Guess you guys will keep beating a dead horse for years huh? And at this point, the original point probably has been lost and the conversation has devolved into, well, this silly crap. Do you realize what kind of sad geek actually takes the time to not only reply, but post a photo, twice? Have you and your therapist ever discussed how obsession and anger manifests itself in your thread posts. Your hostility is probably rooted in some sort of god aweful personality disorder, the kind that keeps you up nights picking fights with strangers on the computer. Empathy is understanding where another person is coming from, and since you chose tears to describe your anger, I'd say you probably could use a good cry, and a hug. It's going to be ok Dynamic SQ. For what it's worth, I think you have a cool UN. Hope that helps. Just remember, it's ok for a grown man to cry.


----------



## gstokes

There's a reason there are no high power class A amplifiers, HEAT being the main one..
Class AB amps that claim to be class A because they increased the transistor bias is pure BS, until the transistor is fully saturated on a 100% duty cycle it is Class AB and PWM..

Class A is the most inefficient of all the designs and with the newest Class D topology delivering class A SQ with nearly 90% efficiency there is no reason whatsoever to even consider ancient and outdated class A topology..


----------



## Victor_inox

gstokes said:


> There's a reason there are no high power class A amplifiers, HEAT being the main one..
> Class AB amps that claim to be class A because they increased the transistor bias is pure BS, until the transistor is fully saturated on a 100% duty cycle it is Class AB and PWM..
> 
> Class A is the most inefficient of all the designs and with the newest Class D topology delivering class A SQ with nearly 90% efficiency there is no reason whatsoever to even consider ancient and outdated class A topology..


Heat is easy to deal with. install one under driver seat and you'll have heated seat. seriously though, I agree on BS some modern manufacturers claiming, Mosconi comes to mind. IMHO class A sounds much better despite efficiency 20%.3 day ago I compared class A 50 watt one with 215 W class D and class A sounded more powerful and overall more pleasant than D at full blast.


----------



## gstokes

Victor_inox said:


> Heat is easy to deal with. install one under driver seat and you'll have heated seat. seriously though, I agree on BS some modern manufacturers claiming, Mosconi comes to mind. IMHO class A sounds much better despite efficiency 20%.3 day ago I compared class A 50 watt one with 215 W class D and class A sounded more powerful and overall more pleasant than D at full blast.


Don't get me twisted, I still like the idea of a high power class A design submersed in a tank of non-conductive cooling liquid, cool running..

My van is warm enough in the summer and doesn't need any extra heaters


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

Victor_inox said:


> Heat is easy to deal with. install one under driver seat and you'll have heated seat. seriously though, I agree on BS some modern manufacturers claiming, Mosconi comes to mind. IMHO class A sounds much better despite efficiency 20%.3 day ago I compared class A 50 watt one with 215 W class D and class A sounded more powerful and overall more pleasant than D at full blast.


Just out of curiosity, have you scoped both amps to see where they clip?


----------



## Victor_inox

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> Just out of curiosity, have you scoped both amps to see where they clip?


in my to do list. but I was very surprised that crown XLS1000 rated at 215W at 8Ohm load sounded so much lifeless and gutless in comparison with Carvin tube 100 rated at 50W ch.


----------



## Victor_inox

gstokes said:


> Don't get me twisted, I still like the idea of a high power class A design submersed in a tank of non-conductive cooling liquid, cool running..
> 
> My van is warm enough in the summer and doesn't need any extra heaters


 It`s not quite that bad, you exaggerating.


----------



## gstokes

Victor_inox said:


> It`s not quite that bad, you exaggerating.


It was 103 degrees here the other day, for a minute there thought i was back in Florida, under a shade tree


----------



## mrgreenjeans71

Class A is the most inefficient of all the designs and with the newest Class D topology delivering class A SQ with nearly 90% efficiency there is no reason whatsoever to even consider ancient and outdated class A topology..[/QUOTE]

I guess I'll throw out my Pass Labs gear. And since class D is so popular all of a sudden, I guess tubes are out as well. I think class D has come a long way. However, class A is not outdated. In a car, sure, it's not worth the trouble. "Clean" sounding class D amps are great for subs, and OK for the rest. Their sound lends itself to modern over produced digital music. But like all fads, this one too shall pass.


----------



## Victor_inox

mrgreenjeans71 said:


> Class A is the most inefficient of all the designs and with the newest Class D topology delivering class A SQ with nearly 90% efficiency there is no reason whatsoever to even consider ancient and outdated class A topology..


I guess I'll throw out my Pass Labs gear. And since class D is so popular all of a sudden, I guess tubes are out as well. I think class D has come a long way. However, class A is not outdated. In a car, sure, it's not worth the trouble. "Clean" sounding class D amps are great for subs, and OK for the rest. Their sound lends itself to modern over produced digital music. But like all fads, this one too shall pass.[/QUOTE]

I`ll recycle that pass labs equipment for you free of charge.  I`ll even pay shipping price for you. Sounds good?


----------



## gregerst22

Victor_inox said:


> Heat is easy to deal with. install one under driver seat and you'll have heated seat. seriously though, I agree on BS some modern manufacturers claiming, Mosconi comes to mind. IMHO class A sounds much better despite efficiency 20%.3 day ago I compared class A 50 watt one with 215 W class D and class A sounded more powerful and overall more pleasant than D at full blast.


What amps were they and what were they hooked up to when you did the comparison?


----------



## Victor_inox

post 3264, you missed it.


----------



## gregerst22

ah you mean 3263. thanks.


----------



## Victor_inox

gregerst22 said:


> ah you mean 3263. thanks.


this is it, you welcome.


----------



## gstokes

Victor_inox said:


> I guess I'll throw out my Pass Labs gear. And since class D is so popular all of a sudden, I guess tubes are out as well. I think class D has come a long way. However, class A is not outdated. In a car, sure, it's not worth the trouble. "Clean" sounding class D amps are great for subs, and OK for the rest. Their sound lends itself to modern over produced digital music. But like all fads, this one too shall pass.


 I`ll recycle that pass labs equipment for you free of charge.  I`ll even pay shipping price for you. Sounds good?[/QUOTE]
Oh Victor, you're so dramatic 

Class D's not going anywhere, it is the future of car audio and one day Class AB will be a thing of the past, if you know a bookie I'll put money on it...


----------



## Elektra

Does the Audison HV Venti run in class A mode? Has anyone tested this? Or is it just higher biased? There must be a reason for the price tag?

Has anyone done a AB with this amp? Aside from the off putting price tag is it the best you can get? The only problem is that you need at least 2 or 3 of them to run an active or semi active - so like $24k?


----------



## Dynamic SQ

gstokes said:


> Class D's not going anywhere, it is the future of car audio and one day Class AB will be a thing of the past, if you know a bookie I'll put money on it...


You're right. People pay Arc Audio 2x the cost of their class D's to buy the SE's because the class D's sound better. 

People buy class D because they're smaller and cheaper, not because they sound better.


----------



## gstokes

mrgreenjeans71 said:


> I guess I'll throw out my Pass Labs gear. And since class D is so popular all of a sudden, I guess tubes are out as well. I think class D has come a long way. However, class A is not outdated. In a car, sure, it's not worth the trouble. "Clean" sounding class D amps are great for subs, and OK for the rest. Their sound lends itself to modern over produced digital music. But like all fads, this one too shall pass.


This is a mobile audio forum so all we try to discuss is mobile audio, don't care about the puritans and home audio gear like tube amps, it doesn't constitute the majority of mobile audio gear, it's so rarely used in a mobile audio environment it's not even minority..

All amps sound the same but perform differently but if you want to throw out your passlabs gear in exchange for modern Class D, have at it


----------



## mrpeabody

Level matched I couldn't tell a difference in my car between A/B and D, unless I was clipping. D sounded like dookie while clipping.

Anywho, just my opinion and experience.


----------



## gstokes

Dynamic SQ said:


> You're right. People pay Arc Audio 2x the cost of their class D's to buy the SE's because the class D's sound better.
> 
> People buy class D because they're smaller and cheaper, not because they sound better.


People buy Arc Audio because they can afford it and they want that bling factor and bragging rights, it costs more so it has to sound better..


----------



## Victor_inox

gstokes said:


> This is a mobile audio forum so all we try to discuss is mobile audio, don't care about the puritans and home audio gear like tube amps, it doesn't constitute the majority of mobile audio gear, it's so rarely used in a mobile audio environment it's not even minority..
> 
> All amps sound the same but perform differently but if you want to throw out your passlabs gear in exchange for modern Class D, have at it


Who give a **** about majority?majority listen to ****ty music so what does that mean I should too?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## Victor_inox

gstokes said:


> I`ll recycle that pass labs equipment for you free of charge.  I`ll even pay shipping price for you. Sounds good?


Oh Victor, you're so dramatic 

Class D's not going anywhere, it is the future of car audio and one day Class AB will be a thing of the past, if you know a bookie I'll put money on it...[/QUOTE]
Am I, really?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

1800collect replied with this in the other amp classD thread, and I very much would agree....

"Hrmm. Just because somebody disagrees doesn't mean they can win contests with Lepai amps off eBay. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean they are polar opposite of your position either.
.....
I think amps sound different. I also believe it's reasonable to expect they can sound very similar after tuning... So similar that differences are marginal."


Comparing apples to apples...i.e...
Power should be measured in the same methods for guaging min/max/nom 

However... If you just cold turkey swap and play of course there's a huge difference.


----------



## Dynamic SQ

gstokes said:


> People buy Arc Audio because they can afford it and they want that bling factor and bragging rights, it costs more so it has to sound better..


Or the amps you use are cheaper, so you tell yourself all amps sound the same so your wallet doesn't hurt.

Find a better excuse. There is so much bling on the SE's.  

I don't see Robert Zeff stating publicly that the XDI's are the best amp he's ever made.

Some people are just irrational.


----------



## XSIV SPL

Victor_inox said:


> Who give a **** about majority?majority listen to ****ty music so what does that mean I should too?
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


Hmmm.... First, I'm curious as to what's NOT ****ty music, in your opinion...

Then, I'd hope you'll follow that up with some recommendations on what you consider to be ****ing awesome music, in order to educate all of the stupids out there... You can do it, Victor... Enlighten us!


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

I guess at some point one needs to decide....

The music created is the artform, the gear we listen it on should be somewhat a standard of some level of capable sound to recreate the art. But do you want the engineering to be artfully tinged, or do you want the most neutral representation that you can later fine tune?

Am I listen to how nice her voice is, and the weight of the piano keys I can feel, the guitar string? ... or am I thinking of the inside of that amplifier and what Zeff did to make it great...?

Often for me its ~60+% vs rest on the gear. Often more, as I can see and feel the gear perform.... But this 10 to ~40% falls mostly on the speakers driving the sound more so than the amp. 
(I guess this can vary on my mood and music, and other variables, but I see this swing in either direction)
I expect the amp to push without breaking a sweat. Its the art we dont often see. The amp is almost like the power supply. Its either clean and plenty with some ting that can be adjusted. I am not familiar with amp guts, but I bet there are components in there that can color the sound, give it warmth, vs flat, etc. And these things may have stirred a lot of things. Some say its warm, some tube like, etc. I thought its mainly in the DAC for that point...maybe other components surely might have bearing, but? Anyways.....I look forward to SkizeR's test, and hope it can be useful. 

Just to be clear, yes I think most understand there is a difference. Just not sure how much in a apples to apples. And not sure if this can be tuned completely or close enough to call it a power draw


----------



## subwoofery

gstokes said:


> I`ll recycle that pass labs equipment for you free of charge.  I`ll even pay shipping price for you. Sounds good?


Oh Victor, you're so dramatic 

Class D's not going anywhere, it is the future of car audio and one day Class AB will be a thing of the past, if you know a bookie I'll put money on it...[/QUOTE]

It is the future of car audio - agreed 
One day Class AB will be thing of the past - err, nope... 

I wouldn't put money on this if I were you unless you want to lose a lot of money... Turntables for eg. are relic of the past yet people buy more now than say 15 years ago 

Kelvin


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

If you want to sell me a amp that's in the SQ elite sound catagory, to make it to sound better/great....
Why not come hook it up, and have me listen to how much better it sounds on my existing system than the current amp? 

Isn't that a great way to sell it?


----------



## gstokes

Dynamic SQ said:


> Or the amps you use are cheaper, so you tell yourself all amps sound the same so your wallet doesn't hurt.
> 
> Find a better excuse. There is so much bling on the SE's.
> 
> I don't see Robert Zeff stating publicly that the XDI's are the best amp he's ever made.
> 
> Some people are just irrational.


Why do you think amplifiers are supposed to sound different, it's an amplifier not a DSP, it's not supposed to sound like anything except the input signal..


----------



## gstokes

subwoofery said:


> Oh Victor, you're so dramatic
> 
> Class D's not going anywhere, it is the future of car audio and one day Class AB will be a thing of the past, if you know a bookie I'll put money on it...


It is the future of car audio - agreed 
One day Class AB will be thing of the past - err, nope... 

I wouldn't put money on this if I were you unless you want to lose a lot of money... Turntables for eg. are relic of the past yet people buy more now than say 15 years ago 

Kelvin[/QUOTE]
I did go too far with the Class AB part but it was strictly semantics


----------



## Dynamic SQ

gstokes said:


> Why do you think amplifiers are supposed to sound different, it's an amplifier not a DSP, it's not supposed to sound like anything except the input signal..


Thank you. Now go find ANY class D amplifier that sounds like the input signal. 

After all those internal passive crossovers and excessive signal manipulation to get rid of the switching noise, I think you have your work cut out for you. If you want to talk about signal input/output, I would suggest learning how much that signal is torn up and manipulated in a class D before starting an argument.


----------



## mrgreenjeans71

I`ll recycle that pass labs equipment for you free of charge.  I`ll even pay shipping price for you. Sounds good?[/QUOTE]

Tell you what. First let me recycle those **** speakers you've been using so you can actually hear what a class AB sounds.


----------



## Victor_inox

mrgreenjeans71 said:


> I`ll recycle that pass labs equipment for you free of charge.  I`ll even pay shipping price for you. Sounds good?


 Tell you what. First let me recycle those **** speakers you've been using so you can actually hear what a class AB sounds.[/QUOTE]


right argument- wrong guy.
I`ve got your sarcazm but you missed mine.


----------



## mrgreenjeans71

right argument- wrong guy.
I`ve got your sarcazm but you missed mine.[/QUOTE]

No it wasn't. That comment just came out sounding a little harsh. I didn't even check what kind of speakers you're using.


----------



## Victor_inox

mrgreenjeans71 said:


> right argument- wrong guy.
> I`ve got your sarcazm but you missed mine.


No it wasn't. That comment just came out sounding a little harsh. I didn't even check what kind of speakers you're using.[/QUOTE]

You pick a guy from the same side of the argument.


----------



## hot9dog

Some how i have a feeling that in the future, the "Sham-wow/Slap chop" guy will be selling class D amps on late night info commercials.... lololol. Sorry im alittle delirious this morning


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

XSIV SPL said:


> Hmmm.... First, I'm curious as to what's NOT ****ty music, in your opinion...
> 
> Then, I'd hope you'll follow that up with some recommendations on what you consider to be ****ing awesome music, in order to educate all of the stupids out there... You can do it, Victor... Enlighten us!


I'm curious as to what he considers "acceptable music" too. Hell yesterday I was listening to some old Audioslave. TERRIBLE recording but who cares? Then there's Green Day. That raw sound in the recording in my opinion fits their style. The day I quit listening to the music I love because the recording is crap will be the day I consider putting a gun to my head and pulling the trigger. Seriously though, life is too short to not enjoy the music you love just because the recording isn't "essque".


----------



## SkizeR

im not saying anything on the matter until i do my test, but one thing i certainly have noticed recently, is that the people who say there is not difference are also usually ones that dont have experience with multiple amps in the exact same setup, and use cheaper amps. im not swaying towards either side, its JUST AN OBSERVATION. also, is the quote button broken in this thread or something?


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

SkizeR said:


> im not saying anything on the matter until i do my test, but one thing i certainly have noticed recently, is that the people who say there is not difference are also usually ones that dont have experience with multiple amps in the exact same setup, and use cheaper amps. im not swaying towards either side, its JUST AN OBSERVATION. also, is the quote button broken in this thread or something?


I agree. I've always felt like I've been burned when settling for a cheaper amp. I know Victor thinks Mosconi is crap because he didn't like the Zero amp he butchered up but My One series amps are the best amps I've ever run and I've run some nice amps over the years. To me how an amp holds up under pressure is just as important as how clean it sounds throughout the bandwidth. I do know for a fact that a/b sounds better even on subs and I've done a direct comparison with just the amp changing. It was a bridged One 120.4 compared to a Smokestream dtr1700d though so probably not a good comparison. With the cheap Epsilon turds you really do get what you pay for. Look forward to hearing how the Phantom stacks up to the higher end amps in your test.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

SkizeR said:


> im not saying anything on the matter until i do my test, but one thing i certainly have noticed recently, is that the people who say there is not difference are also usually ones that dont have experience with multiple amps in the exact same setup, and use cheaper amps. im not swaying towards either side, its JUST AN OBSERVATION. also, is the quote button broken in this thread or something?


I know your comments aren't directed at me but I did quite a bit of switching amps that I never even mentioned on here with my a/d/s speakers and the grand prix.

Long story short...initial swaps, there was always a different sound. I presume mostly due to gain and level matching. But, after I learned a few tricks in tuning I tossed in one of those "sterile" and "harsh" sounding amps....in a few minutes I had it sounding like the amp I preferred. At that point, I stopped worrying about whether another amp "sounded" better.

I did a lot of my swaps with passive crossovers and without. There was so much back and forth on these forums I didn't know up from down.

The a/d/s speakers were crossed at 2.5KHz so I didn't have issues with beaming. It was easier to tune my speakers without the passives and achieve the sound I preferred.

The "warmest" amp I ever threw in was a Leviathan. All I did was wire it up...but that's the issue with cold swaps. It was really strange because the sound was contradictory to everything written about class D. A little tuning and I was able to make it sound exactly like the amp I hated. Then I tuned it to what I preferred.

Whenever I switched amps nobody could ever tell I did so after tuning. Sometimes before tuning a couple friends would ask out of the MANY. So anyways, I've concluded that YES they sound different but not because they're better or worse...mostly because they're different. How many times do you buy the same thing at the store and it's EXACTLY the same as the previous item/purchase(it isn't) yet you use it with the same results time and time again. Isn't that how recipes work in the kitchen? Ingredients are never perfectly identical.

Same thing applies with amps. Amps are not the same but I bet those SQ champions can take a wide variety of amps and still cook up a killer install and nobody would ever know the difference.


----------



## rton20s

Dynamic SQ said:


> People buy class D because they're smaller and because they can't hear a difference once installed in a vehicle and tuned.


----------



## Dynamic SQ

rton20s said:


>


"I post pictures because my brain can't form a valid argument"

- rton20


Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Phil Indeblanc said:


> 1800collect replied with this in the other amp classD thread, and I very much would agree....
> 
> "Hrmm. Just because somebody disagrees doesn't mean they can win contests with Lepai amps off eBay. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean they are polar opposite of your position either.
> .....
> I think amps sound different. I also believe it's reasonable to expect they can sound very similar after tuning... So similar that differences are marginal."
> 
> 
> Comparing apples to apples...i.e...
> Power should be measured in the same methods for guaging min/max/nom
> 
> However... If you just cold turkey swap and play of course there's a huge difference.





Didn't notice this!

:beerchug:


----------



## SkizeR

Dynamic SQ said:


> "I post pictures because my brain can't form a valid argument"
> 
> - rton20
> 
> 
> Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?


You should come to my amp test. I feel like you would be a big help

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## rton20s

Dynamic SQ said:


> "I post pictures because my brain can't form a valid argument"
> 
> - rton20
> 
> 
> Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?


----------



## Dynamic SQ

SkizeR said:


> im not saying anything on the matter until i do my test, but one thing i certainly have noticed recently, is that the people who say there is not difference are also usually ones that dont have experience with multiple amps in the exact same setup, and use cheaper amps. im not swaying towards either side, its JUST AN OBSERVATION. also, is the quote button broken in this thread or something?


We have a rational open minded person who uses his brain and observes. It's a great thing to see on this forum.

Don't forget the other clique as well. The clique that claims all amps sound the same because they can't afford the best, but then push their budgets by not buying the cheapest. Why not buy the cheapest amp out there if they all sound the same? Odds are if their wallets were bigger, the price of their amps would increase as well.

These same people probably frequent the HDTV forums and claim that all TV panels are identical. Once tuned, you can't tell the difference.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Dynamic SQ said:


> "I post pictures because my brain can't form a valid argument"
> 
> - rton20
> 
> 
> Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?


I don't think anybody has said that $10 eBay amps will suffice every requirement. I think most agree that there's a right amp for the right situation.

And that generally speaking there isn't a huge difference in sound unless you cold swap amps... Which doesn't prove anything.


----------



## Dynamic SQ

I800C0LLECT said:


> I don't think anybody has said that $10 eBay amps will suffice every requirement. I think most agree that there's a right amp for the right situation.
> 
> And that generally speaking there isn't a huge difference in sound unless you cold swap amps... Which doesn't prove anything.


Why not? What requirement? 

They all state the same thing. Damping factor doesn't matter. All amps sound the same. Class D sounds as good as A/B. You can't hear 1% THD. There is no such thing as "clean power".

Why aren't the cheapest amps the best option?

Actions speak louder than words.


----------



## cajunner

I'm one of those cats that espouse car audio on the somewhat, semi-cheap.

And yet, if you take the retail prices of my equipment into consideration, I could be said to possess the equivalent value of a big time boner amp.

I also can accept lower tier amp usage, such as old school Sony which in some circles, is actually performance-wise, right in the sweet spot of "not too much of anything" detracting from the music.

This is obviously a tangent, some might say a reversal of terms, a back-pedal for pessimistic wander bees, when I suggest that if an amp can do everything somewhat right, it's probably good enough for anyone, minus the badge, minus the cache factor of exclusivity.

I was ogling the David Yeh brand, he went guitar amp distortion crazy, but if there is genius in his Audio Art line, it was the sustained use of higher quality parts, that carries those amps through.

I'd like to see a head to head, Audio Art, vs. the goliath ampersand, Sinfoni.

Why?

Because if I'm right, nothing has changed in 20 years. A good amp will have made a positive mark, in that bench filled with SQ squatters.

Again, I don't mean to alarm, I'm just here as a backstop, a turnstile, a waypoint.

What's old, is new again.

Maybe there is more genius inserted into the combined effort that is a McIntosh car offering.

OR the BRAX sublimation, since Victor is their torchbearer.

I won't really stoop, unless I need to, then I'll slip a set of RAZOR Power Acoustik's, behind the rear seat and see what that does.


because it's really not about how good it is, if other things come first. Things like mounting flexibility, noise rejection, simple reliability and mature board designs, even if it is class D and they are using semiconductors that didn't exist in the possible parts lists, of the decade previous, so fast, so freaking fast....


----------



## SkizeR

Dynamic SQ said:


> Why not? What requirement?
> 
> They all state the same thing. Damping factor doesn't matter. All amps sound the same. Class D sounds as good as A/B. You can't hear 1% THD. There is no such thing as "clean power".
> 
> Why aren't the cheapest amps the best option?
> 
> Actions speak louder than words.


heres the thing.. why does it matter when the weakest link in the chain is ALWAYS, and BY FAR the speaker itself. lets face it, 1% thd is not detectable by human ears. and damping factor.. what amp has a damping factor that is lower than what a speakers own suspension offers? none. i can see both sides. as you said open mind


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Here's a neat thread attempting to compile blind, ABX, or other types of testing...

Testing audiophile claims and myths

I think Harman engineers got it right when they said that perception manipulates the outcome. Therefore, the results are subjective depending on the perspective. If you can remove perspective what's left? Should we make decisions based on perspective? It's all up to the owner of the wallet.

Why get upset?


----------



## gstokes

I800C0LLECT said:


> Long story short...initial swaps, there was always a different sound. I presume mostly due to gain and level matching. But, after I learned a few tricks in tuning I tossed in one of those "sterile" and "harsh" sounding amps....in a few minutes I had it sounding like the amp I preferred. At that point, I stopped worrying about whether another amp "sounded" better.
> 
> I did a lot of my swaps with passive crossovers and without. There was so much back and forth on these forums I didn't know up from down.
> 
> The a/d/s speakers were crossed at 2.5KHz so I didn't have issues with beaming. It was easier to tune my speakers without the passives and achieve the sound I preferred.
> 
> The "warmest" amp I ever threw in was a Leviathan. All I did was wire it up...but that's the issue with cold swaps. It was really strange because the sound was contradictory to everything written about class D. A little tuning and I was able to make it sound exactly like the amp I hated. Then I tuned it to what I preferred.
> 
> Whenever I switched amps nobody could ever tell I did so after tuning. Sometimes before tuning a couple friends would ask out of the MANY. So anyways, I've concluded that YES they sound different but not because they're better or worse...mostly because they're different. How many times do you buy the same thing at the store and it's EXACTLY the same as the previous item/purchase(it isn't) yet you use it with the same results time and time again. Isn't that how recipes work in the kitchen? Ingredients are never perfectly identical.
> 
> Same thing applies with amps. Amps are not the same but I bet those SQ champions can take a wide variety of amps and still cook up a killer install and nobody would ever know the difference.


Bingo, the circuitry and design specifications are different and varies from one amp to another, once the crossovers EQ and/or DSP and levels are adjusted to match those of the other amplifier the differences in audio quality will be marginal..

The biggest differences will be in power output at a specific impedance and frequency, after all that's what amplifiers are all about, making power and increasing signal strength..

I LMAO when somebody says they bought this or that amplifier on the notion that it sounds better..

I don't want my amplifier to sound like anything except what i feed into it and if it doesn't i can make adjustments to the gains,crossovers and EQ until it does, choosing an amplifier to achieve a certain sound is, well ..

Never mind..


----------



## Dynamic SQ

SkizeR said:


> heres the thing.. why does it matter when the weakest link in the chain is ALWAYS, and BY FAR the speaker itself. lets face it, 1% thd is not detectable by human ears. and damping factor.. what amp has a damping factor that is lower than what a speakers own suspension offers? none. i can see both sides. as you said open mind


You didn't answer the question I posed.

"Why does it matter"

Exactly. So why aren't the cheapest amps the best option? Why are you spending YEARS just to load your car with huge Zapco class a/b amps when you could have thrown in a bunch of small PPI class D's in one weekend and saved yourself time and money.

It's a merry go round. No one has a valid answer. Point proven.

Skizer - Stop riding the line and be a man. Form an opinion and stick to it.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Dynamic SQ said:


> Why not? What requirement?
> 
> They all state the same thing. Damping factor doesn't matter. All amps sound the same. Class D sounds as good as A/B. You can't hear 1% THD. There is no such thing as "clean power".
> 
> Why aren't the cheapest amps the best option?
> 
> Actions speak louder than words.



Nobody said cheapest amps are the best options and I think it's left field to presume that argument when nobody ever conveyed those sentiments. 

Furthermore, I do believe what has been conveyed are questions... What makes an expensive amp better? Should I be concerned with price points? How do I find a good amp?

I don't know that anybody is purposefully attacking a circumstance but for those who have spent much more than others they certainly feel convicted enough to fire back at reasonable questions brought up by those who are new to the forum or unsure.

The bottom line is that people want this to be black and white. I don't see anything wrong with that. However, because this is based on perception I have a feeling there's much more at stake than just a bank account.

Will this ever be resolved? nope.




SkizeR said:


> heres the thing.. why does it matter when the weakest link in the chain is ALWAYS, and BY FAR the speaker itself. lets face it, 1% thd is not detectable by human ears. and damping factor.. what amp has a damping factor that is lower than what a speakers own suspension offers? none. i can see both sides. as you said open mind


Great response!

But how I do recreate a magical experience I once had with specific equipment in question? I think that's where ownership and perception takes over.

I'm with you...I'm for and against both sides. If it makes me feel better I'm gonna buy it. But then what's more significant?...my wallet or my feelings? *shrug* Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

gstokes said:


> Bingo, the circuitry and design specifications are different and varies from one amp to another, once the crossovers EQ and/or DSP and levels are adjusted to match those of the other amplifier the differences in audio quality will be marginal..
> 
> The biggest differences will be in power output at a specific impedance and frequency, after all that's what amplifiers are all about, making power and increasing signal strength..
> 
> I LMAO when somebody says they bought this or that amplifier on the notion that it sounds better..
> 
> I don't want my amplifier to sound like anything except what i feed into it and if it doesn't i can make adjustments to the gains,crossovers and EQ until it does, choosing an amplifier to achieve a certain sound is, well ..
> 
> Never mind..



After I made the realization I can tune to my preference I stopped worrying about amps or price points and paid more attention to other details


----------



## SkizeR

gstokes said:


> Bingo, the circuitry and design specifications are different and varies from one amp to another, once the crossovers EQ and/or DSP and levels are adjusted to match those of the other amplifier the differences in audio quality will be marginal..
> 
> The biggest differences will be in power output at a specific impedance and frequency, after all that's what amplifiers are all about, making power and increasing signal strength..
> 
> I LMAO when somebody says they bought this or that amplifier on the notion that it sounds better..
> 
> I don't want my amplifier to sound like anything except what i feed into it and if it doesn't i can make adjustments to the gains,crossovers and EQ until it does, choosing an amplifier to achieve a certain sound is, well ..
> 
> Never mind..


no offense gstokes, i see where your coming from, and ive argued your side plenty of times, but...


this is the type of people i was referring to in my first post. have you ever tried other "better" amps? do you even have a proper setup to even tell if better amps make a difference? (no, im not questioning you directly, this is just speculation towards any person making these claims so dont get all butthurt please). if not, its all speculation. what if all these wacky audiophiles are right? what if cables made by norwegian virgins made from pure silver do actually sound much better? what if amps that cost more than my whole neighborhood do drastically improve the sound? this is one of the reasons why im doing my test. the one being to see for myself, and 2) to shed some light to others who havent had the chance to do something similar


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

which links to tthis great article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver#Amplifier_modeling


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Phil Indeblanc said:


> which links to tthis great article...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver#Amplifier_modeling



doh!

:lurk:


----------



## SkizeR

Dynamic SQ said:


> You didn't answer the question I posed.
> 
> "Why does it matter"
> 
> Exactly. So why aren't the cheapest amps the best option? Why are you spending YEARS just to load your car with huge Zapco class a/b amps when you could have thrown in a bunch of small PPI class D's in one weekend and saved yourself time and money.
> 
> It's a merry go round. No one has a valid answer. Point proven.
> 
> Skizer - Stop riding the line and be a man. Form an opinion and stick to it.


so first i was rational and open minded, and now im not a man? see now this is the exact opposite type of person from my previous response. sounds like some of these people with crazy amount of money in their amps have something to defend. just like a ton of last years finals winners have titles to defend with those no good class d amps (one of which being those ppi ones you mentioned)  im just being open minded and rational like you said before, but i guess you see differently now that i challenged your viewpoint? oh well.

oh and fyi, i get my zapco amps for the same price most can get those ppi amps for  . what really drew me to them was the built in dsp. i got my first one like 3 or 4 years ago because of that. on top of that, they are GOD DAMN SEXY. not going to lie, looks are the first thing i look for in an amp for MOST installs. then features are a very close second (like the built in dsp), and amount of power. i took two years to install them also for a couple reasons. one, im slow. i took my sweet time with this install. no rush. 2, not sure id call it two years since the car doesnt get touched for about 5 months out of the year, and i can only get work done on the weekends.


----------



## Dynamic SQ

I800C0LLECT said:


> Nobody said cheapest amps are the best options and I think it's left field to presume that argument when nobody ever conveyed those sentiments.


Do you not understand? Does someone have to come out and say "the cheapest amps are the best option" for you to grasp the concept?

If someone states all of the following:

- all amps sound the same

- you can't hear 1% THD

- Class D sounds just as good as Class A/B

- damping factor doesn't matter


*Then why aren't the cheapest amps the best option? 
*
The fact that I have asked this question numerous times, and the forum full of people who are experts at making excuses in audio to protect their wallets, can't find an excuse. 

All amps sound the same, right?


----------



## gstokes

Dynamic SQ said:


> So why aren't the cheapest amps the best option? Why are you spending YEARS just to load your car with huge Zapco class a/b amps when you could have thrown in a bunch of small PPI class D's in one weekend and saved yourself time and money.


I wouldn't say that PPI Class D's are the cheapest option but you seem to incline that they are..

Boss, Soundstorm, Lanzar and a few others would happily hold the title as cheap amplifiers..

Maybe they bought PPI Class D's because they met the design constraints of the builder..

Maybe they bought Zapco class AB because someone like you told them that nothing else sounds like a Zapco, except another Zapco..

Does that mean Zapco Class AB sounds better than PPI class D, nope..

I'm not defending one or the other, just saying that we shouldn't be choosing a specific amplifier topology based on proposed SQ ..


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Dynamic SQ said:


> You didn't answer the question I posed.
> 
> "Why does it matter"
> 
> Exactly. So why aren't the cheapest amps the best option? Why are you spending YEARS just to load your car with huge Zapco class a/b amps when you could have thrown in a bunch of small PPI class D's in one weekend and saved yourself time and money.
> 
> It's a merry go round. No one has a valid answer. Point proven.
> 
> Skizer - Stop riding the line and be a man. Form an opinion and stick to it.



How can one form an opinion when one hasn't objectively done the test?
When all the variables have been uneven. you can't form a clear opinion.


The only reason why we sometimes do such things like seek some great amp or speakers is truly the love for the gear and the art of it to hear the music in as nice a tone and high volume as possible.

If there are those that can charge $1million for a photograph vs someone else doing the duplicate image who cant sell it for 500....there is a LOT of marketing behind it. It really is an art. And what is less credible is that the art can be duplicated scientifically, and more so in electronics...yet it too has that artful balancing act. 

There are a number of photographers much more original or "better" in perspective than Peter Lik. Is he good, yes. He has some really winning shots. Is the photo itself what sells them? No, it the packaging and display material he uses, and the strong sales force he trains and educates to what he needs to push. But his packaging and marketing and business sense is what made his work desirable. Not so much the imagery. 

Some guys that worked in his galleries have a much more impressive portfolio than him, but they can't sell a dam piece for a few hundred.

If amps were supposed to have THAT much an impact, you'd have sales people that would go door to door with adaptive wiring and able to pull out a comparable amp and swap it for you. And bam, you sell it on the spot. Somewhat like the Kirby approach.


