# locked eca amp thread



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

Posted by bdubs767 over at eca:

"Heres something i think you guys might find interesting...in light of compainies copying others..

I asked an EE (not gonna say any names since I didnt ask him if I could post it here) what he thought of brax vs sinfoni vs genesis vs older PG like zpa, ms, m series.

"heres what I see,
On the Genesis:
this is a revisited old school Soundstream design. I hate vertical driver boards they all become desoldered with age and shock vibration (a fairly common failure point even for SS amps).
Nothing new here, in fact if I was SS I would sue them for copyright infringement on the basic assembly. They copied SS amps design technic.
Not much original thought in this amp. In fact the second pic looks pretty burned up from use.
Definitely not my first choice for any application. I dislike copycat companies, they stiffle the industry with junky knockoffs.
My overall rating is a little less than AVERAGE, and the little less is due to copied design.

OK lets look at the Sinfoni:
This appears on the surface to be a re-visited high end ZAPCO amp. Its overall design layout and device choice looks and feels to be all ZAPCO. with a touch of improvements here and there.
Overall thoughts, well I'm sure ZAPCO is cheaper that this high priced European cousin. I see no gain except higher construction quality standards involved with the build. Looks like they used 3 output pairs per channel most probably the same as the XENON amp as its rated similarly and SANKEN makes the best outputs (public opinion)
So overall its a bit off a knockoff, but with build quality improvements and better outputs. Probably a very nice mono amp since it has only one power supply.
But definitly ZAPCO was their main influence physically anyway, A big + for output stage. So ZAPCO + on this amp for my rating.

OK next up is the BRAX amp:
Brax uses unique contruction technics, along with very original shielded toroids in the power supply. They know what I know about power supply noise. So this is a good thing. Unfortunatly I believe the power toroid may be prown to burn out because there is no cooling for the coils, so shielding is great but with heat related draw backs. I am almost sure they temp monitor the power toroid to avoid failures just like Alpine used to do the all their older amps.
The Brax amp has a lot things going for it, size (its slimly designed), and very efficient layout. Simple thru whole construction on this one, tried and true there. I recently repaired a TO-3 version four channel, it had a blown ground circuit in the amps power supply. This also was the ground reference for the RCA's so the amp failed because of being overdriven, just like all the Kicker ZR, and Alpine V-12 series failed. This shows a similar design in the amplifiers grounding scheme.
But over all the Brax appears to have a clean well built, abit slim design. A lot of original thought was used in the design, even though I found some common similarities with Alpine, and Kicker ZR this is NOT a bad thing. It just shows that certain designs all have common roots even if it is just the rca grounding design.
I don't like the open frame output relays, I have seen these in many stock Bosch type amplifiers, and they fail. So in my mind the relays are kind of junky, but when purchasing a amp of this cost I would be inclined to believe that a few things might be acquired as spares.
The TO-3P(plastic) outputs are fairly common place ( I prefer their TO-3 Metal designs)
TO-3 transistors live longer, period. This is a known fact in the semi business, but they are a pain to install on build up, and repair, so they don't usually get considered for budgetary reasons by the bean counters.

I have had a chance to listen to the Brax amps, and for Solid state class AB they sound totally acceptable for this sort of amp design. In fact I was impressed by there contruction, and there protection circuitry. While their protection circuitry is nothing new, at least it works to protect your speakers. The need for output relays means that the design can pass destructive DC power to speakers on failure of the amp. they knew this so hence the speaker relays.
No one adds speaker relays for fun. They add to the overall cost of the amp, so they are used only when needed by the design so as to protect your speakers from becoming flame throwers in the back of your car.

The down side, and there is always one everywhere. Certain parts inside the Brax amp are all BRAX. that means only German factory support will be able to render your amp repaired in some cases. This should be kept in the back of your mind with the speaker relay issues I have about these amps. As far as everything else goes they get thumbs up for innovation, and design, and a overall build that appeals to me and I am sure others.

Out of all of the above amplifiers, I personally am prown to stay with my Phoenix Gold amps. None of the amps listed above impress me enough to switch from what I know works and works well, PHOENIX GOLD !

Overall the Brax was impressive by design, the Sinfoni was OK, The Genesis well I can get Soundstream amps cheaper, and I'm sure they will sound alike or better even.

I hope someone finds this engineering point of view helpful, it is my humble opinion based on my years looking at these things.""

http://ampguts.realmofexcursion.com/Phoenix_Gold_MS2125/
http://ampguts.realmofexcursion.com/Genesis_Dual_Mono/
http://ampguts.realmofexcursion.com/Sinfoni_AMPLItude_150.2x/
http://ampguts.realmofexcursion.com/Brax_X2000.2/inside1.jpg 

This really piqued my curiousity about these amps. I know there are a few EE's on this board... perhaps they care to comment?


----------



## fej (Feb 8, 2006)

Cool post ... going to have to go look at the locked thing.

But I mean seriously, at the end of the day ... amp manufacturers are not inventing the wheel, I would be more surprised with a "totally unique" comment than I am with a "rehashed XXX brand" comment. There are only so many ways to make/regulate power and convert signal ... it is not a field of invention, at least IMO.


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

does the sinfoni look like the older xtants to anyone?


----------



## NaamanF (Jan 18, 2006)

Not really.


----------



## JasonH (Oct 27, 2005)

I can't find it. Why was it locked?


----------



## Vestax (Aug 16, 2005)

JasonH said:


> I can't find it. Why was it locked?


Stupid bickering again.

Well mostly, people were hating on John Yi.


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

bdubs767 is a PG rep


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

npdang said:


> This really piqued my curiousity about these amps. I know there are a few EE's on this board... perhaps they care to comment?


Only comment I have is regarding his dislike for vertical. The Zed-built ESX Quantums had vertical daughter boards and they had a very small failure rate (as evidenced by all of them floating around nowadays). I think if done correctly there's nothing inherently wrong with it, assuming he's referring to vert boards in general which seems to be the case.


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

JasonH said:


> I can't find it. Why was it locked?


Because ECA is a pos forum now  
They close down threads at the drop of a hat just because someone doesnt agree, and here at DIYMA it just doesnt happen.
Anyone notice a certain mod from ECA (that bans everyone that pisses him off) hanging out here lately?


----------



## jay (Sep 12, 2005)

legend94 said:


> Because ECA is a pos forum now
> They close down threads at the drop of a hat just because someone doesnt agree, and here at DIYMA it just doesnt happen.
> Anyone notice a certain mod from ECA (that bans everyone that pisses him off) hanging out here lately?


how about we focus on the topic instead of stirring up ish?


----------



## yermolovd (Oct 10, 2005)

I'd rather read more on topic than off topic regarding bad ass evil mods.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

I don't know who you guys are talking about. I didn't stay there long enough to find out. I spent maybe a week over there, and I really didn't see much that I could learn from. The few posters who were insightful post over here anyway, and the noise was just unbearable. Then there were other posters there who seemed to know a thing or two, but were just plain a-holes. No offense intended to those of you who try to make that place better, but that forum leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

Amp threads got me the boot over on on ECA. I find these new revelations interesting, however, because these types of threads were everpresent on that forum but were stymied by the mods and admins (think clarion and arc). That thread only serves to prove my point that amps are subject to diminishing returns and outside of reliability and power, there's not much else to consider when buying them.

There was also an interesting thread on TRU amps over on ECA around the same time. It's kinda funny seeing the rep they have now versus the humongous boner they had a few years ago, especially seeing that they were built overseas in korea (claiming to be made in the USA) and were selling for cheaper by a company named ABYSS.


----------



## stormtrooper (Dec 10, 2005)

legend94 said:


> bdubs767 is a PG rep


I definitely think forums and an individuals opinions can lead to people jumping on the " band wagon ".Im not saying PG doesn't produce good equipment,I feel they do..Forums do create a market for a product.
Look how we sold Pac out of the x19's ...and a few months ago the PPI processor


----------



## VaVroom1 (Dec 2, 2005)

jay said:


> how about we focus on the topic instead of stirring up ish?


x2


----------



## andthelam (Aug 9, 2006)

Wow, interesting thread. If there is anything this forum has taught me is that:

1) DIY drivers are a much better deal than prepackaged, glitz, glamor, half naked girls (actually I like that part) "car speakers"

2) As above, there is a very diminishing return of SQ to $$ ratio when it comes to amps. (no SQ amp discussion here please). The chance I ever spend $1k for an amp is highly unlikely unless it does 50x2, 100x2, 150x2 and 500x1. Or basically a dollar a watt.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

legend94 said:


> Because ECA is a pos forum now
> They close down threads at the drop of a hat just because someone doesnt agree, and here at DIYMA it just doesnt happen.
> Anyone notice a certain mod from ECA (that bans everyone that pisses him off) hanging out here lately?


Incorrect.

Incorrect.

Nope.

 

Good stuff bdubs, I like contorversy and I appreciate the input from anyone who challenges the mystery EE man here.


----------



## khail19 (Oct 27, 2006)

stormtrooper said:


> I definitely think forums and an individuals opinions can lead to people jumping on the " band wagon ".Im not saying PG doesn't produce good equipment,I feel they do..Forums do create a market for a product.
> Look how we sold Pac out of the x19's ...and a few months ago the PPI processor


Just earlier today Outpost.com sold out of the Blaupunkt amps that were on sale, thanks to a post on DIYMA. $30 for a 120x2 amp, can't beat that!

I really think amps should be bought based on factors other than "how they sound." Reliability, size, and even looks to a degree are important factors to me when buying an amp.


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

#1 i am pretty sure i know who wrote that .. maybe... and #2 i tend to agree with so many similarities latlely with amps.. now im not saying ive sat down and had a to compare with b but as someone else said already they are not reinventing anything here EXCEPT the guys using the newer d class designs in car audio amps.. this is in fact new to us. been around for a while in the home.. 

nice bdub... also i do not believe bdub is a rep for them i am pretty sure he sells them or something like that but i could be wrong wait for him to answer


----------



## Thoraudio (Aug 9, 2005)

It was written by 1moreamp over on Phoenix Phorums


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

he was one of the 2 i was thinking it was..


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

legend94 said:


> bdubs767 is a PG rep



lol def not...but I do likely their MS amps and RSd subs.


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

Thoraudio said:


> It was written by 1moreamp over on Phoenix Phorums




hehehehe..he found it.


man knows his stuff.


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

zfactor said:


> nice bdub... also i do not believe bdub is a rep for them i am pretty sure he sells them or something like that but i could be wrong wait for him to answer



neither....know people involved in PG, and sometimes I help out a a car audio shop thats sells PG, pionner, boston, and few other brands.


I am not PG rep, I dont sell PG, I'M A COLLEGE STUDENT...I do like a lot their products but I will say things truly...


Octane stuff = mid level decent stuff nothing great run of the mill IMO

xenon speakers line= terrible design, why they choose to make subs that can only play up to 50hz and comps only down to 100hz......

ti line speakers= they claim they designed but I really think thats BS...as they said the choose morel because its the onyl one that can create those kind of cones....even though morel stole the design from dyn.

rsd speakers= good stuff for mid level IMO nothing amazing tho

RSD subs= diamonds

ms, m, zpa, zx, are GODs... xenon great once they got over their stupid descion to let sams mart produce their amps

RSd amps= havent played w/ em and have my doubts to be honest


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

npdang....I also posted something from him about mcintosh amps too on ECA. I found it interesting.


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

bdubs767 said:


> npdang....I also posted something from him about mcintosh amps too on ECA. I found it interesting.



can i get a link on that?
ive tried almost every mcintosh and the only one i like is the mc420, which was probably the first one they made.....you can tell if you compare them side by side(not even including the internals) you can see the quality start changing.


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

bdubs767 said:


> lol def not...but I do likely their MS amps and RSd subs.


just a joke, but you really have me wanting to try that damn sub


----------



## dBassHz (Nov 2, 2005)

bdubs767 said:


> npdang....I also posted something from him about mcintosh amps too on ECA. I found it interesting.


It's interesting how he compared the MACs to the ADS power plates. I always hear people saying that those 2 amplifiers have the best SQ. Do the shared STK modules give them a similar sound signature?

Did you ask the anonymous EE about Zed amplifiers (new & old)?

ECA MAC Link


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

omarmipi said:


> It's interesting how he compared the MACs to the ADS power plates. I always hear people saying that those 2 amplifiers have the best SQ. Do the shared STK modules give them a similar sound signature?
> 
> Did you ask the anonymous EE about Zed amplifiers (new & old)?




didnt zed do the arc se amps....

***EDIT*** was another EE that answered the question for me....

I asked this...
"like for instance this arc se amp is the hottest thing for "sq" people, they all basically say its the greatest amp, but when you pop it open I just dont see why its SO SPECAlL care to explain.
http://ampguts.realmofexcursion.com/Arc_4100SE/inside1.jpg "


Other EE
"Arc is nothing special. Just a good circuit design with the right amount of feedback and good quality components. There is no “magic” to their designs."


