In article , Stevie Boy
wrote:
I am not sure I know which set of magazine tests you are referring to.
I recall more than one series run by 'Hi Fi News' some years ago. My
recollection is the results being that those who entered the tests
feeling they could easily tell one amplifier from another were
surprised to find that they generally could not. (In the sense that
the results showed no statistical significance according to the
standard statistical methods.)
Ok another evening of replies ahead. Gee gaz wacks this group takes up
yer time :-)
Supposed to be enjoyable and interesting/educational to take part in some
of these discussions. :-) That's how I feel, anyway.
For your & Arny's attn it was Hi-Fi choice.
OK, thanks. Can you tell me the issue or date? I may have a copy. If so, I
can look up the tests. I seem to recall reading tests in an old (c1980's
IIRC) mag that wasn't HFN, but I can't recall any details.
The point of the review was not to determin weather they could
distinguish between known amplifiers. The point was a review of
amplifiers for inclusion in the magazine through a double blind test.
I am not quite clear what distinction you are making apart from their
end-intention. If they could hear differences in a double-blind comparison
then (given suitable level matching, etc) this implies they could
distinguish between the same amps when they were 'known'. If they could not
hear differences it implies they might not.
However as I pointed out the conclusion from most listners was they felt
each piece of equipment had different merits. Which I have to say is
okay as everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Happy to agree. In cases where differences are audible, people are clearly
entitled to choose what they prefer on that basis.
However it was also agreed that some virtues of some amplifiers had
certain merits amoung most of the listners.
Can't comment on the specific test at this point, but happy to accept this
given that differences were audible in a test as you describe above.
Statistically the outcome here was different to the Hi-Fi News outcome.
It may be because they had no preconceptions of what their lug holes
were about to be fist upon them or the amps were sufficiently different.
Unfortunatly (this is not a get out clause) it was some years back and I
doubt I have (or ever had) the said article since the amount of Hi-Fi
choice mags I bought were in general of low volume.
Ah. OK. Can you recall - even roughly - when this was? If I get a chance I
can search my back-issues to see if I can find it. Unfortunately I have no
indexing for non-HFN domestic mags, and only have a small number of issues,
but I might strike lucky.
Hence the point of the tests I recall was based upon using amplifiers
of a level of performance most of those involved would have said was
reasonably satisfactory.
Satisfactory in that each person agreed upon inclusion in the test
before or after?
My recollection of the HFN tests is that those involved agreed the methods
and protocol and the choice of units, etc. I'd need to check the details to
know what amps wee used, etc. I think there was more than one series of
tests as some of those involved in the first test were upset to have failed
to be able to tell differences which they expected to hear. I also think
that a Quad amp and a valve amp were included at some point, but my memory
may be unreliable here.
PJW is often mis-quoted as having said something to the effect that
all amplifiers sound the same. In fact what he said was more carefully
qualified in terms of the amps being well designed and used within
their performance limitations.
Maybe something you can enlighten us on as well designed? Perhaps
mention a few that meet this criteria.
I can't recall what PJW specified, but can see if I can find a relevant
article. Or were you asking my own personal opinion? If so, I can give my
own views, but am quite happy to agree that other may have ideas that
differ from mine. In the end people use what they prefer. Although I have
an interest in defining "well designed" in terms of engineering and
physics, I'd agree that in the end people choose what they like on the
basis of it being what they prefer.
Yes. Many products may be similar enough to be indistinguishable. This
may,
of course, mean they are all 'wrong'... but may mean they are all
pretty good.
It may also mean they follow certain design rules and therefore sound
this way.
Yes. Agreed. However with audio amps we can debate the idea that an amp
where the input and output signal patterns approach being identical (apart
from scale) might be an appropriate design goal. How this is approached,
and when it may be desirable (or not) may be matters of circumstances of
use, and what may be appropriate, though.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc
http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio
http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc.
http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html