----------



## Dynamic SQ

SkizeR said:


> so first i was rational and open minded, and now im not a man? see now this is the exact opposite type of person from my previous response. sounds like some of these people with crazy amount of money in their amps have something to defend. just like a ton of last years finals winners have titles to defend with those no good class d amps (one of which being those ppi ones you mentioned)  im just being open minded and rational like you said before, but i guess you see differently now that i challenged your viewpoint? oh well.


Not even close. Your viewpoint was formed a long time ago. You just aren't man enough to accept and defend it. 

Actions speak louder than words and your signature (system layout) tells all. 

When you change your system and buy the cheapest smallest amps on the market (because they all sound the same), then I'll believe that your viewpoint changed.


----------



## SkizeR

Dynamic SQ said:


> Not even close. Your viewpoint was formed a long time ago. You just aren't man enough to accept and defend it.
> 
> Actions speak louder than words and your signature (system layout) tells all.
> 
> When you change your system and buy the cheapest smallest amps on the market (because they all sound the same), then I'll believe that your viewpoint changed.


like i said before, i dont have a viewpoint lol. i bought them for looks, the dsp, and price (like you just said). size didnt matter since i wanted to show them off anyway. btw, i did invite you just so i can see you prove that you can hear a difference and get it on video, just like i will be with everyone else that shows up. 

and so typical to change your stance on me since i also challenged your view. sounds like something a religious person would do lol. in case you forget, i challenged both. i have NO side in this as of yet


----------



## Babs

Having recently swapped amps in identical build, I went from 125x4 feeding the front-stage to 100x2 for tweets and 200x2 for mids, and no change for sub.. At any sound level, I can seriously vouch from my own experience that the change resulted in better fidelity, clarity, detail, air, driver control, noise levels. Just more better.. Period. At any level. All amps are not the same. And I'm still just playing with "mid-fi" amps.. Not mosconi or zapco or sinfoni or audison other higher-end amps. These are just simply PDX alpines.

That said.. JAD800.4 FS if anyone's interested.  It's a great amp.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Dynamic SQ said:


> Do you not understand? Does someone have to come out and say "the cheapest amps are the best option" for you to grasp the concept?
> 
> If someone states all of the following:
> 
> - all amps sound the same
> 
> - you can't hear 1% THD
> 
> - Class D sounds just as good as Class A/B
> 
> - damping factor doesn't matter
> 
> 
> *Then why aren't the cheapest amps the best option?
> *
> The fact that I have asked this question numerous times, and the forum full of people who are experts at making excuses in audio to protect their wallets, can't find an excuse.
> 
> All amps sound the same, right?



I think you need to work on your tact. I don't know that many others would indirectly refer to me as dumb.

There's other reasons to choose an amplifier other than sound. Some require small footprint. Some require specific inputs/outputs, number of channels, reliability based on environment(marine even?)...

I was merely attempting to open up the topic to reasons why one individual might be ok with their compromised purchase. For some, EQ and tuning can overcome perceived response limitations where others may be less forgiving.

Respect goes a long ways in a discussion. I'm not here to tell you that you must agree with myself or anybody else. I respect your opinion but I also respect there hasn't been any earth shattering evidence that concludes either side is right.

However, it has been concluded that perceptions do change what we hear.

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Documents/White%20Papers/AudioScience.pdf


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Dynamic SQ said:


> Do you not understand? Does someone have to come out and say "the cheapest amps are the best option" for you to grasp the concept?


If someone states all of the following:



> - all amps sound the same


I don't think those having this conversation are saying that. Its a generalization that is to let you not worry about the amp when some folks go crazy in trying to decide.



> - you can't hear 1% THD


I thought something over 800 you could and not less? there is science behind this one.



> - Class D sounds just as good as Class A/B


That again is inclusive of ALL classD. Can it, perhaps it can? Maybe on paper it can't, maybe by ear it has its limits?



> - damping factor doesn't matter


Application of the amp could play a roll, so again, generalization in a given situation, it very well might not matter.




> *Then why aren't the cheapest amps the best option?
> *


Is that what is being asked? Really?


> The fact that I have asked this question numerous times, and the forum full of people who are experts at making excuses in audio to protect their wallets, can't find an excuse.


With a little or more of tuning you can get them to sound fairly so. But the word "all" in such a open market of false claims is again a wrong way to look at things.




> All amps sound the same, right?


Why are you not being the thinking human, instead acting like some equation of 0/1, on or off. Do you not have a brain to form logical observations?
Why are you being the science, when the human is the one supposed to apply the science. Sorry, but that is what I read in your comments, and I really don't mean to be disrespectful, and I don't know you, but I don't swat off expereinces or inputs like you decided to in the other thread which you were saddly wrong about. But, you are posting like a "switch".


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Dynamic SQ said:


> The fact that I have asked this question numerous times, and the forum full of people who are experts at making excuses in audio to protect their wallets, can't find an excuse.
> 
> All amps sound the same, right?


I want to highlight this portion of your statement.

Are you presuming us to be cheapskates?

Anyways...I've stated my opinion MANY TIMES.

Let me help you out....


Amps do sound different. But I believe I can tune them to be so similar as to marginalize their characteristics.


----------



## Dynamic SQ

Phil Indeblanc said:


> How can one form an opinion when one hasn't objectively done the test?
> When all the variables have been uneven. you can't form a clear opinion.


So the kid claims to be an installer with years of experience, but hasn't had enough experience with different equipment to form an opinion? Is that what you are saying?

Next week, being an installer will surely qualify him for a different argument that suits your needs. 

Everyone respects Bing for being an installer. Now his opinion doesn't matter either because it doesn't suit you? So when he stated that the Arc XDI's don't have the refinement and aren't as clean as the SE's, you discredited him because it didn't suit you? So him installing and listening to equipment EVERY DAY doesn't count for anything?


----------



## SkizeR

im also curious as to why all these super expensive class a and a/b amps arent dominating the lanes if there isnt an obvious difference? a lot of cars with class d amps have been winning finals for years now. can you answer that dynamic? again, not challenging you. just challenging the topic


----------



## hot9dog

gstokes said:


> .
> 
> I LMAO when somebody says they bought this or that amplifier on the notion that it sounds better..
> 
> ..


What a strange coincidence. ... i bought my amps BECAUSE they do sound better... just an observation.


----------



## SkizeR

Dynamic SQ said:


> So the kid claims to be an installer with years of experience, but hasn't had enough experience with different equipment to form an opinion? Is that what you are saying?
> 
> Next week, being an installer will surely qualify him for a different argument that suits your needs.
> 
> Everyone respects Bing for being an installer. Now his opinion doesn't matter either because it doesn't suit you? So when he stated that the Arc XDI's don't have the refinement and aren't as clean as the SE's, you discredited him because it didn't suit you? So him installing and listening to equipment EVERY DAY doesn't count for anything?


where did i say i have years of experience? im not an installer anymore because where i worked was just to far away. hour and twenty minutes with traffic and 13 dollars in tolls one way to be exact. just wasnt worth it. i worked there for a bit over a year and ive been doing this as a hobby for about 6 years. now i just install on the side. and im not sure if your an installer or not, but i dont think ive personally ever seen or heard of a customer coming in to JUST swap amps. EVER. not even once. but i have done direct swaps in my own car. went from alpine ab amp, to a rockford amp, to an alpine class d amp. didnt notice a difference besides in output, and at the time, thats what i cared for. looks like your just a typical audiophile snob who looks down on people who cant afford the equipment you can. shallow as **** right there if thats the case

and yes, that should be what hes saying. the only way to really give any answer credit, is if the switch was done pretty much instantly. id say any more than 20 seconds MAX and the person listening wont have any accurate "memory" of what the last amp supposedly sounded like. this is why im doing an instant switched, blind, abx test. you can not do this by swapping amps out in a car. its just not reliable enough


also, can you link to where bing said this please. again, not challenging. just for my own information


----------



## I800C0LLECT

SkizeR said:


> im also curious as to why all these super expensive class a and a/b amps arent dominating the lanes if there isnt an obvious difference? a lot of cars with class d amps have been winning finals for years now. can you answer that dynamic? again, not challenging you. just challenging the topic



Didn't Andy W. win a competition with a stock BMW + ms-8 + sub?

I'm not bringing that up in jest...but I think perception has to do with everything. Neat how an 8x20 amp plus active sub did so well.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Dynamic SQ said:


> So the kid claims to be an installer with years of experience, but hasn't had enough experience with different equipment to form an opinion? Is that what you are saying?


Ummm, yes. When things are not apples vs apples, how can you? You just exposed him to a different environment(the cars), a different set of speakers, and likely sources of music/recording from the client(Although a good installer alsways has a select set of tunes to try out), and then different applications of the SOURCE/headunit, and the amp and speaker config,2way, 3way, frontwithrear, etc..., and he can tell a difference from A to BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQ...Etc?

Not if he wants to be honest with himself. Sure he can tell a product is performing nicely. But given the variables you're position is in the hot seat!



> Next week, being an installer will surely qualify him for a different argument that suits your needs.


Absolutely! his expereice gives him PLENTY right to do so. It just wont be for my needs. Just because I can agree on some points and disagree on others I still have respect for those who share this common joy and interest. If we learn and come to new understandings along the way, it makes it even more worthwhile!



> Everyone respects Bing for being an installer. Now his opinion doesn't matter either because it doesn't suit you? So when he stated that the Arc XDI's don't have the refinement and aren't as clean as the SE's, you discredited him because it didn't suit you? So him installing and listening to equipment EVERY DAY doesn't count for anything?


I don't remember that, but I would answer to you as I did just above. He as an installer has MANY skills and reasons for what he says or doesn't. I don't personally know Bing or SkizeR. As a "professional"(with the true meaning, making a living doing it) there are far more greater influences than SQ it self. Does that mean they are misleading and giving bad product, NO! but it suites their needs often times for you to use X over Y. If I carry X, and there is a Y you prefer, If I was a "pro" I wouldn't tell you "No I only have X , Y is down the street". I would try to understand why you like why, and make X's strong points more appealing to you. Some will flat out lie to you. And no I'm not a sales person ! I did some of it growing up about 20 years ago!

Are you kidding me Dynamic SQ?!!! this above is your basis on forming your understanding of things? Amazing!


----------



## cajunner

Dynamic SQ said:


> Do you not understand? Does someone have to come out and say "the cheapest amps are the best option" for you to grasp the concept?
> 
> If someone states all of the following:
> 
> - all amps sound the same
> 
> - you can't hear 1% THD
> 
> - Class D sounds just as good as Class A/B
> 
> - damping factor doesn't matter
> 
> 
> *Then why aren't the cheapest amps the best option?
> *
> The fact that I have asked this question numerous times, and the forum full of people who are experts at making excuses in audio to protect their wallets, can't find an excuse.
> 
> All amps sound the same, right?


you're riding a null hypothesis.

let's assume that you can find an example to fit your definition of a cheap amp.

let's also assume that you know beforehand, the line of amps you chose have been routinely criticized for lack of meeting power specs.

since this is the basic tenet of amplification, POWER, I would claim that a cheap and yet, PROVEN performer is going to apples to apples, and nobody really defends against this.

There have been some absolute dogs, stuff with caps that explode after 2 weeks, stuff that shorts and goes to smoke then fire, stuff that is filled with cheaper parts that count, like switches and pots. Stuff that counts.


But going by the theorem, "all amps sound the same" I can work around the big boy wallet crowd and as long as the amount of apples fill the basket, cheap basket or expensive, each will carry the load.

which brings me to the second basic point, of this meaningless post.


the load is reactive, some speakers will make an amp shag the carpet it's mounted on, and others will take it in stride.

Class D, for all the fits of early models, can be said to take the loads in stride, as a tell, or a sign, look at how many are promoted to 1 ohm current duty.

They do it, and they don't tax the electrical, they continue to do it when an UBER AB amp is uh, huffing and puffing for a little more juice, protector circuits circling the wagons, the poor man's amp show goes a little dimmer if we're still going apple to apple, or basket to basket, because that Class D miniaturized, cool runner is making the diodes in your alternator laugh at the rectifier, the voltage regulator is doing you a solid, 13.4V of awesome, and your precious UBER spank is sucking the lady dry, dipping into the 10.8V range for an extended note, not hardly helpful and probably hitting vital parts in the whole chain, looking for that weakness a high current condition will expose...


so let's be adamant, let's be together on this. 


AB amps are the fat, tired, old man sweating in britches..



Class D, the spry lightness in the fingertips, the harmless ride of a titanium frame, absorbing shocks and shirking off heavy loads.


somewhere, the sound quality is going to matter, and I propose that class D is forming a vaseline pocket for the car's electrical to ride in, and class AB is going in dry...

:surprised:


----------



## I800C0LLECT

One major difference I've noticed over the years with home audio vs. car audio is that there's much more admiration for passive response techniques. It's an art.

In the vehicle we can't get away with passive response techniques as easily so we rely on signal manipulation which makes one groups head start spinning. I think it all comes to a boiling point with amplifiers.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

cajunner said:


> :surprised:




LOL!! :laugh::laugh:


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Phil Indeblanc said:


> which links to tthis great article...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver#Amplifier_modeling



Bump.


What do you think of this Dynamic SQ?


----------



## SkizeR

I800C0LLECT said:


> Bump.
> 
> 
> What do you think of this Dynamic SQ?


he will probably say the amps werent expensive enough or something


----------



## Dynamic SQ

SkizeR said:


> looks like your just a typical audiophile snob who looks down on people who cant afford the equipment you can. shallow as **** right there if thats the case


Not at all. What I don't like is people saying what they have is just as good as something that's clearly better because they can't afford better, or don't have the experience to make such assertions. 

"My Kia gets me to work and back just like your AMG Mercedes.....it's just as good. After I tune my suspension, we'll have the same car"



SkizeR said:


> also, can you link to where bing said this please. again, not challenging. just for my own information


http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...eat-review-two-new-products-arc-am-morel.html


----------



## SQToyota

Class d was my choice just so its easier on my electrical. Also i do think there is a difference in sound from different amps. There are plenty of other expensive things to buy, imo expensive amps are the last upgrade to do, when your done with everything else and your money is burning a hole in your pocket, when your hobby goes past the line to obsession


----------



## rton20s

Dynamic SQ said:


> Do you not understand? Does someone have to come out and say "the cheapest amps are the best option" for you to grasp the concept?
> 
> If someone states all of the following:
> 
> - all amps sound the same
> 
> - you can't hear 1% THD
> 
> - Class D sounds just as good as Class A/B
> 
> - damping factor doesn't matter
> 
> 
> *Then why aren't the cheapest amps the best option?
> *
> The fact that I have asked this question numerous times, and the forum full of people who are experts at making excuses in audio to protect their wallets, can't find an excuse.
> 
> All amps sound the same, right?


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Whats funny about this is that my dadd was somewhat like you Dynamic SQ...lol But he did some testing and he came to some realizations himself. (over the course of his life)

I gathered from him that often, not always... its about all the reserve power in the amp when it needs it, and how well the tuning and recording is... all to keep things from sounding harsh as you just keep pushing the limits. Maybe others are different, but I love SQ, but I also love it load! 

I keep pushing what I have. I want it louder. Today I found myself doing this, and I started to hear the piano keys distort, Diana Kralls "ns" and "s" notes to pierce a bit, but I was way past what I was tuned for! Then my ears started to reach a point, and I backed off thinking, ok..its still good, but that was unnecessary.


----------



## cajunner

I've been in car audio as a hobby for a long, long time.


I've heard several amplifiers, but never a BRAX or Sinfoni, or several other really high end, but mainstream brands.


As a matter of truth, this perception that I know what great amps sound like, and that they don't sound much different from middle tier, "I can afford that" grade, is a wholly owned and agreed upon, hypothetical.


I don't know.


Part of what attracts me to this thread is how often I suspect others of being in my camp, and playing it off that they've got gobs of seat time in cars using the very best, uh... amps, and that they too, claim that there's not a lot of difference to find.


Which soothes me, it releases me from any feelings of being measured, and found wanting.

I am a class, act.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Testing audiophile claims and mythsThis is neat too. From this link I posted earlier...







> Conclusion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The clear conclusion is that ABX testing does not back up many audiophile claims, so they become audiophile myths as they show cables do not inherently change sound. Any change in sound quality comes from the listeners mind and interaction between their senses. What is claimed to be audible is not reliably so. Blind testing is also sometimes passed off as ABX. But blind testing is not really testing, it is a review of a product without seeing it, and that allows claims to be made about sound which have not been verified.
> 
> 
> 
> If hifi is all about sound and more specifically sound quality, then we should, once the other senses have been removed be able to hear differences which can be verified by being able to identify one product from another by only listening. But time and again we cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can either buy good but inexpensive hifi products such as cables, amps, CDPs and be satisfied that the sound they produce is superb. You do need to spend time with speakers as they really do sound identifiably different. Or you can buy expensive hifi products such as cable tec and luxuriate in the build and image and identify one hifi from another by looks and sound. But you cannot buy expensive and identify it from cheap by sound alone.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is The Institute of Engineering and Technology's conclusions on audiophile myths
> 
> 
> 
> Audio and technological mythology - E & T Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> which backs up the above conclusions.


----------



## Dynamic SQ

Phil Indeblanc said:


> Are you kidding me Dynamic SQ?!!! this above is your basis on forming your understanding of things? Amazing!


When a person who claims to know so much argues with people on the forum that his old mediocre MTX is a class A, I give them no credit. 

You can make it seem like you are experienced, but your initial foray into this forum has provided enough info on you.


----------



## SkizeR

Dynamic SQ said:


> Not at all. What I don't like is people saying what they have is just as good as something that's clearly better because they can't afford better, or don't have the experience to make such assertions.
> 
> "My Kia gets me to work and back just like your AMG Mercedes.....it's just as good. After I tune my suspension, we'll have the same car"
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...eat-review-two-new-products-arc-am-morel.html


hahahahah how can you even call that a comparison.. he didnt swap out one unit for the other in the same install, let alone used on the same speakers in the same car at an earlier date. NEXT


----------



## I800C0LLECT

cajunner said:


> I've been in car audio as a hobby for a long, long time.
> 
> 
> I've heard several amplifiers, but never a BRAX or Sinfoni, or several other really high end, but mainstream brands.
> 
> 
> As a matter of truth, this perception that I know what great amps sound like, and that they don't sound much different from middle tier, "I can afford that" grade, is a wholly owned and agreed upon, hypothetical.
> 
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> 
> Part of what attracts me to this thread is how often I suspect others of being in my camp, and playing it off that they've got gobs of seat time in cars using the very best, uh... amps, and that they too, claim that there's not a lot of difference to find.
> 
> 
> Which soothes me, it releases me from any feelings of being measured, and found wanting.
> 
> I am a class, act.




The truth will set you free!!!

I can only respond based on personal experience. I've heard setups where I go "what's that!!!...I want that!"...and I've been given snobby responses and decent responses.

Mostly, I've learned how to acquire the sound I like and that's all that matters to me


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

whatever. I'm not the one with a stick up my ear.
I am not someone who knows the tech, and I've said it before. But I have a good ear, and I know what to listen for most of the time. I have learned more so as well. And with the pro tuner tuning my car, I learnedt even more.

Its advertised and on the web classified as A. You thought it was a current amp when the thing is almost 20 years old. You said that I experinced 2 amps in my audio life, when I have had PLENTY more which I listed for you and it kept you quiet on that front. I think you can learn from this forum, but you have to be open minded and willing to be a learner not a on/off switch.


----------



## Dynamic SQ

SkizeR said:


> he will probably say the amps werent expensive enough or something


Or I'll state the facts. The guy admittedly manipulated the amps before the test to "make them sound more alike" and he also will NOT release the results to the tests. He also claims to not have kept all the documentation which formed the results.

The test is nothing more than a crutch for people like you to lean on when your inner demons start to over ride your position. 

Let's all look at Skizer's signature layout while he argues the other way. It's pretty funny.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

what are you saying?? the test results were formed by a listening panel
Link up some facts/info on this and I can read rather than have blurt irrelevent things out.



> Let's all look at Skizer's signature layout while he argues the other way. It's pretty funny.


You are swapping a retort for someones personal choices and ability to have some gear that maybe he loves for the art of it. Trying to discredit or up your credit in your retort. 

You might make a better politician than a audiophile.


----------



## SkizeR

Dynamic SQ said:


> Or I'll state the facts. The guy admittedly manipulated the amps before the test to "make them sound more alike" and he also will NOT release the results to the tests. He also claims to not have kept all the documentation which formed the results.
> 
> The test is nothing more than a crutch for people like you to lean on when your inner demons start to over ride your position.
> 
> Let's all look at Skizer's signature layout while he argues the other way. It's pretty funny.


1) what "way" does my signature say i stand? 2) where did i say what side im even on? 3) i already stated probably 50 times on this forum, one of which is in this thread from a few mins ago as to why i have these amps.

how many times do i have to say that?

"Edited"


----------



## Dynamic SQ

Phil Indeblanc said:


> I keep pushing what I have. I want it louder. Today I found myself doing this, and I started to hear the piano keys distort, Diana Kralls "ns" and "s" notes to pierce a bit, but I was way past what I was tuned for!


That's hilarious. Keep them coming.

So you think a "tune" dictates volume availability? Let me fill you in on something; if your "tune" limited your volume, then your "tune" was **** to begin with. 

Let me guess. You had numerous db increases on your EQ to make your music sound dynamic at low to mid volumes. Then when you increased volume, your music sounded like ****. Gotcha. You were compensating for your ****ty amp. A good amp is inherently dynamic in nature.

Were you looking for your "LOUD" button too?


----------



## Dynamic SQ

SkizeR said:


> hahahahah how can you even call that a comparison.. he didnt swap out one unit for the other in the same install, let alone used on the same speakers in the same car at an earlier date. NEXT


Ok, so it's just like I stated. He gets no respect today, but tomorrow when he installs a new product, you will all be lining up to read his thoughts. 

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## SkizeR

Dynamic SQ said:


> Ok, so it's just like I stated. He gets no respect today, but tomorrow when he installs a new product, you will all be lining up to read his thoughts.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.


where did i say he gets no respect? i dont give a dog tit if andy f&($%g w or anyone else who this forum looks up to wrote that review for that matter. that right there, is NOT anywhere near a reliable comparison.

edit: i give bing all the god damn respect in the world he deserves. hes an awesome installer, has an awesome shop, abnd is a great help to this forum. but what he posted was an extremely basic review of an install IN ONE CAR. no swap outs to compare or anything. and as much respect as i, or anyone else gives him, if he tried to say that that was a reliable comparison of that amp to another amp, i would ****ing laugh at him and anyone else who thinks that.


----------



## Dynamic SQ

SkizeR said:


> where did i say he gets no respect? i dont give a dog tit if andy ****ing w or anyone else who this forum looks up to wrote that review for that matter. that right there, is NOT anywhere near a reliable comparison.


...but your "amp test" on **** stain speakers by a bunch of people no one knows is going to be credible? Hilarious.


----------



## cajunner

I'm getting a mental image of a crow picking apart a dead rabbit on the side of a road, somewhere in the west...

eyeball, mmm...

soft underbelly? rip, shred, tug...

gonads. 

yank, jab, twist, wipe beak, twist...


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Dynamic SQ said:


> That's hilarious. Keep them coming.
> 
> So you think a "tune" dictates volume availability? Let me fill you in on something; if your "tune" limited your volume, then your "tune" was **** to begin with.
> 
> Let me guess. You had numerous db increases on your EQ to make your music sound dynamic at low to mid volumes. Then when you increased volume, your music sounded like ****. Gotcha. You were compensating for your ****ty amp. A good amp is inherently dynamic in nature.
> 
> Were you looking for your "LOUD" button too?


You REALLY should stop guessing, as thats what you have been doing all this time. Tuning does take into account amp gains and speaker limitation and source distort level. Its as if you have 600x magnification vision in a room, and can't see the rest of the world!?

Since I switched out from the MTX the JL gains are about nil. Much more db.

When I had the MTX and being new to DSP's, I just was trying things out and didn't know what I was doing. I still have quite limited know how on it. But I hred one of the most respected tuners who is an instructer for installers. He tuned it. It sounds great. But every system has its limits.



> A good amp is dynamic in nature


, OK, but it still has its limits as the demand is variable. either the speakers will blow or the amp will try and play until clipping and then safe mode. Whats your point?


----------



## SkizeR

Dynamic SQ said:


> ...but your "amp test" on **** stain speakers by a bunch of people no one knows is going to be credible? Hilarious.


lol my **** stain speakers.. do you even know what speakers im using? and if you actually read my thread on it, i say multiple times that it is not something anyone should take as black and white, and only a tool for others to get a general look at things


----------



## SkizeR

cajunner said:


> I'm getting a mental image of a crow picking apart a dead rabbit on the side of a road, somewhere in the west...
> 
> eyeball, mmm...
> 
> soft underbelly? rip, shred, tug...
> 
> gonads.
> 
> yank, jab, twist, wipe beak, twist...


whos the crow and whos the rabbit


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

No, let him guess


----------



## SkizeR

Phil Indeblanc said:


> No, let him guess


a pair of Era PL24, a just under 2k $ pair of speakers. i wonder what doesnt count as "**** stain" 

the guy is just doing anything to defend his views at this point. that being said, im still open minded and can see how either side can be a result


----------



## Dynamic SQ

SkizeR said:


> a pair of Era PL24, a just under 2k $ pair of speakers. i wonder what doesnt count as "**** stain"
> 
> the guy is just doing anything to defend his views at this point. that being said, im still open minded and can see how either side can be a result


They are and were $1k a pair. **** stain. Not because of the price, but because of what they are. You have 2 4" drivers in each enclosure. Even if they were the greatest drivers in the world, you just lost scale and dynamics. 

Last week speakers were very important. More important than amps that "all sound the same".

Now, I guess, in an amp test, speakers don't matter much. Go figure.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

This is the guy usually in charge of some self serving machine he operates...
Arrogance and single mindedness can get you far with a lot of people not questioning you along the way...LOL.

So far each thing he has poked at has spit back in his face. When you have no self respect, you can keep on going. there is no logic board in such flesh. Just a robot pre programmed. 

He either has shares in some mfg that supplies part or even more direct? Or just some dentist who is now a audiophile since he picked the most pricey brand. Not that it would be bad, but just that its the best and all else are poopoo. Reminds me of the Leica camera's... where are they now?, LOL


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Even now, his argument was not the speaker, but the price....that's enough revealing for me


----------



## SkizeR

Dynamic SQ said:


> They are and were $1k a pair. **** stain. Not because of the price, but because of what they are.
> 
> Last week speakers were very important. More important than amps that "all sound the same".
> 
> Now I guess in an amp test, speakers don't matter much. Go figure.


last time they were for sale from a retailer they were 1599. but sure. not gunna argue that. have you ever heard them? it must have been a sub 1k dollar amp powering them that caused them to sound so ****ty 

no matter what views you try to defend, speakers are, and will always be the most important part in the chain. these use eton drivers. pretty damn good as far as what ive heard myself, and from others. more than acceptable to be able to tell the difference between my brax amp and my pyle amp, no? tell me what i need to hear a difference and il see if i can get them in time


----------



## SkizeR

i also have a feeling your just saying this to argue against me because i challenged your views.


----------



## ChrisB

SkizeR said:


> i also have a feeling your just saying this to argue against me because i challenged your views.



Nah, he's just having a slow day at the office. At least this thread has managed to keep me entertained on breaks!


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Dynamic SQ said:


> Or I'll state the facts. *The guy admittedly manipulated the amps before the test to "make them sound more alike"* and he also will NOT release the results to the tests. He also claims to not have kept all the documentation which formed the results.
> 
> The test is nothing more than a crutch for people like you to lean on when your inner demons start to over ride your position.
> 
> Let's all look at Skizer's signature layout while he argues the other way. It's pretty funny.




So it is possible to make amps sound similar? I don't discount reasons for owning amplifiers but because of this sentiment it changes my priority for hardware choices and installation.


----------



## SkizeR

ChrisB said:


> Nah, he's just having a slow day at the office. At least this thread has managed to keep me entertained on breaks!


what i find entertaining is that i challenge (not bash) the side that he is against and he calls me rational and open minded. then i say "on the other hand, this this and this" (which challenges, not bashes his side) and he loses his f#%ing mind


----------



## Victor_inox

I anyone killed yet in that war? Movement "all amps sounds the same" was created by manufacturers/retailers to sell their flawed designs. How else they can participate in race to zero? And since most consumers unbelievably cheap and will justify every penny saved it took out great in consumer market.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

I'm a bit new here, and I hope I was not over the top in my remarks, but I was getting a bit frustrated that information wasn't getting through, yet on the contrary bouncing back in a different irrelevant direction. 
Sometimes just that shockingly irrational response in itself sucks you in further to discover what can have such a reaction. Except I'm glad to discover its a rabbit hole with no light at the end.

I am ok with being wrong. I only speak from experience. and willing to learn. and there are somethings I know from my direct experiences.


----------



## DDfusion

I'm pretty sure most people do what I did. Buy the best amp they can afford from a brand they trust. My amp doesn't have a fancy name but with a $700 retail price class D amp it puts out the power I wanted and size I needed. And I like when audio snobs love my sound and they don't know what amp I have until I show them.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Btw, I don't know anything about those speakers myself. I would surely try and use some tried and tested pair of speakers. There are plenty nice ones. (not that those are not)And they don't have to be expensive. 

I just say it as I have heard people rave about Anthony Gallo speakers, those small domes...To me, they are as tinny as can be. I'll take a pair of Paradigm Studio20's over them any day. But everyone is different I guess. As long as its a revealing speaker, it may be more helpful?

Since you are doing 2 ch, and more 70 and above freq, a pair that can dip lower to cover the range? I don't know, I never thought this shape or type speaker could be used for sound checking. The housing concerns me. mounting location as well. 

But really, since you are looking for difference in sound it might not matter all that much. (so just take it as a concern for you not to concern about? 

The car is a very focused listening space, so it will be interesting how you create a listening space for people to look for sound details, or at least even if they are easily revealed, a dark, almost pitch dark room would be good. not such a open space. anyway. just my head working  When is this happening?


----------



## SkizeR

Victor_inox said:


> I anyone killed yet in that war? Movement "all amps sounds the same" was created by manufacturers/retailers to sell their flawed designs. How else they can participate in race to zero? And since most consumers unbelievably cheap and will justify every penny saved it took out great in consumer market.


to be fair, i dont think ive ever seen a manufacturer claim that. even ****ty companies make it seem like theirs sound superior in their advertising


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Victor_inox said:


> I anyone killed yet in that war? Movement "all amps sounds the same" was created by manufacturers/retailers to sell their flawed designs. How else they can participate in race to zero? And since most consumers unbelievably cheap and will justify every penny saved it took out great in consumer market.



I definitely agree with this. But not for the reason that they're still "****". I think marketing ruins our ability to be objective. I also believe that marketing ruins our ability to find a way to reproduce what we want. I believe both camps are at fault for not looking for the middle!! I also believe there's a few of us who refuse it entirely.

Most of us don't buy an amp for one singular reason. Why can't we respect each other in that regard? Additionally, if an amp sounds different are DSP's ruining the experience?

We can all chase our dreams. Some of us figure out how to make them reality. Our perceptions can vary.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

I800C0LLECT said:


> I definitely agree with this. But not for the reason that they're still "****". I think marketing ruins our ability to be objective. I also believe that marketing ruins our ability to find a way to reproduce what we want. I believe both camps are at fault for not looking for the middle!! I also believe there's a few of us who refuse it entirely.
> 
> Most of us don't buy an amp for one singular reason. Why can't we respect each other in that regard? Additionally, if an amp sounds different are DSP's ruining the experience?
> 
> We can all chase our dreams. Some of us figure out how to make them reality. Our perceptions can vary.



+1+1+1+1


----------



## Victor_inox

SkizeR said:


> to be fair, i dont think ive ever seen a manufacturer claim that. even ****ty companies make it seem like theirs sound superior in their advertising


 really? 4000 Watt boss fused with 1 20 A fuse is one example.
Since most of car audio users have no idea how electricity works it`s easy task to convince them. 
don`t take my statement literally, of course they not going to say hey we lowered manufacturing cost while increasing power and decreasing distortion.
THey implement creative technique distracting customers. 

Have you ever seen Apple to say hey our iphone sucks because it required to use itunes to transfer music you own to device you own.
They changing components constantly without telling anyone, consumers realise changes later when it`s too late to return it. they switch from wolfson dac and very few complained. 
Manufacturers pushing cheaper design because they can. and will continue to do so.
Another example newest macbook pro. no more upgradable memory nor SSD. now you stuck with what you got.
no dvd drive as well. when there is easy solution for that they effectively shortening life cycle of their units on purpose.


----------



## omnibus

....meanwhile... the non audio nerds are out just enjoying their tunes and having fun with it without a need to talk about it.


----------



## rton20s

cajunner said:


> I'm getting a mental image of a crow picking apart a dead rabbit on the side of a road, somewhere in the west...
> 
> eyeball, mmm...
> 
> soft underbelly? rip, shred, tug...
> 
> gonads.
> 
> yank, jab, twist, wipe beak, twist...


----------



## gstokes

cajunner said:


> you're riding a null hypothesis.
> 
> let's assume that you can find an example to fit your definition of a cheap amp.
> 
> let's also assume that you know beforehand, the line of amps you chose have been routinely criticized for lack of meeting power specs.
> 
> since this is the basic tenet of amplification, POWER, I would claim that a cheap and yet, PROVEN performer is going to apples to apples, and nobody really defends against this.
> 
> There have been some absolute dogs, stuff with caps that explode after 2 weeks, stuff that shorts and goes to smoke then fire, stuff that is filled with cheaper parts that count, like switches and pots. Stuff that counts.
> 
> But going by the theorem, "all amps sound the same" I can work around the big boy wallet crowd and as long as the amount of apples fill the basket, cheap basket or expensive, each will carry the load.
> 
> which brings me to the second basic point, of this meaningless post.
> 
> the load is reactive, some speakers will make an amp shag the carpet it's mounted on, and others will take it in stride.
> 
> Class D, for all the fits of early models, can be said to take the loads in stride, as a tell, or a sign, look at how many are promoted to 1 ohm current duty.
> 
> They do it, and they don't tax the electrical, they continue to do it when an UBER AB amp is uh, huffing and puffing for a little more juice, protector circuits circling the wagons, the poor man's amp show goes a little dimmer if we're still going apple to apple, or basket to basket, because that Class D miniaturized, cool runner is making the diodes in your alternator laugh at the rectifier, the voltage regulator is doing you a solid, 13.4V of awesome, and your precious UBER spank is sucking the lady dry, dipping into the 10.8V range for an extended note, not hardly helpful and probably hitting vital parts in the whole chain, looking for that weakness a high current condition will expose...
> 
> so let's be adamant, let's be together on this.
> 
> AB amps are the fat, tired, old man sweating in britches..
> 
> Class D, the spry lightness in the fingertips, the harmless ride of a titanium frame, absorbing shocks and shirking off heavy loads.
> 
> somewhere, the sound quality is going to matter, and I propose that class D is forming a vaseline pocket for the car's electrical to ride in, and class AB is going in dry...