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

http://forum.elitecaraudio.com/showthread.php?threadid=139444


whoops someone bet me to it


----------



## dBassHz (Nov 2, 2005)

Does one of the EE guys you talked to know what is the common failure in the PPI (Art, PM, M) series amplifiers. I sure do see a lot of broken/fixed ones on eBay. I was thinking about using them at one point. I sure do like the PG MS/M series amplifiers but I wish the more powerful ones were smaller.


----------



## 89grand (Nov 23, 2006)

Never fear the PPI Art series amps. I have an A200 that's been running since 1993 and an A600.2 from 1997 and they're both still running strong in my Jeep.

There may be some on ebay that have been worked on, but first off you never know what yahoo was using it and considering they haven't been made since 1996, that's a pretty good track record.


----------



## kappa546 (Apr 11, 2005)

I wonder what they would say about the good ole (quite literally) Linear Power amps


----------



## SQ_Bronco (Jul 31, 2005)

kappa546 said:


> I wonder what they would say about the good ole (quite literally) Linear Power amps


Probably "if you have one, put it on ebay RIGHT NOW!!!!"


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

I did ask him about PPI ART and ORION HCCA.

"Well, as requested I'm here to speak again Smile Again, this is my opinion, based on the last twenty years of looking inside these amps your asking about. Thanks for your patience, I had a flight to Montana on a corporate Lear this week that stretched all day, so I have been playing catch up ever since.

Now as for the MS-2125 I will not be commenting. As I stated in a earlier post "I don't want to bore everyone to death with what everybody here already knows. Smile

OK lets look at the the last two amps on your list, The PPI A600.2, and the Orion HCCA2100.

Both of these amps have a lot in common. Like they use the same outputs, and they both used similar smaller transistors.

You should see with a close inspection of both the amps that they share common roots.
PPI has issues with their bottom plate hold down clamp used to clamp the semi's to the sink. Orion folks (X-PPI people)saw and knew about this so they used clamping bars with double sided foam tape as a crush point to prevent semi damge. Everybody I have ever talked to thought Orion was way ahead here on there fix.
But PPI did not change their design, so the issue was a simple one of when the amp was serviced the tech would just re-bend the tangs on the bottom plate so the re-installation of the plate would give acceptable results on clamping the semi's back down. Also PPI would bury the outputs in silicone thermal compound, something Orion never had to do.

In fact Orion was one of the first companies to stop using silicone grease all together when they started using Sil-pads for their build-ups.
Theres good and bad to both methods. On Orion repairs i have had the power transistors literally snap all apart on disassembly because the double sided tape would not release the device before the case failed on the device. So rebuilds became a pain on Orions just by there better idea on semi hold down. Rolling Eyes

You can't clamp semi's down TOO hard. This causes failures just like not clamping them enough. PPI and Orion are good examples of both extremes. One too loose, one too tight. Either one causes failures. Its just one of those things that must be engineered just right...

Orion also liked to use what they called Mil-spec parts back then. they used higher grade passive componenets, But PPI came back in the Art series and also used higher grade components, specifically the resistors. orion and Rockford were the big boys that used 2% metal film low noise resistors first.

Orion used Tantalum bypass caps thru out their amps, where as PPI stayed with the old reliable Ceramic disk caps.
The Tantalums were a failure point of these older Orions. The Tants were a better component, but they had a much higher failure rate and caused a many Orions to end up on my bench. Something I never saw with any PPI amp.

Gain controls for both amps SUCK'ed, especially those crappy Phier gain pots. Everybody PPI and Orion said they were a improvement, for dust noise problems on the gain pots. Well they lied ! They had such a short life that even today if I see a PPi/Orion device come in I check right away for bad gain pots.
And the replacement is the old fashion corbon Phenolic body pots. they can be cleaned to restore proper ops. And Kapton tape wrapped to seal them up from dust. ( My Fix)

Orion also liked to use their version of a better op-amp the NE5534. A single opamp in a 8 pin case. I saw these fail also. But not the PPI 4558/4560 Dual op-amps.

So all of the above is the average failures other than outputs and power supply fets.

PPI offered water cooling, Orion built monster sinks with forced air cooling.
The Forced air cooling did not do much in the trunk of a car on a hot day, But Orion added hugh sink volume to help out here also. Larger sinks do help.
Just look at the MS series from PG. those were battleship amps in gun boat grey no less Laughing Laughing Laughing

I always thought the sink of the PPI almost demanded the water cooling option. What with all of its smooth powder coated surfaces, it has less surface area to emiss heat, and Paint holds heat just like Chrome does...

OK I just started a good one there, But its true powder coat paint and other surface treatments like chrome all cause the amp to HOLD HEAT.
Even the candy colored anodizing also holds heat, just no where near as bad as Power coat paint and chrome.

The Orion HCCA-2100 is a fine amp for its day. The PPI A600.2 was also a very good amp for its day.
I was a PPI fan back then. I owned three PPI 2150AM's, that i never had to repair or tamper with in any way. But i did fix alot of Orions and a few PPI's back then. The A600.2 series was a better PPI, but I never owned any for my own use. The Monster fan cooled Orions had their following as the amp to have for sub ohm loads. (probably the main reason i saw them for repair as most people go way overboard when doing the low ohm trip)

To sumerize: (as this has gotten way too long winded for even me) Embarassed

The PPI A600.2 was and still is a trophy amp to have and own, and use in a system. Although some older PPI folks say it lost SQ over the older PPI amps. Its still the cream from that period of PPi's production.

The Orion, also a strong performer has its place in the hearts of SLP'ers from the day. Build quality was never really a issue with these monsters.
Their internal quality was exceptional for the day, and Orion had hugh testing facilities for all of these monsters, so they were QC'ed well before shipment.

The attempt to compare these two amps against each other is a tough nut to crack. They both had exceptional followings along with odd-ball failures.
If forced to pick one over the other I would be hard pressed because of the similarities that exist between them.
There common heritage also has some credits and some snafu's, so its a close call.
Which is why the good old dazes of competing was such a hot time back then. It was like grudge matching hot rod chevy's on satuday "

I know he gives tru and LP BIG THUMBS UP. Bigger then anyhting mentioned in these threads besides the old PG stuff.


----------



## bass_lover1 (Dec 10, 2005)

SQ_Bronco said:


> Probably "if you have one, put it on ebay RIGHT NOW!!!!"


Holy sh*t!!!

Wonder what my 2.2HV would sell for, lol.


----------



## pyropoptrt (Jun 11, 2006)

JasonH said:


> I can't find it. Why was it locked?


the thread was starting by me about the new Tru Technology amps


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

quoted from eca by werewolf:

"when someone complains about carbon resistors (instead of metal film, i suppose), ask : exactly what amplifier performance spec is degraded by that choice?

when someone bashes a product for choice of opamp, ask : exactly why is that significant, if the measured noise and distortion performance is already below the limits of audibility?

when someone says those transistors (et al) are "old", not up to "modern" specs, ask : since the bandwidth, noise & distortion limits of human hearing haven't changed in thousands of years (at least) ... why are today's amplifiers so dramatically better than those from twenty years ago?"


this makes everything more clear to me!
when werewolf speaks, I listen


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

werewolf, can you explain power guard more in depth? or post a link on it?


----------



## JAG (May 6, 2006)

Well ..... That's exactly why I say to do it right the first time ..... Buy Arc Audio SE Series and *KNOW* you have the best sounding mobile audio amp ever designed ! He he he ...


----------



## Sephiroth619 (Jun 24, 2005)

Thoraudio said:


> It was written by 1moreamp over on Phoenix Phorums


Is he "justonemoreamp" on ebay? If so, he's always selling some sweet amplifiers on ebay.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

sephiroth619 said:


> Is he "justonemoreamp" on ebay? If so, he's always selling some sweet amplifiers on ebay.


Different guy.


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

sephiroth619 said:


> Is he "justonemoreamp" on ebay? If so, he's always selling some sweet amplifiers on ebay.




NO...def NOT


----------



## autofile (Oct 25, 2005)

Gordon Taylor's response to the post:

"I would be very surprised to see an Engineer talking in such an unprofessional manner, to me this looks more like the comments of a service technician who would like to be an Engineer.

That said I can respond to the comments as follows.

Soundstream didn’t invent their system of mounting the circuit boards to the heatsink, it had been in use for a number of years by power electronics manufacturers.

Similarly their amplifier circuit is simply a transconductance amplifier, invented by someone many years ago when transistors were new. The first integrated version of this circuit layout was made in 1969, so we can be fairly certain it had been invented before then.

So the bottom line is that Soundstream didn’t have anything to patent, they were simply using existing technology applied to car audio.

Calling Genesis a knock off of Soundstream is like calling BMW a knock off of Mercedes.
At a glance both cars have four wheels and an engine, rear wheel drive with similar wheelbase, same number of windows and doors. Mercedes were around first so the BMW has to be a knock off, right? By the same logic applied in the previous post BMW has no right to be in the marketplace.

Personally I think that is for the market to decide.

Closer investigation will show there are many design differences between Genesis and Soundstream.
The bias sensing of the output device temperature is taken directly from the output device casing in Genesis amplifiers. This allows the bias to be accurately set and monitored reducing any chance of underbiasing. 
The industry standard method is to monitor the heatsink temperature, easier, but not as accurate and as a result the bias must be set lower to ensure reliability. Does it affect sound quality? We think it does so we have used the case monitoring system since day 1.

Smart switching is a Genesis first, using small switches in the input connector bodies to sense when a Phono plug is inserted and routing the signals accordingly. We first used this in the P300x in 1995. It meant an end to complex signal routing switch setting.

We use Burr Brown preamp IC’s in our premium amplifiers, not as an upgrade / option but as standard since 1997. 

Class G was invented by Hitachi in 1977 although the concept dates back further.The first car audio application was when HiFonics used it on their Colossus in the early 1990’s.
What we brought to the concept was seamless switching, where the switching noise evident in previous designs was eliminated by careful circuit design and component choice.
This allows near digital levels of energy efficiency with no loss of sound quality.
Our Profile Sub amplifier can be used to run a front stage with very good results, unlike any digital Sub amp.
Applying it to a Class A amplifier is a first also and has proven very successful.


If this service tech had checked out a recently built Genesis amplifier he would find Sanken output devices. Since 2001 we have good availability on these devices in the UK, previously they had been on 40 week lead-times. As products have come up for redesign they have progressively been introduced into the model lineup.


Genesis products are more expensive than many others in the market. This is because they are hand built in the UK, unlike most others that are either partly or fully built in the Far East.
We work very hard to ensure the sound quality is class leading, and continually develop the circuitry to make small improvements.

It is then up to the consumer to decide if these differences represent value for money. Fortunately for us there are plenty of folks who do, and we are doing well."


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

autofile said:


> Gordon Taylor's response to the post:
> 
> "I would be very surprised to see an Engineer talking in such an unprofessional manner, to me this looks more like the comments of a service technician who would like to be an Engineer.


Gordon needs to get out more.




> "Genesis products are more expensive than many others in the market. This is because they are hand built in the UK, unlike most others that are either partly or fully built in the Far East."


Racist! 



PS -- Peter, nice seeing another former RAC poster here...


----------



## fredridge (Jan 17, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> Racist!


Is it racism against the far east or prejudice against people with no hands


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

fredridge said:


> Is it racism against the far east or prejudice against people with no hands


i'm one of those people who don't care where something comes from as long as it gets the job done right and cleanly. if an amp is handmade in the usa but doesn't perform like it should :cough: TREO :cough: it makes the high price pointless. if an amp comes out of malaysia or china and gets the job done cleanly and reliably with a fairly low price, it's win win.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

TEAM SHIMANO/FALCON said:


> i'm one of those people who don't care where something comes from as long as it gets the job done right and cleanly. if an amp is handmade in the usa but doesn't perform like it should :cough: TREO :cough: it makes the high price pointless. if an amp comes out of malaysia or china and gets the job done cleanly and reliably with a fairly low price, it's win win.


Indeed. In a global economy wherein even Kilgour's is comfortable with the quality available from Far Eastern sources in a field that's far more demanding of craftsmanship than basic electronics, it seems that claiming "made by white people" as a selling point is rather overrated.


----------



## JAG (May 6, 2006)

I'm one of the people who hear differences in amplifiers if ALL of the other parameters are just right.
Having said that , I would like to throw this out for cnsideration :
I can't tell you how many times a manufacturer , or rep , has sent us a super high dollar amp ( think True , Brax , Audison , ect .... ) for testing purposes. You know , they want us to pick up the line .... But when we test it head to head against a known standard ( Arc , Zapco , ect .... ) , we find the less expensive amp actually is less colored and sounds better  
One of the biggest dissapointments ever was getting to audition a 300 w/ch McIntosh amp ( had the pretty gauges ) .... That thing was SOOOO damn lifeless and dull sounding. It sounded like a wet blanket had been thrown over the speakers , and it definitely had a bias that did NOT sound like real instruments.
Just food for thought ....


----------



## autofile (Oct 25, 2005)

MarkZ said:


> Gordon needs to get out more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sheesh people! 

No where was anything to do with race, gender, religious affiliation, sexual orientation or any of that mentioned here, or have anything to do with what he is talking about what so ever. 