"True eloquence consists in saying all that should be be said, and that only" 

You are the Francois de La Rochefoucauld of Car Audio


----------



## lizardking

omnibus said:


> ....meanwhile... the non audio nerds are out just enjoying their tunes and having fun with it without a need to talk about it.


lol...:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## Dynamic SQ

gstokes said:


> "True eloquence consists in saying all that should be be said, and that only"
> 
> You are the Francois de La Rochefoucauld of *run on sentences*



Fixed.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Victor_inox said:


> really? 4000 Watt boss fused with 1 20 A fuse is one example.
> Since most of car audio users have no idea how electricity works it`s easy task to convince them.
> don`t take my statement literally, of course they not going to say hey we lowered manufacturing cost while increasing power and decreasing distortion.
> THey implement creative technique distracting customers.
> 
> Have you ever seen Apple to say hey our iphone sucks because it required to use itunes to transfer music you own to device you own.
> They changing components constantly without telling anyone, consumers realise changes later when it`s too late to return it. they switch from wolfson dac and very few complained.
> Manufacturers pushing cheaper design because they can. and will continue to do so.
> Another example newest macbook pro. no more upgradable memory nor SSD. now you stuck with what you got.
> no dvd drive as well. when there is easy solution for that they effectively shortening life cycle of their units on purpose.



Lets turn this into a much less discussed online topic....

'Tis the reason I ditched my Macs(kept one for the "front desk show" with nice mac screen for that hipster who doesn't know better) and went to PC as main tools


----------



## Jepalan




----------



## Jesus Christ

Dynamic SQ said:


> Don't forget the other clique as well. The clique that claims all amps sound the same because they can't afford the best, but then push their budgets by not buying the cheapest. Why not buy the cheapest amp out there if they all sound the same? Odds are if their wallets were bigger, the price of their amps would increase as well.
> 
> These same people probably frequent the HDTV forums and claim that all TV panels are identical. Once tuned, you can't tell the difference.


I just installed 4 amps in one of my cars, an old Crutchfield and 3 newer Lanzar amps, spent about $300 on the 4 of them. Meanwhile I have Sony XES, Monolithic, PPI, Soundstream, Xtant, US Amps, Zed and many other amps sitting on the shelf. If any of those amps sounded better than the amps that are currently installed I would be using those instead.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

That is a great piece of experience you shared. Thank you Jesus!!!


----------



## SkizeR

Jesus Christ said:


> I just installed 4 amps in one of my cars, an old Crutchfield and 3 newer Lanzar amps, spent about $300 on the 4 of them. Meanwhile I have Sony XES, Monolithic, PPI, Soundstream, Xtant, US Amps, Zed and many other amps sitting on the shelf. If any of those amps sounded better than the amps that are currently installed I would be using those instead.


if someone has their mind made up, your not going to change it. even if your are our lord and savior


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

I believe He can...He can do it, only He....Through our savior, and only though Him ...And that savior is the the one with the mother of wallets, the wallet that says "BAD MOTHE***KER"! Jules Winnfield!


----------



## Jesus Christ

SkizeR said:


> if someone has their mind made up, your not going to change it. even if your are our lord and savior


If buying more expensive equipment makes someone feel better then good for them. Personally I'd rather spend my time focusing my efforts on things that actually make a difference.


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> If buying more expensive equipment makes someone feel better then good for them. Personally I'd rather spend my time focusing my efforts on things that actually make a difference.


 saving as much as possible is common trend in everything these days.
cheapness as religion uncontested. preached by JFC - priceless.


----------



## WhereAmEye?

Jesus Christ said:


> If buying more expensive equipment makes someone feel better then good for them. Personally I'd rather spend my time focusing my efforts on things that actually make a difference.


Like family and not trying to escape reality by arguing on an Internet forum with big words and mindlessly infinite wormholes of car audio arguments


----------



## 1996blackmax

Man....some entertaining reading!



rton20s said:


>


This kind of stuff has been cracking me up! 



BTW...I'm still enjoying my system 

Edit: even with my current amps


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

did anyone get my reference? oh well!


----------



## SkizeR

Phil Indeblanc said:


> did anyone get my reference? oh well!


nope :/


----------



## Jesus Christ

Victor_inox said:


> saving as much as possible is common trend in everything these days.


I have no problem spending more as long as the increase in price comes with an increase in performance.


----------



## 1996blackmax

Phil Indeblanc said:


> did anyone get my reference? oh well!


Si!


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

SkizeR said:


> nope :/


Its from Pulp Fiction , where Jules takes on the role as a grim reaper, or svaior or whatever, but he would say a scripture from the bible before he blew someone away (killed them)...hehe. one of my all time fav movies.

(hmmm, I just needed to clarify "blew"..nice)


----------



## Victor_inox

Jesus Christ said:


> I have no problem spending more as long as the increase in price comes with an increase in performance.


 define performance in car amplifiers


----------



## I800C0LLECT

1996blackmax said:


> Man....some entertaining reading!
> 
> 
> 
> This kind of stuff has been cracking me up!
> 
> 
> 
> BTW...I'm still enjoying my system
> 
> Edit: even with my current amps




I wish I could get some of these shoved into a mosconi heatsink

I'd totally rock it at a GTG and see what happens


----------



## Victor_inox

I800C0LLECT said:


> I wish I could get some of these shoved into a mosconi heatsink
> 
> I'd totally rock it at a GTG and see what happens


 do that with Sinfoni instead.


----------



## SkizeR

Victor_inox said:


> define performance in car amplifiers


the least, or no changes in sound from input to output besides more power


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Victor_inox said:


> do that with Sinfoni instead.


----------



## Victor_inox

SkizeR said:


> the least, or no changes in sound from input to output besides more power


It`s impossible goal to achieve.next?


----------



## GEM592

>


The one of those you want is the one with the volume knob that goes up to 11. That's the real dope.


----------



## SkizeR

Victor_inox said:


> It`s impossible goal to achieve.next?


i said the least, or none (in a perfect world, but i know we dont live in one), so as little change as possible


----------



## Victor_inox

SkizeR said:


> i said the least, or none (in a perfect world, but i know we dont live in one), so as little change as possible


 say you find an amplifier with 99.9% accuracy, would it be better then 99.8% accuracy amplifier? would it be by double in price better?


----------



## Dynamic SQ

I800C0LLECT said:


> I wish I could get some of these shoved into a mosconi heatsink
> 
> I'd totally rock it at a GTG and see what happens


Or better yet, put them in your own car because you seem to think you can make them sound like a Mosconi with a little "tune".

Actions speak louder than words, yet all you have is words.


----------



## SkizeR

Victor_inox said:


> say you find an amplifier with 99.9% accuracy, would it be better then 99.8% accuracy amplifier? would it be by double in price better?


i guess it would technically be better if all else was equal


----------



## Victor_inox

Dynamic SQ said:


> Or better yet, put them in your own car because you seem to think you can make them sound like a Mosconi with a little "tune".
> 
> Actions speak louder than words, yet all you have is words.


I`d love to see that tuned as well. good one.


----------



## SkizeR

Dynamic SQ said:


> Or better yet, put them in your own car because you seem to think you can make them sound like a Mosconi with a little "tune".
> 
> Actions speak louder than words, yet all you have is words.


did you want him to act something out via an internet forum?


----------



## Victor_inox

SkizeR said:


> i guess it would technically be better if all else was equal



That 0.01% of performance usually cost most money. because everybody else can make that 99.8 amps. Then we have ergonomics, efficiency and marketability. Or you can build **** in china at the same place 50% of all amplifiers assembled and come up with clever marketing to beat competition.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Dynamic SQ said:


> Or better yet, put them in your own car because you seem to think you can make them sound like a Mosconi with a little "tune".
> 
> Actions speak louder than words, yet all you have is words.



I feel like I've been VERY fair in this conversation. I've provided links to harman engineers who have stated that perception plays a large role in what we hear. I haven't been unfair to you and never stated that amps sound the same. I never meant to marginalize anybody's choices for gear either.

You really need to tone it down. You also seem to agree with my statement that there are ways to make an amp sound similar to another...



Dynamic SQ said:


> Or I'll state the facts. *The guy admittedly manipulated the amps before the test to "make them sound more alike"* and he also will NOT release the results to the tests. He also claims to not have kept all the documentation which formed the results.
> 
> The test is nothing more than a crutch for people like you to lean on when your inner demons start to over ride your position.
> 
> Let's all look at Skizer's signature layout while he argues the other way. It's pretty funny.



Can I hit on that again? You said: The guy admittedly manipulated the amps before the test to "make them sound more alike"

How is that possible? Is that similar to a DSP?​




Victor_inox said:


> I`d love to see that tuned as well. good one.



Victor...I'd never presume your stance is the same as DSQ. The truth is...I don't know what he's arguing with me over as I already have stated I agree with the both of you.

I just also happen to agree that you CAN manipulate the end result.


----------



## SkizeR

I800C0LLECT said:


> I feel like I've been VERY fair in this conversation. I've provided links to harman engineers who have stated that perception plays a large role in what we hear. I haven't been unfair to you and never stated that amps sound the same. I never meant to marginalize anybody's choices for gear either.


you have been very fair. ive done the same. obviously theres something wrong with this guy. his opinions and views are almost as strong as the westboro church, just swap the bible for a Nordost cables catalog lol


----------



## SkizeR

I800C0LLECT said:


>


hes to the point where he has nothing else left to support his argument so he tries to personally insult the person who has neutral views. ya know, just typical internet **** :laugh:


----------



## I800C0LLECT

SkizeR said:


> you have been very fair. ive done the same. obviously theres something wrong with this guy. his opinions and views are almost as strong as the westboro church, just swap the bible for a Nordost cables catalog lol


----------



## SkizeR

Dynamic SQ said:


> Actually, no. You have large class A/B amps. Not expensive amps. Please show me where I stated such a thing.
> 
> As far as being 23 and living off mommy.....raise the bar. It's called real life. I can see you live in a delusion from the time you open your eyes in the morning.
> 
> *****the Internet forum is real life and mommy pays the bills******
> 
> *****I just cut a piece of wood...gotta make a post about it*****


we were in a convo about how higher priced amps sound better, no? not a convo about how larger amps sound better. i guess i am in the wrong for using context clues. 

how old were you when you moved out? dont lie. i actually moved out when i was 19. back at home now though since florida sucks and california was to expensive and had no good jobs available. 

im not sure if it was this thread, or another, but i was arguing before about how nothing on any forum should be taken as 100%, so im not sure where your coming up with the "forum is real life". secondly, i pay rent to live at my house, i pay my phone bill and insurance, i pay my car insurance, i pay for my clothes, i pay for my gas, i paid for my car and equipment.. so theres that. again, just you trying to make insults because you have nothing to stand on for your argument

lets see your build. did you even do it yourself? or did you pay someone to install it for you? your starting to remind me of another wack job member on here


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

SkizeR said:


> hes to the point where he has nothing else left to support his argument so he tries to personally insult the person who has neutral views. ya know, just typical internet **** :laugh:


+1+1+1+1


----------



## Dynamic SQ

Phil Indeblanc said:


> +1+1+1+1


Ahhhh....isn't that cute. The shadow is back.


----------



## thehatedguy

Chill it out and keep on topic.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

thehatedguy said:


> Chill it out and keep on topic.



I'm out! 













PM'd DSQ btw.


----------



## Lou Frasier2

i have a dumb question,did you finish the test and how did it turn out,what were the results?


----------



## SkizeR

Lou Frasier2 said:


> i have a dumb question,did you finish the test and how did it turn out,what were the results?


nope. i have two dates set. the 23rd, and the 30th.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Dynamic SQ said:


> Ahhhh....isn't that cute. The shadow is back.


The shadooowww..I have a name!!!

I musta got your attention at somepoint! Was it this thread, or the one about "best small foorprint Class D amps...?


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

I think a different version was posted...but thought I'd share regardless...

The Carver Challenge | Stereophile.com


----------



## I800C0LLECT

After reading the article I think the conclusion attempts to err on the side of enthusiasts. I honestly believe that the art and sound go hand in hand. You want it to look every bit of the swag it promised in amplification. When they don't... It's hard to believe.

Ugly amps aren't allowed to be in that realm I suppose? Funny enough, ugly is beautiful too so long as it has a characteristic oddity or edge to it.

But then to what extent is that confused with great sound? If Carver successfully modified an amp to sound the same as another why is he chastised for not being artistic enough to create his own flavor? I'm not sure anybody would ever accept his amps as anything other than mid-fi just because he proved an amplifier could sound the same as another if modified.

Same old story. People want to believe their decision was best. Let's find every opportunity to support personal bias, honest or not.

Carver proved that there's nothing special about amplification that can't be duplicated. He also proved amps sound different.


----------



## sqnut

Victor_inox said:


> say you find an amplifier with 99.9% accuracy, would it be better then 99.8% accuracy amplifier? would it be by double in price better?


In a car you couldn't tell the difference. In a room..........


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

I wrote some long ass thing and just deleted it. Let people believe and spend how they want to. 

If you're not happy with the sound and you tried other options but the amp was the link that made a difference for you, congratulations, you are now happy and you can praise your amp. Next time hire a tuner first, then consider the amp a problem.

If you're happy with your sounds setup, then that's all that matters, praise your setup that all is good regardless of the gear you have.

And if your on the fence about buying an amp and you can afford a $1000-2000+ amp. Start with a $200 amp and see what you get. But do it right and have the car tuned properly if you don't have the gear or know how.

It wont be money wasted on anything as amps hold decent resale value. Also look at some specs for the amp and make sure they are legit. Some will be more than others. Headroom will be important.


----------



## Victor_inox

sqnut said:


> In a car you couldn't tell the difference. In a room..........


That what not a question asked......
Yet you using Genesis amps, why is that?


----------



## Phil Indeblanc

Maybe he uses it to just get cred from people who dont know, maybe he likes the look, maybe people who question and talk smack and have some weight can have influence on him if he competes or something? maybe he won them as a prize or was a gift.

Correlation without causation is meaningless.
(I think I said that right)


----------



## sqnut

Victor_inox said:


> That what not a question asked......
> Yet you using Genesis amps, why is that?


I switched from my Polk amps to Genesis to achieve sonic nirvana. I was really happy for about 15 days, till I started to compare the sound in the car with my simple 2ch. Imagine my frustration / anger when I discovered the sound still sucked. The sound only started to get better once I started to learn how to tune.

P.S. Don't get me wrong, I love my Genesis for the gobs of clean power, the head room they give me over the Polk and their sexy good looks. But the only contribution to sound quality is the better dynamics due to extra power.


----------



## Victor_inox

sqnut said:


> But the only contribution to sound quality is the better dynamics due to extra power.


You said it yourself better dynamics.


----------



## sqnut

Victor_inox said:


> You said it yourself better dynamics.


Polk 4x75 watts, Genesis 4x125 watts (conservative).

More power = better dynamics


----------



## Elektra

Has anyone tried the TRU C7.4T amp? Going to test one on Saturday at home - the price is stupid $500! And it looks extremely clean from the pics I got - can't see any scratches on the amp.. I don't think this was even powered before.. The owner wants to sell as he helped a friend out when he bought it - but doesn't think he will use it..


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> Has anyone tried the TRU C7.4T amp? Going to test one on Saturday at home - the price is stupid $500! And it looks extremely clean from the pics I got - can't see any scratches on the amp.. I don't think this was even powered before.. The owner wants to sell as he helped a friend out when he bought it - but doesn't think he will use it..


get it asap.


----------



## SkizeR

Elektra said:


> Has anyone tried the TRU C7.4T amp? Going to test one on Saturday at home - the price is stupid $500! And it looks extremely clean from the pics I got - can't see any scratches on the amp.. I don't think this was even powered before.. The owner wants to sell as he helped a friend out when he bought it - but doesn't think he will use it..


but it, then sell it to me for a few bucks more. everyone wins :laugh:


----------



## Elektra

Never tried the TRU amps - but I know they not cheap.. I am a bit of a tube fan personally as I have 2 in my car already and I know these amps are very expensive... How do they sound? For $500 I suppose who cares? It can't be poor..


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> Never tried the TRU amps - but I know they not cheap.. I am a bit of a tube fan personally as I have 2 in my car already and I know these amps are very expensive... How do they sound? For $500 I suppose who cares? It can't be poor..


Probably better then that chinese gems you have now. 500 is about third of what it should cost.


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> Probably better then that chinese gems you have now. 500 is about third of what it should cost.


Lol... Those Chinese gems have made short work of anything high end I have tested it against... Scalps include , Brax X2400 GE , Audison VRX... Will TRU be one as well.. Let's see on Saturday 

The only reason I am looking at this amp is because of the following:

1) it's a 4 channel amp
2) it's a hybrid tube - with a reputation for being high end
3) of coarse the price - I know I can sell it and make money off it if want later
4) I can't get a 4 channel tube amp from EOS - only 2 channels - it will cost me more than double the cost of the TRU...
5) don't want more than 2 amps to run a 3 way active setup..

Going to use the BRAX Graphic Pro speakers which I got for even less than the amp... Still in their boxes practically new..got a P90 combo to use as well as I recently got the ODR combo this month..


----------



## Victor_inox

regardless just get it already.


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> regardless just get it already.


your right.. Gonna buy it! Haven't negotiated the price yet - maybe I can get it cheaper.. If not I'll pay his price..


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> your right.. Gonna buy it! Haven't negotiated the price yet - maybe I can get it cheaper.. If not I'll pay his price..


If it were mine and you tried to bargain at that price I`d refuse to sell it to you for any price, don`t be a dick have some dignity.


----------



## Elektra

Brax speakers and TRU amp for $800! ... gotta love ignorance! Lol! What's that $5000 worth?


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> If it were mine and you tried to bargain at that price I`d refuse to sell it to you for any price, don`t be a dick have some dignity.


lol.. Your right here! I paid $750 for the ODR combo and didn't negotiate his price as I knew it was a good deal and he was traveling here on business so I didn't pay shipping as well - from the Abu Dhabi..

Not withstanding the DSP had 3 blown channels which he failed to disclose during our texts - luckily it wasn't a train smash to fix as its sorted now.. Waiting to get it back maybe tomorrow. - RS-D7Xiii and RS-P70xii ... 

That's why I want to test it.. Just incase the amp is faulty.. You never know..


----------



## Victor_inox

Test-absolutely!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## I800C0LLECT

I'm a big fan of my EQ when thinking about price/performance of amplifiers...but I wouldn't have even come on here to ask about that Tru amp! Sometimes there's quite a bit of pride in ownership that helps convey your dedication to the hobby. Even people who know nothing about car audio would take notice and realize you're serious about what you do.


----------



## Kazuhiro

I will be swap testing two amplifiers tomorrow, both with the same class, power rating and just about everything else. The only difference is that they are manufactured 20 years apart; one is an unlicensed soundstream lil wonder lw4.300e from 2009, the other is a 1989 nakamichi pa-304. The latter is probably worth a little bit more. I guess this will give me some insight as to if SQ or anything of the matter has changed over the past couple decades. 

Forgive me as I haven't read any of this thread, just the OP post. I know neither of these are high end, but maybe it will answer a question more to the liking of "OLD SCHOOL AMP SQ IS A MYTH"


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> Test-absolutely!
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


Well today I tested the Tru amp.. I used a reference EOS amp which I knew sounded very good as a comparison between the 2. I also took the opertunity to test a few sources as well - P99, ODR RSD-7Xii, DEQ-P90RS, RS-P70xii - cable used audioquest SKY RCA and Audioquest Type 2 speaker cabling.

Firstly the Tru was impressive in build those speaker cable connectors says I mean business and a neat blue led light on the tubes is cool as well. The Tru amp was better than my EOS 4 channel amp - but not by a huge amount - the bass was much better on the Tru and mids and tweeters have a "live" sound - the Eos was more a hifi sound. 

Source testing showed to me that the DEQ-P90RS and P99 were very similar and RS-P70xii had a different sound to it but I was struggling to debate whether that different was better than the other 2. It was only when I decided to bridge the Eos amp from 4 channel to 2 channel amp did the differences become a lot easier to hear.. The ODR setup was much better sounding than the other 2. 

I liked the Tru and for the price and the amp was in very good physical and visual and listening condition - it was clear this amp was very carefully installed as there are hardly any scratches on the chassis from screwing in the amp. The sound was good - I must say didn't blow me away - I would say my Eos tube amps would probably sound better as I have tested the Eos tube amp against the Eos 4 channel and the differences was very large - I didn't get that same impression from the Tru - but none the less for the price I doubt I could get anything better..

I am however be willing to swop it out for a RS-P90 or a RS-P99 ODR DSP if anyone has one lying around... 

All in all was pretty happy with results... Tru was pretty good sounding amp - the owner came to my place late so I could not spend a lot of time listening and my wife and kids came home so the background noise levels were beginning to annoy me and wasn't conducive for listening. So when the Tru left my place listened more later at the sources and discovered a few things about my sources that I had to find out for myself.


----------



## RobERacer

Victor_inox said:


> That 0.01% of performance usually cost most money. because everybody else can make that 99.8 amps. Then we have ergonomics, efficiency and marketability. Or you can build **** in china at the same place 50% of all amplifiers assembled and come up with clever marketing to beat competition.


Exactly, the same product with a few minor changes put a new name badge on it and either sell it at more money or $2 cheaper. Then you higher a few car audio competition guys who spent more money than they have coming in on their system and will do just about anything for money as meat puppets to sell it for you. Oh ya. You thought these guys were actually giving you real advise? They are doing exactly what they are paid to do! Trust me high end manufacturers aren't going to pay guys to spew propaganda in order to sell their product. It makes no sense to do that for them. A propaganda campaign isn't cheap and you have to build that into the price or your product as well. Why according to this site is little to no difference between great amps and considerably cheaper mid line amps in terms of sonic performance? Do the math! In everything I have always seen that most of the time you get what you pay for. Yes, there are isolated instances where this is less true or not true at all but for the most part it is true. Isn't this site awesome for advise?


----------



## RobERacer

Oh, how would we know they are meat puppets or worse sock puppets (bots)? They are on here all of the time. How can you work and live a life if you are on a site like this constantly?


----------



## boricua69

Real Hi End stuff are not allowed to the public. Is only use by special Elite military projects. Not the slave class.
The transistor was discover in 1947, Russwell ufo accident and isn't human made.


----------



## rton20s

RobERacer said:


> Then you higher a few car audio competition guys who spent more money than they have coming in on their system and will do just about anything for money as meat puppets to sell it for you. Oh ya. You thought these guys were actually giving you real advise? They are doing exactly what they are paid to do!


----------



## file audio

Ohhh I comeback to this thread after a while it still amazing on info. "" so what is the answer to this thread name? High end amps ate a myth? What we buy? Peace of mind? Or we can find the sweet point with what we have? bTW Last week i won an ebay auction for a critical mass amp for 350 dlls the seller doesnt sent it to me so I will never know about those. Im using a Phoenix gold ti500/4 and arc audio ks 900/6 with almost everything for home audio miller & kreisell and b&w speakers on my car.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Still happy with my matching pair of Italian twins. They don't fall on their face when you pour the coals to them like a lot of cheap amps I've used. No clue what the guts consist of for quality of parts but performance exceeds expectations.


----------



## MANUTD

Picked up JL XD amps...as long as they make rated power and are quiet...its all good.


----------



## BMW Alpina

If I decide to buy a higher end amp,
I would look at their spec, style, material and also brand reputation.
Spec because that is the first thing to compare,
Style/Design/Engineering because I don't want to spent good amount of money and have an amp that is not pleasing to my eye to look at or if their design doesn't make sense engineering wise...
Material because the component inside is what matters and manufacturer who take time to explain the quality component (and why that component makes a difference) they use inside their amp is more credible in justifying their price compare to just saying, our amp kick some behind...
Brand Reputation and Recognition, because a successful company would most likely want to stay successful which lead to Brand Recognition and will lead to PRESTIGE for the owner...
Yes, I am NOT a hypocrite and I admit that part of buying the high end brand is also to satisfy my ego and prestige.

If the amp have all the ingredients above, 
I think most likely that higher end amp will perform better than the cheaper amp and that is why higher end amp will have better SQ for the ear and pleasant to your eye and ego.


----------



## Elektra

BMW Alpina said:


> If I decide to buy a higher end amp,
> I would look at their spec, style, material and also brand reputation.
> Spec because that is the first thing to compare,
> Style/Design/Engineering because I don't want to spent good amount of money and have an amp that is not pleasing to my eye to look at or if their design doesn't make sense engineering wise...
> Material because the component inside is what matters and manufacturer who take time to explain the quality component (and why that component makes a difference) they use inside their amp is more credible in justifying their price compare to just saying, our amp kick some behind...
> Brand Reputation and Recognition, because a successful company would most likely want to stay successful which lead to Brand Recognition and will lead to PRESTIGE for the owner...
> Yes, I am NOT a hypocrite and I admit that part of buying the high end brand is also to satisfy my ego and prestige.
> 
> If the amp have all the ingredients above,
> I think most likely that higher end amp will perform better than the cheaper amp and that is why higher end amp will have better SQ for the ear and pleasant to your eye and ego.




If your buying products based on EGO your wasting your money...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DC/Hertz

If you are buying products because you think you can hear a difference you are wasting money. See how that works?


----------



## sqnut

Elektra said:


> If your buying products based on EGO your wasting your money...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


May I use that as my sig?


----------



## Elektra

sqnut said:


> May I use that as my sig?




Sure... lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KillerBox

The Carver Challenge | Stereophile.com


----------



## Elektra

DC/Hertz said:


> If you are buying products because you think you can hear a difference you are wasting money. See how that works?




Ok I don't support the statement that buying equipment purely based on "ego" or "prestige" as your being totally fooled...

On the other hand 2 different circuits don't sound the same especially when the 2 boards use totally different components - that I do support...

Matt Hall did a amp shoot out recently on Facebook not sure if you guys saw that... 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Elektra

KillerBox said:


> The Carver Challenge | Stereophile.com




Could you buy this $700 amp as modified in the article? If not the test just shows how one can cheat intellectual property which took another designer months and lots of $$'s to achieve 

Sometimes you have to pay for the product to sound good out the box and not have a Bob Carver in your garage simulating the Reference amp... it's called theft

Like if I design a house and use a new approach in design and some guy just copies my plans which took me months to perfect...

I would be annoyed...

A lot of the purchase price is not so much the parts used but the R&D involved and the labour cost of producing the final product... 

That's why generic amps in car audio have no R&D costs associated with them and actually should be sold much cheaper...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BMW Alpina

Elektra said:


> If your buying products based on EGO your wasting your money...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





DC/Hertz said:


> If you are buying products because you think you can hear a difference you are wasting money. See how that works?





Elektra said:


> Ok I don't support the statement that buying equipment purely based on "ego" or "prestige" as your being totally fooled...
> 
> On the other hand 2 different circuits don't sound the same especially when the 2 boards use totally different components - that I do support...
> 
> Matt Hall did a amp shoot out recently on Facebook not sure if you guys saw that...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I am sure anyone here at one point in life are buying something just purely based on ego or prestige,...  but beside that...

I don't see anything wrong with it.

What matter is as long as it makes you (or me) happy 

You work hard everyday, (at least some of us do), and if buying something 
from my hard earned money to satisfy my ego or prestige can buy me happiness then, I would do it...


----------



## Elektra

BMW Alpina said:


> I am sure anyone here at one point in life are buying something just purely based on ego or prestige,...  but beside that...
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with it.
> 
> What matter is as long as it makes you (or me) happy
> 
> You work hard everyday, (at least some of us do), and if buying something
> from my hard earned money to satisfy my ego or prestige can buy me happiness then, I would do it...




100%... it's your cash...

If it makes you happy buy it but at least invest time and effort in product investigation etc and listen to as many different setups as possible - preferably from the same installer as they have same tuning philosophy 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## I800C0LLECT

Elektra said:


> 100%... it's your cash...
> 
> If it makes you happy buy it but at least invest time and effort in product investigation etc and listen to as many different setups as possible - preferably from the same installer as they have same tuning philosophy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think that investigation is what everybody argues. I know that amps sound different. But I stumbled across making my amps sound similar. Then I was able to reproduce it again. At that point, it seemed much simpler to identify how I succeeded so that I could repeat that process again and again instead of continually swapping gear.

Now... End goal...I buy what I want. However, now I'm confident that I can reproduce the sound I want in any car I purchase.

This site helped me realize that I wasn't limited by my financial success. I'm only limited by my imagination and ability to apply knowledge. I don't care if somebody wants to buy high end gear. But I do jump in when I see that it's recommended as the only way to achieve their sound quality goals. It bothers me because that's what I heard for so very long from "audiophiles". I like that others are excited about audio. Most friends and family I know believe that it's a huge financial burden too and that's why they refuse to take their first step in the hobby. That's a shame

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Elektra

I800C0LLECT said:


> I think that investigation is what everybody argues. I know that amps sound different. But I stumbled across making my amps sound similar. Then I was able to reproduce it again. At that point, it seemed much simpler to identify how I succeeded so that I could repeat that process again and again instead of continually swapping gear.
> 
> Now... End goal...I buy what I want. However, now I'm confident that I can reproduce the sound I want in any car I purchase.
> 
> This site helped me realize that I wasn't limited by my financial success. I'm only limited by my imagination and ability to apply knowledge. I don't care if somebody wants to buy high end gear. But I do jump in when I see that it's recommended as the only way to achieve their sound quality goals. It bothers me because that's what I heard for so very long from "audiophiles". I like that others are excited about audio. Most friends and family I know believe that it's a huge financial burden too and that's why they refuse to take their first step in the hobby. That's a shame
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk




Music can be enjoyed by a simple generic headphone set off a old cellphone - nobody says you HAVE to spend $1000's to have "enjoyable" music...

Just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder - so is music....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BMW Alpina

Elektra said:


> Music can be enjoyed by a simple generic headphone set off a old cellphone - nobody says you HAVE to spend $1000's to have "enjoyable" music...
> 
> Just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder - so is music....
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Agree, until you spend the first $1,000 and realize,
wow, my music sounds better now 
then it continue until you realize how much money you had spent and then you realize, this is enough, I am not spending anymore 
(for the next few months or years, then the craving come back)


----------



## SkizeR

BMW Alpina said:


> Agree, until you spend the first $1,000 and realize,
> wow, my music sounds better now
> then it continue until you realize how much money you had spent and then you realize, this is enough, I am not spending anymore
> (for the next few months or years, then the craving come back)


Weren't you just asking about if you should use a dsp and weren't familiar with them recently?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## BMW Alpina

SkizeR said:


> Weren't you just asking about if you should use a dsp and weren't familiar with them recently?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Yes, I am,

I am not familiar with current DSP,
and the last time I had a craving for car audio was in 1993 when it start as upgrading the rear sub on my Lexus GS300 Nakamichi system, but then it end up with an Alpine 3339 EQ with 6 unit of Soundstream Class A6.0 and 2 unit of Soundstream Class A3.0, and some soundstream xover and Nakamichi EC200H, AVI and ADS 320is speaker for active front, center channel, rear fill, rear door and Soundstream SS12R sub 
ups, I forgot, all Streetwires wiring and fuse block for power, all Soundstream RCA and speaker cable wiring, phoenix gold capacitor and circuit breaker.... almost anything I can add... 
and suddenly I notice that I spent too much so I stop... for... maybe... 10 years,
and the craving back again in around 2003 start with Nakamichi CD700Mk2...etc etc... and realize I need to stop spending money...
and now in 2017 my car audio craving is back...
hopefully I stick to my plan and budget and not get carried away...
hmmm I really should not hear any new system with the current DSP,
I would get carried away again...


----------



## Elektra

BMW Alpina said:


> Agree, until you spend the first $1,000 and realize,
> wow, my music sounds better now
> then it continue until you realize how much money you had spent and then you realize, this is enough, I am not spending anymore
> (for the next few months or years, then the craving come back)




Trust me.... I have many $1000's in equipment at home waiting to be installed....

But right now .... I have a std OEM system in my E90 wide band mids in the door bass under your butt rears and no tweeters and my IPhone connected to the BMW AUX and for now it's decent enough to listen to music while I drive

For some reason the E90 sounds a lot better than my F10 OEM system.... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BMW Alpina

Elektra said:


> Trust me.... I have many $1000's in equipment at home waiting to be installed....
> 
> But right now .... I have a std OEM system in my E90 wide band mids in the door bass under your butt rears and no tweeters and my IPhone connected to the BMW AUX and for now it's decent enough to listen to music while I drive
> 
> For some reason the E90 sounds a lot better than my F10 OEM system....
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I use to have a 2005 E90 with the second from the base sound system,
it was before the facelift on the E90... no bluetooth too.
it came with sub under the seat, mid in the door and tweeter in the a pillar.
Mine is the RHD version back in my home country...
yours don't have tweeter?
anyway, yes it sound quite good for standard OEM system...


----------



## Elektra

BMW Alpina said:


> I use to have a 2005 E90 with the second from the base sound system,
> it was before the facelift on the E90... no bluetooth too.
> it came with sub under the seat, mid in the door and tweeter in the a pillar.
> Mine is the RHD version back in my home country...
> yours don't have tweeter?
> anyway, yes it sound quite good for standard OEM system...




Mine has no tweeter also RHD... pretty decent actually 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ssclassa60

Interesting, I'm a big Sounstream guy (my handle) and am in the midst of install in my older E39 M5. Had the dsp system with 2 IB 10s. Sounded decent but had to put my old stash to some use. Now running Reference 10Rs and 2 Class A Picasso's


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mbradlawrence

Elektra said:


> Trust me.... I have many $1000's in equipment at home waiting to be installed....
> 
> But right now .... I have a std OEM system in my E90 wide band mids in the door bass under your butt rears and no tweeters and my IPhone connected to the BMW AUX and for now it's decent enough to listen to music while I drive
> 
> For some reason the E90 sounds a lot better than my F10 OEM system....
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


E90 is the easiest upgrade EVER. Stock locations are good, depending on HU, signal is flat. Morel is almost a straight swap (need to make thin adapters -- or call Musicar). Even without DSP, these cars are just great for stock location upgrades. woofers under the seats only play 70-200 so no need for upgrade there!!!!!!


----------



## Elektra

mbradlawrence said:


> E90 is the easiest upgrade EVER. Stock locations are good, depending on HU, signal is flat. Morel is almost a straight swap (need to make thin adapters -- or call Musicar). Even without DSP, these cars are just great for stock location upgrades. woofers under the seats only play 70-200 so no need for upgrade there!!!!!!




Gonna run a passive system - kit 7 with crossblock and a Sony and a HV Venti for the fronts and Thesis Due for the subs - gonna use either one or 2 Focal 33WX subs 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mbradlawrence

Elektra said:


> Gonna run a passive system - kit 7 with crossblock and a Sony and a HV Venti for the fronts and Thesis Due for the subs - gonna use either one or 2 Focal 33WX subs
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Curious, redo door to put 6.5 in? That's way more work than my simple "plug and play" with slim woofers underseats.


----------



## Elektra

mbradlawrence said:


> Curious, redo door to put 6.5 in? That's way more work than my simple "plug and play" with slim woofers underseats.




Yeah that's my plan redo the door to fit the midbass drivers - use possibly the stock 4" position for the midrange and sail for the tweeters 

Just need to investigate the PLD on the drivers to try get them close to each other on each side 

Use the limited Sony DSP and hope for the best - all else fails - Helix DSP PRO MKii will be used 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rainstar

I come from the speaker home theater world.

Using the same pair of speakers, cables, power brick, and just changing the amp.

Class A 40wpc Single Ended Triode tube amp $6000msrp
vs
Class D 100wpc solid state amp $3000msrp

The tube amp is better at everything. bass is not as flabby, vocals are smoother. and highs are not overly bright and shrieking.
I am not sure why the class A at a lower power rating using 87db/1W efficiency speakers are a lot louder than the class D amp.

Suffice to say I sold the class D and I now love tubes.

I went to a purist meet someone using An Audionote $100,000 tube amp 45wpc, I was jealous of how that sounded. *TLDR it is just my opinion that you do hit the glass ceiling, louder is not better, there are huge diminishing returns at some point.* but overall I do see higher end amps > an average amp.


----------



## Elektra

Rainstar said:


> I come from the speaker home theater world.
> 
> 
> 
> Using the same pair of speakers, cables, power brick, and just changing the amp.
> 
> 
> 
> Class A 40wpc Single Ended Triode tube amp $6000msrp
> 
> vs
> 
> Class D 100wpc solid state amp $3000msrp
> 
> 
> 
> The tube amp is better at everything. bass is not as flabby, vocals are smoother. and highs are not overly bright and shrieking.
> 
> I am not sure why the class A at a lower power rating using 87db/1W efficiency speakers are a lot louder than the class D amp.
> 
> 
> 
> Suffice to say I sold the class D and I now love tubes.
> 
> 
> 
> I went to a purist meet someone using An Audionote $100,000 tube amp 45wpc, I was jealous of how that sounded. *TLDR it is just my opinion that you do hit the glass ceiling, louder is not better, there are huge diminishing returns at some point.* but overall I do see higher end amps > an average amp.




I did a test with a HV Venti and a Brax MX2 and if I was put in a room and did a blind test I would not only tell a difference but I'll be able to tell you which amp is being played 

Such was the difference between the 2... 2 very different sounding amps both excellent at what they designed to do... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## I800C0LLECT

?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Victor_inox

What I find absolutely amusing is that all of you praising high end gear getting rid of your high end amplifiers right after such topic pops up on the forum again. 

Here is life story for you....

Once upon a time I was a friend with very famous jazz musician.
In his band he has 2 drummers, one old and another young and energetic.
young dude was crazy fast , older dude not as much.
when I asked what is the deal with two drummers, he said:
" young dude still looking for his style, old one already found it."


----------



## AudioHeir

In theory, different amps are built with different components, thus offering up different levels of distortion. This can obviously affect the sound signature. In most cases, if one amp has a cleaner sound, and it is audible, it will be due to the distortion percentage of that particular amp being lower than the one it sounds better than.


----------



## Porsche

not this again, stick meet horse


----------



## DC/Hertz

AudioHeir said:


> In theory, different amps are built with different components, thus offering up different levels of distortion. This can obviously affect the sound signature. In most cases, if one amp has a cleaner sound, and it is audible, it will be due to the distortion percentage of that particular amp being lower than the one it sounds better than.


You might want to test yourself and see when you can hear distortion. 
Also the speakers themselves cover up most of it. 
Basic consensus. Nobody is hearing 1% THD, I barely hear 5% 
You control the amplifiers distortion level.


----------



## strakele

Elektra said:


> I did a test with a HV Venti and a Brax MX2 and if I was put in a room and did a blind test I would not only tell a difference but I'll be able to tell you which amp is being played
> 
> Such was the difference between the 2... 2 very different sounding amps both excellent at what they designed to do...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Then do it. There are a couple people out there offering large sums of cash to anyone who can reliably do this.


----------



## Victor_inox

strakele said:


> Then do it. There are a couple people out there offering large sums of cash to anyone who can reliably do this.


reliably is a key word. Everyone suddenly lost confidence in their abilities. It`s comical really.


----------



## t3sn4f2

DC/Hertz said:


> You might want to test yourself and see when you can hear distortion.
> Also the speakers themselves cover up most of it.
> Basic consensus. Nobody is hearing 1% THD, I barely hear 5%
> You control the amplifiers distortion level.


I'd say the absolute minimum is more around .3% (-50dB). I can consistently get down to .5%. But your point is still valid though since there isn't an amplifier out there worth its salt that has a sub clipping distortion level over .1%.


----------



## cmusic

Victor_inox said:


> reliably is a key word. Everyone suddenly lost confidence in their abilities. It`s comical really.


I guess your talking about the infamous Richard Clark $10,000 Amp Challenge. In reality the challenge was just a simple scientific test, a test that was actually testing ones hearing, not the amps. In a scientific test one eliminates all variables except for the one being tested. What was being tested was the listener's ability to hear differences between two amps that were adjusted to perform identically. Clark would tune all the amps, even down to adding filters and eq to the amps, to get them to produce the SAME signal at one volume level below clipping. The amps were adjusted to be identical. Then you had to go through several rounds of testing before he would pay out the money, which statistically cut down the listener's chance of winning the challenge. Every listening test of every round had to be perfectly picked or the challenge was over. I know of two people that actually won the challenge and afterwards Clark retested the amps and found one of them not to be adjusted equally with the other one being tested. He voided the challenge and would not pay out the money. 

My opinion is that in the real world where amps are not adjusted to sound the same, amps can and do sound different, and although Clark was controversial and a real big bullsh!tter in the car audio world of the '90s, his technical teachings about car audio are valid.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Anyone ever thought about having high end amps on display in your ride at a competition just for eye candy but have something inexpensive but effective tucked away in hiding dishing the power? Would be a good way to really mess with people. I'd be willing to bet money that for a lot of people those decoy higher end amps would make the system sound better to people who weren't aware of the smoke and mirrors going on.


----------



## PPI_GUY

Hillbilly SQ said:


> Anyone ever thought about having high end amps on display in your ride at a competition just for eye candy but have something inexpensive but effective tucked away in hiding dishing the power? Would be a good way to really mess with people. I'd be willing to bet money that for a lot of people those decoy higher end amps would make the system sound better to people who weren't aware of the smoke and mirrors going on.


I've thought about that scenario as well. Of course it wouldn't take long for the cat to get out of the bag. You might get 4-5 people to audition the system before word would get around the event. That is, IF you came clean with the listeners as to what was really going on. 
Would be an interesting experiment nonetheless.


----------



## Victor_inox

Im working on scenario like that since no one accepted my challenge yet. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## Victor_inox

I have very small amplifiers easy to hide. And very high end amps for looks. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## Porsche

who cares, this is the stupidest test there ever was. it proves nothing other than to feed ones ego, you have zero to gain except to say "i told u so", i guess that makes one feel accomplished


----------



## Elektra

I level matched the Brax MX2 and HV Venti exactly and one amp you could hear sibilance and the other you could not...

But hey I must have imagined it.... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Victor_inox

Porsche said:


> who cares, this is the stupidest test there ever was. it proves nothing other than to feed ones ego, you have zero to gain except to say "i told u so", i guess that makes one feel accomplished


It shows people to pay attention to what really matters. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## Porsche

Victor_inox said:


> It shows people to pay attention to what really matters.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


what really matters is that its not an ego maniac like richard clark or a wanna b like yourself how i spend my money. all amps do not sound the same, its a mind game, period. 

you believe what u want, thats your right but don't ry and force feed your opinions on others and mock those that disagree with u to feed your ego with a BS test that u have never performed to anyone that matters


----------



## Victor_inox

Porsche said:


> what really matters is that its not an ego maniac like richard clark or a wanna b like yourself how i spend my money. all amps do not sound the same, its a mind game, period.
> 
> you believe what u want, thats your right but don't ry and force feed your opinions on others and mock those that disagree with u to feed your ego with a BS test that u have never performed to anyone that matters


Do you want to make 10 grand quick then? Pick one amp from anothet 20 times. You obviously matter. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


----------



## Porsche

Victor_inox said:


> Do you want to make 10 grand quick then? Pick one amp from anothet 20 times. You obviously matter.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk


like i said, mind games. i could careless and do not need the money, i do not have to justify myself but that seems like all u live for


----------



## Victor_inox

Porsche said:


> like i said, mind games. i could careless and do not need the money, i do not have to justify myself but that seems like all u live for


So it`s Ok for you to force YOUR opinions but not mine? 
I at least backing up my opinions with what matters to people-money.
You don`t need money, fine, pick 20 out or 20 for free then.
I don`t know what you mean by mind games but you`ll fail and I won`t even be in the same room, just push select button and see how miserably you`ll fail. One that matters the most. 

If you insist that setting up 2 amplifier to produce exactly the same output voltage is mind game than I don`t know what`s not. :laugh::laugh:

It`s like religion for some people- no amount of scientific proof will convince them to question their beliefs.


----------



## RXZILLA

I had a conversation with someone and it made me think. His theory was that older amps vs. newer amps are this. the older amps have less things in the way of the power distribution. I can see his theory. I have had Mosconi and can say they sounded good. I am about to try old school Orion HCCAs and see if I hear ant difference.


----------



## Victor_inox

RXZILLA said:


> I had a conversation with someone and it made me think. His theory was that older amps vs. newer amps are this. the older amps have less things in the way of the power distribution. I can see his theory. I have had Mosconi and can say they sounded good. I am about to try old school Orion HCCAs and see if I hear ant difference.


many parts of circuit not even in sound path, while that theory certainly has merit it can`t be brought to that simple explanation.


Simpler circuit certainly bring less obstruction on the path of signal. 
but in case to adopt wide range of input voltages circuit can`t be very simple.

input stage is by far most influential part of an amplifier, overloading input stage will make sound signature obvious. amplifiers set within designed parameters sounds transparent (as not having sound signature) 

Super duper exotic opamps, caps,etc will not change that unless intended to.


----------



## PPI_GUY

Not ashamed to say that I can always use $10K but, I don't think I could go 20/20 in a blind test. And I seriously doubt anyone else could either, including everyone posting in this thread. Too many variables including psycho-acoustics, listening fatigue and environmental changes. 
Richard Clark made his test so insanely difficult not to dupe people but, to create such a level playing field that no amplifier could ever hope to distinguish itself from the others in the test. Is it scientific? Yes, there is a definite basis in science but, subjectivity plays an enormous role as well. 
As I've said over and over...no two sets of human ears are identical.


----------



## rc10mike

My first class D sub amp was a Rockford Power 1000 5ch, designed to be 1000w @ 1ohm on the sub channel IIRC. I distinctly remember just how bad my sub stage sounded with this amp compared to the PPI A/B amp it replaced. 

EDIT; Wrong thread.


----------



## strakele

PPI_GUY said:


> Not ashamed to say that I can always use $10K but, I don't think I could go 20/20 in a blind test. And I seriously doubt anyone else could either, including everyone posting in this thread. Too many variables including psycho-acoustics, listening fatigue and environmental changes.
> Richard Clark made his test so insanely difficult not to dupe people but, to create such a level playing field that no amplifier could ever hope to distinguish itself from the others in the test. Is it scientific? Yes, there is a definite basis in science but, subjectivity plays an enormous role as well.
> As I've said over and over...no two sets of human ears are identical.


People talk like there's these night and day differences between amps, how one sounded like garbage and the other is the greatest thing they've added to their system. But as soon as they're presented with a blind test, suddenly there's listening fatigue, or the need to listen over a period of weeks, or any number of other excuses that wouldn't be necessary if the difference between the two was anywhere near the extent that was originally claimed. The fact is people doing blind tests never score statistically significantly better than random guessing.


----------



## Elektra

strakele said:


> People talk like there's these night and day differences between amps, how one sounded like garbage and the other is the greatest thing they've added to their system. But as soon as they're presented with a blind test, suddenly there's listening fatigue, or the need to listen over a period of weeks, or any number of other excuses that wouldn't be necessary if the difference between the two was anywhere near the extent that was originally claimed. The fact is people doing blind tests never score statistically significantly better than random guessing.




Well change the OPAMPs and there should be a difference already...

I wonder if in RC's test if the two amps on test were rated the same and whether the test was done at full power of the amps - if the amps were say 200rms per channel for example and the other amp was say 50rms per channel would they have set the test to max power of the 50rms amp? 

Also if they set the gains to 20rms for example irrespective of the performance of the amps on test then I would agree at that power range it would be difficult to tell them apart...

But power them up at full rated power then the issues of THD SNR etc start to present itself 

Also if one amp costs $1000 but has a power rating of 100p/c comparing it to a $10k amp with 400p/c isn't a fair comparison 

A lot of the times a manufacturer would purposely price there flagship product way higher than it should be - as they want the product to be exclusive and they not interested in bulk sales 

Not to say they don't believe that they have made the best product they possibly can in the process so to them the price justifies the product...

If you don't like it or the price it's of there opinion that there are multitudes of choices that suite there pocket and ears 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## strakele

I don't remember all the details but the amps were level matched within 0.1dB. Wouldn't be much of a test if the two amps were played at different volume levels..

There were virtually no limits on what you could bring. You could test a $200 amp vs a $20,000 amp. Most people tried setups like that figuring the bigger the price spread and parts difference, the easier it would be to tell them apart.


----------



## Elektra

strakele said:


> I don't remember all the details but the amps were level matched within 0.1dB. Wouldn't be much of a test if the two amps were played at different volume levels..
> 
> 
> 
> There were virtually no limits on what you could bring. You could test a $200 amp vs a $20,000 amp. Most people tried huge setups like that figuring the bigger the price spread and parts difference, the easier it would be to tell them apart.




Yes - but in most cases speakers sound better or deliver more "audible" detail as the power goes up - if the test was done at 20rms then I am afraid only a computer program can tell where the difference lies 

One day when I feel like do it - I would be interested in doing a test where you measure the actual response of the music your listening to and overlay it with another amp playing the same music 

This should account for small differences that perceive differences in hearing 

For instance - I tested my 2 amps one amp had a sibilance the other didn't - and it wasn't just me that noticed that...

I would be interested in how the overlay would look like to determine how this quality was portrayed electronically 

Technically speaking you theoretically could EQ each amp to sound identical and to perform identically on a PC program 

Of course that would only work - if you have both to compare and you use the same power

Most people would not have both amps and most people would not set each amp up exactly the same either 

Also the choice of speakers plays a roll here to - I mean 50rms on a 88db efficiency speaker isn't going to sound the same on a 94db efficient speaker...

Car audio has way to many variables to take into consideration 

50rms on my Utopias would probably be fine but 50rms on a set of Morel Supremos would barely get the cone moving 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## strakele

More watts is simply more volume. To play an average 88dB efficient speaker at 100dB which is very loud full range takes just 16 watts.

He had some pretty high end speakers available for the test or you could bring your own if you thought yours were better.

And you're right regarding EQ. If you brought an amp that had an intentionally non-linear frequency response, EQ would be added to one or the other (your choice which) to make the amps' frequency response match.

So yes at the end of the day the statement isn't that all amps sound the same regardless of anything, it's that all amps can be made to sound the same.. I.e. You can make the $200 amp sound indistinguishable from the $2000 amp without much difficulty.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

I have to be honest, I did hear a difference between my pair of Mosconi One 120.4's and my JL XD800/8. This was 120x6 plus 340x1 with the Mosconi amps compared to 75x6 and 200x1 with the JL. The JL had a more precise sound and perceived better control of the speakers. The Mosconi amps were a/b and JL d. I'm not the only one that has said the XD amps have some kind of "special sauce" to the sound. Could be it was just more of an ultra sterile clinical sound. I have a feeling that signature sauce was added into the circuit though. I liked it but I'm over the XD amps due to the lack of power they have on each channel.


----------



## PPI_GUY

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I liked it but I'm over the XD amps due to the lack of power they have on each channel.


The solution to that might be bridged channels for more power. Of course, that would require buying a couple more amps as well. 
I'm still onboard as a big fan of the XD amps. 90% of people looking for a efficient, small footprint amp(s) would do well to take a look at the XD series. Also of note is the fact that JL underrated those amps anywhere from 10-20%.

It is strange however that the new JL RD amps have many of the same features as the XD series, including the NextD technology. But, also add better cosmetics and highly useful clipping indicators. 
Actually, a few people on this board have said the RD's sound even better than the XD amps. More special sauce perhaps?


----------



## Victor_inox

strakele said:


> I don't remember all the details but the amps were level matched within 0.1dB.
> 
> There were virtually no limits on what you could bring. You could test a $200 amp vs a $20,000 amp. Most people tried setups like that figuring the bigger the price spread and parts difference, the easier it would be to tell them apart.


that is correct 0.1DB. and it`s true that Wouldn't be much of a test if the two amps were played at different volume levels..
Considering level of ambient noise in car environment it even more so.


----------



## Victor_inox

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I have to be honest, I did hear a difference between my pair of Mosconi One 120.4's and my JL XD800/8. This was 120x6 plus 340x1 with the Mosconi amps compared to 75x6 and 200x1 with the JL. The JL had a more precise sound and perceived better control of the speakers. The Mosconi amps were a/b and JL d. I'm not the only one that has said the XD amps have some kind of "special sauce" to the sound. Could be it was just more of an ultra sterile clinical sound. I have a feeling that signature sauce was added into the circuit though. I liked it but I'm over the XD amps due to the lack of power they have on each channel.


Honestly if 120W/ch is not enough for just about any car audio specific midbass you doing something wrong. Unless of course audible level of distortion was achieved at much,much less power.


----------



## DC/Hertz

I wonder how this one would far? I can get it new for $300 which is cheaper then a XD with full bandpass or bypassed crossovers. About the same size and power. 
I prefer side terminals 
C5d


----------



## Victor_inox

DC/Hertz said:


> I wonder how this one would far? I can get it new for $300 which is cheaper then a XD with full bandpass or bypassed crossovers. About the same size and power.
> I prefer side terminals
> C5d


Is says 4 times sound quality right there on product page SOUND QUALITY X 4


----------



## bassfreak85

t3sn4f2 said:


> I'd say the absolute minimum is more around .3% (-50dB). I can consistently get down to .5%. But your point is still valid though since there isn't an amplifier out there worth its salt that has a sub clipping distortion level over .1%.


i've proven time and time again i can hear small differences to this guy. don't even bother.


----------



## DC/Hertz

Victor_inox said:


> Is says 4 times sound quality right there on product page SOUND QUALITY X 4


Well I guess that's cleared up lol


----------



## bassfreak85

Elektra said:


> Yes - but in most cases speakers sound better or deliver more "audible" detail as the power goes up - if the test was done at 20rms then I am afraid only a computer program can tell where the difference lies
> 
> One day when I feel like do it - I would be interested in doing a test where you measure the actual response of the music your listening to and overlay it with another amp playing the same music
> 
> This should account for small differences that perceive differences in hearing
> 
> For instance - I tested my 2 amps one amp had a sibilance the other didn't - and it wasn't just me that noticed that...
> 
> I would be interested in how the overlay would look like to determine how this quality was portrayed electronically
> 
> Technically speaking you theoretically could EQ each amp to sound identical and to perform identically on a PC program
> 
> Of course that would only work - if you have both to compare and you use the same power
> 
> Most people would not have both amps and most people would not set each amp up exactly the same either
> 
> Also the choice of speakers plays a roll here to - I mean 50rms on a 88db efficiency speaker isn't going to sound the same on a 94db efficient speaker...
> 
> Car audio has way to many variables to take into consideration
> 
> 50rms on my Utopias would probably be fine but 50rms on a set of Morel Supremos would barely get the cone moving
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


i've heard differences. noise is one dead giveaway in low tier amps. 
this is beat to death. Ill admit you will be HARD pressed to hear any real differences after its passed though a DSP.


----------



## Victor_inox

bassfreak85 said:


> i've heard differences. noise is one dead giveaway in low tier amps.
> this is beat to death. Ill admit you will be HARD pressed to hear any real differences after its passed though a DSP.


man you abandoning your position slowly but surely.
Is that arguing fatigue or you coming to your senses?

And speaking of noise, want to hear $20 amplifier that has no idle noise at all? 
full gain, disconnected inputs and whatever speakers as load?


----------



## bassfreak85

Victor_inox said:


> man you abandoning your position slowly but surely.
> Is that arguing fatigue or you coming to your senses?
> 
> And speaking of noise, want to hear $20 amplifier that has no idle noise at all?
> full gain, disconnected inputs and whatever speakers as load?


You cannot read? By the time you use a dip and completely change the output waveform it won't be very noticable. Anyone with common sense even you will agree


----------



## Victor_inox

So after signal was digitized in DSP,processed and analogised before going into amp it somehow affects amplifier sound signature? I fail to see logic in that statement.


----------



## Victor_inox

bassfreak85 said:


> You cannot read? By the time you use a dip and completely change the output waveform it won't be very noticable. Anyone with common sense even you will agree


Change your tone, people trying to be civilized here. How is that for common sense?


----------



## bassfreak85

Victor_inox said:


> Change your tone, people trying to be civilized here. How is that for common sense?


We been through this before. You know better.


----------



## ca90ss

Elektra said:


> Yes - but in most cases speakers sound better or deliver more "audible" detail as the power goes up - if the test was done at 20rms then I am afraid only a computer program can tell where the difference lies
> 
> One day when I feel like do it - I would be interested in doing a test where you measure the actual response of the music your listening to and overlay it with another amp playing the same music
> 
> This should account for small differences that perceive differences in hearing
> 
> For instance - I tested my 2 amps one amp had a sibilance the other didn't - and it wasn't just me that noticed that...
> 
> I would be interested in how the overlay would look like to determine how this quality was portrayed electronically


It's possible to set them up in a way where you can only hear the differences between the two amps.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge


----------



## bassfreak85

ca90ss said:


> It's possible to set them up in a way where you can only hear the differences between the two amps.
> 
> https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge


yea home audio gear is overpriced ********.


----------



## Victor_inox

bassfreak85 said:


> yea home audio gear is overpriced ********.


 how is car audio any different?


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Victor_inox said:


> Honestly if 120W/ch is not enough for just about any car audio specific midbass you doing something wrong. Unless of course audible level of distortion was achieved at much,much less power.


I bought the xd 8ch refurbished as a single amp solution for my install at the time. It was fine for the install it was intended for but it had a noisy board that bled into the outputs. The 120wpc of the Mosconi amps was plenty. Oddly enough while my xdi1200.6 was at Arc getting looked over after an install blunder that was an oversight by me on setup I used a cheap Soundstream Picasso Nano that did 100x4. The PN does rated and nothing more from what I've seen but still had more balls than the 75x4 I was giving the fronts from the supposedly underrated XD amp. Sounded just as good but just got louder before getting nasty. It did have more hiss in the noise floor. I'm running the xdi1200.6 now because I've been wanting one for a while and it has MORE power than I'll ever need.


----------



## t3sn4f2

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I bought the xd 8ch refurbished as a single amp solution for my install at the time. It was fine for the install it was intended for but it had a noisy board that bled into the outputs. The 120wpc of the Mosconi amps was plenty. Oddly enough while my xdi1200.6 was at Arc getting looked over after an install blunder that was an oversight by me on setup I used a cheap Soundstream Picasso Nano that did 100x4. The PN does rated and nothing more from what I've seen but still had more balls than the 75x4 I was giving the fronts from the supposedly underrated XD amp. Sounded just as good but just got louder before getting nasty. It did have more hiss in the noise floor. I'm running the xdi1200.6 now because I've been wanting one for a while and it has MORE power than I'll ever need.


Maybe at that price, a less protected amp?


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

t3sn4f2 said:


> Maybe at that price, a less protected amp?


Which amp you talking about? And I had the sub input switch on "front" instead of "sub" on the Arc causing my mids in doors to get signal 2500 and up for tweets. Hadn't gotten the rears dialed in yet and at the time it sounded like I had 4 dead channels. Just something I should have caught before it ever happened.


----------



## t3sn4f2

Hillbilly SQ said:


> Which amp you talking about? And I had the sub input switch on "front" instead of "sub" on the Arc causing my mids in doors to get signal 2500 and up for tweets. Hadn't gotten the rears dialed in yet and at the time it sounded like I had 4 dead channels. Just something I should have caught before it ever happened.


If I'm understanding you correctly (it's late and I'm 6 berrrs in ), you think the nano sounded more powerful than the XD. The XD is twice the price if you get two of the nanos to give you similar channels and power. So at their price I would think that they don't have as much a restrictive over powering protection that the jl might have. You wouldn't even notice it.

"Advanced Rollback Protection

Summary:
JL Audio's exclusive Advanced Rollback Protection circuit monitors the amplifier's thermal condition and adjusts amplifier operation to eliminate annoying amplifier shut-down events.

Detailed Information:
*Should a JL Audio amplifier equipped with Advanced Rollback Protection reach an unsafe operating temperature, a special circuit rolls back peak power output, without changing gain, until the amplifier cools down to a safe operating temperature. The red "Thermal" LED will light to indicate this condition has been reached. Once the amplifier cools down, the circuit restores full peak power output and the red "Thermal" indicator reverts to its normal state. The operation of Advanced Rollback Protection is inaudible in most cases, but it ensures that your music keeps on playing, even under the most demanding conditions.*"


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

t3sn4f2 said:


> If I'm understanding you correctly (it's late and I'm 6 berrrs in ), you think the nano sounded more powerful than the XD. The XD is twice the price if you get two of the nanos to give you similar channels and power. So at their price I would think that they don't have as much a restrictive over powering protection that the jl might have. You wouldn't even notice it.
> 
> "Advanced Rollback Protection
> 
> Summary:
> JL Audio's exclusive Advanced Rollback Protection circuit monitors the amplifier's thermal condition and adjusts amplifier operation to eliminate annoying amplifier shut-down events.
> 
> Detailed Information:
> *Should a JL Audio amplifier equipped with Advanced Rollback Protection reach an unsafe operating temperature, a special circuit rolls back peak power output, without changing gain, until the amplifier cools down to a safe operating temperature. The red "Thermal" LED will light to indicate this condition has been reached. Once the amplifier cools down, the circuit restores full peak power output and the red "Thermal" indicator reverts to its normal state. The operation of Advanced Rollback Protection is inaudible in most cases, but it ensures that your music keeps on playing, even under the most demanding conditions.*"


Overheating wasn't a problem. It better not be with temps in the 50's and only a couple minutes into play time. When cold the PN had more clean power on hand. The XD never had a chance to "roll back" power.


----------



## Elektra

ca90ss said:


> It's possible to set them up in a way where you can only hear the differences between the two amps.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge




Carver worked on his amp to get it to measure the same - car audio we don't work on them or typically we don't 

Also you would have to concede that there is a difference between 2 amps to go through the whole exercise - as Carver did.

At some point in time 2 amps can reach a point that they do sound the same but i believe it's only at a specific power output - when you start going into each amps limits the amps Sonic signature starts to change 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Elektra

strakele said:


> More watts is simply more volume. To play an average 88dB efficient speaker at 100dB which is very loud full range takes just 16 watts.
> 
> 
> 
> He had some pretty high end speakers available for the test or you could bring your own if you thought yours were better.
> 
> 
> 
> And you're right regarding EQ. If you brought an amp that had an intentionally non-linear frequency response, EQ would be added to one or the other (your choice which) to make the amps' frequency response match.
> 
> 
> 
> So yes at the end of the day the statement isn't that all amps sound the same regardless of anything, it's that all amps can be made to sound the same.. I.e. You can make the $200 amp sound indistinguishable from the $2000 amp without much difficulty.




16watts is like 3v output on your amp at 4ohms - can you listen to your system at 3v? 

Your car would have to be the quietest car in the world and your speakers would have to be over 100db sensitivity 

And even then - triple the power and it will sound better

I agree you could make a $200 amp sound the same as a $2000 amp - but it will only sound the same at one specific point in time beyond that the Sonic signatures of both amps will be different and you would have to measure the amps frequency response and mimic them to each other via a DSP or some sort to get them playing the same 

Which means you need a reference amp to compare to... AKA Carver test...

Without the reference amp being played in the same environment at the same output you will never match a stupid cheap amp to a expensive high end amp....

And if you have to manipulate the cheap amp too much you end up with other issue you can't sort out like noise floor and THD....

That's my opinion at least... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Victor_inox

Elektra said:


> Carver worked on his amp to get it to measure the same - car audio we don't work on them or typically we don't
> 
> Also you would have to concede that there is a difference between 2 amps to go through the whole exercise - as Carver did.
> 
> At some point in time 2 amps can reach a point that they do sound the same but i believe it's only at a specific power output - when you start going into each amps limits the amps Sonic signature starts to change
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 Why would you go into amps limits? buy correct amp with plenty of power and quality construction once instead of switching between amps like crazy.


----------



## Elektra

Victor_inox said:


> Why would you go into amps limits? buy correct amp with plenty of power and quality construction once instead of switching between amps like crazy.




That I would agree with.. rather have too much power than too little power..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Victor_inox

Any amplifier designer can make great amplifier with unlimited budget, very few can do great amp at moderate price.


----------



## ca90ss

Elektra said:


> Carver worked on his amp to get it to measure the same - car audio we don't work on them or typically we don't
> 
> Also you would have to concede that there is a difference between 2 amps to go through the whole exercise - as Carver did.
> 
> At some point in time 2 amps can reach a point that they do sound the same but i believe it's only at a specific power output - when you start going into each amps limits the amps Sonic signature starts to change
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I was just pointing out another way to do something similar to what you were interested in doing, wasn't trying to get dragged into this idiotic argument and continue beating the dead horse.


----------



## Elektra

ca90ss said:


> I was just pointing out another way to do something similar to what you were interested in doing, wasn't trying to get dragged into this idiotic argument and continue beating the dead horse.




Noted..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bassfreak85

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I bought the xd 8ch refurbished as a single amp solution for my install at the time. It was fine for the install it was intended for but it had a noisy board that bled into the outputs. The 120wpc of the Mosconi amps was plenty. Oddly enough while my xdi1200.6 was at Arc getting looked over after an install blunder that was an oversight by me on setup I used a cheap Soundstream Picasso Nano that did 100x4. The PN does rated and nothing more from what I've seen but still had more balls than the 75x4 I was giving the fronts from the supposedly underrated XD amp. Sounded just as good but just got louder before getting nasty. It did have more hiss in the noise floor. I'm running the xdi1200.6 now because I've been wanting one for a while and it has MORE power than I'll ever need.


How in the ****tards can you hear a difference? Noise floor? Who would have imagined what I been saying this WHOLE TIME. Nothing to see here..


----------



## PPI_GUY

bassfreak85 said:


> How in the ****tards can you hear a difference? Noise floor? Who would have imagined what I been saying this WHOLE TIME. Nothing to see here..


Doesn't necessarily mean the amp was the cause of the hiss or even if it was that another identical model would behave the same way. The scientific process dictates that in order for a theory to be confirmed the results must be repeatable over time.


----------



## pitbull14218

I'll have to go back and read this thread, but from the title it seems my cheap Boss monoblock should work and sound just fine once it arrives at my house.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

PPI_GUY said:


> Doesn't necessarily mean the amp was the cause of the hiss or even if it was that another identical model would behave the same way. The scientific process dictates that in order for a theory to be confirmed the results must be repeatable over time.


JL XD had no hiss
Cheap Epsilon had hiss but it was tolerable.
Arc XDI had just a touch of audible hiss.
This is all in MY INSTALL

I verified this by turning the remote of the dsp all the way down where any hiss it does have would be mute. Yes the dsp has hiss if you turn the remote up past a certain point. 

I still like the Picasso Nano and Ion amps because they do good power for the 99% that don't even know what a noise floor is. And the power seems to be pretty clean too. In my opinion it's the 1% or less (probably more than half this forum) that are buying the big money amps for better parts inside and no noise floor. Looking at some of the competition installs with top tier gear and meticulous install if they paid a shop to do it they could easily have more in their install than I paid for my gently used vehicle that was 3 years old at time of purchase. 

This thread is stupid and lost all hope again when a known troll came in and started flinging poo again.


----------



## Elektra

bassfreak85 said:


> How in the ****tards can you hear a difference? Noise floor? Who would have imagined what I been saying this WHOLE TIME. Nothing to see here..




If anything your hilarious... but I do agree with you here... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

bassfreak85 said:


> How in the ****tards can you hear a difference? Noise floor? Who would have imagined what I been saying this WHOLE TIME. Nothing to see here..


To be honest you probably have the standing record for how many ignore lists you're on. Those that haven't put you on ignore probably know it's best to skip over your posts.

I do agree with higher end amps hopefully having less of a noise floor . They better for what some of them cost. But if you have low sensitivity speakers and/or can tolerate a little hiss for the sake of staying within your budget a system can still sound VERY nice with cheap amplification. To be honest, when I demo someone's vehicle I don't even pay that much attention to what they're running anymore. It's how everything comes together in the end that matters. And yes I've heard big money systems sound like ass and I've heard relatively low budget systems sound incredible.


----------



## bassfreak85

Hillbilly SQ said:


> To be honest you probably have the standing record for how many ignore lists you're on. Those that haven't put you on ignore probably know it's best to skip over your posts.
> 
> I do agree with higher end amps hopefully having less of a noise floor . They better for what some of them cost. But if you have low sensitivity speakers and/or can tolerate a little hiss for the sake of staying within your budget a system can still sound VERY nice with cheap amplification. To be honest, when I demo someone's vehicle I don't even pay that much attention to what they're running anymore. It's how everything comes together in the end that matters. And yes I've heard big money systems sound like ass and I've heard relatively low budget systems sound incredible.