What is being addressed is the higher costs of labor in the UK as opposed to labor costs in the far east.

If someone living in a country can not comprehend the long term personal benefits of supporting their own local industry, as opposed to outsourcing the labor to another country to save a few bucks in the short term, then it is pointless to try to offer further explaination.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

I guess I'm probably at fault because I started it. Oops!

Seriously though, I think there's some appeal to the hand-built claim. That it was hand-built in the UK instead of an asian country doesn't matter, of course.


----------



## Sephiroth619 (Jun 24, 2005)

MarkZ said:


> Racist!



Am I the only one that saw humor in this? Chill out people.


----------



## fredridge (Jan 17, 2007)

sephiroth619 said:


> Am I the only one that saw humor in this? Chill out people.


I did too


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

AVI said:


> One of the biggest dissapointments ever was getting to audition a 300 w/ch McIntosh amp ( had the pretty gauges ) .... That thing was SOOOO damn lifeless and dull sounding. It sounded like a wet blanket had been thrown over the speakers , and it definitely had a bias that did NOT sound like real instruments.
> Just food for thought ....



 
ive never switched amps before and it made a difference that i could say it was lifeless and dull....maybe its just me, but even going from an old sony(pre xplod) to a zapco(studio) i didnt just jump up and scream 
one thing to always remember is that brands change over time...sometimes better or worse. i think the first mcintosh amps are the best imho. just like it sounds like soundstream is trying to make a comeback. if the new soundstream amps are like the old school version, how will we classify some of the junk in between?


----------



## MiniVanMan (Jun 28, 2005)

DS-21 said:


> it seems that claiming "made by white people" as a selling point is rather overrated.


True, true. I'm white, and I'm a lazy POS.  

It will only be quality if my union tells me it needs to be quality.  

J/K I'm not really in a union.


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

MiniVanMan said:


> True, true. I'm white, and I'm a lazy POS.
> 
> It will only be quality if my union tells me it needs to be quality.
> 
> J/K I'm not really in a union.


but are you white


----------



## OldOneEye (Jun 16, 2005)

autofile said:


> If someone living in a country can not comprehend the long term personal benefits of supporting their own local industry, as opposed to outsourcing the labor to another country to save a few bucks in the short term, then it is pointless to try to offer further explaination.


So not to bust your balls, so should I not buy stuff not made in the UK because I'm not supporting my local economy?   

Juan


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

OldOneEye said:


> So not to bust your balls, so should I not buy stuff not made in the UK because I'm not supporting my local economy?
> 
> Juan


pwnt el oh el  

and for the record, my new amps are made in malaysia. my jbl was made in china. the sound on the jbl is somewhat colored but puts out plenty of power. besides not fitting my install like i want it to, the gains on the damn thing are touchy and need to be reset every few weeks. my jbl bp600.1 had the same problem.  never had that problem with memphis or crossfire. and my sony xm2150 was a damn good amp considering it normally stayed hot enough to fry eggs on in my spl days. still alive waiting to be installed in a friends new tahoe after 4 years of abuse


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

OldOneEye said:


> So not to bust your balls, so should I not buy stuff not made in the UK because I'm not supporting my local economy?
> 
> Juan


The term "bust your balls" makes me cringe.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

bassfromspace said:


> The term "bust your balls" makes me cringe.


that term makes me want to curl up and stop breathing (interesting story)


----------



## JAG (May 6, 2006)

legend94 said:


> ive never switched amps before and it made a difference that i could say it was lifeless and dull....maybe its just me, but even going from an old sony(pre xplod) to a zapco(studio) i didnt just jump up and scream
> one thing to always remember is that brands change over time...sometimes better or worse. i think the first mcintosh amps are the best imho. just like it sounds like soundstream is trying to make a comeback. if the new soundstream amps are like the old school version, how will we classify some of the junk in between?


We all hear differently , and some of us CAN hear differently. I've taken double blind listening tests in home AND in car , and have passed with flying colors. 
My post was not to start a " do amps sound differently " debate , but to offer up some things I have observed through the years as an owner of several car audio stores.


----------



## NaamanF (Jan 18, 2006)

Some things are better made by hand than a machine. I don't think electronics are not one of those things. Take computers. Who wants a hand made Dell? 

And I would imagine all those amps made overseas are made by robots anyway. And those robots must be doing quality work because my TV, computer, camera, other computer, laptop, car computer, other other computer, second laptop, and the other second laptop all turn on everyday and function as advertised. 

I have fancy hand made Italy amps that seem to be well made. I don't think they are better because they are made by Italians, or hands.


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

NaamanF said:


> Some things are better made by hand than a machine. I don't think electronics are not one of those things. Take computers. Who wants a hand made Dell?
> 
> And I would imagine all those amps made overseas are made by robots anyway. And those robots must be doing quality work because my TV, computer, camera, other computer, laptop, car computer, other other computer, second laptop, and the other second laptop all turn on everyday and function as advertised.
> 
> I have fancy hand made Italy amps that seem to be well made. I don't think they are better because they are made by Italians, or hands.


Good Post.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Hand built amps are cool though. How about gold solder joints too?

It's more than just about functionality. If that was all there was to it, we'd all own oversized Crunch amps because spending any more would be pointless.


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> Hand built amps are cool though. How about gold solder joints too?
> 
> It's more than just about functionality. If that was all there was to it, we'd all own oversized Crunch amps because spending any more would be pointless.


if i would have had any money invested in the treo amps i tried out for free i would have been pissed. the ssx750.1 was ok (not great) but the ssx75.4 was the heaviest pansey i've ever had the misfortune of wasting my time with. however, i will admit the build quality was impressive and the guts inside were beefy. too bad the performance didn't match. i'm going back to memphis mclass. good clean reliable power with tech support to be proud of after the warranty runs out. they keep their customers happy in the rare event one of their products dies.


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

AVI said:


> We all hear differently , and some of us CAN hear differently. I've taken double blind listening tests in home AND in car , and have passed with flying colors.
> My post was not to start a " do amps sound differently " debate , but to offer up some things I have observed through the years as an owner of several car audio stores.


i dont want to start that again either! im not saying ive never heard the difference just not a huge difference. again, i think it is harder to tell in a car than home


----------



## Hillbilly SQ (Jan 26, 2007)

legend94 said:


> i dont want to start that again either! im not saying ive never heard the difference just not a huge difference. again, i think it is harder to tell in a car than home


exactly. add in road noise and exhaust and riliability at a good price>a name and a high price. in my case i doubt i could tell an audible difference between a set of profile amps and a set of genesis amps considering my truck is so noisy from the tires and pipes.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

Man I hear all kind of differences in my amps. Partly because I want to, but mostly because I don't feel like making them sound the same. 

[ball busting armor ready to go]

I personally really appreciate a product like Sinfoni. It's not the bargain shopper's delight, but man would it be cool to own such a unique hand crafted piece. I'd have to have a nice, hand crafted automobile to put it in though.  Until then, I have to give it up to the engineers that do robotics and automation. You guys have saved me a butt load of cash!!


----------



## JAG (May 6, 2006)

legend94 said:


> i dont want to start that again either! im not saying ive never heard the difference just not a huge difference. again, i think it is harder to tell in a car than home


I hear ya .... I should have clarified one thing .... When listening to the differences I hear in amps , that is with the car sitting stationary , and not moving down the road.

One thing I have always found humorous though .... Almost all of the prople I have ever debated with over if a person can hear a difference in different car amps , has owned amps that cost on average probably $500 or more   Made me wonder why they didn't just buy Jensen .... I mean , if they all sound the same


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

AVI said:


> I hear ya .... I should have clarified one thing .... When listening to the differences I hear in amps , that is with the car sitting stationary , and not moving down the road.
> 
> One thing I have always found humorous though .... Almost all of the prople I have ever debated with over if a person can hear a difference in different car amps , has owned amps that cost on average probably $500 or more   Made me wonder why they didn't just buy Jensen .... I mean , if they all sound the same


Wanna make 10 grand?


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

AVI said:


> One thing I have always found humorous though .... Almost all of the prople I have ever debated with over if a person can hear a difference in different car amps , has owned amps that cost on average probably $500 or more   Made me wonder why they didn't just buy Jensen .... I mean , if they all sound the same


There is more to an amp than just the "sound" of it. Things like reliability, features, making rated power, aesthetics just to name a few and that's usually where you benefit from buying a better quality amplifier over a Jensen, Boss etc.


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

AVI said:


> Made me wonder why they didn't just buy Jensen .... I mean , if they all sound the same


because if i do that then my friends wont take me seriously  
honestly i love the mcintosh that i have. i think it was the first 4 channel they made and its just great. ive always thought that clarion was a nice budget amp and i tell my friends to buy them. to be honest, i have a clarion(1994 made in the usa) that was made around the same year the mcintosh that i have.....after the input is matched from the HU i probably could not tell the difference on any speakers.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

AVI said:


> I hear ya .... I should have clarified one thing .... When listening to the differences I hear in amps , that is with the car sitting stationary , and not moving down the road.
> 
> One thing I have always found humorous though .... Almost all of the prople I have ever debated with over if a person can hear a difference in different car amps , has owned amps that cost on average probably $500 or more   Made me wonder why they didn't just buy Jensen .... I mean , if they all sound the same


Not really sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting they're all hypocrites?


----------



## rbenz27 (Mar 9, 2006)

Interesting read.. a bit controversial and sensationalist.. Just like everything, take it with a grain salt. Especially when the engineer cannot even spell prone properly :blush:.


----------



## JAG (May 6, 2006)

bassfromspace said:


> Wanna make 10 grand?


Will Richard pay my expenses and fly me to where he is ? Will he also fly one of my installers out there as a " control " ? 
I've been down this path before


----------



## JAG (May 6, 2006)

MarkZ said:


> Not really sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting they're all hypocrites?


No .... They usually say something like " Build quality " ..... Then i tell them MTX has great build quality. Then they start rambling .....
Yeah , it IS kind of hyppo , huh ? LOL


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

bassfromspace said:


> Wanna make 10 grand?


"guys--it always circles back to the same old thing--*i have never said or even inferred that there is no meaningful difference in amps[*--of course there are differences--some amps cost more because they are built better--perhaps they will last longer--or play longer without overheating--or have better resale value because they have more "brand appeal" or do more because they have more features--all I ever said was that WHEN THEY ARE COMPARED EVENLY THE SONIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AMPLIFIERS IS BELOW THE AUDIBLE THRESHOLD OF HUMAN HEARING-- as for what we actually hear consider that if we compare two identical amps but turn the bass boost up on one and leave the other flat we will be able to hear the difference between two identical amps that have consecutive serial numbers--read my challenge rules--it should make sense."

12. Although anyone is welcome to take the test, only subjects employed in the car audio industry or Car Sound subscribers are eligible for the $10,000.00 prize. 

http://www.talkaudio.co.uk/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18815


----------



## Thoraudio (Aug 9, 2005)

B-Squad said:


> 12. Although anyone is welcome to take the test, only subjects employed in the car audio industry or Car Sound subscribers are eligible for the $10,000.00 prize.
> 
> http://www.talkaudio.co.uk/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18815


On the Carsound forums, he's repeatedly said he'd remove that restriction. 

but Carsound is dead, and RC hasn't posted there in over a year so....


----------



## fej (Feb 8, 2006)

You can take any set of results and spin them to what you need to support. It is a basic function of debate. 

IMO amps are simple .. if you spend $100 on a 100w X 4 channel amp it is not nearly as likely that you will see 100w from it as if you spent $400 on the same spec'd amp, in fact you are likely to see more than the advertised 100w from the more expensive version. You are also more likely to get better crossovers with the more expensive version, better heat sinks, better power supplies etc etc etc etc.

If you are worried that much about sound differences between amplifiers .. I have some $10k per foot cable to sell you  







j/k don't want to spark that debate again.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

I see the whole point of RC's challenge as not proving that all amps sound the same, but rather that he clearly recognizes that there are differences in sound between amplifiers, sometimes very large ones, and that you can attribute those differences to things such as frequency response, output level, noise, internal processing, etc. rather than to mysterious unknown causes.

So I guess the question to ask is... do you think it's worthwhile to pay for those differences in sound between amps given that we know what the causes of those differences are? Or do we accept that outside of the lab, we will never be able to achieve that level of matching between amps and there will always be small, subtle differences that some people will be able to hear?


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

AVI said:


> No .... They usually say something like " Build quality " ..... Then i tell them MTX has great build quality. Then they start rambling .....
> Yeah , it IS kind of hyppo , huh ? LOL


I don't think so. I don't own cheap amps (anymore), although I'll certainly concede that my 50x2 USAcoustics or 50x2 Jensen that I used to have sounded the same as any other 50x2 amp out there (except for exotic and expensive high distortion amplifiers). So why don't I own those anymore? Build quality.  No, seriously. If I'm driving an amp super loud and it shuts down due to heat, I buy a new amp the next day (actually, I wait for it to do it twice, but whatever). I haven't had to buy a new amp in 5 years. In my current system, I'm using an amp that I've owned since about '98 or so and an amp that I've owned since '99 or '00. THAT'S how I select amps.