Lower sensitivity drivers don't sound worse nor are they less revealing it just simply takes more power to get are the same output levels typically wideband with drivers or less efficient anyway not to mention that wide bandwidth driver typically are the better sounding drivers not only singular but in 2way 3 water setups as well because they are versatile.

The 1w1m efficiency rating are fundamentally flawed. Not getting into it.

FYI I'm not worried about being blocked or ignored most people are moronic anyways.


----------



## Elektra

Maybe unrelated - if you max out your gains would you get suppression? I was fiddling in my brothers car a couple of weekends ago and he had engine noise so coincidently I dropped his gains which were too high and his engine noise went away - also his system all of sudden sounded much better 

I didn't set the gains we were trying my Utopia tweeters in his car and I by chance noticed where his gains were..

Is this normal? He had the Brax NOX DSP amp but he had engine noise from his Helix A6 days.. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bassfreak85

Elektra said:


> If anything your hilarious... but I do agree with you here...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Most times I'm sarcastic. Don't mind me. It won't be lomg..


----------



## Elektra

bassfreak85 said:


> Most times I'm sarcastic. Don't mind me. It won't be lomg..




Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bassfreak85

Elektra said:


> Lol
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I still think no one can hear a difference.. the renowned amp builder says so.


----------



## Elektra

bassfreak85 said:


> I still think no one can hear a difference.. the renowned amp builder says so.




Would love to hear from a Brax amp designer or Audison to hear There rational behind there products and what they have to say about this topic in general

Would be an interesting read...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bassfreak85

Elektra said:


> Would love to hear from a Brax amp designer or Audison to hear There rational behind there products and what they have to say about this topic in general
> 
> Would be an interesting read...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm electrically inclined so I'd imagine they feel that things like optical isolation is superior and maybe some parts are superior.
Yes it would be awesome though..
I personally know the guy who built lunar amps and he swore by the circuit and using low tolerance parts.


----------



## Elektra

bassfreak85 said:


> I'm electrically inclined so I'd imagine they feel that things like optical isolation is superior and maybe some parts are superior.
> 
> Yes it would be awesome though..
> 
> I personally know the guy who built lunar amps and he swore by the circuit and using low tolerance parts.




Combination of good parts and good design - always a winner

But profit and price dictates the end result...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bassfreak85

Elektra said:


> Combination of good parts and good design - always a winner
> 
> But profit and price dictates the end result...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think a dollar a watt isn't terribly expensive especially when you getting it through dealer with a excellent warranty


----------



## DC/Hertz

Noise floor can also stem from the source unit.


----------



## bassfreak85

DC/Hertz said:


> Noise floor can also stem from the source unit.


No doubt. That being said good isolation via dsp and amplifiers can suppress the noise but it can also have a poor noise floor as well.


----------



## gumbeelee

Elektra said:


> Maybe unrelated - if you max out your gains would you get suppression? I was fiddling in my brothers car a couple of weekends ago and he had engine noise so coincidently I dropped his gains which were too high and his engine noise went away - also his system all of sudden sounded much better
> 
> I didn't set the gains we were trying my Utopia tweeters in his car and I by chance noticed where his gains were..
> 
> Is this normal? He had the Brax NOX DSP amp but he had engine noise from his Helix A6 days..
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Your gains should never be maxed out, especially with nice gear like that. If course when u dropped the gains, the distortion went away, and the engine noise. I have seen alot of other people that had there gauns set to high have engine noise


----------



## JVD240

The OP was started to determine if people can hear a difference in sound QUALITY. Even these so called "believers" have admitted that "well...you pretty much can't hear any difference if a DSP is used to equalize."

Ya, that's the point. 

People are rolling through amps thinking their reaching sonic bliss from simple swaps.

Most of the time you'll achieve better results opening up your laptop and adjusting a couple filters.


----------



## bassfreak85

gumbeelee said:


> Your gains should never be maxed out, especially with nice gear like that. If course when u dropped the gains, the distortion went away, and the engine noise. I have seen alot of other people that had there gauns set to high have engine noise


In my experience if the source unit or dsp is noisy you keep those levels low as possible. 
Typically you get noise from the dsp and sometimes noise from the source units display. 
Not many amps are noisy but I've always had great results with good isolation when an amp uses good isolation between the input power and output sections.
Arc and a few others use optical isolation hence they are a bit more costly..


----------



## bassfreak85

JVD240 said:


> The OP was started to determine if people can hear a difference in sound QUALITY. Even these so called "believers" have admitted that "well...you pretty much can't hear any difference if a DSP is used to equalize."
> 
> Ya, that's the point.
> 
> People are rolling through amps thinking their reaching sonic bliss from simple swaps.
> 
> Most of the time you'll achieve better results opening up your laptop and adjusting a couple filters.


Yes because the dsp gives a certain characteristics themselves which will be amplified itself making it more difficult to hear the difference in the actual amplification.
In other words anytime you alter the signal coming in from the original recording to optimize the output for the acoustical and sonic abnormalities you are fundamentally distorting the signal..


----------



## bassfreak85

FYI by when I say sonic I mean driver distortion..


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

JVD240 said:


> The OP was started to determine if people can hear a difference in sound QUALITY. Even these so called "believers" have admitted that "well...you pretty much can't hear any difference if a DSP is used to equalize."
> 
> Ya, that's the point.
> 
> People are rolling through amps thinking their reaching sonic bliss from simple swaps.
> 
> Most of the time you'll achieve better results opening up your laptop and adjusting a couple filters.


If people want to roll through amps searching for sonic bliss that's their business. I used to be that guy before I knew what I was doing but also just liked trying stuff. Me and a couple other local guys did A LOT of buying, selling, and trading with each other back about 12 years ago. Glad those days are over. Once you get the right amp for the job you'll know it. If someone would come out with a solid 8ch amp that did 150x8 I'd be all over it. Would pay up to a grand for it. Hell Epsilon could come out with it for all I care. A pair of Phantom 900.4's in one case would be perfect.


----------



## bassfreak85

Hillbilly SQ said:


> If people want to roll through amps searching for sonic bliss that's their business. I used to be that guy before I knew what I was doing but also just liked trying stuff. Me and a couple other local guys did A LOT of buying, selling, and trading with each other back about 12 years ago. Glad those days are over. Once you get the right amp for the job you'll know it. If someone would come out with a solid 8ch amp that did 150x8 I'd be all over it. Would pay up to a grand for it. Hell Epsilon could come out with it for all I care. A pair of Phantom 900.4's in one case would be perfect.


For the money pioneer is hard to beat.. 
What's your setup consist of?


----------



## bassfreak85

Nvm.


----------



## bassfreak85

900 bucks for an amp that doesn't sound better than 2 amps that you could buy for 3/8s the price? Why not grab a couple ppis?


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

bassfreak85 said:


> 900 bucks for an amp that doesn't sound better than 2 amps that you could buy for 3/8s the price? Why not grab a couple ppis?


I got my $869 amp authorized for way less than retail. Buying car audio is like buying a car. They'll wiggle if they want to make a sale bad enoughSomeone else did the negotiation on the Arc though and passed the deal on to me when he decided to go a different direction with amps. It's of my opinion that if they won't come down off msrp you need to give the car audio dealer your name and number so they can call you if they decide to come to their senses.I've walked out over them not accepting my offer of $90 for a $100 subwoofer that they had to special order.


----------



## bassfreak85

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I got my $869 amp authorized for way less than retail. Buying car audio is like buying a car. They'll wiggle if they want to make a sale bad enoughSomeone else did the negotiation on the Arc though and passed the deal on to me when he decided to go a different direction with amps. It's of my opinion that if they won't come down off msrp you need to give the car audio dealer your name and number so they can call you if they decide to come to their senses.I've walked out over them not accepting my offer of $90 for a $100 subwoofer that they had to special order.


+5 on your life skills. We could be friends. Lol
I have a xenon 200.4 it's a decent amp. 300 bucks.. how can you knock that?


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

bassfreak85 said:


> +5 on your life skills. We could be friends. Lol
> I have a xenon 200.4 it's a decent amp. 300 bucks.. how can you knock that?


I had a x100.4 and x400.1 and those things were tanks. Yeah in real life we could probably be friends, lol.


----------



## bassfreak85

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I had a x100.4 and x400.1 and those things were tanks. Yeah in real life we could probably be friends, lol.


Yeah the 200.4 uses bjts I perfer them.. the output is also 3 stage which I've grown fond of as well. I'd say it's up there with the higher dollar amps. But my midst suckered up the power. I need 300x4 lol.
How did you like them?


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

bassfreak85 said:


> Yeah the 200.4 uses bjts I perfer them.. the output is also 3 stage which I've grown fond of as well. I'd say it's up there with the higher dollar amps. But my midst suckered up the power. I need 300x4 lol.
> How did you like them?


They got the job done even though they were huge even by 2007 standards. I ran Memphis Mclass and Crossfire VR series before that. Wish I would have hung on to the Crossfire amps. My buddy ran my Xenon amps before I traded my Memphis amps for them and back then he was working communications on oil rigs out of Lafayette. He'd make the drive between there and Paris, AR (like 9 hours) and jam the whole time and the Xenon amps are the ONLY amps that never went into thermal shutdown and they had the seats of his single cab truck tight against them.


----------



## bassfreak85

Hillbilly SQ said:


> They got the job done even though they were huge even by 2007 standards. I ran Memphis Mclass and Crossfire VR series before that. Wish I would have hung on to the Crossfire amps. My buddy ran my Xenon amps before I traded my Memphis amps for them and back then he was working communications on oil rigs out of Lafayette. He'd make the drive between there and Paris, AR (like 9 hours) and jam the whole time and the Xenon amps are the ONLY amps that never went into thermal shutdown and they had the seats of his single cab truck tight against them.


Nice. I like this 200.4. No sweat and it's plenty clean.


----------



## DPGstereo

When McIntosh's design team was given the challenge to build the best 2-channel car amplifier possible, without cost being an limiting factor, what they came up with was the MCC602TM.
- 300 watts x 2, or bridged Mono 600 watts (2, 4 or 8 ohms) with less than 0.005% distortion. Very conservatively/under rated.
- Fully balanced circuitry from input to output, two matched amplifiers operate in Push-Pull with their outputs magnetically combined in Output Autoformers. Each half of the amplifier contains complementary balanced circuitry, resulting double balanced configuration cancels even order distortion, virtually all distortion. Same technology used in their upper end home line mono amps.
- Optional Balance XLR input
- Signal to Noise Ratio: 114dB
- Dual Illuminated Power Meters (minimum of 95% accuracy of power output)
- Weight: 50.5 lbs.
- MSRP: $3,500.00

Over the years I have owned many different amplifiers, but none come close to matching the clarity, dynamic range, dynamic impact and over massiveness of the MCC602TM. These amplifiers are dead quite. Lucky for me, I purchased two of these beasts brand new a few years back. These amplifiers do really make a difference in SQ. Of course source, speakers, install and set-up matters. Everything matters.

What other car amplifier manufactures have gone to this extreme?


----------



## DC/Hertz

Scott Bulwalda had Mc amps. He won a lot with them. 
Then he went to china made class D amps. He still wins a lot with them. 

They are eye candy. A bit to much going on for me. I'm simplistic.


----------



## DPGstereo

DC/Hertz said:


> Scott Bulwalda had Mc amps. He won a lot with them.
> Then he went to china made class D amps. He still wins a lot with them.
> 
> They are eye candy. A bit to much going on for me. I'm simplistic.


Respectfully, having Mc amps is not the same as a MCC602TM. I found to be true and according to McIntosh, the 602TM is a completely different amp from the rest of their amps. They are huge, so fitting them in a vehicle can be challenging. But if your talking about SQ...


----------



## DC/Hertz

DPGstereo said:


> Respectfully, having Mc amps is not the same as a MCC602TM. I found to be true and according to McIntosh, the 602TM is a completely different amp from the rest of their amps. They are huge, so fitting them in a vehicle can be challenging. But if your talking about SQ...


Im pretty sure that's what he used. Btw, his score went up with the class Ds. But it's not the same car. So way to many variables.


----------



## Elektra

Too many opinions on what people profess to hear and what people profess not to hear...

If your happy with your equipment that's all that matters - doesn't matter if it's $50 or $5000 every man to himself and what they can afford..... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## audiocholic

tuned to 20v on a dmm using a sinewave with the only difference being amps and everything else the same (helix comps,jl sub,audison wires,jvc hu)

I can say the difference in sq between my previous and now sold helix b2 compared to my dls ra20 is pretty easy to notice.


the bass output was stronger,highs much more detailed,bettter width and depth, noise floor was non existent with the b2 whereas the DLS failed against it in almost every department mentioned, not substantially but everyone that was with me at the time easily noticed it.


----------



## captainobvious

If you want to isolate any differences, you're best served to do something like this. Don't test by removing one from the car and putting the other in. Take the amps you want to test out of the car and set them up in a quiet room on a switcher, level matched and supplied the same signal. Then you can instantaneously switch back and forth and listen for any differences, including noise floor.


----------



## audiocholic

both fed the same signal from the JVC source using the same usb,
both feeding the very same 60rms helix speakers
both in the same car with the same interior
both rated 130rms (though helix b2 is actually rated 100rms its underrated and proven to be 138rms whereas the DLS RA20 is underated and 136rms )
both using everything identical


I find it hard to believe you would need to go to the above mentioned levels to make it a fair contest if everything is this identical with as much as a difference we heard anyway.


----------



## fcarpio

captainobvious said:


> If you want to isolate any differences, you're best served to do something like this. Don't test by removing one from the car and putting the other in. Take the amps you want to test out of the car and set them up in a quiet room on a switcher, level matched and supplied the same signal. Then you can instantaneously switch back and forth and listen for any differences, including noise floor.


Dang, I miss my Logans.


----------



## fcarpio

Can the amp's ability to recreate a signal be measured? Can this measurement be used as a gauge of an amp's fidelity?

The premise would be to feed a known signal, whatever this may be and measure the output and compare the two signals. The quality of the amp will be how accurate the reproduction is when compared to the original.

Has this been done before? Just a thought...


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

I like how my two class d amps can fit in the spare tire well with d-blocks, 3 processor boxes, AND the full size spare still in tact. With signal coming from factory amp (too much is tied into the factory headunit but it's a really nice factory headunit) I'd be a fool to spend very much on amplification to amplify a supposed trash signalSounds fine to me. And the class d amp running the fronts and sub is a very nice amp by most people's standards


----------



## captainobvious

audiocholic said:


> both fed the same signal from the JVC source using the same usb,
> both feeding the very same 60rms helix speakers
> both in the same car with the same interior
> both rated 130rms (though helix b2 is actually rated 100rms its underrated and proven to be 138rms whereas the DLS RA20 is underated and 136rms )
> both using everything identical
> 
> 
> I find it hard to believe you would need to go to the above mentioned levels to make it a fair contest if everything is this identical with as much as a difference we heard anyway.



You need them to be very accurately level matched. The louder amp will usually be perceived as "better".
You also want to be able to switch back and forth instantly to hear differences immediately, not take an hour to swap stuff around and then try to remember and compare to your memory.

Yes, it makes a difference.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

Let's not get into a debate about aural memory. The capn has it correct on the best way to switch between them to instantly hear the difference. People who think swapping amps out in a car is a reliable way to test "amp sq" ARE NOT doing it correctly. Your aural memory isn't nearly as good as you think it is.


----------



## captainobvious

https://youtu.be/hbJNt5Z0diU


----------



## DC/Hertz

It's easy for me. The amp that sounds the best is the one I just spent money on. 
I just have to make sure to not by junk.


----------



## I800C0LLECT

audiocholic said:


> both fed the same signal from the JVC source using the same usb,
> both feeding the very same 60rms helix speakers
> both in the same car with the same interior
> both rated 130rms (though helix b2 is actually rated 100rms its underrated and proven to be 138rms whereas the DLS RA20 is underated and 136rms )
> both using everything identical
> 
> 
> I find it hard to believe you would need to go to the above mentioned levels to make it a fair contest if everything is this identical with as much as a difference we heard anyway.


Nobody is trying to change your mind. But don't change theirs either. It's been proven again and again... Amps sound different out of the box. But by changing variables, they can sound so similar you'd never pick one out in a double blind test.

I don't care what you think you did. If you can prove your point scientifically that would be ground breaking.


----------



## audiocholic

captainobvious said:


> You need them to be very accurately level matched. The louder amp will usually be perceived as "better".
> You also want to be able to switch back and forth instantly to hear differences immediately, not take an hour to swap stuff around and then try to remember and compare to your memory.
> 
> Yes, it makes a difference.




I see mate,


dont get me wrong I wasnt insisting and see now that I might have had the whole concept all wrong since its obvious your a talented/experienced fella.



in some forums you can find this European (German and Russian I believe) test of amps all being tested for SQ.


I truely wonder on what variables do they do this test, what is it that they actually seek and give scores on?


----------



## aholland1198

captainobvious said:


> https://youtu.be/hbJNt5Z0diU




Cool test setup. What were your thoughts? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## geshat00

aholland1198 said:


> Cool test setup. What were your thoughts?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Eyes precede our ears... I see brand (fill in with high end brand) therefore it sounds better. There have been numerous studies done on this! 

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## geshat00

geshat00 said:


> Eyes precede our ears... I see brand (fill in with high end brand) therefore it sounds better. There have been numerous studies done on this! Harry Houdini was the king of this... Misdirection
> 
> Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk




Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

geshat00 said:


> Eyes precede our ears... I see brand (fill in with high end brand) therefore it sounds better. There have been numerous studies done on this!
> 
> Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk


That's why if I know nothing about the workings of a car I'm about to demo I prefer to go in blind then ask questions later. The first step to becoming unbiased is to admit that you've been guilty of being biasedI don't know how many times I've listened to someone's car and the amps they're using never came up in conversation and I'm just fine with not knowing what amps they were using. Install and tune are what will make or break the potential of a system. I'm waiting for someone with an extreme install to hide some budget amps to run the speakers and just have wires hooked to their high end amps going to nothing. Would be a great prank and if they won or almost won they could spill the beans about what they did.


----------



## chefhow

Hillbilly SQ said:


> I'm waiting for someone with an extreme install to hide some budget amps to run the speakers and just have wires hooked to their high end amps going to nothing. Would be a great prank and if they won or almost won they could spill the beans about what they did.


its been going on for years Chris, speakers that arent playing but you see them, speakers that are playing but you cant see them, fake processors in obvious locations, amps that arent connected....Its nothing new, not even close.


----------



## Elektra

A tale of 2 different threads running at the same time....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## geshat00

Hillbilly SQ said:


> That's why if I know nothing about the workings of a car I'm about to demo I prefer to go in blind then ask questions later. The first step to becoming unbiased is to admit that you've been guilty of being biasedI don't know how many times I've listened to someone's car and the amps they're using never came up in conversation and I'm just fine with not knowing what amps they were using. Install and tune are what will make or break the potential of a system. I'm waiting for someone with an extreme install to hide some budget amps to run the speakers and just have wires hooked to their high end amps going to nothing. Would be a great prank and if they won or almost won they could spill the beans about what they did.


That's what drew me to exciters! If one really wanted to before a comp they could install a set of dummy conventional speakers and see what happens. The only thing I can't figure out is how to get sub bass (50hz and below) with exciters. I say one guy used a crap load w them, but then for that price at less headaches just run an actual sub!

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## ChrisB

chefhow said:


> its been going on for years Chris, speakers that arent playing but you see them, speakers that are playing but you cant see them, fake processors in obvious locations, amps that arent connected....Its nothing new, not even close.


Or certain sponsored individuals that used amplifier heat sinks from their sponsor yet the internals were amplifier guts from their own company, which was up and coming at the time. I can't mention the individuals or the companies involved, but it was admitted to me over a few cold ones that this indeed happened.


----------



## Porsche

ChrisB said:


> Or certain sponsored individuals that used amplifier heat sinks from their sponsor yet the internals were amplifier guts from their own company, which was up and coming at the time. I can't mention the individuals or the companies involved, but it was admitted to me over a few cold ones that this indeed happened.



what does someone have to gain by doing this, makes zero sense


----------



## oilman

ChrisB said:


> Or certain sponsored individuals that used amplifier heat sinks from their sponsor yet the internals were amplifier guts from their own company, which was up and coming at the time. I can't mention the individuals or the companies involved, but it was admitted to me over a few cold ones that this indeed happened.




You seem well connected. I'm looking for a couple chassis/heat sinks to house two Brax 2000 class amps. Can you point me in the right direction? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ChrisB

Porsche said:


> what does someone have to gain by doing this, makes zero sense


Back in the good old days, there were certain advantages to being sponsored. Enterprising, sponsored, competitors found ways to make money by reselling gear purchased at "team" pricing.  That was a source of easy money that was tough to give up.

Then, other sponsored individuals were given gear for free when they won at regional and/or national competitions. Some used the gear, regifted it, or sold it.


----------



## ChrisB

oilman said:


> You seem well connected. I'm looking for a couple chassis/heat sinks to house two Brax 2000 class amps. Can you point me in the right direction?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I'm not that well connected these days. The last small manufacturer that I was friends with went out of business when he ran out of extruded aluminum due to the minimum order requirements to replenish his stock. IIRC, the tooling company wanted him to order a minimum of 3,000 pounds of aluminium or they weren't going to tool his heat sinks.

Your problem will be either finding an existing extrusion that will work with the layout of your circuit boards or paying someone to make an extrusion that will work with your circuit boards.


----------



## oilman

ChrisB said:


> I'm not that well connected these days. The last small manufacturer that I was friends with went out of business when he ran out of extruded aluminum due to the minimum order requirements to replenish his stock. IIRC, the tooling company wanted him to order a minimum of 3,000 pounds of aluminium or they weren't going to tool his heat sinks.
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem will be either finding an existing extrusion that will work with the layout of your circuit boards or paying someone to make an extrusion that will work with your circuit boards.



I need these chassis for install purposes as the Brax Platinum is tough to shoehorn in without major mods to my trunk. (Fit great in my last build) Cutting it in half could bring unwanted karma from the SQ Gods and severe depreciation in value. 

I found this company and the biggest chassis they make are 16", love the old school look, but making it fit is probably outside of my skillset. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8FBk_ef07so





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## LynnBlakely

Hi everyone: I really enjoyed reading the comments, about DF. We worked at a McIntosh dealer in the 70's and we had a customer that had an Ampzilla 200watt per channel amp. He wanted us to prove it was as good as the Mc amp. So we hooked them both up and the Zilla did check as good at full power until you went over 20khz, then it went up in smoke. We decided to go up at full power on the Mc till it went out of speck .1% it went to 42khz at full power without self destructing. I believe the McIntosh engineers told me that they use a different feedback scheme. I would have a hard time proving that statement. That McIntosh amp was a 2300.


----------



## jackal28

Honestly, yes and no. The idea behind an amplifier is to take energy and simply transform it. That being said, the reason people use the word clean signal is simply a way of saying a clean steady power supply to the speakers. Any tiny drop or increase in power supply at any time will change the sound quality. That is the reason "high end" amps, sometimes, tend to sound better. In a perfect world, with a perfect DC current throughout the vehicle, then pretty much all amps would sound the same. High end amps usually employ better components like a lower tolerance on their capacitors, inductors, resistors, etc so when the mathematics are projected for varying power levels which every car has, the amplifiers with lower tolerance levels will do a much better job at maintaining a steady signal. Besides different options which may make an amplifier cost more to reduce incoming noise, EMF (which is pretty negligible), or ground loops, most of the cost goes into getting that power signal matched accurately while minimizing the tolerance levels of an ever changing current. That being said, if you have plenty of power to work with (upgraded alternator, batteries, big 3, etc) it may not be such an issue as the amplifier would have a massive "pool" of current which it can draw from as needed require less use of all of the "high end" components which have been added. Its the same reason that some people add external capacitors. A lot of people believe that a capacitor will help with power consumption, but in all reality those large external capacitors simply serve the purpose of maintaining that steady/ smooth signal which we are all looking for. I hope this makes some since, Ive never really tried to put it into words. Lastly, different amplifiers have different ways or steps, as well as a different amount of, ways and steps with which they attempt to maintain that smooth current which may cause a slight difference in the sound. With regards to the "$15000 contest" I am guessing that they did not use an actual automobile. In a car/truck/van, the amplifier is contesting with a multitude of different currents spread across the body, frame, and multiple ground locations. In a real life situation what if for a split second the current was taken from the amp for a temperature change in the A/C or the belt skipped a mm on the alternator; Which amp could handle the immediate change better the high end amplifier or the POS. Even when its just a battery signal changes still occur in the current of a vehicle constantly. I do believe that different amplifiers can sound differently. Ever listen to a song you've heard multiple times and then all of the sudden a note occurs that you never remembered hearing before?


----------



## DeltaB

Back in the zenith of Class A/B amps and devices back in the mid to late 70's, with THD's as low as 0.007 to 0.003 at full rated output into the WaveTek, there were some very good reasons why this was achievable. And that is discreet transistor devices, especially in the input and driver stages. In the late 70's this began to be overshadowed by the introduction of IC's, however they could not at that time excel or even come close to meeting the vanishingly low THDs of discreet device based amps. 

Burson has been on the market for some time now, selling discreet devices mounted on daughter-boards to allow it to be placed in DIP though hole designs to help overcome the poor performance delivered by technology used in the manufacturing process of op-amps, and did offer some relative relief without a ground up redesign of an amp's input stage.

With newer processes, (just as every other aspect of IC manufacturing) we are just now seeing in recent years options in the SMD arena that can start to give the same relative performance as what is yielded with discreet devices. And this truly is one of the Achilles heels of the current audio consumer over-the-counter auto market. Virtually every product out there, and that includes amps, still utilizing devices from the 70's and low cost solutions for input buffer circuits will suffer the very same issue. The automotive market historically has been the last in the electronics community to adopt and implement.

Until we as a community of consumers start demanding that manufacturers start using 21st century options in their designs for input sections, the majority of amps on the market will pretty much suffer this same problem, regardless of an amp's Class.

Amp SQ differences isn't a myth, it's just the execution from manufacturers.


----------



## imickey503

I am going to chime in here , as I loved DIYMobile Audio for a LONG time, but never had the urge to really post much about it till I got a SOLID good understanding of what I was doing and talking about. Its helps.  


So on the topic of AMPS? Does an SQ amp make your music sound better then a good designed budget amp? Well as always, that is going to depend. If you using next to a radio tower? Or LOTS of RF, or noise in the line? Then the High end amp is going to win out rejecting most of that noise with the built in filters. 

But CAN you make a budget or mass market or even a simple CHIP amp sound great? 
100% verified cuz I DID IT! And I did it ALL on a budget. 

The AMP COST should be the LAST thing you should worry about IMO. 

But the INSTALLATION, THAT is where the MONEY should be spent. 



Can I hear the difference between 2 amps? Yes, but again that depends. 

I am going to use my CAR AUDIO ears as a reference. 

The STOCK system in my Chrysler Town and country has this system in it from the factory. 










The Built in AMPS sound AMAZING with Superb speakers. Actually, the CD playback on my stock system with Upgraded DASH speakers was AMAZING. And it was just replacing of the Stock Dash speakers, wiring them for full range from the Factory Deck power, and doing a GREAT install. No noise, no vibration etc. 

But the Kappa 5.251x speakers let me down on the tweeters being crossed over to low, so typical break up on the Piano notes. (It was coming to the FS of the tweeter. 

Now, getting more POWER, did make them sound better at High Volumes, but I could not tell the difference until the amp could not meet the musical demands placed on it. Basicly, as I dropped the knob, the aftermarket power sounded better. 

But the speaker still distorted as the volume went up where the music was in the "FS" or the resonance frequency of the tweeter. No amp was going to make it sound better. I did HOURS and HOURS of detailed tests on Battery power and with the car running, and to my ears, the STOCK amps sounded better at low volume do to the built in filtering of the stock amps in the car. TRUE! Wow.. 


So, do some WAY higher end amps sound better? Well, they do have a Different sound signature that I can hear on Electrostatics and ribbon tweeters, and SOME Magnepans. Basically, speakers that REALLY don't hide ****, those are the ones that you can hear something. 

Interesting, things like Lowthers, or Efficient speakers such as Horns, ete. You can tell the difference between things like TUBE amps, and Solid state amps at MODERATE volumes in a quiet room. 

But when you add ROOM, or Environmental NOISE, the difference between the two fade away. 

That's why all the rage about getting the SUPER high end amp for the Mobile environment is not such a big priority for me. 

Though, there is some MAGIC to TUBE AMPS that just make you feel better having TUBES making the output. 

Honestly, I wish Bob Carver would make me a set of amps for my front stage that were small enough so I could display them in the car. Almost like a Headphone amp. But I would need them to be at least 50Wpc. And that's not EASY to do with an all tube output stage in car. 

There are some great tube amps for the cars like the Miller for example, but its output stage is mosfet based I think. Not sure. Will I HEAR the difference. Maybe not over the background noise. But its nice to have such high spec built gear in your ride. 

The other thing is that High end amps sound better over the long term. The CAPS and Parts used and how they are built are done with such attention to detail, you just feel good knowing you got an amplifier that was MADE to PERFORM. From the Very first Watt, to the Last one. 


That is why I tend to stick with what works. And for me, the stock system in my car has some GREAT advantages even though, it's only really good for about 18w Rms. 

I can tell you, that if you DO match everything up right, its true you only need about 20-25 watts per speaker if you do like to listen to Moderate volumes, and can get away with about 15 SOLID watts per channel. 

But there is NOTHING like Headroom. So if you DO go that route to get better amps, 100W per channel is a safe bet. Just make sure your amps can do that at 11.5v to 16v or whatever.  

And for GODS sakes. GET rid of NOISE in your system. That ISH is going to drive you CRAZY.


----------



## Elektra

imickey503 said:


> I am going to chime in here , as I loved DIYMobile Audio for a LONG time, but never had the urge to really post much about it till I got a SOLID good understanding of what I was doing and talking about. Its helps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So on the topic of AMPS? Does an SQ amp make your music sound better then a good designed budget amp? Well as always, that is going to depend. If you using next to a radio tower? Or LOTS of RF, or noise in the line? Then the High end amp is going to win out rejecting most of that noise with the built in filters.
> 
> 
> 
> But CAN you make a budget or mass market or even a simple CHIP amp sound great?
> 
> 100% verified cuz I DID IT! And I did it ALL on a budget.
> 
> 
> 
> The AMP COST should be the LAST thing you should worry about IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> But the INSTALLATION, THAT is where the MONEY should be spent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can I hear the difference between 2 amps? Yes, but again that depends.
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to use my CAR AUDIO ears as a reference.
> 
> 
> 
> The STOCK system in my Chrysler Town and country has this system in it from the factory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Built in AMPS sound AMAZING with Superb speakers. Actually, the CD playback on my stock system with Upgraded DASH speakers was AMAZING. And it was just replacing of the Stock Dash speakers, wiring them for full range from the Factory Deck power, and doing a GREAT install. No noise, no vibration etc.
> 
> 
> 
> But the Kappa 5.251x speakers let me down on the tweeters being crossed over to low, so typical break up on the Piano notes. (It was coming to the FS of the tweeter.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, getting more POWER, did make them sound better at High Volumes, but I could not tell the difference until the amp could not meet the musical demands placed on it. Basicly, as I dropped the knob, the aftermarket power sounded better.
> 
> 
> 
> But the speaker still distorted as the volume went up where the music was in the "FS" or the resonance frequency of the tweeter. No amp was going to make it sound better. I did HOURS and HOURS of detailed tests on Battery power and with the car running, and to my ears, the STOCK amps sounded better at low volume do to the built in filtering of the stock amps in the car. TRUE! Wow..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, do some WAY higher end amps sound better? Well, they do have a Different sound signature that I can hear on Electrostatics and ribbon tweeters, and SOME Magnepans. Basically, speakers that REALLY don't hide ****, those are the ones that you can hear something.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, things like Lowthers, or Efficient speakers such as Horns, ete. You can tell the difference between things like TUBE amps, and Solid state amps at MODERATE volumes in a quiet room.
> 
> 
> 
> But when you add ROOM, or Environmental NOISE, the difference between the two fade away.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why all the rage about getting the SUPER high end amp for the Mobile environment is not such a big priority for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Though, there is some MAGIC to TUBE AMPS that just make you feel better having TUBES making the output.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I wish Bob Carver would make me a set of amps for my front stage that were small enough so I could display them in the car. Almost like a Headphone amp. But I would need them to be at least 50Wpc. And that's not EASY to do with an all tube output stage in car.
> 
> 
> 
> There are some great tube amps for the cars like the Miller for example, but its output stage is mosfet based I think. Not sure. Will I HEAR the difference. Maybe not over the background noise. But its nice to have such high spec built gear in your ride.
> 
> 
> 
> The other thing is that High end amps sound better over the long term. The CAPS and Parts used and how they are built are done with such attention to detail, you just feel good knowing you got an amplifier that was MADE to PERFORM. From the Very first Watt, to the Last one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why I tend to stick with what works. And for me, the stock system in my car has some GREAT advantages even though, it's only really good for about 18w Rms.
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you, that if you DO match everything up right, its true you only need about 20-25 watts per speaker if you do like to listen to Moderate volumes, and can get away with about 15 SOLID watts per channel.
> 
> 
> 
> But there is NOTHING like Headroom. So if you DO go that route to get better amps, 100W per channel is a safe bet. Just make sure your amps can do that at 11.5v to 16v or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> And for GODS sakes. GET rid of NOISE in your system. That ISH is going to drive you CRAZY.




Yes and no...

Yes a better amp will sound better - why because it has been beaten to death about 2000 posts ago...

Does a super duper expensive amp sound 10 times better than a 10 times cheaper amp - no but it does sound better regardless - how you place value in those little things is up to you and what results you want at the end of the day..

I’ll give you and example ....








This amp is a EOS AE 980 - for those who know this amp it’s basically a GZ Ref 4 just not in the shiny copper chassis - it cost about $500 or there about... must say a really good amp... don’t be fooled by the $500 price tag









Here is the exact same install except it now has a Audison HV Venti - $12k amp...

Now can I hear the difference between the 2? Yes I can - is it 24 times better? No it isn’t - is the difference in price tag worth the improvement in sonic reproduction? Well that’s subjective....

Must say the HV had a much greater advantage in a home setup compared to the EOS at home - in a car with near field listening the difference is much less but still a difference...

One thing I can say the HV is dead quiet at the same if not higher volume and the music just sounded more controlled or more calmer...

I suppose that’s why the HV costs 24 times more than the EOS...? 

Any rate - I love both amps - but I do like the HV Venti more - not because of its price tag but just because the way it sounds....

Would I buy another one? Most probably... (they would eventually make very nice mono blocks for a home setup - one amp per tower...hmmm)...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rton20s

I'm not going to jump into this long since beaten dead horse of a debate, but imickey503, can you clarify something for me? 

On your car, did you completely bypass the factory amp when you installed the aftermarket amp? 

Which aftermarket amp did you install?

Doesn't your factory Infinity amp have a built in DSP?


----------



## imickey503

rton20s said:


> I'm not going to jump into this long since beaten dead horse of a debate, but imickey503, can you clarify something for me?
> 
> On your car, did you completely bypass the factory amp when you installed the aftermarket amp?
> 
> Which aftermarket amp did you install?
> 
> Doesn't your factory Infinity amp have a built in DSP?


1. _*On your car, did you completely bypass the factory amp when you installed the aftermarket amp? *_

Did not bypass any of the amps. Just the wiring of it. The aftermarket amps (all 3 of them are still waiting to be hooked up, and all of the amps on the car are still active. I am also using deck power since the all the amps are built to use line level input. The only amp that is "ON" right now is the one for the Subwoofer


2. *Which aftermarket amp did you install?*

 I installed a AURA RPM 2 channel amp to run the single sub in back. 
https://www.parts-express.com/aura-rpm2300-rpm-stage-2-mobile-amplifier-2x150w--269-189

3. *Doesn't your factory Infinity amp have a built in DSP?*

No. The Amps themselves are just amps. All the DSP it had was a Bass boost or auto loudness circuit in the deck. 


This is the system that I am talking about.
https://www.allpar.com/stereo/infinity-guide.html


 I have the newer version that was installed on the Gen 3 Minivans. Full build log here: 
http://forum.chryslerminivan.net/showthread.php/94985-My-450-SCORE!?highlight=450+score

The Chips amps in the speakers do about 25 watts at 2 ohms, and do a MINIMUM of 16 watts. And they are 2 ohm stable. 









Link goes to Allpar talking about the CHIP used in the speakers. 
https://www.allpar.com/stereo/speaker-repair.html

Data sheets and sample build with IC. 
uPC1230H2 NEC upc1230 UPC1230H2(2) 20watt Audio AMP Project KA1EKS


THe ones I have have a High pass Crossover built in. The older ones are just full range. Not sure exactly whats on the new ones. but pretty sure they used the same chips with additional circuitry. 


Build thread will be up in another thread. Working on it now for the site.


----------



## nyquistrate

captainobvious said:


> If you want to isolate any differences, you're best served to do something like this. Don't test by removing one from the car and putting the other in. Take the amps you want to test out of the car and set them up in a quiet room on a switcher, level matched and supplied the same signal. Then you can instantaneously switch back and forth and listen for any differences, including noise floor.


Captain, do I see Xtant and Soundstream ref amps on that bench? I wanted the Soundstream Class A but went with the Xtant 2200i.


----------



## Roadbird

I hope this is not unpopular fro me to say. I have many high end amps. And high end head units. Love the way they sound and look. But.

It took me 20 years to realize that if you are building a daily driver and listening on the road, that road noise makes all the modified high end audio specs pretty much meaningless.

That doesn't mean I will stop installing high end audio in my project cars. It just means I will do it for bragging rights, the cool way they look, and just because I like it, but NOT the specs! the specs mean nothing unless you are in SQ competition where there is no road noise. Then yeah. It matters.

Roadbird


----------



## metanium

Roadbird said:


> I hope this is not unpopular fro me to say. I have many high end amps. And high end head units. Love the way they sound and look. But.
> 
> It took me 20 years to realize that if you are building a daily driver and listening on the road, that road noise makes all the modified high end audio specs pretty much meaningless.
> 
> That doesn't mean I will stop installing high end audio in my project cars. It just means I will do it for bragging rights, the cool way they look, and just because I like it, but NOT the specs! the specs mean nothing unless you are in SQ competition where there is no road noise. Then yeah. It matters.
> 
> Roadbird


Agreed.


----------



## Elektra

Roadbird said:


> I hope this is not unpopular fro me to say. I have many high end amps. And high end head units. Love the way they sound and look. But.
> 
> 
> 
> It took me 20 years to realize that if you are building a daily driver and listening on the road, that road noise makes all the modified high end audio specs pretty much meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean I will stop installing high end audio in my project cars. It just means I will do it for bragging rights, the cool way they look, and just because I like it, but NOT the specs! the specs mean nothing unless you are in SQ competition where there is no road noise. Then yeah. It matters.
> 
> 
> 
> Roadbird




Well .... yes and no

Higher end amps usually deliver more power more cleanly and therefore whilst driving you turn up the volume - as your volume knob is also a tuning device of sorts. Unless you have a terribly load car in terms of exhaust and road noise you should be able to cancel that noise out and be in a similar position to stationary 

If I look at my car for example - I measured the road noise at 85dbs at 120kmh and that is pretty quiet a few clicks on the volume knob and it’s the same as stationary to be honest...

That being said nobody says you “must” get a high end amp and you can get away with a mid level decent amp as well..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## captainobvious

nyquistrate said:


> Captain, do I see Xtant and Soundstream ref amps on that bench? I wanted the Soundstream Class A but went with the Xtant 2200i.





Yup, good eye. Either are great amps.


----------



## SlvrDragon50

So I have a question... this may have been brought up in this 144 page thread, but it's a bit much to read.

I think most people are on the same page that high end amps are not worth it. The other thread with blind amp testing (admittedly a small scale) is also showing cheap amps are more than capable. So what do you consider the sweet spot? What is the best bang for the buck? 

For 4 channels, it seems like Pioneer's line has insane specs for the price. But your options start to get limited for 6. 8 channel there's pretty much only high end stuff.


----------



## LBaudio

If I have to choose I will definitely choose 10 out of 10 picks high end amp for my system....Got a few such amps and it is always a struggle for me to decide which one to use in given situation


----------



## bsvrs

SlvrDragon50 said:


> So I have a question... this may have been brought up in this 144 page thread, but it's a bit much to read.
> 
> I think most people are on the same page that high end amps are not worth it. The other thread with blind amp testing (admittedly a small scale) is also showing cheap amps are more than capable. So what do you consider the sweet spot? What is the best bang for the buck?
> 
> For 4 channels, it seems like Pioneer's line has insane specs for the price. But your options start to get limited for 6. 8 channel there's pretty much only high end stuff.


How do you like your Pioneer amp? I ordered the D9705 for my build I am planning. They dyno at rated power or slightly above. Not expecting miracles out of it, but seems like a solid deal on a 5-channel amp for <$250.


----------



## HereticHulk

Generally speaking, in terms of SQ, what are people's opinions on newer Rockford Fosgate amps. Particularly their Punch Series.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ

SlvrDragon50 said:


> So I have a question... this may have been brought up in this 144 page thread, but it's a bit much to read.
> 
> I think most people are on the same page that high end amps are not worth it. The other thread with blind amp testing (admittedly a small scale) is also showing cheap amps are more than capable. So what do you consider the sweet spot? What is the best bang for the buck?
> 
> For 4 channels, it seems like Pioneer's line has insane specs for the price. But your options start to get limited for 6. 8 channel there's pretty much only high end stuff.


As long as you stick with amps that are proven performers you'll be fine. An amp doesn't have to cost your first born to be a great amp. I think the Zapco ST series a/b amps sound incredible and at their price point are unbeatable. However, at that price point they had to cut corners somewhere so longevity of them is anyone's guess. I still have one in my system but it's just on midbass duty now. I think my Helix G-Five is a brilliant amp that's built like a tank. Plenty of clean power with good headroom for transients from what I can tell. Got a good deal on it barely used from a trusted member here.


----------



## SlvrDragon50

bsvrs said:


> How do you like your Pioneer amp? I ordered the D9705 for my build I am planning. They dyno at rated power or slightly above. Not expecting miracles out of it, but seems like a solid deal on a 5-channel amp for <$250.


I like my Pioneer amp, but I haven't ever heard anything else. I'm a noob in this world. The prices are insane, and I don't know if I've ever seen a bad review of a Pioneer amp.


----------



## thornygravy

HereticHulk said:


> Generally speaking, in terms of SQ, what are people's opinions on newer Rockford Fosgate amps. Particularly their Punch Series.


Got a pair in my daily, nothing but praises here.


----------



## nyquistrate

captainobvious said:


> Yup, good eye. Either are great amps.


Did you do any kind of ranking or notes among the amps you tested?


----------



## disconnected

I think I might have changed my mind on this. I can hear a difference between Class AB and Class D amplifiers. On modern recorded songs, I cannot. On songs with lots of headroom, live recordings, and unprocessed songs, you REALLY can tell a difference.


----------



## Kunkockulator

cleansoundz said:


> I have used several amps over the past 6 years ranging from RF, LP, McIntosh, MTX, PPI, ARC AUDIO, POLK AUDIO, JBL, ZED, LANZAR OPTI, JL AUDIO, KICKER, ECLIPSE, Etc, Etc. While some amps did have a sound that was pleasing to the ear, I noticed that amps with higher power ratings set to a decent pair of speakers whether they were separates or coaxials sounded just as good as the so called higher end amps. My point is an 100 watt x 4 channel of a good brand sounded just as clean, crisp and clear as the so called higher end brands such as Brax, McIntosh, etc. The same applied to bass as well. I swapped out several good brand of amps with higher end amps to notice very little difference in sound quality using a sealed enclosure. If this is the case, why spend so much money on the so-called higher end brands?


I dont think you have used amps. Once you hear an amp line driver is required will change your mind.. I have jad a JL Audio 500.1v2 vs a Zapco dc500.1 and a JBL Ms500 not only the accuracy but also the attack on the speed of the bass. The Zapco clearly hits you in the chest. JL amp is just like a burp. The JBL was just full of distortion that you wont notice till you compare it to something far greater in SQ. You dont know the difference in this sort of thing till you experience it...


----------



## Kunkockulator

SlvrDragon50 said:


> So I have a question... this may have been brought up in this 144 page thread, but it's a bit much to read.
> 
> I think most people are on the same page that high end amps are not worth it. The other thread with blind amp testing (admittedly a small scale) is also showing cheap amps are more than capable. So what do you consider the sweet spot? What is the best bang for the buck?
> 
> For 4 channels, it seems like Pioneer's line has insane specs for the price. But your options start to get limited for 6. 8 channel there's pretty much only high end stuff.


Look for an OLDER SQ amp of around 10 years old or a OLDER amp of 20 years old thats been recapped and serviced... FOr example the Zapco DC series of 10+ years ago is probably the best bang for SQ you will find. 
SoundSTream Rubicon and Class A amps are great also but they are old now and I wouldnt trust the capps inside plus the exterirors are usually banged up. I will NEVER buy another half azzed "affordable" amp again. Ive spent so much money trying to find a decent amp for a low price.. I coulda just spent a couple hundred more and got exactly what I wanted albeit a little older than the newest greatest model...


----------



## Wiseben

I thought like it until i started make comparisons.

High end amps are real.


----------



## Norcalmax

thornygravy said:


> HereticHulk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, in terms of SQ, what are people's opinions on newer Rockford Fosgate amps. Particularly their Punch Series.
> 
> 
> 
> Got a pair in my daily, nothing but praises here.
Click to expand...

Punch amps kick ass. They are stupid underrated are easy as cake to set up with C.L.E.A.N. I noticed a HUGE difference switching from pdx (generally considered very good class d amps) to punch class ab amps for mids particularly in warmness of midbass and lifelike reproduction in vocals. I will never go back to class d for mids and highs


----------



## iSurfSouthChinaSea

Interested in this thread. One bass guitar amp designer suggested that all class D bass amps sound alike (power sections) because they all use the same ICE power amp modules, which are readily (and cheaply) available to the DIY crowd. I think there is merit to this argument. ice module - Parts Express Ships Fast and Ships Free.


----------



## Smdaniel-11

subwoofery said:


> If you can't hear a difference, change your speakers
> 
> Kelvin


If you can’t hear the difference in Mac your ear or install are not very good! Try speakers and tuning.


----------



## NoTraction

Tuning, tuning tuning. Seen guys win WORLD TITLES with JBL amps and $100 subs


----------



## Porsche

NoTraction said:


> Tuning, tuning tuning. Seen guys win WORLD TITLES with JBL amps and $100 subs


perhaps so but if equally tuned with better gear than that will not happen very often


----------



## NoTraction

Porsche said:


> perhaps so but if equally tuned with better gear than that will not happen very often


Better is sometimes not audible... this is the oldest debate in car audio


----------



## Porsche

NoTraction said:


> Better is sometimes not audible... this is the oldest debate in car audio


BS, if you use a superior driver or amp that is installed properly and tuned properly it will be better the majority of the time


----------



## NoTraction

Porsche said:


> BS, if you use a superior driver or amp that is installed properly and tuned properly it will be better the majority of the time


again what's superior is not always audible. Read a few threads by Andy W ex JBL now founder of AF on the subject


----------



## lingling1337

Don't feed the troll @Porsche


----------



## Ge0

NoTraction said:


> again what's superior is not always audible. Read a few threads by Andy W ex JBL now founder of AF on the subject


Why do you all treat marketing expert Andy as a God of car audio? Christ. Read a little history...

Ge0


----------



## Smdaniel-11

Ge0 said:


> Why do you all treat marketing expert Andy as a God of car audio? Christ. Read a little history...
> 
> Ge0


Will people get off his balls? He his a great guy. Good stuff. Just because he has stated it doesn’t make it gospel.


----------



## Porsche

NoTraction said:


> again what's superior is not always audible. Read a few threads by Andy W ex JBL now founder of AF on the subject


i can careless what he or anyone else says, they have there opinion and i have mine.


----------



## Ge0

Smdaniel-11 said:


> Will people get off his balls? He his a great guy. Good stuff. Just because he has stated it doesn’t make it gospel.


Don't get me wrong. I respect the heck out of Andy. It's just like you said. Folks tend to do what he says without question. Andy is just a well educated mortal. Not the worlds leading expert.

Ge0


----------



## lingling1337

Even a DAC can make a night and day difference, and that's something most people don't even bother with on this forum. If you can't hear a difference between a low-end and high-end amp, that's on your associated equipment and listening environment.


----------



## JCsAudio

When it comes to car audio Andy is an expert and a damn good one too. He probably doesn’t spend any time on this forum anymore because he’s tired of wasting his time arguing with some enthusiasts who think they know more.


----------



## Porsche

JCsAudio said:


> When it comes to car audio Andy is an expert and a damn good one too. He probably doesn’t spend any time on this forum anymore because he’s tired of wasting his time arguing with some enthusiasts who think they know more.


if you say so


----------



## Elektra

Ok I am gonna go out on a limb and say amps absolutely make a difference - it’s not entirely on tuning 

Amps matter... 

Drop the mic... ! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NoTraction

Elektra said:


> Ok I am gonna go out on a limb and say amps absolutely make a difference - it’s not entirely on tuning
> 
> Amps matter...
> 
> Drop the mic... !
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


#amplivesmatter


----------



## Smdaniel-11

One Would assume he has a life other than this page and people arguing over the company he works at. Why is his word the final say? When did know knowledge level soar past EVERYONE ELSE?


----------



## jonatbaylor

Installation is very important, but I think a good sound system always begins with a great *plan*.

For me speakers are at the top of the list because its the medium from which your sound comes across. A great amp isn't going to make crap speakers sound great, so buy the best speakers you can afford. From there, a dead head unit paired with a good DAC. Round things out with a high quality amp for your mids and highs. Your source needs to be excellent too if you really want to get the max benefit- I am referring to your CD / MP3 quality.

Don't spend a ton on an HQ amp for your sub, that's just dumb.


----------



## rton20s

I'll leave this here in case anyone wants to use Andy Wehmeyer as an excuse for installing lesser quality gear. Its up to you to determine where the line is between "crappy" and "great." I'm just tired of the false dichotomy that car audio is either inexpensive gear installed well or expensive gear installed poorly.

_"I'd rather have crappy gear well installed than great gear normally installed."
No.
The normal installation can be improved. The crappy gear can't.
There's way too much focus among the essques on mounting stuff.
-Andy Wehmeyer_


----------



## Matti777

I'm a novice when it comes to SQ in car audio but I have spend many dollars on bass guitars, amps, cabs, etc. I'd rather have high quality gear and not be wondering but I know in the back of my mind there are diminishing returns, if any at all, once a decent quality product has been selected. I'm planning a build now for my new Mustang. If I wonder about the weak links the amps are the last thing I am worried about. Perhaps I will prove myself wrong but I don't think so.


----------



## jonatbaylor

Matti777 said:


> there are diminishing returns, if any at all, once a decent quality product has been selected. I'm planning a build now for my new Mustang. If I wonder about the weak links the amps are the last thing I am worried about. Perhaps I will prove myself wrong but I don't think so.


I do agree with diminishing returns. For example, would a sinfoni desiderio which is around $8k? new, produce better sound than my Mcintosh amps? Maybe. I don't know and I won't ever know because I won't ever have a Sinfoni to play around with. That said I wouldn't cheap on the amp. Depending on your setup, some amps can deal with vehicle resonance; linearity and headroom, among other things.


----------



## Matti777

jonatbaylor said:


> ... That said I wouldn't cheap on the amp. Amps provide tone, linearity and headroom, among other things.


 I'm not suggesting that I or anybody else is saying that diminishing returns starts at el cheapo amps (I'm using JL Audio). You have to buy an amp sized for the job of course. I'm not sure about tone though... that sounds like colorization of the sound....probably a whole new topic


----------



## jonatbaylor

Matti777 said:


> I'm not suggesting that I or anybody else is saying that diminishing returns starts at el cheapo amps (I'm using JL Audio). You have to buy an amp sized for the job of course. I'm not sure about tone though... that sounds like colorization of the sound....probably a whole new topic


You right! I was talking to a buddy about our guitar amps and tone and mistakenly put tone in there. I meant resonance. My 431M lets me adjust settings to deal with resonance in the car.

Your system is only as good as your weakest link.


----------



## jonatbaylor

There is _absolutely _a noticeable difference in sound quality between amps and this is not up for debate.

I feel the discussion should center around what's the least expensive but high quality amp. AKA the best _value_. That way new installs can benefit from previous trial and error and those people do not waste their money. When you get to a certain price point, there is a point of diminishing returns. I picked up a used Mcintosh 431M 15 years ago for about $700 and couldn't be happier. I also really like my used Butler Tube 475 ($550). Are there amps for less that offer the same quality and richness of sound? I haven't found any. If you have, let us know.


----------



## LBaudio

higher quality amps will most probably have better Damping Factor, Better-higher slew rate, lower THD, better S/N, better channel separation, better quality material used, better DAC,....all that and more and all this will definitelly reflect on the sound itself. If someone cant appreciate all those benefts it is better to buy himself lower quality amp and live with it since they cant hear or evaluate difference....as simple as that

What the fox said when she could not reach to the grapes..........it is bitter...


----------



## Smdaniel-11

Ge0 said:


> Don't get me wrong. I respect the heck out of Andy. It's just like you said. Folks tend to do what he says without question. Andy is just a well educated mortal. Not the worlds leading expert.
> 
> Ge0


Wonderful man to talk to with a ton of knowledge. It seems he would have NO life if he has to spend his whole life dealing e-mail questions based on a great opinion. 


lingling1337 said:


> Even a DAC can make a night and day difference, and that's something most people don't even bother with on this forum. If you can't hear a difference between a low-end and high-end amp, that's on your associated equipment and listening environment.


Amen to that! FiiO x7 mk11.


----------



## Smdaniel-11

Smdaniel-11 said:


> Wonderful man to talk to with a ton of knowledge. It seems he would have NO life if he has to spend his whole life dealing e-mail questions based on a great opinion.
> 
> Amen to that! FiiO x7 mMK2


----------



## Smdaniel-11

Smdaniel-11 said:


> Wonderful man to talk to with a ton of knowledge. It seems he would have NO life if he has to spend his whole life dealing e-mail questions based on a great opinion.
> 
> Amen to that!


----------



## JbKnoxville

RNBRAD said:


> I have to somewhat agree. I've used countless brands over the last 25yrs. I'm currently using 3 different brands (Mcintosh, Alpine, Kicker). I've never really heard that big of a difference. A difference many claim to hear as night and day which I just think it's other factors and not amps. Now I think there is certain instances when an amps performance changes with age or internal capacitors loose their efficiency or change rating and this effects the sound. I'm talking amps that meet the manufacturers original specifications. But with all things perfect from amp design to amp design, at least in my experience, there has been little to no differences especially at comfortable listening levels. Then again I've never used junk and have always used a careful selection in my equipment. I used the 35 series Alpines from 89 to 94, regarded as some of the best Alpines (even amps) ever made for SQ. I switched them out for the Mcintosh in the same system same power replacements. Only noticed a difference at extremely high volumes. Mcintosh kept it's composure better but I attribute it to them being more under rated than the Alpines. Otherwise, audibly speaking, no difference at least there. I want to make that distinction but I'm not going to try to compare one amp to another in different systems, just not practical or accurate. I only give credence to those that have switched out amps from the same system in this fashion. Most of it is all BS!!
> 
> *On a side note, my Mcintosh amps are 18-19yrs old and playing like a champ*. My alpines croaked at about the 10yr mark. Every Alpine amp I've ever had lasts about 10yrs then I start having problems. I moved them over to other cars and was actually easier on them. So that's something to be said about running high end gear, or at least McIntosh. My actual Mcintosh rep told me they would easily last 30 plus years and told me to send them in at the 30yr mark to have them evaluated. If they do not meet the original specifications at the 30yrs mark they will fix it till they do. Who else does this?


Sound quality not amp longevity. You know your stuff what do you think about it? Not being a ass just picking your 🧠 brain . You may be answering someone I haven’t read all 4K messages but some one who knows the amps over time is there a difference in amps sound?


----------



## JbKnoxville

cleansoundz said:


> I have used several amps over the past 6 years ranging from RF, LP, McIntosh, MTX, PPI, ARC AUDIO, POLK AUDIO, JBL, ZED, LANZAR OPTI, JL AUDIO, KICKER, ECLIPSE, Etc, Etc. While some amps did have a sound that was pleasing to the ear, I noticed that amps with higher power ratings set to a decent pair of speakers whether they were separates or coaxials sounded just as good as the so called higher end amps. My point is an 100 watt x 4 channel of a good brand sounded just as clean, crisp and clear as the so called higher end brands such as Brax, McIntosh, etc. The same applied to bass as well. I swapped out several good brand of amps with higher end amps to notice very little difference in sound quality using a sealed enclosure. If this is the case, why spend so much money on the so-called higher end brands?


Sealed enclosure isn’t letting the sub talk to you. It is like having a motor with a air filter that is so thick doesn’t really matter what you do to your motor isn’t going to get better until you give it air. So saying there is little different in amps with a sealed box is not even close the the whole story. I have the same amp with same speakers an I switched ported boxes an it is night an day.Your not going to hear much difference in a sealed box. Broaden your horizons an you will find the differences!


----------



## rton20s




----------



## JCsAudio

Expert:

noun, a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area.









Expert - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





🤭


----------



## cman

Norcalmax said:


> Punch amps kick ass. They are stupid underrated are easy as cake to set up with C.L.E.A.N. I noticed a HUGE difference switching from pdx (generally considered very good class d amps) to punch class ab amps for mids particularly in warmness of midbass and lifelike reproduction in vocals. I will never go back to class d for mids and highs


I’ve used many amps I will list amp brands below I have used

Sony
Kenwood
ARC Audio
Kicker
Alpine
Skar Audio
Polk Audio
Nvx Audio
Toro Audio

My current amps are Rockford Fosgate t400x4ad. I run two of them. And asides from the fans due to their small size. They have constant power so same power at 2 or 4 ohms but most importantly they have as good or better sound quality than ANY amp I have ever owned including all class A/B amplifiers. Warm, clean, extremely high noise floor. My volume can be at zero and I can put my ear all the way up to my tweeter before I hear the faint fuzz/hiss like all of my cheaper amps made much more audible. This is due to the Rockford r400x4ad’s extremely high signal to noise ratio. 110db at rated power and >90db at 1 watt into 4 ohm. I will never switch to anything else unless these take a crap or it’s a full class A/B system which in that case I would need an upgraded Alt IMO... good stuff. Rockford is drastically underrated in the SQ community. They keep up and for the most part exceed the performance and SQ my ARC X2 1200.6 had in almost every way.


----------



## Sam Spade

jonatbaylor said:


> Installation is very important, but I think a good sound system always begins with a great *plan*.
> 
> For me speakers are at the top of the list because its the medium from which your sound comes across. A great amp isn't going to make crap speakers sound great, so buy the best speakers you can afford. From there, a dead head unit paired with a good DAC. Round things out with a high quality amp for your mids and highs. Your source needs to be excellent too if you really want to get the max benefit- I am referring to your CD / MP3 quality.
> 
> Don't spend a ton on an HQ amp for your sub, that's just dumb.


I agree with most of this. A CD in my kenwood head unit is killed by the same cd ripped to flac on my Astell and Kern SP1000M or AK70 playing directly into the coax input of my helix ultra. And probably played from my LGV30+ phone, I must test that. 

The best speakers you can afford is a good start as long as you have an amp that is capable of driving them well and delivering the potential of the speakers. And the speakers aren't revealing a crap source. 

The weakest link in the chain will be the limiting factor. 

In the early 90's I could have sold so many more home hifi speakers if I demo'ed them all on a $10k Nakamichi pre power and a $10k Marantz 2 box CD. But that would have been cheating. 

Instead if someone had a $2K to $3K budget i'd usually play them a $1000 to $1,200 speaker on a $600 amp and $600 CD player. An honest, balanced combination. and then show them the option either side. Sometimes a $2000 speaker would do great on the $600 components. But all the $5K speakers sounded pretty average on $600 components, compared to their potential. 

Hell the $600 marantz and $600 Rotel 50 wpc amps sounded noticeably different. Both sounded great for the money. 

So no, all amps do not sound the same and more expensive amps can be significantly better. Sometimes there are cheap products out there that are absolute gems though and punch way above their weight. Rotel have a long history of making 200 watt class AB power amps that will drive some of the most esoteric speakers out there wonderfully well. Current model is under AU$3,000. They might not be quite as good as the $10,000 class A Krell equivalent. But they are great amps. 

I'd give the car audio equivalents but I don't know the markets well enough. 

There are a significant proportion of customers out there who want to party loud and don't appreciate or perhaps value good SQ. For their home systems you can sell a cheap source and a big amp and big efficient speakers. God there are so many people using lo-res spotify and apple music played from phones or tablets or laptops into good amps and speakers. lotsa DJ's do it at weddings etc. 

The same goes for carfi. sh*t lo res source into great DSP, amps and speakers well installed won't deliver the potential of the system. 

Ok I also don't mean to diss anyone who is happy with spotify or apple music. but compare with Tidal. and close your eyes, relax and listen. 

I've got dejavu here. I feel like I've posted the same argument somewhere before in the 182 pages of this thread. 

What is critical is the value proposition. The $10,000 class A Krell might be worth the extra $7000 dollars to you compared to the Rotel. But it may not. And you may not be able to afford it


----------



## stegmsk

Don't these high end amps use more precise components and better more thought out layouts on the circuit boards for more accurate sound amplification. I think there would be a difference in SQ between a 300 dollar amp and a 3000 dollar amp. I'm not sure if it would be noticeable by a human ear or not.


----------



## Sam Spade

stegmsk said:


> Don't these high end amps use more precise components and better more thought out layouts on the circuit boards for more accurate sound amplification. I think there would be a difference in SQ between a 300 dollar amp and a 3000 dollar amp. I'm not sure if it would be noticeable by a human ear or not.


I've listened to two $10,000 amps side by side. They sounded different. And three $600 amps side by side and they soundes different. That's home hifi stereo amps in 1990 dollars. So listen. And buy what you like, what you can justify.


----------



## st1nki4a

I want to share my experience with you too. Yesterday i replaced Audison VRX 4.300 with Helix M Six. Everyone says there is no difference between amps, there's no difference between class AB and D .... Well i tried it and i am sorry for purchasing that Helix amp. The two amps are rated the same power 110 wpc, but Audison is waaaay cleaner and louder. Helix m six has audible floor noise even with gains down low, the amp is not that loud and I have to crank it to get the same level of loudnes. I don't know where is the problem maybe different snr ....

Изпратено от моят Redmi Note 9 Pro с помощта на Tapatalk


----------



## Sam Spade

st1nki4a said:


> I want to share my experience with you too. Yesterday i replaced Audison VRX 4.300 with Helix M Six. Everyone says there is no difference between amps, there's no difference between class AB and D .... Well i tried it and i am sorry for purchasing that Helix amp. The two amps are rated the same power 110 wpc, but Audison is waaaay cleaner and louder. Helix m six has audible floor noise even with gains down low, the amp is not that loud and I have to crank it to get the same level of loudnes. I don't know where is the problem maybe different snr ....
> 
> Изпратено от моят Redmi Note 9 Pro с помощта на Tapatalk


Bummer. I know the helix C four and C one are both awesome (class AB) amps.

I had three hertz HP802 stereo AB 330 wpc monsters and also know when i needed more amp channels i asked the OZ hertz distributor if i should try the hertz mille class D. He laughed at me and said once youve had the HP802 you'll never go back to class D and be happy.


----------



## Elektra

st1nki4a said:


> I want to share my experience with you too. Yesterday i replaced Audison VRX 4.300 with Helix M Six. Everyone says there is no difference between amps, there's no difference between class AB and D .... Well i tried it and i am sorry for purchasing that Helix amp. The two amps are rated the same power 110 wpc, but Audison is waaaay cleaner and louder. Helix m six has audible floor noise even with gains down low, the amp is not that loud and I have to crank it to get the same level of loudnes. I don't know where is the problem maybe different snr ....
> 
> Изпратено от моят Redmi Note 9 Pro с помощта на Tapatalk


Well to be honest the Helix M series is a very cheap series...

The VRX is a very capable SQ amp I think a better swop would have been a Helix C Four not the M line amp...

I mean the retail of the VRX is like 10 times the M Line amps...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Porsche

Elektra said:


> Well to be honest the Helix M series is a very cheap series...
> 
> The VRX is a very capable SQ amp I think a better swop would have been a Helix C Four not the M line amp...
> 
> I mean the retail of the VRX is like 10 times the M Line amps...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


but i thought all amps sound the same and the newer amps are better etc etc than older amps, what gives


----------



## Sam Spade

Elektra said:


> Well to be honest the Helix M series is a very cheap series...
> 
> The VRX is a very capable SQ amp I think a better swop would have been a Helix C Four not the M line amp...
> 
> I mean the retail of the VRX is like 10 times the M Line amps...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I hope you still have the VRX?

in the end unless money is no object it comes back to value


----------



## Sam Spade

st1nki4a said:


> I want to share my experience with you too. Yesterday i replaced Audison VRX 4.300 with Helix M Six. Everyone says there is no difference between amps, there's no difference between class AB and D .... Well i tried it and i am sorry for purchasing that Helix amp. The two amps are rated the same power 110 wpc, but Audison is waaaay cleaner and louder. Helix m six has audible floor noise even with gains down low, the amp is not that loud and I have to crank it to get the same level of loudnes. I don't know where is the problem maybe different snr ....
> 
> Изпратено от моят Redmi Note 9 Pro с помощта на Tapatalk


I hope you still have the VRX?

in the end unless money is no object it comes back to value


----------



## Elektra

Porsche said:


> but i thought all amps sound the same and the newer amps are better etc etc than older amps, what gives


Said everyone who thought an amp is an amp and says 10wpc clean is the same as 10wpc clean on another 

I suspect that analogy is derived from guys who don’t have the cash to spend on higher end gear and tell themselves that a $300 amp sounds the same as a $3000 amp


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Elektra

Sam Spade said:


> I hope you still have the VRX?
> 
> in the end unless money is no object it comes back to value


Well I have never owned a VRX but I have owned Thesis and HV Venti’s before and the M line from Helix with all due respect to ATF it was never to compete against those amps that’s why they have the never C amps and Brax amps which are more equipped to deal in that class...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sam Spade

Porsche said:


> but i thought all amps sound the same and the newer amps are better etc etc than older amps, what gives


you know that's not true. 

My 2 home systems have a 30yo Rotel stereo power amp 200 wpc rms into 8 and a 100 watt class AB switchable to 20watt class A marantz integrated. Buy Quality and it lasts. I'm hoping to get 30 years out of my car power amps. Hertz SP802 and Helix C fours.


----------



## Elektra

Sam Spade said:


> you know that's not true.
> 
> My 2 home systems have a 30yo Rotel stereo power amp 200 wpc rms into 8 and a 100 watt class AB switchable to 20watt class A marantz integrated. Buy Quality and it lasts. I'm hoping to get 30 years out of my car power amps. Hertz SP802 and Helix C fours.


Pretty sure it was said in jest...lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sam Spade

Elektra said:


> Pretty sure it was said in jest...lol
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


me too. Just making a point though. But @Porsche seems to be able to buy cars and stereos at a whim, where I try and buy once, buy something that makes me very happy, and make it last a long time.


----------



## Porsche

Sam Spade said:


> me too. Just making a point though. But @Porsche seems to be able to buy cars and stereos at a whim, where I try and buy once, buy something that makes me very happy, and make it last a long time.


always something better, no reason to settle


----------



## Elektra

Porsche said:


> always something better, no reason to settle


Lol... we always chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Porsche

Elektra said:


> Lol... we always chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


think i found it tho


----------



## st1nki4a

Sam Spade said:


> I hope you still have the VRX?
> 
> in the end unless money is no object it comes back to value


Yes, I still have it. The VRx is huge and i went 3 way active so 6 channel small amp was great idea.... I have limited trunk space but maybe i will switch back to the vrx + audison lrx 4.1k, just they are big and want lots of juice.

Изпратено от моят Redmi Note 9 Pro с помощта на Tapatalk


----------



## JCsAudio

stegmsk said:


> Don't these high end amps use more precise components and better more thought out layouts on the circuit boards for more accurate sound amplification. I think there would be a difference in SQ between a 300 dollar amp and a 3000 dollar amp. I'm not sure if it would be noticeable by a human ear or not.