----------



## JAG (May 6, 2006)

npdang said:


> I see the whole point of RC's challenge as not proving that all amps sound the same, but rather that he clearly recognizes that there are differences in sound between amplifiers, sometimes very large ones, and that you can attribute those differences to things such as frequency response, output level, noise, internal processing, etc. rather than to mysterious unknown causes.
> 
> So I guess the question to ask is... do you think it's worthwhile to pay for those differences in sound between amps given that we know what the causes of those differences are? Or do we accept that outside of the lab, we will never be able to achieve that level of matching between amps and there will always be small, subtle differences that some people will be able to hear?


I don't think I have EVER seen a more intelligent explanation stated on this subject. This reply is dead on , and could NOT have been said any better.
Thank you Nguyen.


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

AVI said:


> I don't think I have EVER seen a more intelligent explanation stated on this subject. This reply is dead on , and could NOT have been said any better.
> Thank you Nguyen.


That explanation cuts both ways. Are said differences negligible enough to constitute one buying a 1000 dollar amp over 500 dollar amp?


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2007)

... and lets say that a thousand-dollar amp "sounds" better than a hundred-dollar amp, UNTIL the gain knob on the hundred-dollar amp is tweeked "just right" ... in a lab, by accurately measuring gain to 0.25dB ... so that the gains are actually the same. Suddenly, the amps are sonically indistinguishable.

Is this a valid conclusion : "Since i don't carry around measurement equipment sensitive enough to measure 0.25dB, the thousand dollar amp is worth the extra bux"?


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I don't seem to understand how people would acknowledge that differences in wire (silver v. copper) will color sound while those in amplifiers do not. Other than perhaps an optical cable every other compnent/speaker in an audio system will alter the original signal. 

Whether or not one can perceive the difference is a different story.

I've said this on the other beat up thread...buy more cheap amps over an expensive one if you hold to "a watt is a watt" theory. It will run cooler and you will have more wattage/dollar.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2007)

Who said differences in wire color the sound? Beyond simple RLC theory, of course ...


----------



## JAG (May 6, 2006)

werewolf said:


> ... and lets say that a thousand-dollar amp "sounds" better than a hundred-dollar amp, UNTIL the gain knob on the hundred-dollar amp is tweeked "just right" ... in a lab, by accurately measuring gain to 0.25dB ... so that the gains are actually the same. Suddenly, the amps are sonically indistinguishable.
> 
> Is this a valid conclusion : "Since i don't carry around measurement equipment sensitive enough to measure 0.25dB, the thousand dollar amp is worth the extra bux"?


Sorry Werewolf ... But I don't believe even a little bit , for even one minute , the two amps would sound the same when gains are perfectly matched ...

Different design 
Different circuits
Different parts
Different build quality
Different everything 
*This equals different sound ...*


----------



## JAG (May 6, 2006)

bassfromspace said:


> That explanation cuts both ways. Are said differences negligible enough to constitute one buying a 1000 dollar amp over 500 dollar amp?


Problem is : For some ears , the differences are simply NOT neglible. To make a blanket statement such as *" Differences yes , but not enough for a person to hear " * , assumes everyone's hearing is exactly the same.
*If I EVER truly believe this , I will NEVER have any interest is car or home audio components EVER again , and all the fun will have gone out of it.*


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2007)

AVI said:


> Sorry Werewolf ... But I don't believe even a little bit , for even one minute , the two amps would sound the same when gains are perfectly matched ...
> 
> Different design
> Different circuits
> ...


not if they measure the same.

All possible sonic aspects of an amplifier (operating in it's linear region) are captured by: gain, frequency response, power, noise and distortion. Unfortunately, this is simply NOT a question of "belief".

Of course, anyone is certainly free to "believe" what they will 

AVI ... do you recognize that your last two posts rely on ... *BELIEF*?

Audio signal reproduction is subject to the exacting laws of science. Belief is simply not required.

Religion and Science ... never the twain shall meet.


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

nm...


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2007)

in that case ... nm


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2007)

werewolf said:


> ... and lets say that a thousand-dollar amp "sounds" better than a hundred-dollar amp, UNTIL the gain knob on the hundred-dollar amp is tweeked "just right" ... in a lab, by accurately measuring gain to 0.25dB ... so that the gains are actually the same. Suddenly, the amps are sonically indistinguishable.
> 
> Is this a valid conclusion : "Since i don't carry around measurement equipment sensitive enough to measure 0.25dB, the thousand dollar amp is worth the extra bux"?


not to be a dyckhole ... but nobody has answered this specific question yet


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

werewolf said:


> not to be a dyckhole ... but nobody has answered this specific question yet


It is until you learn the hard way. I feel pretty confident that with a 31 band EQ I can make any $100 amp sound as good or better than a $1000 one. Not because they don't sound different, but beause I WANT THEM TO! 

Will I ever buy a $1000 amp?? Yea maybe, but not because of its "SQ". I started a thread one time and asked for a working definition of a "SQ amp" and no one could come up with anything reasonable. 

Another good read: http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

werewolf said:


> in that case ... nm



lol I finished reading your post after I posted that lol. It answered my question.

Also I agree with you on that one...if the amps measure out the same in every way how can one be better then the other? I mean it's simple science they teach you in the second grade. But that doesn't mean one amps isnt better performance wise then the other when it comes out of the factor to your hands.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

werewolf said:


> ... and lets say that a thousand-dollar amp "sounds" better than a hundred-dollar amp, UNTIL the gain knob on the hundred-dollar amp is tweeked "just right" ... in a lab, by accurately measuring gain to 0.25dB ... so that the gains are actually the same. Suddenly, the amps are sonically indistinguishable.
> 
> Is this a valid conclusion : "Since i don't carry around measurement equipment sensitive enough to measure 0.25dB, the thousand dollar amp is worth the extra bux"?


Hell, for the $900 price difference I could afford to buy the necessary equipment to "tweek it just right" and have enough money left over for pizza and beer.


----------



## OldOneEye (Jun 16, 2005)

It surprises the hell out of me what people worry about. For example, people are afraid of flying but not of driving, yet they are much more likely (10 times or more in fact) to die in a car. And probably 100 times more like to die of something preventable (heart disease for example), yet don't think twice about stuffing that Double Quarter pounder in their mouths.

Same goes for the amp discussion. So many other different things that make such a bigger difference that nobody seems to care about. Do amps sound different? Yes. Could you take the "signature" sound of one amp and put something in line to make another amp sound like it? Yes. Should you buy amps based on perceived SQ? I wouldn't. Would you buy an amp based on how well constructed it is, or how long it will last, or how it looks, or how little all the added gadgets color the sound, or size, or efficiency? I would buy based on that before on how different they sound.

Hell, a cheap Casio digital watch keeps better time than a Rolex, but people who buy Rolexes don't buy them because of how well they tell time alone, but how well built they are, how much they keep their value, how nice they look, etc.

Juan


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

werewolf said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by werewolf
> ... and lets say that a thousand-dollar amp "sounds" better than a hundred-dollar amp, UNTIL the gain knob on the hundred-dollar amp is tweeked "just right" ... in a lab, by accurately measuring gain to 0.25dB ... so that the gains are actually the same. Suddenly, the amps are sonically indistinguishable.
> 
> ...



Why I started this whole thing kinda.....


I think there is a point when it just becomes silly on how much people send on amps when they think one can perfome better then the other. I mean of course I wouldn't mind having the genesis, sinfoni amps if I could afford them just to show off my system but I doubt they are worth the difference in price between say my PG ms275 when looking at performace only.
I paid $150 for my ms 275 then $50 to have the old caps replaced as they were starting to leak since the amp is about 13 yrs old. So I payed $200 total for it. There is no way in hell that one of those other amps I stated (which would be in the $1000 plus range) is worth $800 more then my pg amps when you are looking at performace only. You can argue that the "showing off" of those other amps are worth but that is simply subjective.


----------



## OldOneEye (Jun 16, 2005)

bdubs767 said:


> Why I started this whole thing kinda.....
> 
> 
> I think there is a point when it just becomes silly on how much people send on amps. I mean of course i wouldnt mind having the genesis sinfoni amps if I coudl afford them just to show off my system but I doubt they are worth the difference in price between say my PG ms275 and Genesis, mcintosh, ect in the same power range.
> I paid $150 for my ms 275 then $50 to have the old caps replaced as they were starting to leak since the amp is about 13 yrs old. So i payed $200 total for it. There is no way in hell that one of those other amps I stated (which would be in the $1000 plus range) is worth $800 more then my pg amps when you are looking at performace only. You can argue that the "showing off" of those other amps are worth but that is simply subjective.


Yes, on the other hand, spending $800 on better speaker locations, or better speakers or a better signal processor will have so much of a bigger impact.

Juan


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

AVI said:


> Problem is : For some ears , the differences are simply NOT neglible. To make a blanket statement such as *" Differences yes , but not enough for a person to hear " *, assumes everyone's hearing is exactly the same.
> *If I EVER truly believe this , I will NEVER have any interest is car or home audio components EVER again , and all the fun will have gone out of it.*


Nobody said that everyone hears exactly the same. But you do accept that there are limitations in the ability for humans to hear things, don't you? For instance, you couldn't hear a pin drop 2 miles away, right? You can't hear atmospheric pressure changes, can you? Of course not. That's because we have sensitivity/dynamic range limitations, and a low frequency limit to our hearing that prevents us from hearing atmospheric pressure changes (even though some animals can).

So I think the point that people are making is that even for those individuals with exceptional hearing, there are some things you just won't be able to hear because of the limitations on our hearing. The question, then, is whether or not the differences between amplifiers is greater than that threshold of audibility.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2007)

Let's try this : I'll make a statement, otherwise known as an "hypothesis":

*All amps that measure the same, will sound the same. The important measurements are power, gain, frequency response, noise and distortion.

Build quality does not matter (for sonic performance), if it does not manifest in this simple set of measurement. Esoteric parts selection does not matter (for sonic performance), if it does not manifest in this simple set of measurements. Designer reputation does not matter, if it does not manifest in this simple set of measurements.*

How would one go about designing an experiment to _disprove_ this hypothesis? At the risk of sounding like an ass ... i'm not asking someone to disprove it by a statement of belief ... i'm simply asking about what a test might look like, whose outcome can unequivocally DISPROVE my hypothesis ... and transcend any belief _for_ or _against_ it?


----------



## Thoraudio (Aug 9, 2005)

OldOneEye said:


> Hell, a cheap Casio digital watch keeps better time than a Rolex, but people who buy Rolexes don't buy them because of how well they tell time alone, but how well built they are, how much they keep their value, how nice they look, etc.
> 
> Juan



I've trademarked that analogy btw.


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

werewolf said:


> Let's try this : I'll make a statement, otherwise known as an "hypothesis":
> 
> *All amps that measure the same, will sound the same. The important measurements are power, gain, frequency response, noise and distortion.
> 
> ...


Good Luck.


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

For instance....


Genesis DM $ I am almost sure over $1,000
-2 x 100 @ 4ohms (not sure if it's underrated)
-Dual Mono design
-Hand Built England
-THD .01%
-S/N >100db
-Very well respected EE created the amp


PG Ms275 ~$200 after buying on ebay and getting it checked out by PG
-2 x 75 @ 4ohms 12 volts and 2 x 100 @ 4 ohms 13.8 volts (I know very underrated)
-hand Built USA
-THD @ 4ohms .02%
-SMPTE @ 4ohms .005%
-S/N 100db
-Also another very well respected EE created the amp


(these ratings are listed by both compaines and I'm pretty sure they have been tested to meet them by many sources)


These amps measure out basically the same and have a ol la la la factor to them. Personally at this point in my life I can't justify spending $800 more for .01% better THD. which I doubt can be heard by 99% of people. I dont think I could ever justify spending $800 for .01% better thd even if i was a millionaire. If I was to buy them if I had the money it'd would be for showing off. I'd still have to think about it to be honest....I would probably have much better results in the over quality of my system by spending the $800 difference in drivng some where finding some one w/ the knowledge like say audionutz and putting the $800 towards him positioning my speakers and tunning my setup.


----------



## Thoraudio (Aug 9, 2005)

BTW, have you ever noticed how the 'sound' of some amps change, based on their perception? 

Do some digging through the forums (ECA in particular), and read what people had to say about amps at the height of their boner period. Then compare to what people say when the amps are outed as being made in Korea... or they've got the same board as a cheaper brand... or that tube is really just an 'eq' circuit....


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

Thoraudio said:


> BTW, have you ever noticed how the 'sound' of some amps change, based on their perception?
> 
> Do some digging through the forums (ECA in particular), and read what people had to say about amps at the height of their boner period. Then compare to what people say when the amps are outed as being made in Korea... or they've got the same board as a cheaper brand... or that tube is really just an 'eq' circuit....



Aww man. That so "TRU".  

Many of the people that believe in amp sonics have money to be made off selling these amps.

Edit: Remember when they outed the ARC's for having the same internals as some Clarions?


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

werewolf said:


> Let's try this : I'll make a statement, otherwise known as an "hypothesis":
> 
> *All amps that measure the same, will sound the same. The important measurements are power, gain, frequency response, noise and distortion.
> 
> ...