There is most likely an improvement in that realm but it could also be that the much more expensive amplifier will just last longer and have features that are more higher end more than maybe sounding superior. Price alone does not guarantee the best sound. From my testing I concluded that amplifier engineering and design make a huge difference and with economies of scale and mass production, the amplifier price can be very reasonable and yet still sound superior. My experience however is with amplifiers costing less than $1000 so I can’t speak for those more expensive boutique brands. Companies that can afford the R&D have the best engineers and designs and are on the forefront of that. They have to be because I don’t think they can turn big enough profits producing $3000 amplifiers alone. The average car audio enthusiast just doesn’t see the value in spending thousands of dollars on amplifiers alone and these companies know it.


----------



## Jaloosk

Sam Spade said:


> ... I try and buy once, buy something that makes me very happy, and make it last a long time.


This is my approach. I want my stuff (car, house, electronics, whatever) to last as long as possible. I hate buying something then having to replace it in 3-5 years.


----------



## Holmz

Sam Spade said:


> me too. Just making a point though. But @Porsche seems to be able to buy cars and stereos at a whim, where I try and buy once, buy something that makes me very happy, and make it last a long time.


I thought you were upgrading your year old system with new gear?


----------



## Sam Spade

Holmz said:


> I thought you were upgrading your year old system with new gear?


Yes and no one was more surprised about that than me. im keeping one set of 3 ways, 3 amps and the DSP and head unit. Selling 2 subs and a pair of 2 ways. When one gets offered 2 helix C four amps, 2 brax matrix ML8 subs and a set of brax matrix ML1s, ML3s and ML6s at practically half price fully legit..... Well it's hard to say no. I showed restraint. I could have gone 3 way brax matrix in the rear doors too including ML8s but i didnt i kept the hertz mille reference. The plan was always to add a few things keep all my existing setup and go active. It just happened sooner and better than expected. Mind you i have to save up some cash to get some of the install done. My month in hospital plus about 4 weeks recovery was no income. Fortunately the $60-80k plus hospital visit was free except a $450 excess


----------



## Jaloosk

Holmz said:


> I thought you were upgrading your year old system with new gear?


I’m replacing my front stage amp because it died, and I’m replacing my head unit because when it gets cold it reboots all the time, or doesn’t start up. I have a temp amp for the front stage rn but the rear channels of it are blown. This is what I get for buying lower-end gear...


----------



## Sam Spade

Jaloosk said:


> I’m replacing my front stage amp because it died, and I’m replacing my head unit because when it gets cold it reboots all the time, or doesn’t start up. I have a temp amp for the front stage rn but the rear channels of it are blown. This is what I get for buying lower-end gear...


My kenwood head unit is great. But for SQ my astell and kern DAP as a file server into the helix ultra kills it. Same cd in the kenwood and flac ripped with dBpoweamp on my home pc on the A&K. AB test switching back and forth. Night and day. And its the top end kenwood single din.


----------



## Holmz

Jaloosk said:


> ... , and I’m replacing my head unit because when it gets cold it reboots all the time,...


gets cold eh? 🇨🇦


----------



## preston

Sam Spade said:


> My kenwood head unit is great. But for SQ my astell and kern DAP as a file server into the helix ultra kills it. Same cd in the kenwood and flac ripped with dBpoweamp on my home pc on the A&K. AB test switching back and forth. Night and day. And its the top end kenwood single din.


So the DAP feeding digital over coax ? USB to the Helix. ? 
And the Kenwood is feeding analog ?


----------



## Sam Spade

preston said:


> So the DAP feeding digital over coax ? USB to the Helix. ?
> And the Kenwood is feeding analog ?


Yep kenwood feeds analogue, no digital. I use it for AM/FM/DAB+digital radio and new CD's I have that I'm excited about but haven't ripped yet. 

Yes an astell & kern DAP SP1000M feeding USB digital to an ifi nano iOne to convert USB into SPDIF then into the digital coax. Many people swear by the topping D10 to do the USB to SPDIF and I've got one to try. I also have a USB HEC module to feed the A&K DAP USB directly into the Helix Ultra but I haven't tested that yet. There has been much discussion on the forum about this but almost everyone seems to agree that feeding a DAP or a phone or tablet into the DSP is better than the headunit for SQ. Some people prefer the functionality of using a head unit or don't believe SQ is different.

It's too complicated to summazise here. I'll start a new thread or find an existing one. .


----------



## Holmz

Sam Spade said:


> Yep kenwood feeds analogue, no digital. I use it for AM/FM/DAB+digital radio and new CD's I have that I'm excited about but haven't ripped yet.
> 
> Yes an astell & kern DAP SP1000M feeding USB digital to an ifi nano iOne to convert USB into SPDIF then into the digital coax. Many people swear by the topping D10 to do the USB to SPDIF and I've got one to try. I also have a USB HEC module to feed the A&K DAP USB directly into the Helix Ultra but I haven't tested that yet. There has been much discussion on the forum about this but almost everyone seems to agree that feeding a DAP or a phone or tablet into the DSP is better than the headunit for SQ. Some people prefer the functionality of using a head unit or don't believe SQ is different.
> 
> It's too complicated to summazise here. I'll start a new thread or find an existing one. .


Can you put it on the list to A/B'ed the direct digital versus the A&K going analogue?


----------



## Sam Spade

Holmz said:


> Can you put it on the list to A/B'ed the direct digital versus the A&K going analogue?


I can maybe as the kenwood uses 6 inputs the AK only 2 so ill have to change the configuration. I have fed the AK analogue into the kenwood aux and a/b it sounds just like playing a cd in the kenwood. Ie not as good as the AK digital USB converted to SPDIF.


----------



## Elektra

Porsche said:


> think i found it tho


For now..... lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Porsche

Elektra said:


> For now..... lol
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


dunno, current amp is way beyond others i have owned


----------



## Sam Spade

Porsche said:


> dunno, current amp is way beyond others i have owned


What is it so we can aspire to it?


----------



## Holmz

It maybe starts with an A


----------



## Sam Spade

Amway, absolute or american pro? 🤣 








Most recent list of good and bad car audio brands


Shared by http://www.autopumpkin.com/




www.slideshare.net


----------



## Holmz

Sam Spade said:


> Amway, absolute or american pro? 🤣
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most recent list of good and bad car audio brands
> 
> 
> Shared by http://www.autopumpkin.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.slideshare.net


^Cute^, but it is not there, nor are some of the other lesser known units.

I would not worry yourself too much aboutwhat Porsche is running, that new Brax stuff you got will be just fine.


----------



## Sam Spade

Holmz said:


> ^Cute^, but it is not there, nor are some of the other lesser known units.
> 
> I would not worry yourself too much aboutwhat Porsche is running, that new Brax stuff you got will be just fine.


They probably dont sell abyss to people who drive turbo diesel trucks anyway 😄


----------



## Porsche

Sam Spade said:


> They probably dont sell abyss to people who drive turbo diesel trucks anyway 😄


i know i wouldn't


----------



## Holmz

Sam Spade said:


> They probably dont sell abyss to people who drive turbo diesel trucks anyway 😄


I have two....


----------



## Porsche

Holmz said:


> I have two....


land rover d90 owner myself


----------



## Sam Spade

Porsche said:


> land rover d90 owner myself


Has it ever seen anything but concrete and bitumen?


----------



## Porsche

Sam Spade said:


> Has it ever seen anything but concrete and bitumen?


yup, its my work truck, in the field/jobsite almost everyday. bitumen, you mean asphalt, love it when guys try to speak with words that they think will make them look smarter than the "average joe"


----------



## Sam Spade

Porsche said:


> yup, its my work truck, in the field/jobsite almost everyday. bitumen, you mean asphalt, love it when guys try to speak with words that they think will make them look smarter than the "average joe"


I'm just talking Australian..... Being an Australian.

/ˈbɪtjʊmən/
Learn to pron


a black viscous mixture of hydrocarbons obtained naturally or as a residue from petroleum distillation. It is used for road surfacing and roofing.​




​

INFORMAL•AUSTRALIAN
a tarred road surface.
"a kilometre and a half of bitumen"​


----------



## Porsche

Sam Spade said:


> I'm just talking Australian..... Being an Australian.
> 
> /ˈbɪtjʊmən/
> Learn to pron
> 
> 
> a black viscous mixture of hydrocarbons obtained naturally or as a residue from petroleum distillation. It is used for road surfacing and roofing.​
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> INFORMAL•AUSTRALIAN
> a tarred road surface.
> "a kilometre and a half of bitumen"​


yea, i know what it is, thanks


----------



## Sam Spade

Porsche said:


> yea, i know what it is, thanks


I don't think you're an idiot i meant to highlight this:

INFORMAL•AUSTRALIAN
a tarred road surface.
"a kilometre and a half of bitumen"

I'm not sure a work site really counts as off road. But it's probably a lot better suited for worksites than a porsche


----------



## Sam Spade

Holmz said:


> I have two....


Are there any exotic car audio goodies you dont have? You're going to have to buy a porshe to put them in. 😄


----------



## Holmz

Sam Spade said:


> Are there any exotic car audio goodies you dont have? You're going to have to buy a porshe to put them in. 😄


I don't have any of the ones that you the bad column on the left.


----------



## Sam Spade

Holmz said:


> I don't have any of the ones that you the bad column on the left.


Well thats probably a good thing 😄


----------



## Sam Spade

Do you have a warehouse @Holmz? and how do you get the wife to agree with all the expensive gear?


----------



## Holmz

Sam Spade said:


> Do you have a warehouse @Holmz? and how do you get the wife to agree with all the expensive gear?


No warehouse... I only have a few examples of good vintage gear.
And I think you've outspent me on amps, speakers, and DSPs in the last year?
Most of my stuff except the DSP is also pretty old.


Pointers:

"The wife" is female.
I have a job, so I am not spending her money
I have her buy her hobby stuff on my cc and then I never knowingly get the wrong gift.


----------



## Sam Spade

Holmz said:


> No warehouse... I only have a few examples of good vintage gear.
> And I think you've outspent me on amps, speakers, and DSPs in the last year?
> Most of my stuff except the DSP is also pretty old.
> 
> 
> Pointers:
> 
> "The wife" is female.
> I have a job, so I am not spending her money
> I have her buy her hobby stuff on my cc and then I never knowingly get the wrong gift.


Yes well i go for lengthy periods without buying audio gear. This year stands out. 

I've got some nice vintage gear thats in use still. I just had 2 musical fidelity preamps seviced. Prior to selling them. I especially love the nuvista its #276 of 500 but i can't really justify keeping it if I'm not using it.


----------



## Holmz

Sam Spade said:


> Yes well i go for lengthy periods without buying audio gear. This year stands out.
> 
> I've got some nice vintage gear thats in use still. I just had 2 musical fidelity preamps seviced. Prior to selling them. I especially love the nuvista its #276 of 500 but i can't really justify keeping it if I'm not using it.


Ok, but...
Then why ask Mr Porsche which amp if you were not interested in moving up to a better sound?


----------



## Sam Spade

Holmz said:


> Ok, but...
> Then why ask Mr Porsche which amp if you were not interested in moving up to a better sound?


Cos he was emphatic about it being better. I'm still interested in things I'll never buy. 

I may have spent less on music this year given all the gigs anf festivals i missed.


----------



## Holmz

Well i think it was in the forth column on the amps rating list.


----------



## drop1

All amps sound different. I can hear the difference in character from a dsp.
Thing is, an amp really only starts to show its character as it starts to reach its limits. The lower you stay under an amps capability, the more similar they sound. As they start to reach peak power and especially when being slightly overdriven the character really starts to show itself. They all "distort" slightly different. This is one of the reasons I like to have double rms on tap. I get nowhere near the point where amps start showing their sound though some amps sound pretty damned awesome when pushed. Usually class a and a/b can sound really good at its limits. Class d not so much. I dont want to get anywhere near a class d's peak output.


----------



## Holmz

drop1 said:


> All amps sound different. I can hear the difference in character from a dsp.
> Thing is, an amp really only starts to show its character as it starts to reach its limits. The lower you stay under an amps capability, the more similar they sound. As they start to reach peak power and especially when being slightly overdriven the character really starts to show itself. They all "distort" slightly different. This is one of the reasons I like to have double rms on tap. I get nowhere near the point where amps start showing their sound though some amps sound pretty damned awesome when pushed. Usually class a and a/b can sound really good at its limits. Class d not so much. I dont want to get anywhere near a class d's peak output.


Maybe that is why i like class-AB and not hammering the good ear?


----------



## Sam Spade

drop1 said:


> All amps sound different. I can hear the difference in character from a dsp.
> Thing is, an amp really only starts to show its character as it starts to reach its limits. The lower you stay under an amps capability, the more similar they sound. As they start to reach peak power and especially when being slightly overdriven the character really starts to show itself. They all "distort" slightly different. This is one of the reasons I like to have double rms on tap. I get nowhere near the point where amps start showing their sound though some amps sound pretty damned awesome when pushed. Usually class a and a/b can sound really good at its limits. Class d not so much. I dont want to get anywhere near a class d's peak output.


Class AB do sound better as you turn them up, as does class A. Till you start getting distortion. And according to this reviewer, tubes sound better a lower volumes. Why Tubes Sound Better


----------



## cman

Sam Spade said:


> Class AB do sound better as you turn them up, as does class A. Till you start getting distortion. And according to this reviewer, tubes sound better a lower volumes. Why Tubes Sound Better



Technically, from a objective standpoint, I have seen data indicating that tubes add distortion to sound. But I guess a lot of people like the sound as warm or clean as tubes cannot clip when overdriven like transistors do. 

Class D has that nasty switching frequency that has to be filtered out from the audio signal. That’s up for debate as to or not it can be filtered out completely but when you look at a class D on an oscilloscope compared to a class A/B I would argue it does not, especially when ran up towards the clip point. I wish I could come up with room in my trunk for some nice A/B’s but I would need a false floor or to put them on the back of my seats...


----------



## Sam Spade

cman said:


> Technically, from a objective standpoint, I have seen data indicating that tubes add distortion to sound. But I guess a lot of people like the sound as warm or clean as tubes cannot clip when overdriven like transistors do.
> 
> Class D has that nasty switching frequency that has to be filtered out from the audio signal. That’s up for debate as to or not it can be filtered out completely but when you look at a class D on an oscilloscope compared to a class A/B I would argue it does not, especially when ran up towards the clip point. I wish I could come up with room in my trunk for some nice A/B’s but I would need a false floor or to put them on the back of my seats...


The hypex platform class D amps get great reviews both measured and subjective. Biketronics use the hypex platform to make compact amps for motorbikes there's some threads here on them. Even NAD and Marantz are now using the hypex platform for home hifi. And when you think of the decades of experience and IP they have in class A and AB for them to use 3rd party class D technology is a pretty significant statement. 

Tubes don't measure as well as transistors, but the 2nd? order harmonic distortion is nice and they might sound better at lower volumes where you get the best sound from solid state when you turn it up. In my main system I've got a musical fidelity tube preamp and a Rotel 200wpc solid state power amp at home that is a great combination. But in my home office I've also got a Marantz solid state PM80 amp that's 20wpc in class A and switchable to 100wpc class AB. It is a beautiful amp and sounds great. And it's got a spectacularly good headphone stage that will drive inefficient 200 ohm planar headphones just fine. 

But i've got class AB in my car under a false floor  Sam's Challenger


----------



## Holmz

OK... with my spider sense, I see a foot in a few camps.


Class-A
Class-A/B
And Class-D
And a host of brands.
And covering the "sounds good" (tubes) and also Hi-Fidelity.

It is pretty much like a game of twister.


----------



## Mc4life2769

Now your talking two different ball fields. Spl and sq. Of course you not going to hear difference in amps. As long as
You have enough power the bass is going to drown everything else out. Never understood spl cars when they were privately own. A shop sure because of wow factor. But a real true spl car is not fun daily driving let alone just driving home he damn thing more then the distance between the trailer and the lot. But a regular customer wasting their own money for a stupid bass heavy loud car that’s miserable to drive. What’s the point.


Sound Suggestions said:


> Yes lol! I had used 2 of their series, old school goodness, the one that left an impression on me was the vrx I believe (plexiglass bottom and 1/2 ohm capable) thx


----------



## Holmz

It is certainly easier to make a case the higher $ amps can better if one starts with highly inductive loads, and low impedence.

It was pretty legendary, back in the day, for Krell amps to significantly outperform other amps as speakers arrived with low impedence and lots in inductance.


----------



## cman

Only downfall is all these 1 ohm stable amplifiers (let alone 0.5 ohm) generally have worse efficiency. If I’m going to run a class D I want 85-90% efficiency, not 60-70%. The amp dyno videos on YouTube show how different impedances on different amplifiers effects efficiency... although if you’re running at half an ohm you probably have HO Alts, lithium, don’t give two sh** about efficiency


----------



## Jscoyne2

Efficiency always matters when you're chasing decibels. 

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary S

Oh my gosh, this thread is still going on, lol!

It's true, amps do not make sound quality. There is no magic happening in amps. It's in the name - amps amplify. That's all, end of story.

Did you know that your sound quality changes when you turn the dial on your head unit? Surprise!

Sure, class A amps and some amps, like the original soundstreams, had soft clipping. So what? an average amp will sound exactly the same kept under clipping.

And what about tube amps? Did you know you can make a little black box with a handful of cheap electronics to make a solid state amp mimic a tube amp? It's been done before. Tubes are for boobs!

However, I just bought a hi end car amp - a Precision Power PC1000.5D.

Why did I buy it? For sound quality? That would be a big fat noooooo!

I bought it because:

- Build quality - sturdier.

- less potential for noise

- efficiency

- reliability

- resale value

- status. Okay, I'll admit it - it's fun to say I have a hi end amp which looks like an alien pyramid - so sue me!!!

- better pots/gains/crossovers - for easier and more accurate system tuning.

- phase pot - easier system setup

- plus, it looks like an alien pyramid. Admit it, looks count.



*
These are features*, not sound quality (ok, I guess noise rejection could be considered sq - but if you have no noise in your system, it's a non-issue.

I think it's Ludacris to chase amps looking for sound quality.

If you really want to improve sound quality, learn about installation, good system design, hi res music, speakers, speaker placement, and surround sound. These are the things which separate an average system from a great one.


----------



## Elektra

Gary S said:


> Oh my gosh, this thread is still going on, lol!
> 
> It's true, amps do not make sound quality. There is no magic happening in amps. It's in the name - amps amplify. That's all, end of story.
> 
> Did you know that your sound quality changes when you turn the dial on your head unit? Surprise!
> 
> Sure, class A amps and some amps, like the original soundstreams, had soft clipping. So what? an average amp will sound exactly the same kept under clipping.
> 
> And what about tube amps? Did you know you can make a little black box with a handful of cheap electronics to make a solid state amp mimic a tube amp? It's been done before. Tubes are for boobs!
> 
> However, I just bought a hi end car amp - a Precision Power PC1000.5D.
> 
> Why did I buy it? For sound quality? That would be a big fat noooooo!
> 
> I bought it because:
> 
> - Build quality - sturdier.
> 
> - less potential for noise
> 
> - efficiency
> 
> - reliability
> 
> - resale value
> 
> - status. Okay, I'll admit it - it's fun to say I have a hi end amp which looks like an alien pyramid - so sue me!!!
> 
> - better pots/gains/crossovers - for easier and more accurate system tuning.
> 
> - phase pot - easier system setup
> 
> - plus, it looks like an alien pyramid. Admit it, looks count.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> These are features*, not sound quality (ok, I guess noise rejection could be considered sq - but if you have no noise in your system, it's a non-issue.
> 
> I think it's Ludacris to chase amps looking for sound quality.
> 
> If you really want to improve sound quality, learn about installation, good system design, hi res music, speakers, speaker placement, and surround sound. These are the things which separate an average system from a great one.


Precision power class D high end? 

Amps don’t sound the same... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rton20s

Gary S said:


> However, I just bought a hi end car amp - a Precision Power PC1000.5D.


----------



## cman

rton20s said:


>



LOLLL yeah this is the kind of comment I used to also make before I listened to some real quality amps. I am never going back unless its a Purifi or Hypex class D with a Class A pre amp.

I used to have a teacher in one of my electronics classes in college. He was an electrical engineer and he always ran solid state class A/B as well as old school tube amps... He was really into music but also insanely smart at designing any circuit. I was always data driven myself believeing modern class D amplifiers measured well under clipping so they must be equal or superioir... this is kind of a generalization as there are Hypex and Purifi class D that are getting better and better... but now looking back I realize why my teacher, who was literally an electrical engineeer was himself using old school transistor and tube amplifiers instead of class D. When youre really into music and you listen to them back to back... it just sounds better.. as simple as that. If you dont hear it you need better drivers and higher bitrate music.


----------



## Holmz

Gary S said:


> Oh my gosh, this thread is still going on, lol!
> 
> It's true, amps do not make sound quality. There is no magic happening in amps. It's in the name - amps amplify. That's all, end of story.
> ...


Then why are there threads of people complaining that their amps sound like an Amazon or UPS shipment of vipers going to a Pentecostal revival?


----------



## Old'sCool

No offense, but if you cannot hear the difference between a high-end class AB, like a Z series or a high-end ARC vs. a Class D amp, you might as well shop for your gear at Walmart.

Sit in a well-built car with all Class AB amps, and listen to a familiar group of tracks. Try that with (most) class D amps and it's practically like going from CDs to cassette tapes. 

The above argument that a lower noise floor doesn't net HIGHER SQ is laughable. Noise is quite the enemy of sq. If I can hear ANY system noise in an install I've done, I have failed the customer...


----------



## jtrosky

All that I can say is that there is a reason why almost every manufacturer has switched over to class D amps. For most people, with most "daily" systems, modern class D amps get the job done - and do it well. Most people would probably never notice the difference. Class D amps are usually physically smaller, run cooler and require less power from your vehicle. Most people nowadays actually prefer class D - that is why they are so popular now. That being said, with any class of amp, there are different levels of "quality". There are class A/B amps that sound like crap, just like there are class D amps that sound great. There is so much more to it than just the "class" of the amp. 

Class D amps have improved in leaps and bounds over the initial class D amps that were only suitable for subwoofer use.


----------



## SkizeR

jtrosky said:


> All that I can say is that there is a reason why almost every manufacturer has switched over to class D amps..


Because modern cars need small amps for convenient installs. Simple as that



Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk


----------



## Porsche

SkizeR said:


> Because modern cars need small amps for convenient installs. Simple as that
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk


agreed, the best class a and a/b amps will smoke class d


----------



## SkizeR

Porsche said:


> agreed, the best class a and a/b amps will smoke class d


Idk. I've only seen one class d that was designed with the absolute highest performance in mind (as far as sq goes) and it stacked up pretty damn well 

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk


----------



## SkizeR

The problem is, no car audio class d amp is designed purely with SQ in mind. There are other factors that cause compromises in one way or the other. 

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk


----------



## Porsche

SkizeR said:


> Idk. I've only seen one class d that was designed with the absolute highest performance in mind (as far as sq goes) and it stacked up pretty damn well
> 
> Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk


depends on the amps you compared it to


----------



## SkizeR

Porsche said:


> depends on the amps you compared it to


I dodnt, but there was a group of people that tested it. Some of which I trust. Another person I know tested it as well and loved em. 

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk


----------



## Old'sCool

jtrosky said:


> All that I can say is that there is a reason why almost every manufacturer has switched over to class D amps....


Say it with me: "Production Cost." Pro-duck-shun-cah-st.

Though some electronics companies do want to provide higher-end sound, last I checked, ALL wish to be profitable and remain in business.

Class D is typically far cheaper to build. This allows higher margins, even at a lower MSRP in most cases.

Class D has improved significantly, however. When it 1st arrived on the scene, I could not listen to a Class D setup with any level of enjoyment.

Today's Class D amps are a significant improvement over those of 15 yrs ago.

I will admit to owning a Class D home bluetooth amp, which sounds WAY better (than my wife's Alexa).

The big sell with Class D is less current draw. An old schmuck like myself may not wish to upgrade an alternator to reach higher subwoofer SPL. Class D has much merit in watts-per-amp, as well as watts-per-dollar. Subwoofer efficiency has dropped off since the late '80s/early 1990s, partially due to the demand for huge XMAX and power handling.

You cannot have "too much" wattage for a sub; I would rather see a "150W" sub powered by a 1000w amp, than a 10000 watt sub powered by a 150w amp. Your ears (well...some folks' ears) will let you know when the sub is being overdriven. 

Underpowering a sub is asking to heat things up/distort/destroy your woofer(s).


----------



## jtrosky

It' actually kind of funny - when I was looking for a "cheap" class-D amp, I found that I could get a ton of class A/B amps for less that a class D amp! I actually had to pay _more_ to get class D amp (I wanted a small amp for bench testing stuff - and there were a ton of cheap class A/B amps available).

Regardless of the whole money aspect, the vast majority of people are obviously happy with class D amps as well - or else people wouldn't be buying them (and manufacturers wouldn't keep switching to them more and more). Even "SQ" companies are switching over to class D. Helix, for example, is mostly class D now, I believe.

I would love to do some blind testing of comparable class D and class A/B amps. I would be willing to bet $$$ that the VAST majority of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

@JCsAudio has a device that let's you switch between amps instantly - perfect way to test this.


----------



## Old'sCool

jtrosky said:


> It' actually kind of funny - when I was looking for a "cheap" class-D amp, I found that I could get a ton of class A/B amps for less that a class D amp! I actually had to pay _more_ to get class D amp (I wanted a small amp for bench testing stuff - and there were a ton of cheap class A/B amps available).
> 
> Regardless of the whole money aspect, the vast majority of people are obviously happy with class D amps as well - or else people wouldn't be buying them (and manufacturers wouldn't keep switching to them more and more). Even "SQ" companies are switching over to class D. Helix, for example, is mostly class D now, I believe.
> 
> I would love to do some blind testing of comparable class D and class A/B amps. I would be willing to bet $$$ that the VAST majority of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
> 
> @JCsAudio has a device that let's you switch between amps instantly - perfect way to test this.


While Class D has improved significantly, I will take that bet.


----------



## SkizeR

Old'sCool said:


> While Class D has improved significantly, I will take that bet.


Me as well. Not that it has anything to do with class vs class. Its more so what the intended goals were with the amp and what was sacrificed in the design to get there. This is usually the downfall to class d amps.

Also, class ab amps can definitely be cheaper than class d.


----------



## doeboy

Has anybody actually presented any objective data in this really long thread at all to prove any points? Or is this just a game of who can throw out larger anecdotal evidence?


----------



## Old'sCool

doeboy said:


> Has anybody actually presented any objective data in this really long thread at all to prove any points? Or is this just a game of who can throw out larger anecdotal evidence?


You can look at Class D sine waves Vs Class A/B , and decide for yourself.

Again, I'll take the "cannot hear the difference" bet. Easiest way would be to have two identical cars, but if someone has the budget to install a switch board in a demo vehicle, that'll do.

Let me know when you get that set up. I'm ready to take your $.


----------



## JCsAudio

jtrosky said:


> I would love to do some blind testing of comparable class D and class A/B amps. I would be willing to bet $$$ that the VAST majority of people wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
> 
> @JCsAudio has a device that let's you switch between amps instantly - perfect way to test this.


If you’re close by I can set that test up for you.  

Ive already tested a lot of lower, to mid tier class AB and D amplifiers and found little correlation between amplifier classes for differences in my blind A/B testing where the subject didnt know which amplifier was actually playing. I also found the differences insignificant amount the better designed amplifiers, even cheaper budget ones. I plan to do more testing including Helix vs JL. 

I think for the enthusiast who‘s goal is above average SQ and good sound I say one should be more concerned with other more important things that have a greater effect on SQ then the amplifier class, so long as they choose a good qaulity amplifier backed by good engineering and decent parts. 




Old'sCool said:


> You can look at Class D sine waves Vs Class A/B , and decide for yourself.
> 
> Again, I'll take the "cannot hear the difference" bet. Easiest way would be to have two identical cars, but if someone has the budget to install a switch board in a demo vehicle, that'll do.
> 
> Let me know when you get that set up. I'm ready to take your $.


Using Kef home audio speakers I did similar. See similar testing in my signature.


----------



## Old'sCool

JCsAudio said:


> If you’re close by I can set that test up for you.
> 
> Ive already tested a lot of lower, to mid tier class AB and D amplifiers and found little correlation between amplifier classes for differences in my blind A/B testing where the subject didnt know which amplifier was actually playing. I also found the differences insignificant amount the better designed amplifiers, even cheaper budget ones. I plan to do more testing including Helix vs JL.
> 
> I think for the enthusiast who‘s goal is above average SQ and good sound I say one should be more concerned with other more important things that have a greater effect on SQ then the amplifier class, so long as they choose a good qaulity amplifier backed by good engineering and decent parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using Kef home audio speakers I did similar. See similar testing in my signature.


I'm not close by, unfortunately. 

Perhaps a group meet in Virginia or WVA would make it more central to several parties. 

One catch - I get to pick my Class A/B, and the music. Class D is dealer's choice.

Willing to wager a NIB XL 12d sub. (Stored since 1990 in climate controlled closet.)


----------



## JCsAudio

Too far for me. Why do some of you want to make wagers, lol. First Nick Apicella and now you.  I do this for the fun of it but also because I‘m tired of reading so many opinionated impressions of what that person thinks is better without substance and honestly, I just wanted to know for myself because I couldn't find good enough information on it.


----------



## ca90ss

Old'sCool said:


> One catch - I get to pick my Class A/B


So what you're saying is you have an amp that has some sort of difference you can easily pick out.


----------



## MrToadsWildRide

Has anyone taken the Richard Clark $10,000 Amplifier Challenge and won?


----------



## Old'sCool

MrToadsWildRide said:


> Has anyone taken the Richard Clark $10,000 Amplifier Challenge and won?


Back when I visited Autosound 2000 in 1993ish, I purchased a few grand worth of equipment, including two aperiodic membranes and a few crossovers and pieces called "aperiodic normalization networks."

Richard was only there once, and we talked about the Ferrari in their shop (can't recall if it was Richard's or David's). He showed-off his famous Monte Carlo, and we spoke a bit about "The Challenge."

I was more than willing to accept it, but it never seemed to come to fruition.

I'd LOVE to have him administer such a test, but he's probably 80 yrs old now.

I have ALWAYS wanted to take that challenge. Bet or no bet.

I've wanted to prove my hearing abilities since childhood. I am not saying my ears are magic, but I have very sensitive hearing and can still hear the horizontal scan line frequency of a tube television (15,750Hz) to this day, clearly. 

As a kid, my hearing range rivalled that of my sister and mother, which is rare for a man. I topped-out a hair above 18k, and my sister around the same. Mom could hear a tad higher than 15,750 (but she was also 2x my age, and saw a LOT of concerts). Dad could not sense 13,250 (military vet...no earplugs...yada yada).

I'm happy to make the bet non-monetary. Perhaps the loser takes a selfie that reads, "I can/cannot tell the difference between amps," and posts it as their avatar for 30 days

🤣

Honestly, I think it would be fun regardless, and a neat way to meet like minded folks who are passionate about audio.


----------



## Old'sCool

ca90ss said:


> So what you're saying is you have an amp that has some sort of difference you can easily pick out.


Nope. I'm saying I get to chose the A/B amp. It can be factory new as far as I care.


----------



## ca90ss

Old'sCool said:


> Nope. I'm saying I get to chose the A/B amp. It can be factory new as far as I care.


If the differences are so easy to pick out as you seem to think they are then why do you need to pick the amp?


----------



## Old'sCool

ca90ss said:


> If the differences are so easy to pick out as you seem to think they are then why do you need to pick the amp?


Good question. Same reason I picked Monarchy Pure Class A monoblocks to drive my home speakers, vs other amps. I know the sound, it pleases my ears, and I can hear details on them I cannot hear on my Adcom, NAD, and Avalon amps. (Oddly, I can hear these nuances on my extremely cheap Cambridge Audio active amp/pre combo, but it's not powerful enough to drive my planars.)

I'm not a brand snob. My favorite home amps cost pennies on the $ vs the Avalon. I've trashed stereo amps that cost 3x what a pair of the Monarchys cost me.

I like the sound I like, and I can hear what I don't like. 

I dare say, I'll only need two songs:

"Diamonds on the Soles of Her Shoes" by Paul Simon

"The Trial" from the MFSL release of Pink Floyd "The Wall" CD.

If a Class D can hang with my pick, I will be 1st to admit it. 

However, if I can readily pick AB vs D, I am not going to be surprised one bit.

If I prefer the Class D, I will be shocked, but I will definitely admit it (be hard not to in a blind test).

Edit to add: The differences are not "easy" on many systems. We're talking about stereos where every component is "top tier." If the reference speakers or source is junk, the amps will not make up for that. 

Chain/weakest link, and whatnot.


----------



## ca90ss

Old'sCool said:


> Good question. Same reason I picked Monarchy Pure Class A monoblocks to drive my home speakers, vs other amps. I know the sound, it pleases my ears, and I can hear details on them I cannot hear on my Adcom, NAD, and Avalon amps. (Oddly, I can hear these nuances on my extremely cheap Cambridge Audio active amp/pre combo, but it's not powerful enough to drive my planars.)
> 
> I'm not a brand snob. My favorite home amps cost pennies on the $ vs the Avalon. I've trashed stereo amps that cost 3x what a pair of the Monarchy's cost me.
> 
> I like the sound I like, and I can hear what I don't like.
> 
> I dare say, I'll only need two songs:
> 
> "Diamonds on the Soles of Her Shoes" by Paul Simon
> 
> "The Trial" from the MFSL release of Pink Floyd "The Wall" CD.
> 
> If a Class D can hang with my pick, I will be 1st to admit it.
> 
> However, if I can readily pick AB vs D, I am not going to be surprised one bit.
> 
> If I prefer the Class D, I will be shocked, but I will definitely admit it (be hard not to in a blind test).
> 
> Edit to add: The differences are not "easy" on many systems. We're talking about stereos where every component is "top tier." If the reference speakers or source is junk, the amps will not make up for that.
> 
> Chain/weakest link, and whatnot.


So that brings us back to you picking a specific amp that you can already differentiate from other amps for whatever reason.


----------



## Old'sCool

ca90ss said:


> So that brings us back to you picking a specific amp that you can already differentiate from other amps for whatever reason.


Yesss...that reason being, "This sounds excellent."


----------



## ca90ss

ca90ss said:


> So what you're saying is you have an amp that has some sort of difference you can easily pick out.





Old'sCool said:


> Nope. I'm saying I get to chose the A/B amp. It can be factory new as far as I care.





ca90ss said:


> If the differences are so easy to pick out as you seem to think they are then why do you need to pick the amp?





Old'sCool said:


> Good question. Same reason I picked Monarchy Pure Class A monoblocks to drive my home speakers, vs other amps. I know the sound, it pleases my ears, and I can hear details on them I cannot hear on my Adcom, NAD, and Avalon amps.





ca90ss said:


> So that brings us back to you picking a specific amp that you can already differentiate from other amps for whatever reason.





Old'sCool said:


> Yesss...that reason being, "This sounds excellent."


So you're not picking an amp with a specific sound but you are and that is supposed to show that class d is somehow inferior?


----------



## Old'sCool

ca90ss said:


> So you're not picking an amp with a specific sound but you are and that is supposed to show that class d is somehow inferior?


I have used many of the same reference tracks for greater than 35 years. I know the songs as if I stood in the studio while they were cutting each track.

The difference in stage depth, placement of instruments, the timbre of the breaths of each background singer, and their location(s) across the sound stage become evident when listening to songs thousands of times.

I suppose since "shenanigans" are being called, I would be willing to pick from 3 class A/B amps, having heard all 3, and all other aspects of the system being equal.

This gets pretty pricey and time consuming just to appease one listener, however.

I'd rather audition a few modest SQ amps, such as the Zapco ST/SQ series, a mid-level Arc, and perhaps an old school contender, such as a Gen VIII Thor or a Phoenix M50, etc., and pick a favorite (prior to even attending such a challenge). 

Having never heard the Class D in question, how can I call it inferior yet? I've not heard every amp out there, and am always happy to hear great sound, be it Class A, A/B, H or D.

The sad part is, my ears cannot seem to hear the difference (except in noise floor) between a Lanzar Heritage Class D and a far more pricey Zapco Class D. All I hear is awful sound from both compared to my favorite AB amps.

In fact, the only passable Class D amp I own (I own a few, by the way) is a $34.00 Nobsound 50w mini amp. Pushing a set of Rega Jura towers with custom Xovers, the Nobsound literally has me scratching my head. Using the AUX input, coupled to the headphone jack of my LG phone (of all things), the Nob' almost sounds as good as my NAD active amp that retailed for $700/cost $390 dlr. However, strap both to my Sony transport and Monarchy Audio DAC, and the NAD blows the little eBay amp out of the ocean. My guess is, the compressed source of the LG is too low-fi for the amps to make a difference. 

Rather than pontificate any more about amp class, I vote we set up the challenge. I'm willing to be proven wrong/right, regardless.


----------



## ca90ss

Have you measured your special amp and measured the amps you're comparing it to?


----------



## Old'sCool

ca90ss said:


> Have you measured your special amp and measured the amps you're comparing it to?


For car audio, I currently do not have a "special amp." 

I do not need an RTA nor a 'scope to listen to music. I love music and I love audio reproduction. 

I'm kinda over it. I'm ready to put my $ where my mouth is.

Edit to add: If I wanted to pull special amps outta my butt, I would insist on a modded amplifer, tweaked by CC Poon (laugh at the name, if you want, but CC has built some giant killers in the home audiophile world). 

CC and I prefer the same type of music reproduction. His DACs cost Peanuts compared to many on the market, and YES, you can measure the differences in DACs quite simply...


----------



## ca90ss

Nobody is saying amps can't sound different. You'd need a more comprehensive set of measurements than just a rta and scope but there's no reason those differences you hear wouldn't show up in measurements.


----------



## MrToadsWildRide

Old'sCool said:


> Nope. I'm saying I get to chose the A/B amp. It can be factory new as far as I care.


So what amp would you be picking?


----------



## Old'sCool

I'm leaning towards "which sounds best."

I wholly believe Class A/B wins this, at least, in my opinion and experience.

All other things of equal and acceptable quality, my money is on AB. That said, the This thread mentions "higher end" amps vs ???

I believe AB is Higher End than (most if not all) Class D. This is subjective, though, since more than a few folks LOVE horns, and I find them to be shrill shyte. Some people love silk dome tweeters, while others swear Be or Aluminum hard domes are superior. Everyone's ears are different, and people like what they like.

My personal claim is: I not only prefer AB, but will be able to identify it greater than 2/3 of the time, given proper setup.

I am willing to travel as far as NoVa , Boone, NC, or Atlanta, GA to participate in such a challenge. 

Shall we start a new thread to gauge interest, set ground rules and decide on an administrator and auditor?

Perhaps we take a poll of people's personal favorite AB and D amps, and restrict to these two choices. 

Or, perhaps the Class D folks bring their sleeper, and the AB decide pick our race horse.


----------



## Old'sCool

I


MrToadsWildRide said:


> So what amp would you be picking?


 I want it to be a fair fight, but given a choice of off-the shelf, I'm fine with:

Zapco ST/SQ 
Zapco Competition
Zapco Z /ZX
Arc anniversary series
US Acoustics , any
Hifonics Series Viii (ZED)
Phoenix Gold M series
Soundstream Reference 500
Planet Audio (early/zed built)
Phoenix Gold ZX series
Alphasonik (zed built)
Mean Machine (zed built)
Lanzar Opti (zed built)
Orion HCCA


----------



## SkizeR

MrToadsWildRide said:


> Has anyone taken the Richard Clark $10,000 Amplifier Challenge and won?


From what I've heard, he denied the money to Chris Owens when he won it...


----------



## Old'sCool

SkizeR said:


> From what I've heard, he denied the money to Chris Owens when he won it...


Rich could always bullshoot with the best.

A good example was the horn setup in his Grand Nat. Look back at the description of those horns, and "embellishment" is an understatement.


----------



## jtrosky

I think that the point is that it's not really that one class amp sounds better than another class amp. It all depends on the quality of the amp in general - not the class.

For example, chances are that a $50 class a/b amp would not sound better than a $700 class d amp. So just because the $700 class-d amp sounds better than the $50 class a/b amp, that doesn't mean that "class d" is better than "class a/b". 

The "class" isn't the determining factor - it's other build quality and component differences.

The other important thing to remember is the use-case. How much do the quality differences between a good class a/b and a good class d amp really matter while driving down the road at 65mph? We're not talking about "critical listening" at home with high-end home speakers - we're talking about a car setup with so much ambient noise that I don't think people can hear the difference. 

Kind of like 320k MP3 vs FLAC. Sure, a few people may be able to hear the difference when listening to a specific song and concentrating on the smallest minute difference - while listening on high-end headphones - and listening to a specific part of that specific song - over and over and over going back and forth over and over and over - but that does that difference _really_ translate to a more enjoyable listening experience while driving a car down the road?


----------



## Old'sCool

Speaking of back and forth, over and over, 

Let's do a real world test. 

Class D has come a long way.

I can still hear artifacts.


----------



## jtrosky

What is the last high-quality class-D amp that you've used in your car? Trying to understand what you're comparing your current class A/B amp to (in the same environment). You may have already stated this, but I could have missed it.

Have you tested a current class-D amp that is in the same "arena" in terms of quality and cost as your current class A/B amp?

And again - this is not about comparing a handful of hand-picked class a/b amps vs a handful of hand-picked class-D amps - that just proves that one amp may sound better than the other - and may not be related to the class of amp at all. The point is that the amp "class" is not the determining factor - there is way more involved that that. Some class a/b amps may sound better than some class-d amps - just as some class-d amps may sound better than some class a/b amps. We can't lump all amps of a particular class together like that - there is way more involved.

Comparing one particular class a/b amp to another particular class-d amp - using a specific song that you already know what to listen for (because you've spent who knows how long analyzing that spot in that song) isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about listening to random songs and then switching between the amps "seamlessly" and "instantly" (via a device like @JCsAudio has). Again, I'm saying that the vast majority won't be able to hear the difference - even in a "quiet" controlled test (but _especially_ in a car environment while driving). 

Hell, I bet that we could also put two of the exact same amps on "the machine" and tell the listener that one is class A/B and one is class D - and some people would still be convinced that one sounds better than the other.  

I really wish we could test this - it would be very "enlightening" - regardless of who is "right". Unfortunately, due to our physical locations, I suspect this will never actually get done - at least not with the people having this conversation.


----------



## Old'sCool

jtrosky said:


> What is the last high-quality class-D amp that you've used in your car? Trying to understand what you're comparing your current class A/B amp to (in the same environment). You may have already stated this, but I could have missed it.
> 
> Have you tested a current class-D amp that is in the same "arena" in terms of quality and cost as your current class A/B amp?
> 
> And again - this is not about comparing a handful of hand-picked class a/b amps vs a handful of hand-picked class-D amps - that just proves that one amp may sound better than the other - and may not be related to the class of amp at all. The point is that the amp "class" is not the determining factor - there is way more involved that that. Some class a/b amps may sound better than some class-d amps - just as some class-d amps may sound better than some class a/b amps. We can't lump all amps of a particular class together like that - there is way more involved.
> 
> Comparing one particular class a/b amp to another particular class-d amp - using a specific song that you already know what to listen for (because you've spent who knows how long analyzing that spot in that song) isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about listening to random songs and then switching between the amps "seamlessly" and "instantly" (via a device like @JCsAudio has). Again, I'm saying that the vast majority won't be able to hear the difference - even in a "quiet" controlled test (but _especially_ in a car environment while driving).
> 
> Hell, I bet that we could also put two of the exact same amps on "the machine" and tell the listener that one is class A/B and one is class D - and some people would still be convinced that one sounds better than the other.
> 
> I really wish we could test this - it would be very "enlightening" - regardless of who is "right". Unfortunately, due to our physical locations, I suspect this will never actually get done - at least not with the people having this conversation.


I agree; we could tell many people there's two different amps, and they would perceive a difference.

The best D amps I've installed (not in my vehicle) are:

Kappa Four
Kappa Two
Zapco ST-2D
Polk D4000.4

I've heard more expensive Class D amps, but they sounded no better to my ears without major equalization. Have I heard them all? No. There's plenty left in this world to discover.

Gonna start a new thread today, to gauge interest in an amp/listening shootout.

Gotta work now. Lol


----------



## MrToadsWildRide

I guess the biggest differences would depend on what frequency range. I don't know of many people running their entire system on 2 channels. So, for example, can we notice the difference between amplifier classes if we only run the subwoofer? The midbass? The midrange? The tweeter? 

It's possible that amplifiers do sound slightly different, but if the job of an amplifier is to take a little signal and make it bigger, should they?


----------



## MrToadsWildRide

A test I found comparing some amps. Hear This! - 1994 AS&S


----------



## Old'sCool

MrToadsWildRide said:


> A test I found comparing some amps. Hear This! - 1994 AS&S


I have a copy of that mag somewhere in storage! Lol. I sure do miss the days where magazines, classes and books were my main source of data.

"When I was your age...getting on the 'inter net' was laying in the middle of a hammock, and to 'down load' something required a dump truck."

Class D sub amps of modern design don't seem to suffer from the same issues, at least not audibly.

The test amps should either push a full-range setup, passively X'd, or should ALL share a common sub amp. There should also be a "control" amp, perhaps an unmarked amplifier, that only the installer knows the circuit topography of.


----------



## JCsAudio

If you guys wanna do this in New England then I have most of the hardware available to make this happen. I do not have a building though to do this in.


----------



## Old'sCool

JCsAudio said:


> If you guys wanna do this in New England then I have most of the hardware available to make this happen. I do not have a building though to do this in.


NoVa or WV is as far north as I'm currently able to travel, due to work calls requiring travel to FL. 

Perhaps in October I could make it up there.

I'm thinking, for simplicity's sake, the "Test vehicle" should actually be a 1-seater mockup of an interior, with the driver centered in between the speakers.

I'm drawing up an idea, and will post in my new thread after work today.

Old's Cool


----------



## Holmz

Old'sCool said:


> NoVa or WV is as far north as I'm currently able to travel, due to work calls requiring travel to FL.
> 
> Perhaps in October I could make it up there.
> 
> I'm thinking, for simplicity's sake, the "Test vehicle" should actually be a 1-seater mockup of an interior, with the driver centered in between the speakers.
> 
> I'm drawing up an idea, and will post in my new thread after work today.
> 
> Old's Cool


That seems like a lot **** to add to things, when solely comparing amplifiers?
One could just compare the digital source to a digitised version of the amps output and remove all the magicalness of "the system"?


----------



## Old'sCool

Holmz said:


> That seems like a lot **** to add to things, when solely comparing amplifiers?
> One could just compare the digital source to a digitised version of the amps output and remove all the magicalness of "the system"?


What's the fun in listening by NOT listening? Isn't the point that one can/cannot tell the difference by ear?

My reasoning behind centering driver is simply to eliminate need for DSP etc., and to make it easy to hear the imaging and staging without need for delay or ultra-high-end speakers.


----------



## Cutaway

I am siding with *Old'sCool *on this subject... I know that when i was updating my system, i pulled out an AC LC 6.1200 (Class D) and replaced with two 4 channel amps (class A/B with less power) and could immediately hear a difference. Nothing but the amplifiers had changed at that point, they were still being fed with an AC DM-810 with no changes in the settings.
The difference between the amplifiers was not a pseudo effect nor was i expecting to really notice a difference.


----------



## doeboy

Lets have the next posting be Tube vs Mosfet. I can't wait to see the hilariously anecdotal evidence in that one. 😂😂🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Old'sCool

doeboy said:


> Lets have the next posting be Tube vs Mosfet. I can't wait to see the hilariously anecdotal evidence in that one. 😂😂🤣🤣🤣


Tube amps act as a bandpass filter. They also don't clip.* 

*(As badly.)

No anecdotes required. 

If you cannot hear the difference between a tube amp and Solid State amp...

Also, tube designs can run pure Class A, which has a distinctive sound. (Mosfet amps can be run in class A, too, but they must be limited, and the heat created has no place on a car.)

Monarchy SE-70 home amps are solid state, class A when used as monoblocks. They aslo heat up the listening room like a radiator.

Both Class A SS and Tube amps typically sound much better warmed up. Their idle current draw gets expensive if you are in to serious listening.

A/B amps warm up quicker (at least, properly designed A/B amps). They suffer only slightly vs Class A in overall performance, and are able to make more wattage within their optimal performance window.

People seem to love the warm sound of tubes, when frankly, a simple 6dB trim @ 16k+ can soften AB amps to mimic their "warmth."


----------



## jtrosky

Cutaway said:


> I am siding with *Old'sCool *on this subject... I know that when i was updating my system, i pulled out an AC LC 6.1200 (Class D) and replaced with two 4 channel amps (class A/B with less power) and could immediately hear a difference. Nothing but the amplifiers had changed at that point, they were still being fed with an AC DM-810 with no changes in the settings.
> The difference between the amplifiers was not a pseudo effect nor was i expecting to really notice a difference.


Just curious - what were the A/B amps that you used to replace the AudioControl amp?


----------



## Old'sCool

Gauging Interest: The 1st Annual "Amps Sound the...


What: A listening contest designed to test your ability to differentiate between Class A/B and Class D amplifiers accurately, and to provide your preference. Where: NC State Fairgrounds, Raleigh, NC, Prince William Fairgrounds, Northern VA, or Georgia State Fairgrounds, Hampton, GA, or...




www.diymobileaudio.com


----------



## Likeabat

Personal preferences and biases (what one currently owns) certainly will affect ones belief in this area. I’m as guilty as the next guy. I started in 1988 when Rockford Fosgate (and a handful of others) drastically underrated their amps - so they certainly sounded better (“better” meaning they would pound subs hard, which is what we were all interested in back then). So I still carry that bias. I’ve used 15 different amps and 14 have been Rockford Fosgate. Even today when I hear of someone using any other brand of amp I think to myself “Pfffffftttttt!!!-That’s cute”.

But I know realistically that I couldn’t hear the difference in a blind test with another like quality/sized amp. I’m just a fan of the brand. 
I personally think a lot of SQ car audio gets into the land of Magic Pixie dust and Unicorns when people start claiming to be able to hear the most infinitesimal of differences between components (usually based on the price they paid). 

That said though, 14 of the 15 amps I’ve had were A/B and the only amp I don’t like as much as the others is the sole D (B/D) amp I currently have that’s running subs (and the A/B and D differences are supposed to be in higher frequencies 🤷🏻‍♂️). It sounds great - very powerful- but I just think the A/B amp (T600-2) running a sub in my other vehicle controls the sub better. Tighter, cleaner, harder hitting. Both playing the same size, brand of sub(s). But there are other differences (number of subs, size/shape if enclosure, placing in the vehicle, type of car, as well as impedance ran). 

Anyway, people are gonna like/promote what they like (usually what they own) - but I’d be interested in the the results of your experiment. Wish I was closer, I’d like to hear it.


----------



## Cutaway

jtrosky said:


> Just curious - what were the A/B amps that you used to replace the AudioControl amp?


this wasnt intended to be a "D" vs "A/B"but more of a "different amps sound different"
I went from an AC 6.1200 to 2 Helix C4's. The Source, DSP/Tune and Speakers all remained the same (At the time)


----------



## Sam Spade

Amps sound different. Some amps control speakers better than others, especially in the bass. Some have a more accurate midrange and treble. Some are more fatiguing, some less. Some are more accurate. I sold hifi in a top end store for about 5 years. CD players sound different, amps sound different, tape decks, tuners, turntables.........

None of these vary as much as speakers. But amps vary in the way they sound. And that's just solid state, let alone tube amps.


----------



## Old'sCool

Agreed 100%, Sam.


----------



## Cutaway

Sam Spade said:


> Amps sound different. Some amps control speakers better than others, especially in the bass. Some have a more accurate midrange and treble. Some are more fatiguing, some less. Some are more accurate. I sold hifi in a top end store for about 5 years. CD players sound different, amps sound different, tape decks, tuners, turntables.........
> 
> None of these vary as much as speakers. But amps vary in the way they sound. And that's just solid state, let alone tube amps.


The same goes for DSPs and DAC chips used in different audio equipment and for whatever reason, people can accept this but draw a line when it comes to amplifiers


----------



## Sam Spade

Hell, I have a Marantz PM80 integrated amp, must be 30 yo, was about $2k new, bought it when I was selling hifi.

It has a source direct button that bypasses tone and balance controls, that sounds better when engaged. It has a class A button, does 20-25 watts class A, 100 class AB. Class A sounds better. It is a great amp.

I have a musical fidelity nuvista preamp with the nuvistor metal valves, running a 200 watt Rotel RB1080 200wpc power amp. Awesome combo. Sounds different than the Marantz.

If all amps sounded the same, well that would assume they all perfectly amplify the source signal without change. Or modify or degrade it from the original in exactly the same way. That's clearly not true. It is nonsense.


----------



## Sam Spade

Cutaway said:


> The same goes for DSPs and DAC chips used in different audio equipment and for whatever reason, people can accept this but draw a line when it comes to amplifiers


Yup, CD players sound different too.

Hell people say cables sound different. I can tell you that I hear differences between components that are far more obvious than differences between cables.


----------



## Old'sCool

Cutaway said:


> The same goes for DSPs and DAC chips used in different audio equipment and for whatever reason, people can accept this but draw a line when it comes to amplifiers


The Monarchy DAC I run in my ref system at home has a pair of BB chips, with a "piggyback" chip installed by Tara Labs. 

It's the only home DAC I ever bought that I was truly impressed with. 

Likewise, I've spent YEARS chasing the sound of my old Alpine 7915 head unit (preamp output only) . It had "dual hybrid DACs" and sounded better than the later 4v-preout Alpine CD players that retailed for 2 or 3x the cost.


----------



## Old'sCool

Sam Spade said:


> Yup, CD players sound different too.
> 
> Hell people say cables sound different. I can tell you that I hear differences between components that are far more obvious than differences between cables.


I make cables. Lots of them. The only "good" cable is one that xfers the signal from A to B with no change or loss.

You can certainly "hear" a poor cable's damage to the signal. 

Some of the best sounding Car Audio cables are some of the cheapest - Stinger Select and Esoteric/Streetwires ZN series. Simple designs that look a LOT like my favorite cables.

The difference in cables is nothing compared to say, the difference between a Sony receiver and a Marantz active amp. But it's still evident when a cable acts as an Xover, for lack of a better term.


----------



## Sam Spade

Old'sCool said:


> I make cables. Lots of them. The only "good" cable is one that xfers the signal from A to B with no change or loss.
> 
> You can certainly "hear" a poor cable's damage to the signal.
> 
> Some of the best sounding Car Audio cables are some of the cheapest - Stinger Select and Esoteric/Streetwires ZN series. Simple designs that look a LOT like my favorite cables.
> 
> The difference in cables is nothing compared to say, the difference between a Sony receiver and a Marantz active amp. But it's still evident when a cable acts as an Xover, for lack of a better term.


Context for my cable comment is working in hifi comparing brand name speaker cables and interconnects that were cheap or pricey, and generic copper cables of decent gauge for speakers. My impression was that there were diminishing returns and that the 10% rule was mostly really adequate. And beyond a certain level putting extra money into components brought more benefit than into cables. 

What I don't know is in professional stage applications, recording studios, and vehicles, how much interference there is from all the cabling and electronic devices, and how important shielding is.


----------



## cman

Not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but this just made me feel alot more sane about the differences i seem to be hearing across different amplifiers. I have tested a couple amps which in objective testing had slightly less distortion, but in real world listening, just straight up did not sound as good as other amps which on paper had a bit more distortion.. 

An example is this... I have seen objective THD testing using an Audio Precisoin analyzer of a Kicker CXA amplifier showing less distotion than a Zapco Z-AP amplifier... (i can send you the links to the test results) I can tell you from first hand experience the Zapco is one of the best sounding amplifers i have ever heard... and the Kicker, while good will not be winning any SQ competitions anytime soon. So obviously there is more to the picture than a simple THD test... but what?

This article is from a lifelong industry veteran involved in amplifier design and it is his take on some of the reasons amplifiers sound different. very cool 









Why Audio Amplifiers Can Sound Different


Paul Ceurvels, Senior EE at Atlantic Technology discusses his experiences behind the scenes to explain how amplifiers can sound different from one another. Do you think amplifiers sound different?




www.audioholics.com


----------



## Holmz

Old'sCool said:


> What's the fun in listening by NOT listening? Isn't the point that one can/cannot tell the difference by ear?
> 
> My reasoning behind centering driver is simply to eliminate need for DSP etc., and to make it easy to hear the imaging and staging without need for delay or ultra-high-end speakers.


Your ears are not as good a microphone, and the stuff between the ears affects what you hear to a large extent.

Reading all this stuff is like going to a church, temple or madras.


----------



## Porsche

Holmz said:


> the stuff between the ears affects what you hear to a large extent.


kinda hit the nail on the head, everyone hears different, if someone thinks something sounds better than to them it does, period, don't understand why you or anyone else is so hell bent on telling them otherwise and to busy trying to prove your point


----------



## Old'sCool

Porsche said:


> kinda hit the nail on the head, everyone hears different, if someone thinks something sounds better than to them it does, period, don't understand why you or anyone else is so hell bent on telling them otherwise and to busy trying to prove your point


Dude is just disagreeable. Time will tell - my ears are pretty great for an old man.

I won't get in to resumes, but suffice it to say, folks who've had me install their systems have sent me more business than I could handle. 

If I can't hear a good from a bad stereo, I'm doing pretty damn well for a deaf guy in the audio industry...


----------



## Holmz

Porsche said:


> kinda hit the nail on the head, everyone hears different, if someone thinks something sounds better than to them it does, period, don't understand why you or anyone else is so hell bent on telling them otherwise and to busy trying to prove your point


We can certainly debate whether tubes sound better or worse.

I know from measurements that they are different to SS, for at least the one tube amp I have tested and the one solid state amp.

When we have a stack of amps that are near 0.00x THD+N, then I am not convinced that people actually are hearing the amps. Especially if the speakers have 1% distortion (IMD, harmonic etc).

If I could see that the amps are different, then I can believe it when someone says that they hear it.
without that it is sort of all subjective.

If there is an objective component, then it makes the whole exercise a bit more complete.

That is the main point - that you are suggesting that I am trying to prove.


----------



## ckirocz28

Old'sCool said:


> You can look at Class D sine waves Vs Class A/B , and decide for yourself.
> 
> Again, I'll take the "cannot hear the difference" bet. Easiest way would be to have two identical cars, but if someone has the budget to install a switch board in a demo vehicle, that'll do.
> 
> Let me know when you get that set up. I'm ready to take your $.


Non-clipped sine waves look the same, when clipping starts class D's get really ugly while A/B's make a nice, clean flat-topped sine wave. I don't clip my amps.


----------



## ckirocz28

Old'sCool said:


> Speaking of back and forth, over and over,
> 
> Let's do a real world test.
> 
> Class D has come a long way.
> 
> I can still hear artifacts.


I think I can add something here. I switched from a $400 class A/B Memphis Audio MC-4.75 (?) to a $400 class D JL Audio XD 400/4, both rated at 75x4, direct swap, only set the gains, the only difference I noticed is that the Memphis amp had more headroom, I think it actually put out 115x4 where the JL did 83x4.
I swapped because the Memphis amp was more than twice the size of the JL and the Memphis ran pretty warm.
I also have excellent hearing, for now at least.


----------



## Holmz

ckirocz28 said:


> Non-clipped sine waves look the same, when clipping starts class D's get really ugly while A/B's make a nice, clean flat-topped sine wave. I don't clip my amps.


It is much easier to clip someone else’s gear.
I am sure I could Clip your amp... 

(Sort of like driving someone else’s car allows one to flog it more easily.)


----------



## cman

Holmz said:


> It is much easier to clip someone else’s gear.
> I am sure I could Clip your amp...
> 
> (Sort of like driving someone else’s car allows one to flog it more easily.)


flog? Is that some Aussie saying? I have never heard that lol


----------



## CCole

cman said:


> flog? Is that some Aussie saying? I have never heard that lol


I think flog is pretty universal. Flog=beat, wip with a stick, or torture. Personally I like a little clipping on sub amps. Most class-d amps need a bit of clipping to produce the rated numbers. The clipping I’m referring to is inaudible. To me anyway. 

I probably need to stay out of the amp sound quality debate as I sell high end amps for a living.


----------



## Old'sCool

CCole said:


> ...I probably need to stay out of the amp sound quality debate as I sell high end amps for a living.


That's certainly how many here wish to make you feel. Rest assured, they have ears of tin.


----------



## Holmz

CCole said:


> I think flog is pretty universal. Flog=beat, wip with a stick, or torture. Personally I like a little clipping on sub amps. Most class-d amps need a bit of clipping to produce the rated numbers. The clipping I’m referring to is inaudible. To me anyway.
> ...


There is a theoretical basis for running it a bit hot, depending on the input signal loading.
This dates back to the VU meter and Shannon’s work.
But people running low noise amps, and huge power with lots of headroom are not in that situation. 




Old'sCool said:


> That's certainly how many here wish to make you feel. Rest assured, they have ears of tin.


Which of my three brands of amps should sound the best?
Or should I even be able to hear a difference?


----------



## Old'sCool

Holmz said:


> There is a theoretical basis for running it a bit hot, depending on the input signal loading.
> This dates back to the VU meter and Shannon’s work.
> But people running low noise amps, and huge power with lots of headroom are not in that situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of my three brands of amps should sound the best?
> Or should I even be able to hear a difference?


I'm not really a brand fan boy, so I'm not sure. I need to hear an amp to know if my ears like it.

Hotter running amps may sound "better" due to running closer to Class A bias? I'm no engineer however.

Interestingly, I am impressed most recently by a VERY cheap Lanzar Class D...so go figure. It feels like a POS, looks like a Walmart special, and weighs less than a "good" amp half its size. Somehow it sounds pretty close to AB to me. I almost wonder if it is legit Class D, since the power output is nowhere near rated, but SQ is off the charts at its price. 😳


----------



## Holmz

I meant a hotter “signal”, where the signal is higher relative to a fixed noise level.

The amps with a higher bias should have less cross over distortion, and with the tweeter crossing over more often between -/+ , it makes sense to run those power powered channels on Class-A or Class-AB.


The amps from a particular brand should be made to the same circuit diagram, and assuming some QA of components, then they should be sounding the same. There should not be a huge variation between serial numbers of a particular brands amplifiers.
And a similar story with speakers... There should be some consistency that makes for using a set of speakers behave in a way that is consistent with the ones before and after them on an assembly line.


----------



## Old'sCool

Holmz said:


> I meant a hotter “signal”, where the signal is higher relative to a fixed noise level.
> 
> The amps with a higher bias should have less cross over distortion, and with the tweeter crossing over more often between -/+ , it makes sense to run those power powered channels on Class-A or Class-AB.
> 
> 
> The amps from a particular brand should be made to the same circuit diagram, and assuming some QA of components, then they should be sounding the same. There should not be a huge variation between serial numbers of a particular brands amplifiers.
> And a similar story with speakers... There should be some consistency that makes for using a set of speakers behave in a way that is consistent with the ones before and after them on an assembly line.


Ahh. Well, isn't less amplification required of an 8v sine wave vs a 1.5v to achieve the same results?

My biggest trick for low noise floor was to buy amps of around 2x the power rating I required, use (at the time) the highest output head unit (4v) I could source, and keep gains extremely low.

In more than one USAC event, I was asked to prove my alternator was properly hooked-up. 

I also never received below perfect scores on noise floor for an entire season of meets (8 or 9 events).

Also: I agree that well designed components should be nearly identical on the test bench. Having been in 6-Sigma and ISO factory work for several years, our tests and "burn ins" were quite stringent. We failed very few devices (I believe < half of a precent). "Zero defects" is nearly impossible, but 0.01 is a pretty good benchmark, especially for a bunch of "stupid Americans" in a "******* state." 😄


----------



## Old'sCool

Old'sCool said:


> Ahh. Well, isn't less amplification required of an 8v sine wave vs a 1.5v to achieve the same results?
> 
> My biggest trick for low noise floor was to buy amps of around 2x the power rating I required, use (at the time) the highest output head unit (4v) I could source, and keep gains extremely low.
> 
> In more than one USAC event, I was asked to prove my alternator was properly hooked-up.
> 
> I also never received below perfect scores on noise floor for an entire season of meets (8 or 9 events).
> 
> Also: I agree that well designed components should be nearly identical on the test bench. Having been in 6-Sigma and ISO factory work for several years, our tests and "burn ins" were quite stringent. We failed very few devices (I believe < half of a precent). "Zero defects" is nearly impossible, but 0.01 is a pretty good benchmark, especially for a bunch of "stupid Americans" in a "***** state." 😄


wait...wait...i can't say "red neck?" Holy 1st amendment, Batman.


----------



## Holmz

I assumed it said southern... should have counted the number of letters. 

The gain stuff we are in agreement with.
(But many amps do not sound like the Doors, ”Riders on the Storm”.


----------



## ckirocz28

Holmz said:


> It is much easier to clip someone else’s gear.
> I am sure I could Clip your amp...
> 
> (Sort of like driving someone else’s car allows one to flog it more easily.)


I know you're kidding, but, I treat other people's stuff better than I treat mine.


----------



## ckirocz28

CCole said:


> Most class-d amps need a bit of clipping to produce the rated numbers.


Umm, NO! You're buying the wrong amps.


----------



## Old'sCool

ckirocz28 said:


> I know you're kidding, but, I treat other people's stuff better than I treat mine.


Agree 100%. My best friend insisted I drive his (ridiculous) STi , which is like 480WHP on a Mustang Dyno, and told me to "try to hit an 11 sec quarter mile." I ran a 13.6, because I refused to try launch control or leave the line at 4k rpm.

In my (sold but missed) SRT-10 Ram, I routinely and repeatedly ran low 13s with slicks, and you could smell clutch for two days. I would NEVER do that to even a rental, let alone a buddy's vehicle.


----------



## Holmz

ckirocz28 said:


> I know you're kidding, but, I treat other people's stuff better than I treat mine.


i am not kidding... a good race car driver knows it, *which is why I am not good*.

(They need to not be over sympathetic to the mechanical aspects.)


It reminds me of when we were looking at some tiles and the woman in the shop said, ”These tiles are unbreakable.” She was not very impressed when I dropped it on the floor and it broke. .. and less so, when I said, “I thought it was unbreakable?”




Old'sCool said:


> ...
> ... I would NEVER do that to even a rental, let alone a buddy's vehicle.


When Hertz rented GT350s in the 60s, it was reported that a lot had roll cages welded in and removed, so people rented them, raced then, and then returned them.

I dunno if it is true, but it makes a great story.
(And I heard it from Big Mike, who worked for Carroll at Shelby American.)


----------



## ckirocz28

Holmz said:


> i am not kidding... a good race car driver knows it, *which is why I am not good*.
> 
> It reminds me of when we were looking at some tiles and the woman in the shop said, ”These tiles are unbreakable.” She was not very impressed when I dropped it on the floor and it broke. .. and less so, when I said, “I thought it was unbreakable?”


Race cars are a different thing altogether, you need to somewhat abuse them to go really fast, and that's what is expected. Another person's personal car/stereo is something else though.
I don't think I would've been able to resist breaking the tile either.


----------



## audiocholic

same car
same dsp
same hu
same targeted curve

1) Can easily tell switching from DLS RA series to PDX V9
2) Can easily tell switching from P Six to PDX V9
3) Can easily tell switching from PDX to Sony GS4 and GS100

I guess I have some BATMAN ears  cause litterally it was as easy as spending 20mins and 4-5 tracks to confirm the differences (almost %90 the lower frequencies for me)

has any of you noticed the following:

1) Helix A1 actually had a DAMPING ADJUSTER and if you look at the last page column 22 it states higher= more bass, lower DF = Balanced and warmer bass?

here is a link to its manual: https://130.com.ua/manuals/en/Manual-Car-amplifier-Helix-A1-Competition.pdf

2) did any of you ever notice

A) that Helix P six MK1 actually had a Damping Factor of 1000
again here is a link: HELIX P SIX DSP_ HELIX_P_SIX_DSP DSP

B) and that Helix P Six MK2 that Audio Fischer actually reduced the Damping from 1000 to an incredibly lower 100 almost %90 lower!

C) that in the value amp comparison the highly reputable PDX F4 is stated to have a far too lean lower end and coincedentally has a very high Damping factor?









High Value Amplifier Shootout.pdf


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com







I do not know if it was a coincedence for me but with all the changed amps above the most noticeable differences indeed was the lower end and was truely easily noticeable.

1) DLS sounded the smoothest in bottom end
2) P Six MK2 and GS4 bottom end sounded suprisingly the same, not as smooth as the DLS but not lean or boomy etc either
3) PDX sounded downright Lean as described in the test above and you really cant fix it with any eq tuning etc either it just sounds wrong.


----------