Werewolf Im asuming you have the tools to do a test like this correct? I could have two amps for you to test if you really wanted to prove or disprove it.

A ms275 w/ BB upgrade and bass boast circut bypassed and another MS275 w/0 the upgrades.

Would you be intersted?


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

Would you use something like this? http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_new.htm

The question I'm dying to know is not which amps sounds better, but which amps Werewolf uses!


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2007)

once again, the qualifier : i'm _not_ trying to be an ass.

Read my last post again, if you're interested and so inclined.

ANSWER THE QUESTION !!! Just tell me what the experiment would look like, that would disprove my hypothesis


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

B-Squad said:


> Would you use something like this? http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_new.htm
> 
> The question I'm dying to know is not which amps sounds better, but which amps Werewolf uses!


Im pretty sure he stated mcintosh in those eca threads.


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

werewolf said:


> ANSWER THE QUESTION !!! Just tell me what the experiment would look like, that would disprove my hypothesis



I dont know if your refering to me or not...but this would about the Esoteric parts being better or not.


Take both my ms-275s one w/ upgraded parts the other not. Then you match them in every way with possible. Then blind A/B test say 10 people with all different back rounds for a total of 10 different sounds or songs. Then look at the results....and you will see if your hypothesis proves true or not in that case. Then you put it up to per review where others will test agaisnt your findings, and if it proves ture time and time again you are right.


***edit***
Also keep all other variables constant; such as source unit, wires, speakers ect...


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

I bet werewolf uses brax


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

ok, im going to take my mcintosh mc420 out next week and replace it with a sony xm 504x. im not using any xovers on the mcintosh amp and i will bypass the xovers on the sony as well. how can i make sure im keeping the gains the same for both amps?


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2007)

Yes, thank you!

In order to _disprove_ my hypothesis, you would need to find real data that there are sonic differences in amps that can NOT be explained by power, gain, frequency response, noise or distortion.

So ... you would take two (or more) amps, and make sure they measure the same in these parameters. It's not hard, really ... similar power ratings, adjust the gain knobs on each, turn off eq's and xovers, make sure measured noise and distortion are below well-known audible limits. Then let people listen, see if they can identify a difference.

Yes ... many trials are required, to eliminate successful "guessing". Otherwise the results are statistically meaningless.

Sound familiar? What hypothesis would you suppose the RC amp challenge is attempting to disprove?  

Side note (my ECA friends will already know this): that's how the scientific method works. An hypothesis is established to explain some data, then experiments are designed to _disprove_ the hypothesis. As such, hypotheses are never 100% _proven_ in the affirmative ... but they sure can be _disproven_ in an instant! But not without careful attention to all variables 

Feel free to compare such an exacting methodolgy to a "belief system" that says something like : "I know amps sound different! And your lab tests have no merit in the "real world"! 

And if you think that adjusting the gain knob and disabling bass-boost eq's and xovers somehow destroys the "special magic" of the amp ... feel free to spend your money however you see fit


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

legend94 said:


> ok, im going to take my mcintosh mc420 out next week and replace it with a sony xm 504x. im not using any xovers on the mcintosh amp and i will bypass the xovers on the sony as well. how can i make sure im keeping the gains the same for both amps?



You have to measure otu more then just the gains to win RC challenge or go agaisnt werewolf's hypothesis, which in all honesty I do not think can be disproven once everything is matched up.

But best way to do it get an O-scope.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2007)

It's already been stated ... but sure, there are valid reasons to value one amp over another. Reliability, service, features, and cosmetics come to mind.

But if you think you're paying for some "special sonic quality" that is NOT captured in gain, power, frequency response, noise and distortion ... you're simply barking up the wrong tree. And that's _not_ a question of "belief"


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

bdubs767 said:


> But best way to do it get an O-scope.


any suggestions on which one to buy? im really interested in trying this. im going to have a clarion drz9255, morel mids, rainbow tweets, and pyramid amps 
ill let everyone listen before i show them the amps


----------



## dodgerblue (Jul 14, 2005)

legend94 said:


> ok, im going to take my mcintosh mc420 out next week and replace it with a sony xm 504x. im not using any xovers on the mcintosh amp and i will bypass the xovers on the sony as well. how can i make sure im keeping the gains the same for both amps?


bye bye mcintosh !!! you can purchase 3 xploders after placing her up on ebay !!!


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

werewolf said:


> Yes, thank you!
> 
> In order to _disprove_ my hypothesis, you would need to find real data that there are sonic differences in amps that can NOT be explained by power, gain, frequency response, noise or distortion.
> 
> ...



Scientific method simple science we all should know from the 5th grade...but I think most forget about these things and try not to bring "school" into a subject they enjoy so much.

As for the upgrades, didn't cost me as it will be no more then $40 per amp and since they were getting touched up anyhow from old age (REPLACING CAPS) why the hell not. I have no clue if the extra parts make a difference or not as I have seen both sides of the argument, but you are 100% right they cant make an amp better if it is already below the audible limits of the ear...  
There is only one thing I can think of that can explain how these parts can make an amp sound "better". By adding DISTORTION, which some people do prefer to super linear sound. Like for instance some people prefer the sound a tube adds which adds distortion (if I understand it correctly), while others prefer the purest reproduction of music and do not like to add anything to the signal.


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

dodgerblue said:


> bye bye mcintosh !!! you can purchase 3 xploders after placing her up on ebay !!!


its the blue sony series....the last one before they became xploders  
im still watching the one you sent me  
probably wont change because i like the looks of the mcintosh and ive never been more please with an amp  
maybe its the power guard? tell me more about what that does....


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

legend94 said:


> any suggestions on which one to buy? im really interested in trying this. im going to have a clarion drz9255, morel mids, rainbow tweets, and pyramid amps
> ill let everyone listen before i show them the amps



I DONT HAVE ONE....but do want one. College cost to much to own one....my DMM does enough for now.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

werewolf said:


> Yes, thank you!
> 
> In order to _disprove_ my hypothesis, you would need to find real data that there are sonic differences in amps that can NOT be explained by power, gain, frequency response, noise or distortion.
> 
> ...


But then to continue the process, wouldn't you have to collect and analyze the data, make some sort of interpretation, and then draw some sort of new falseifiable hypothesis? And wouldn't help to buy....I...I...mean publish your results so that you can sell..I...mean so that your peers can review it??   

I always thought double-blind tests were just that, double blind. Not dismissing the quantification and gathering of emperical data...but a whole library full of it ain't going to change my mind if it's already made up. So you've proven your point wolf.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2007)

If anyone has actually followed my posts in this thread ... first, thank you  ... and please indulge me one more question (or two, i suppose):

Have I stated or concluded that "all amps sound the same"? Have I suggested that "a watt is a watt"?


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

werewolf said:


> If anyone has actually followed my posts in this thread ... first, thank you  ... and please indulge me one more question (or two, i suppose):
> 
> Have I stated or concluded that "all amps sound the same"? Have I suggested that "a watt is a watt"?



You did....



werewolf said:


> All amps that measure the same, will sound the same. The important measurements are power, gain, frequency response, noise and distortion.


Just in the context if they measure the same  lol..had to lighten the mood around here meant as a joke


----------



## dodgerblue (Jul 14, 2005)

legend94 said:


> its the blue sony series....the last one before they became xploders
> im still watching the one you sent me
> probably wont change because i like the looks of the mcintosh and ive never been more please with an amp
> maybe its the power guard? tell me more about what that does....


my bad , i could not resist ! its my friday and after a few beers i automatically become the funniest man on earth ,ill get back to you on the power gaurd .i hope the xploder shoot-out is fun and revealing !


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

werewolf said:


> If anyone has actually followed my posts in this thread ... first, thank you  ... and please indulge me one more question (or two, i suppose):
> 
> Have I stated or concluded that "all amps sound the same"? Have I suggested that "a watt is a watt"?


No. 

But I do believe that you made one point clear for me at least: spend as much $$$ as you feel you need to make yourself feel happy, but don't kid yourself. It's an amplifier, not a wattifier. I think this was RC's original motivation wasn't it? He had the consumer in mind.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2007)

Yes! The RC amp challenge is a service for the consumer  If you take the time to actually understand the test and the implications, it helps you to understand where to spend your money.

By the way, the buzz phrases that float around ... like "all amps sound the same" or "a watt is a watt" ... are not _at all_ representative of the test, and absolutely fail miserably to summarize the real-world implications.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I have a question. I don't know much about amp. internals, but is there a way to get an amplifier to have more headroom without increasing its power before clipping? I am thinking stuff like more caps on the board maybe...


----------



## newtitan (Mar 7, 2005)

lol this thread is getting around WHOA

http://junkies.wordpress.com/


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

newtitan said:


> lol this thread is getting around WHOA
> 
> http://junkies.wordpress.com/



WOW....lol soon to be on front page of the NEw YORK TIMES


----------



## kappa546 (Apr 11, 2005)

damn... we really dont need this forum being advertised. thats how all the other forums have gone downhill


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

What happened to Audiojunkies??


----------



## 3.5max6spd (Jun 29, 2005)

npdang said:


> What happened to Audiojunkies??


went belly up


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

3.5max6spd said:


> went belly up



that fast


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

Yea he had the remainder of his gear on ebay a little while back in a 3 day auction. A pair of Profi subs went for like $275! :


----------



## JAG (May 6, 2006)

werewolf said:


> not if they measure the same.
> 
> All possible sonic aspects of an amplifier (operating in it's linear region) are captured by: gain, frequency response, power, noise and distortion. Unfortunately, this is simply NOT a question of "belief".
> 
> ...


No-ones numbers will ever tell convince me that I do not hear what I hear. This is an audio forum , not a science fair. It simply doesn't matter to me what jiggawatt does what .... i KNOW what I hear , and I'm happy with that. I would be MOST miserable , if I believed the way you do. JMO


----------



## JAG (May 6, 2006)

Will amplifiers with .025 tolerance parts, sound the same as amps using 1.0 tolerance parts ?


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

AVI said:


> No-ones numbers will ever tell convince me that I do not hear what I hear. This is an audio forum , not a science fair. It simply doesn't matter to me what jiggawatt does what .... i KNOW what I hear , and I'm happy with that. I would be MOST miserable , if I believed the way you do. JMO


He never said that all amps sound the same. He said that any differences can be attributed to gain, frequency response, power, noise and distortion.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)

AVI said:


> Will amplifiers with .025 tolerance parts, sound the same as amps using 1.0 tolerance parts ?


If they measure the same they will sound the same


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

ca90ss said:


> If they measure the same they will sound the same



and no AMPS straight out of the factory would ever sound the same.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2007)

AVI said:


> No-ones numbers will ever tell convince me that I do not hear what I hear. This is an audio forum , not a science fair. It simply doesn't matter to me what jiggawatt does what .... i KNOW what I hear , and I'm happy with that. I would be MOST miserable , if I believed the way you do. JMO


once again ... if you follow my posts, you will understand that my position is not one based on "belief" 

*All amps do NOT sound the same.

All amps that measure the same, DO sound the same.*

The RC challenge is a scientifically sound methodology for disproving these hypotheses. So far, the hypotheses stand.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2007)

ca90ss said:


> He never said that all amps sound the same. He said that any differences can be attributed to gain, frequency response, power, noise and distortion.


EXACTLY CORRECT


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

Werewolf: Do you believe that the switch used in the ABX test is enough to induce an audible change in the sound so much so that the test would be flawed??


----------



## SQ_Bronco (Jul 31, 2005)

werewolf said:


> once again ... if you follow my posts, you will understand that my position is not one based on "belief"
> 
> *All amps do NOT sound the same.
> 
> ...


Here's where I disagree. I don't dispute the "scientific method", I just have issues with RC's implementation of it. IMHO the way RC's test is set up, the fundamental ability which is actually tested is the ability of the human ear to memorize transient sound characteristics, assign them to arbitrary values, and then, after a period of time, identify them against a pattern of noise. Testing the human brain's ability to recognize the fingerprint of sound-making devices (using the term "device" to mean the source-eq-amplifier-driver system) using their ears is very different from establishing that those devices "sound the same because they measure the same". That may very well be true--cognitively I understand why it probably is--but RC's test does NOT prove (or disprove) it.

Also note that RC does not allow the use of test tones- it has to be done using music, which is a worst-case scenario given the limitations the human brain faces when trying to record the fine details of what is observed by the ear.

The other objection I have is RC's criteria for success. The subjects have to correctly identify the set order a large number of times, at a much greater rate than a standard "human factors" statistical success rate would indicate, to be considered successful. Assuming that his basic methodology is valid, which I obviously do not, a proper scientific analysis would test a large sample of individuals using that methodology, and then examine the mean success rate. If the mean success rate of that large group was even 6 times out of 10, then it could be said that his hypothesis is disproven. He's done no such study and has not even released the results of his individual tests, so I don't consider his results to be scientific. The illusion of science is there, but he's committed several errors.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

AVI said:


> No-ones numbers will ever tell convince me that I do not hear what I hear. This is an audio forum , not a science fair. It simply doesn't matter to me what jiggawatt does what .... i KNOW what I hear , and I'm happy with that. I would be MOST miserable , if I believed the way you do. JMO


And David Koresh's followers were convinced that they were with the messiah. What's your damn point, besides that you've been sucked into some sort of benign but anti-reality cult?


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2007)

If the human auditory/brain system is incapable of memorization of acoustic "events" ... then _any_ substance to a claim of being able to hear a difference in electronic systems is completely shattered. In no scenario I can think of ... one where variables are properly controlled or not ... can two sources or events be listened to simultaneously.

In other words ... if the argument is that "memory fails", that lays waste to _both_ sides of the debate. It does _not_ invalidate the RC challenge to those that "believe" a difference is heard ... because fundamental to that "belief" is _also_ a memory of an acoustic event.

As far as "too large" a trial size ... i don't buy that either. If a difference is real, why can it be noticed 10 times in a row ... but not 20? Certainly, the sample size is chosen large enough so that RC's ten grand is well protected from successful guessing over a large sample of tests. But I sure don't see that invalidating the test.

I will agree on one point : public release of test data, and subsequent peer review, is part of the scientific method that is lacking in RC's challenge.

As far as the ABX test box ... i think it's nothing more than Custer's Last Stand  A last-ditch effort to substantiate a belief that tends to crumble when confronted with real data. It's funny ... someone will believe what they want to, even when perhaps two out of a hundred variables are really comprehended. But show them a test where variable-control is so evident that ninety-nine out of a hundred variables are controlled, and they'll cry foul over the isolated _one_.


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

werewolf said:


> As far as "too large" a trial size ... i don't buy that either. If a difference is real, why can it be noticed 10 times in a row ... but not 20?
> <snip>
> As far as the ABX test box ... i think it's nothing more than Custer's Last Stand


It is rare that the two of us agree, but I don't think there's a ray of daylight here.

To pile on a bit, I just wasted about 3 minutes of my life reading a review of a bad-sounding speaker at stereophile.com. I don't think it's unfair to expect that people who will willingly reveal themselves to be fools in public with published words such as the following:

" used three amplifiers with the Eclipses: the Audiopax Model 88 and PrimaLuna ProLogue Seven monoblock tube amplifiers, and the PS Audio GCC-100 "digital" integrated amplifier. The TD712z was highly revealing of amplifier differences—the character of each of these amps was immediately apparent on switchover."

to be able to do that 10x in a row. Or 100x in a row. How many times in a row can you distinguish a dollar bill from a thousand euro note from a yen? I'm fairly confident I could do it a trillion times in a row.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

I think it depends mostly on the strength of the statement you want to make. 

For one, are most people concerned with listening to amps with music or certain specialized test tones?

And for another, is it worth it to pay the difference in price between amplifiers if you can't even remember the differences in such a short duration between listening to them?

From what I recall of RC's methodology, I don't believe it is a test of auditory memory... but I don't have any references to support it. Also, doesn't RC have a fairly large, random sampling of subjects? Although you are certainly correct that without more data there's no way to know if the results were statistically significant.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2007)

yeah ... DS-21 and I on the same side of a debate. Who would have guessed?  

Perhaps that alone tends to validate the position ...


----------



## SQ_Bronco (Jul 31, 2005)

DS-21- seeing as that reviewer probably did no kind of level matching whatsoever, other than turning the volume knob on his preamp until is sounded good, it is very possible that he heard a difference. We're talking about a completely different level of analysis here.

Your second point is a ridiculous straw man argument. Your eyes work very differently from your ears, and the visible difference between a yen and a dollar bill is a thousand orders of magnitude greater than the audible difference between even the best and worst amps. A better (but still poor) straw man would be "how many times in a row can you distinguish the sound a dollar bill makes, vs the sound a yen note makes, when dropped, while blindfolded?"

Werewolf- if, say, 50 people take the test, and 40 of them got 35 out of 40 guesses right, you don't think that would prove that RC is wrong? I have no idea what the actual numbers are, but I think you are being very cavalier when you just wave away that concern. We don't know how many people took his test, and we don't know how they scored other than that he says they failed, yet we use the fact that he says they all failed as some kind of evidence that science has prevailed. That seems to be at least as belief-oriented as AVI's statements in this thread.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2007)

no way dude ... yes, he should release the real data, taken over several years (a couple decades now, as i understand it) and more than a thousand takers. But that does NOT somehow magically cast the test into the same belief-based system of those who just "know what they hear, all science to the contrary be damned!".

Perhaps RC has released the data. But this much seems certain ... we can look at the rules of the test, and understand that _no one_ has passed it ... after many, many have tried. That information leads to a very meaningful statistical analysis ... which is utterly absent, even abhored, by those on the other side of the "debate".

One side really IS science, the other side really IS religion ... despite any attempts to equate the two.


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

werewolf said:


> no way dude ... yes, he should release the real data, taken over several years (a couple decades now, as i understand it) and more than a thousand takers. But that does NOT somehow magically cast the test into the same belief-based system of those who just "know what they hear, all science to the contrary be damned!".
> 
> Perhaps RC has released the data. But this much seems certain ... we can look at the rules of the test, and understand that _no one_ has passed it ... after many, many have tried. That information leads to a very meaningful statistical analysis ... which is utterly absent, even abhored, by those on the other side of the "debate".
> 
> One side really IS science, the other side really IS religion ... despite any attempts to equate the two.


What if youre a SCIENtologist?


----------



## OldOneEye (Jun 16, 2005)

SQ_Bronco said:


> Werewolf- if, say, 50 people take the test, and 40 of them got 35 out of 40 guesses right, you don't think that would prove that RC is wrong?


One example RC used what if you had to do a test to identify an orange from an apple. Would you not be able to do that 50 out of 50 times? Well, his point was some people claim to here differences so big between amplifiers that the analogy is valid. 

That is why the test was structured the way it was. It isn't a coin toss. If you take stats you know 7 out of 10 can occur eventually just randomly, 8 out of 10 also (but less probable).

Juan


----------



## weng (Jun 7, 2006)

OldOneEye said:


> One example RC used what if you had to do a test to identify an orange from an apple. Would you not be able to do that 50 out of 50 times? Well, his point was some people claim to here differences so big between amplifiers that the analogy is valid.
> 
> That is why the test was structured the way it was. It isn't a coin toss. If you take stats you know 7 out of 10 can occur eventually just randomly, 8 out of 10 also (but less probable).
> 
> Juan


The analogy is good if the challenge uses 2 different amps right out of the box. However, the challenge did specify certain rules. An anology of the rules are like you have to alter the colour, shape and size of the apple to be the same (or to 0.025%) as oranges, or vice versa.

Since the function of all amps are the same, the analogy would be more appropriate if we are comparing 2 types of oranges (eg valencia vs sunkist). And yet, RC specify that they have to be of same colour, shape and size.

Still 50 out of 50 for the orange test ?


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

weng said:


> The analogy is good if the challenge uses 2 different amps right out of the box. However, the challenge did specify certain rules. An anology of the rules are like you have to alter the colour, shape and size of the apple to be the same (or to 0.025%) as oranges, or vice versa.
> 
> Since the function of all amps are the same, the analogy would be more appropriate if we are comparing 2 types of oranges (eg valencia vs sunkist). And yet, RC specify that they have to be of same colour, shape and size.
> 
> Still 50 out of 50 for the orange test ?


 That is exactly the point. We know that colour, shape, and size are factors which determine the differences between oranges and apples.... You wouldn't make the claim that 2 apples which are exactly the same in terms of these factors would appear different?


----------



## weng (Jun 7, 2006)

npdang said:


> That is exactly the point. We know that colour, shape, and size are factors which determine the differences between oranges and apples.... You wouldn't make the claim that 2 apples which are exactly the same in terms of these factors would appear different?


There are different brand and classes of amp. Same goes for apples there are many varieties, species, colours and sizes. 

The challenge specify certain rules which include matching gain to 0.25db (apple size), off the EQ (colour of apple), free from noise and distortion (same perfect apple shape ?). 

If this analogy is acceptable, I would understand why no one has passed the amp challenge


----------



## SQ_Bronco (Jul 31, 2005)

OldOneEye said:


> One example RC used what if you had to do a test to identify an orange from an apple. Would you not be able to do that 50 out of 50 times? Well, his point was some people claim to here differences so big between amplifiers that the analogy is valid.
> 
> That is why the test was structured the way it was. It isn't a coin toss. If you take stats you know 7 out of 10 can occur eventually just randomly, 8 out of 10 also (but less probable).
> 
> Juan


Again, your apple-orange example suffers from the same basic fallacy as DS-21's. An apple probably does sound just like an orange, assuming it has the same mass, density, surface tension, etc; that doesn't make it a decent analogy for an amplifier. They do completely different things. 

Re your statistics statement, yes, one person can test correctly 7 out of 10 times, even 100 out of 100 times once every great while, which is why you have to document the results of a statistically significant number of tests. To eliminate the noise. if the result of the testing is significantly different from what you would expect to see, then your hypothesis is probably false. The likelihood that it is false will depend on the number of samples and the amount of disagreement.


----------



## ca90ss (Jul 2, 2005)




----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

I don't see what the big fuzz is about this test anymore. You take several amps and do all you can to make them sound the same. Or maybe you take an apple and geneticaly alter it to be an orage. In the end is not the same batch of amps nor is it an apple. You change enough particular qualities that when you finish it is nothing like the specimen you started with. This proves nothing in my book.

What the test really does, it proves that if you take x amount of variables and hold them constant the "ear" can no longer differentiate. In theory then, you would take x plus whaterver variables are left and hold all constat to really have to similar sounding amps, but by then they look like a clone anyways. You have preacticaly taken a Pile amp and "made" it a Zapco. Realisticaly this does not mean that a Pyle sounds like a Zapco.


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

cvjoint said:


> I don't see what the big fuzz is about this test anymore. You take several amps and do all you can to make them sound the same. Or maybe you take an apple and geneticaly alter it to be an orage. In the end is not the same batch of amps nor is it an apple. You change enough particular qualities that when you finish it is nothing like the specimen you started with. This proves nothing in my book.
> 
> What the test really does, it proves that if you take x amount of variables and hold them constant the "ear" can no longer differentiate. In theory then, you would take x plus whaterver variables are left and hold all constat to really have to similar sounding amps, but by then they look like a clone anyways. You have preacticaly taken a Pile amp and "made" it a Zapco. Realisticaly this does not mean that a Pyle sounds like a Zapco.


 The difference is in degrees. I don't think anyone would consider matching output levels, frequency response, etc. to be fundamental changes to the amp's properties.


----------



## avaxis (May 23, 2006)

bdubs767 said:


> and no AMPS straight out of the factory would ever sound the same.


because even the exact same model of amp won't measure the same. that true?

EDIT: what's this RC you guys speak of and what does it stand for?


----------



## diceman1000 (Feb 10, 2007)

weren't the old pg m series amps vertical?

Damon


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2007)

i love that old excuse ... "genetically alter" an amp, "force" an amp to sound like another, "over constrain" the test, etc ...

You guys _do_ realize that, all that is typically required is to turn off bass-boost and xovers, and tweek the gain knob, right? It's not like RC opens up the golden amp and electronically removes is special voodoo by replacing the magic wire with cheap ol' copper stuff  

Or does turning off bass boost absolutely destroy the sonic magic of the precious meg-buck amps? If that's the case, buy a cheap amp and add a cheap EQ ... the results are sonically indistinguishable. Yes ... a service to the consumer


----------



## CBRworm (Sep 1, 2006)

I can't believe how much debate this topic has caused over the years. I never partake in it because I think the whole theory is insane. The test methodology pretty much proves that with equalization and gain matching amps can be made to sound similar enough that people can't tell a difference in an A/B test. Which is not a real world test. In the real world you want to buy an amp that sounds as close to what you like as possible - without having to equalize any more than absolutely necessary, but also one that won't burn down your car, make noise turning on/off, make horrible screeching noises or send DC to speakers when overdriven. Amps that don't shutdown under your use. Amps that don't break. Amps that can drive your load. Clipping LED's are nice. And maybe even amps that look good. The last one does escape me.


Having spent many years with some particular amps I can do the following. I have done it with my friends here for blind proof. I can recognize the difference in sound between an alpine MRV-F540, an Arc Audio XXK4150 and a Mmats LM2100. They are all rated at around 85 watts per channel, and are all good quality amps. In my house if someone hooks up each of these amplifiers to my identical house speakers, which are made up of a peerless HDS tweeter, a SEAS CA22RNX woofer and a DLS IR3 (for now) midrange in a sealed cabinet. I can not only hear a difference - I can identify which speaker is connected to which amp. This is with gain matching only, no equalization of any sort - crossovers bypassed, no bass boost - and two speakers playing at the same time on opposite sides of the room with the same mono source. Could I do it one after another? I am not so sure, it would be harder. It is very easy to compare things side by side. Having to remember and compare one after another immediatly drops your success rate. 


These three amps all have very similar specs - certainly close enough that the spec difference is not audible. The mmats is rated at 100 wpc instead of the 80/85 of the others.

I have specific test songs that I can play that will cause each amp to react differently. And you can clearly hear the difference. This is without overdriving any of the amps, but running near their max power. I can say that without knowing what's hooked up to any speaker I always can immediately tell the alpine quickly. It has some kind of high frequency boost that makes everything sound 'airy', it is also very thin in the midbass. It sounds great until pushed hard.

The Mmats and Arc I have to listen to longer to tell, but I almost always get it right. The Mmats sounds more 'warm' - acoustic music w/ male vocals sound great on this one. Maybe it adds distortion in that range. Maybe because it is so old they tried to make it sound like a tube amp.

The Arc is punchy. It sounds very flat throughout, but has excellent bass and midbass. Maybe this is due to headroom? Maybe it has equalization that adds boosts the bass region. Maybe it's due to the >2000 damping factor (although I have never been a believer in needing a damping factor of over 100)

If you add in the Optimus 85x2 amp differences become clearer. It sounds great until it melts. That's how long it lasted - I didn't really get to evaluate it - I cranked it for a while - it sounded pretty good and it burned up, so I took it back.

There are also differences you can hear when driven to distortion - which we all do, but RC's test excludes. Do you think you could tell a difference between two amps if one had a power supply that could not recover between transients? At identical levels by ear and on the scope, Iio Rapture - the alpine distorts the mids and does not recover until there is a break. It is rated as 80 watts per channel - just like the arc which will play the same song louder without distortion? You can watch the alpine distort on the scope. And this is with only one channel of each amp being driven. In richards test both amps would be turned down so that neither get above 2% thd. In my car I do not want to turn it down because the amplifier sucks. What happens when you start to run lower impedances? @ 2 ohms the alpine goes up to 100wpc (wow), the arc and mmats both double their power. Can you tell that in RC's test? would it help you choose one over the others? Unfortunately his rules would exclude bringing in a speaker that was too much load for either of the amps.

I will agree that speakers and locations/mounting make a bigger difference in the success or failure of an install, but richard clarks test only proves that if two amps are equalized and set up to sound exactly the same, you probably won't be able to tell the difference within his parameters in back to back tests. That's not real world. It would work for Muzak, but not in my car.

As far as the boner of the month. I agree 100%. Lots of amps and speakers have come and gone. There are a lot of things I am not impressed with on the arc amps. It's sound quality and power however do impress me. Once I found out that you could potentially get the same amp from Clarion for less money I started looking for them. Never found any for a reasonable price except for the T amp which I don't need. I am surprised Arc says made in the usa when they are made by Ubuy in china or korea or wherever. The Mmats are made here in florida (is that a plus?) they have lousy pots and the power supplies make noise. Again though I like the sound and know that they will not break.

This test proves that amps under ideal conditions amps can be made to sound similar. It also proves that someone can make a claim that is hard to disprove it and based on that start a revolution of insanity.

In the real world it is silly and only serves to start arguments. 

I would expect this on ECA and CarAudio, etc - where people really are into brands. 

This board people are trying to make the best sounding car without relying on mainstream brands just because of the name. If people on this board run sunfire or sinfoni amps (which I have never seen or heard either of them in person), my guess is that they have evaluated them against other amps in the market and picked them because they fit their needs best. If someone buys 10 year old PG gear - that must be what works for them. who cares if you can make a boss amp sound the same under certain conditions - it doesn't meet your needs. It's strange that you don't see many people on here with Boss/pyramid/dual amps since they all sound the same.

It has nothing to do with amp selection for purchase. There is no doubt that richard clark is not running pyramid amps in his car. There is a lot more to choosing an amp than the audio reproduction. It is not ridiculous to buy an expensive car amp if you know it will perform for many years, not overheat or burn your car down. Other than the XXK's I have been running the same exact mmats amps in my cars for almost 10 years without failure. I drive over 40,000 miles a year - these amps run many many hours a day.

His test is like taking a BMW 5 series a toyota camry and a pontiac sunbird for a ride on the highway with the windows open. if they are all tuned to drive the same and you are going in a straight line and have blinders on, you might not be able to tell the difference. Does that mean they are the same? no. It means that they all cruise at 55 on the highway just fine. Does that mean you should buy a sunbird over a bmw 5 series or camry? No, you would do a much more thorough evaluation and decide which one meets your needs the best. 

This test was only to prove that you can not disprove that a working amplifier works. And stir up a bunch of crap. That is all the challenge does. 

IMO anyone who starts a thread based on this challenge is only looking to stir up the pot.


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

avaxis said:


> because even the exact same model of amp won't measure the same. that true?
> 
> EDIT: what's this RC you guys speak of and what does it stand for?


I think at this point it stands for redundant catastrophe. 

The exact same amp will measure the same once the independant variables are confounded for in the testing procedure. And so will all amps.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

AVI said:


> Will amplifiers with .025 tolerance parts, sound the same as amps using 1.0 tolerance parts ?


Yes. The absolute value of 95% of the parts in an amp is almost arbitrarily chosen anyway. When you're designing an amp, it may call for a resistor that's between 500-2kohms in one spot, so as long as your 1k resistor has a 200% tolerance you're all set. 

There are only a few parts where component values must be accurate, and that mostly has to do with the bias thermal tracking circuit (which 95% of the amps out there don't even implement correctly anyway). I can't think of anywhere else you'd be able to measure an appreciable level of distortion arising from part tolerances. Amplifiers are intentionally designed to overcome inherent variabilities in parts. The circuits rely on a lot of global and local feedback to overcome these issues.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

I agree with SQ_Bronco. RC's test needs a better statistical treatment to really be able to demonstrate the point he's trying to make. You can of course have statistical significance without perfection, and that's true for both the individual and the population. We're not privy to that information, which is why I'd hesitate to rely on the results of his test to prove the point. He just hasn't disclosed enough data to know for sure. I don't understand why he doesn't, if it truly is in the interest of the consumer.


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

When some of you say you've performed a "double blind" test where you only "level matched", what do you mean exactly? How are you people assuring that your levels are matched, and how do you pull off the double blind test itself?

I've seen so many people here and elsewhere make these claims, but neither of those tasks are simple to pull off when done right.


----------



## bassfromspace (Jun 28, 2016)

MarkZ said:


> I agree with SQ_Bronco. RC's test needs a better statistical treatment to really be able to demonstrate the point he's trying to make. You can of course have statistical significance without perfection, and that's true for both the individual and the population. We're not privy to that information, which is why I'd hesitate to rely on the results of his test to prove the point. He just hasn't disclosed enough data to know for sure. I don't understand why he doesn't, if it truly is in the interest of the consumer.


I don't think the test was originally designed for the consumer. RC doesn't strike me as that type of guy. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that he did this just to prove "audiophiles" wrong.


----------



## OldOneEye (Jun 16, 2005)

CBRworm said:


> I can't believe how much debate this topic has caused over the years. I never partake in it because I think the whole theory is insane. The test methodology pretty much proves that with equalization and gain matching amps can be made to sound similar enough that people can't tell a difference in an A/B test. Which is not a real world test. In the real world you want to buy an amp that sounds as close to what you like as possible - without having to equalize any more than absolutely necessary, but also one that won't burn down your car, make noise turning on/off, make horrible screeching noises or send DC to speakers when overdriven. Amps that don't shutdown under your use. Amps that don't break. Amps that can drive your load. Clipping LED's are nice. And maybe even amps that look good. The last one does escape me.


I hate to pick on you, but it seems you get it but some of the stuff you are saying confuses the issue. It isn't a real world test, as you mentioned.

But I would not say I want to buy an amp based on it sonic "signature" because it should not have a signature. The test pretty much says you can add back whatever signature an particular amp has with EQ, so why not get an EQ for any amp that meets the other more important deciding factors (don't break, don't blow up your speakers, don't make turn off noise, where they are made (to some people supporting the US is important), what kind of company made it and the support you get).



> Having spent many years with some particular amps I can do the following. I have done it with my friends here for blind proof. I can recognize the difference in sound between an alpine MRV-F540, an Arc Audio XXK4150 and a Mmats LM2100. They are all rated at around 85 watts per channel, and are all good quality amps. In my house if someone hooks up each of these amplifiers to my identical house speakers, which are made up of a peerless HDS tweeter, a SEAS CA22RNX woofer and a DLS IR3 (for now) midrange in a sealed cabinet. I can not only hear a difference - I can identify which speaker is connected to which amp. This is with gain matching only, no equalization of any sort - crossovers bypassed, no bass boost - and two speakers playing at the same time on opposite sides of the room with the same mono source. Could I do it one after another? I am not so sure, it would be harder. It is very easy to compare things side by side. Having to remember and compare one after another immediately drops your success rate.


Seems like you are identifying the difference between the equalization and gain levels (we can detect pretty small differences) between the amps.

As for the RC test, the ABX switch should take care of having to remember. Again, if the differences are as night and day as some people claim, memory shouldn't matter. 



> These three amps all have very similar specs - certainly close enough that the spec difference is not audible. The mmats is rated at 100 wpc instead of the 80/85 of the others.
> 
> I have specific test songs that I can play that will cause each amp to react differently. And you can clearly hear the difference. This is without overdriving any of the amps, but running near their max power. I can say that without knowing what's hooked up to any speaker I always can immediately tell the alpine quickly. It has some kind of high frequency boost that makes everything sound 'airy', it is also very thin in the midbass. It sounds great until pushed hard.
> 
> ...


See, it seems you get what causes the differences between the amps.



> There are also differences you can hear when driven to distortion - which we all do, but RC's test excludes. Do you think you could tell a difference between two amps if one had a power supply that could not recover between transients? At identical levels by ear and on the scope, Iio Rapture - the alpine distorts the mids and does not recover until there is a break. It is rated as 80 watts per channel - just like the arc which will play the same song louder without distortion? You can watch the alpine distort on the scope. And this is with only one channel of each amp being driven. In richards test both amps would be turned down so that neither get above 2% thd. In my car I do not want to turn it down because the amplifier sucks. What happens when you start to run lower impedances? @ 2 ohms the alpine goes up to 100wpc (wow), the arc and mmats both double their power. Can you tell that in RC's test? would it help you choose one over the others? Unfortunately his rules would exclude bringing in a speaker that was too much load for either of the amps.


Speakers are an several orders of magnitude worse as far as distorting (see figures up to 10% or more).

The test is designed to measure in the linear part of the output curve. I would argue that if you have a system that needs 100 watts per channel to drive you speakers to their limit, and you are trying to do it with a 90 watt amp and driving it to distortion, you can solve that by getting a bigger amp. Amp power is cheap. If you are buying amps that are too small, that is another matter all together. 

The test isn't a test of how well an amp reacts when it distorts or how well it handles low impedance (because some amps will obviously handle it better than other) but how they sound in their normal operating range. 



> I will agree that speakers and locations/mounting make a bigger difference in the success or failure of an install, but richard clarks test only proves that if two amps are equalized and set up to sound exactly the same, you probably won't be able to tell the difference within his parameters in back to back tests. That's not real world. It would work for Muzak, but not in my car.


Exactly what everyone is saying. It isn't real world. He has taken the amp down to two variables (the preamp and the amplification part) and developed a test to show that the differences are based on the preamp's modification of the signal and not the amplifier (which should take the input signal and output it at a higher level but same response as the input).



> As far as the boner of the month. I agree 100%. Lots of amps and speakers have come and gone. There are a lot of things I am not impressed with on the arc amps. It's sound quality and power however do impress me. Once I found out that you could potentially get the same amp from Clarion for less money I started looking for them. Never found any for a reasonable price except for the T amp which I don't need. I am surprised Arc says made in the usa when they are made by Ubuy in china or korea or wherever. The Mmats are made here in florida (is that a plus?) they have lousy pots and the power supplies make noise. Again though I like the sound and know that they will not break.
> 
> This test proves that amps under ideal conditions amps can be made to sound similar. It also proves that someone can make a claim that is hard to disprove it and based on that start a revolution of insanity.


What revolution of insanity? People who don't understand the test are the ones causing the issues. The test is what it is and he put his money where his mouth his. It's scientific test that isolates one variable that in the real world can't be isolated.



> In the real world it is silly and only serves to start arguments.


I'll agree with that.



> I would expect this on ECA and CarAudio, etc - where people really are into brands.
> 
> This board people are trying to make the best sounding car without relying on mainstream brands just because of the name. If people on this board run sunfire or sinfoni amps (which I have never seen or heard either of them in person), my guess is that they have evaluated them against other amps in the market and picked them because they fit their needs best. If someone buys 10 year old PG gear - that must be what works for them. who cares if you can make a boss amp sound the same under certain conditions - it doesn't meet your needs. It's strange that you don't see many people on here with Boss/pyramid/dual amps since they all sound the same.


I think you might miss the point. People here (and elsewhere) want to be able to get the best for the best value, even if that means doing more of their own work or having to hunt to find stuff.

I don't buy boss because I don't like how it looks, not sure it looks right, its made to a much lower quality than I would really want in my car. But I recommend it to people on a budget because is surprising robust, has a 5 year warranty and some guys like the flash (and in my opinion you can get better quality than Audiobahn, with some of the bling, for much cheaper). 



> It has nothing to do with amp selection for purchase. There is no doubt that richard clark is not running pyramid amps in his car. There is a lot more to choosing an amp than the audio reproduction. It is not ridiculous to buy an expensive car amp if you know it will perform for many years, not overheat or burn your car down. Other than the XXK's I have been running the same exact mmats amps in my cars for almost 10 years without failure. I drive over 40,000 miles a year - these amps run many many hours a day.


What does this have to do with the test? He could be deaf and not drive and the test is still valid for what it is as-is. It isn't a test to prove expensive amps won't last as long as cheap ones. This is the reason so many people get into arguments over this stuff. 



> His test is like taking a BMW 5 series a toyota camry and a pontiac sunbird for a ride on the highway with the windows open. if they are all tuned to drive the same and you are going in a straight line and have blinders on, you might not be able to tell the difference. Does that mean they are the same? no. It means that they all cruise at 55 on the highway just fine. Does that mean you should buy a sunbird over a bmw 5 series or camry? No, you would do a much more thorough evaluation and decide which one meets your needs the best.


I don't think that is a valid comparison (and some of the reasons people start arguing over this stuff in the first place).



> This test was only to prove that you can not disprove that a working amplifier works. And stir up a bunch of crap. That is all the challenge does.


That isn't what the test is about. A test to prove an amps work would be much simpler and would take much less time. 



> IMO anyone who starts a thread based on this challenge is only looking to stir up the pot.


Or doesn't understand it, which leads to stirring the pot.


----------



## CMR22 (Feb 10, 2007)

bdubs767 said:


> WOW....lol soon to be on front page of the NEw YORK TIMES


Its made its way around to a lot of other forums, which is how I found this site. Very interesting discussion. I need to print off this thread and read it from start to finish before commenting.


----------



## OldOneEye (Jun 16, 2005)

MarkZ said:


> I agree with SQ_Bronco. RC's test needs a better statistical treatment to really be able to demonstrate the point he's trying to make. You can of course have statistical significance without perfection, and that's true for both the individual and the population. We're not privy to that information, which is why I'd hesitate to rely on the results of his test to prove the point. He just hasn't disclosed enough data to know for sure. I don't understand why he doesn't, if it truly is in the interest of the consumer.


I think this has already been discussed. He has a pretty sample size for the individual (10) in the interest of time. He has alluded to the fact the tests results have been comparable to the probability of a coin toss in the population. Others have taken the fact they can pick 7 out of 10 to mean they "beat" Richard (or at least that is my recollection of the thread). 

He doesn't post it because he doesn't post anymore. But he has mentioned if the amps are so night and day, why couldn't people expect perfection? Some guys are willing to drive out there to take the test.

Again, we are reading between the lines when there is nothing to read. To win, you have to guess 10 out of 10 times. Not statistically significant, but 10 out of 10.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2007)

The amp test is "not real world" ... i love that one too.  Nothing could be further from the truth. It really is identical to saying that FDA drug testing is not "real world", and therefore has no significance and should not be trusted.

A laboratory is nothing more than an environment which isolates and controls variables, in order to understand which variables cause which effects. And only when such relationships are known, can physical phenomena be _understood_ ... in the real world.

Try it this way :

*In the amp challenge, why must the two amps being tested actually drive the same pair of speakers? Surely, that's not "real world" !!!! In the "real world" ... amps are driving different speakers ALL THE TIME!! Therefore, the amp challenge has little or no "real world" significance.*

Please do give serious consideration to this statement ... as well as it's implications.

People really will come up with _any_ excuse to defend their belief systems ... you guys _kill_ me!!


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

OldOneEye said:


> I think this has already been discussed. He has a pretty sample size for the individual (10) in the interest of time. He has alluded to the fact the tests results have been comparable to the probability of a coin toss in the population. Others have taken the fact they can pick 7 out of 10 to mean they "beat" Richard (or at least that is my recollection of the thread).
> 
> He doesn't post it because he doesn't post anymore. But he has mentioned if the amps are so night and day, why couldn't people expect perfection? Some guys are willing to drive out there to take the test.
> 
> Again, we are reading between the lines when there is nothing to read. To win, you have to guess 10 out of 10 times. Not statistically significant, but 10 out of 10.


To win, sure. He can base that on any threshold he wants. But when we use his tests as the basis for some of our arguments, then the threshold can't be arbitrary. The question is basically one of statistical significance, and that's why a statistical treatment is in order. If it can be shown that people can make the correct choices beyond what mere chance would explain, then the test has failed in its goal (or succeeded, based on what you think the real hypothesis is).

Again, I'm not saying he should change his test. Just that we have to be careful about what kind of conclusions we draw from it. Unfortunately, the merits of this test are what some use to determine how they feel about the issue. If they don't like the way the test is constructed or reported, then they'll use that to support their point. That's a logical fallacy, but still...


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2007)

guys ... this really does get laughable quick  

Exacting statistiscal scrutiny applied to the volumes of test data accumulated in an amp challenge ... looking for the smallest loophole that might invalidate the findings.

Typically, in order to support a belief system based on hearing one amp in a buddies car last year driving god-knows-what speakers and comparing that to a sound board heard yesterday (for example).

I ask ya ... how can you not chuckle at this??


----------



## OldOneEye (Jun 16, 2005)

Mark,
I already posted. Someone asked him in the long run, what kind of results did he get. He mentioned it was statistically comparable to a coin toss, in the long run (hey, conduct a test 1000 times, you get a few outliers, which on average will also get guys who picked the wrong one 7 out of 10 too). 

The question has already been answered in his forum (someone already explored that loophole).

Juan


----------



## MarkZ (Dec 5, 2005)

Re: statistics.

I don't see how that's laughable at all. Perhaps the information's out there and I don't know it, but how do we know that a significant difference HASN'T been observed in his tests? He's simply throwing out that metric altogether. It's 10 out of 10 or nothing. Hell, I think most people would fail to reach 10 out of 10 with level-matched speakers with entirely different FR profiles!

I would be surprised if people actually were guessing correctly more frequently than chance would dictate, but how can we cite a test where we don't know the outcome?

Edit: OldOneEye -- thanks for verifying that his results showed that there was no statistical significance. I was not aware that he reported that.


----------



## cvjoint (Mar 10, 2006)

werewolf said:


> i love that old excuse ... "genetically alter" an amp, "force" an amp to sound like another, "over constrain" the test, etc ...
> 
> You guys _do_ realize that, all that is typically required is to turn off bass-boost and xovers, and tweek the gain knob, right? It's not like RC opens up the golden amp and electronically removes is special voodoo by replacing the magic wire with cheap ol' copper stuff
> 
> Or does turning off bass boost absolutely destroy the sonic magic of the precious meg-buck amps? If that's the case, buy a cheap amp and add a cheap EQ ... the results are sonically indistinguishable. Yes ... a service to the consumer


The tests that I ran in my car held the gain and bass boost constant. However I did use active xover on the amp all the times I've tested the amps. 

Can I still claim that if you turn xover off and equalize the entire band I could still hear differences in amps? NO. However, how does this guy equalize the amps to sound the same? What if the EQ. he uses modifies the signal so that it overwhelms any potential difference the amps might have beyond the fixed variables. Then what you are in fact hearing is the fingerprint of the Eq. as apllied to miniscule differences in amp fingerprint?


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2007)

Of course, the _really_ funny thing is that i keep arguing the same points over ... and over ... and over ... every year or so that this discussion comes up  

For what it's worth, there's some threads over in the Tech Clinic of ECA for anyone that might be interested ... not just about the amp challenge, but the scientific method in general.

I'm out!


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

SQ_Bronco said:


> DS-21- seeing as that reviewer probably did no kind of level matching whatsoever, other than turning the volume knob on his preamp until is sounded good, it is very possible that he heard a difference. We're talking about a completely different level of analysis here.


If by "level of analysis" you mean "cogent" vs. "idiotic," I suppose you have a point. 



> Your second point is a ridiculous straw man argument. Your eyes work very differently from your ears, and the visible difference between a yen and a dollar bill is a thousand orders of magnitude greater than the audible difference between even the best and worst amps. A better (but still poor) straw man would be "how many times in a row can you distinguish the sound a dollar bill makes, vs the sound a yen note makes, when dropped, while blindfolded?"


If someone who believes in the voodoo nonsense of amp sound wants to put up a dollar for every time I can tell the difference between a dollar bill falling and a yen falling, I'd be more than willing to do the comparison...


----------



## npdang (Jul 29, 2005)

werewolf said:


> Of course, the _really_ funny thing is that i keep arguing the same points over ... and over ... and over ... every year or so that this discussion comes up
> 
> For what it's worth, there's some threads over in the Tech Clinic of ECA for anyone that might be interested ... not just about the amp challenge, but the scientific method in general.
> 
> I'm out!


 In this thread alone, the same points have been addressed over a dozen times...


----------



## squeak9798 (Apr 20, 2005)

bassfromspace said:


> I don't think the test was originally designed for the consumer. RC doesn't strike me as that type of guy. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that he did this just to prove "audiophiles" wrong.


You are somewhat correct.

It was more a campaign against marketing/golden-eared audiphiles than anything.

Go back to AVI's post about .25% and 1% tolerance components for the perfect example of what the test was designed to disprove.

He wanted to show that there was no voodoo in amplifier sonics. That using special components will _only_ alter the sound if it caused an _audible_ change in noise, distortion, frequency response or power. 

What's the best way to disprove that those .25% parts "sound" better than 1% parts? Or that certain style caps or resistors "sound" better?


----------



## OldOneEye (Jun 16, 2005)

npdang said:


> In this thread alone, the same points have been addressed over a dozen times...


Every time it comes up.

Usually involves the following:
"what does RC have in his car, I bet it isn't XX"
"I have heard differences in my car, are you calling me a liar"
"I would never run a cheap amp in my car, I KNOW it sounds better"


Juan


----------



## MiloX (May 22, 2005)

DS-21 said:


> If someone who believes in the voodoo nonsense of amp sound wants to put up a dollar for every time I can tell the difference between a dollar bill falling and a yen falling, I'd be more than willing to do the comparison...



How bout a dollar bill falling and a yen *note* falling?


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

Hmmm 

Current topic as far as amp learning, so that's why I ressurected it!


----------



## johnson (May 1, 2007)

eh


----------



## Thoraudio (Aug 9, 2005)

Holy old thread, Batman!


----------



## bdubs767 (Apr 4, 2006)

wow been a while since this one....


----------



## CBRworm (Sep 1, 2006)

I generally walk away whenever I hear about the RC challenge. Talk about a dead horse. . .


----------



## ECLIPSEsqfan (Sep 2, 2007)

So would it then be a fair overall statement to say: 

Regardless of proven results from a properly conducted test (using the afore-mentioned scientific method), the individual will still end up purchasing the product that best appeals to them for whatever reason?(ie. percieved SQ, build quality, aesthetics, brand recognition, "bling" factor, cost, reliability...)

Not trying to stir the pot or beat the proverbial dead horse here, and I hope I don't come off as sounding terribly ignorant, but this was the general impression I got from this thread. (yes, I read the whole thing  )

Mario


----------



## FoxPro5 (Feb 14, 2006)

ECLIPSEsqfan said:


> So would it then be a fair overall statement to say:
> 
> Regardless of proven results from a properly conducted test (using the afore-mentioned scientific method), the individual will still end up purchasing the product that best appeals to them for whatever reason?(ie. percieved SQ, build quality, aesthetics, brand recognition, "bling" factor, cost, reliability...)
> 
> ...


The scientific method doesn't prove anything, it just rules things out. It's all about making better guesses. 

One thing is for sure though, we need more SQ amps these days. Production is going to ****, I say.


----------



## Ge0 (Jul 23, 2007)

MarkZ said:


> Only comment I have is regarding his dislike for vertical. The Zed-built ESX Quantums had vertical daughter boards and they had a very small failure rate (as evidenced by all of them floating around nowadays). I think if done correctly there's nothing inherently wrong with it, assuming he's referring to vert boards in general which seems to be the case.


Ummm, there are not a lot of them out there because not a lot were built. I've repaired 5 of them (including two of them I owned personally) because of shoddy construction. Daughter card solder joints or cold solder joints on wiring.

ESX was a nice amp design. They sounded fuggin awesome. However, IMHO poor execution on the packaging and constriction.

Ge0


----------



## OldOneEye (Jun 16, 2005)

ECLIPSEsqfan said:


> So would it then be a fair overall statement to say:
> 
> Regardless of proven results from a properly conducted test (using the afore-mentioned scientific method), the individual will still end up purchasing the product that best appeals to them for whatever reason?(ie. percieved SQ, build quality, aesthetics, brand recognition, "bling" factor, cost, reliability...)
> 
> Mario


I have to agree. In a moving car, I would rather have an amp that doesn't break, is well built, looks good, is a good value.... than a "better" sounding one (only perceivable in a parked car) that is hard to get serviced, temperamental, low value, etc.

Juan


----------



## GlasSman (Nov 14, 2006)

Bump for people who haven't seen it...and so I don't have to do a search. 

I missed it the first time around.


----------

