Believers VS. nonbelievers???? GEEzzzzz


Curious how certain products elicit praise from one body and "I can't believe you fall for that snake oil..." from others.
I have a hard time believing some of the stuff (the WORST example is the "Tice Clock" from the early 90's, that you just had to have in the same room!!!)but in general, some of the protesters are ranting on "general priciples" and never tried the stuff/thing in question...(I myself was in that category on power cords till I tried one) and even if they did, it may not have been effective on thier particular system, but just what was needed on someone elses.
==============================================
What I am trying to say in a half formed way is that an honest concern about a product and trying to help guide other away from the "stupid mods" is a difficult path to walk. And since we are all experts and know all there is to know about "audiophilia" maybe we could be more modest in damning stuff others think is worth doing. Rather consider that it may be a path of exploration we choose not to follow now. To say "I haven't explored that but I don't think it's worth trying" vs "you are crazy to think that works and a fool for trying it." is a BIG gap.
Any comments?????
elizabeth
Jadem: The science involves objective listening tests (as opposed to the kind most audiophiles do most of the time). Two amps, both operating within their design parameters (e.g., not clipping) and not having any substantial frequency response or distortion anomalies, will not be distinguishable in the kind of objective tests I'm sure you will tell me you don't believe in. Of course, this is also supported by plenty of evidence that listeners cannot distinguish small FR variations or low levels of distortion, which are the only things that distinguish most amps (tubes, and especially SETs, being obvious exceptions). It's an experiement that's been done many times, which is why the burden of proof now rests with those who want to claim otherwise. That's how science works.
no, my head's not in the sand - i don't need proof for what i can hear - i already *have* it. those who don't believe that there's a difference yust cuz it hasn't yet been measured are the ones w/their heads in the sand. like the flat earth, proofs *will* come, cuz folks *can* hear differences.

re: amp testing, set upa a test w/two amps that meet your description, & i'm sure that they will either be distinguishable - or not - depending on who is running the test & how. while i *am* for objective testing, it's been shown many times that *objectivity* is not easily attained. kind of a catch-22. we all yust have to do the best we can. jadem6 states directly wghat i inferred - prove to me differences in sound *don't* exist.

doug s.

It too bad Jostler that you choose to see it that way. Is low level distortion all it is? What effects does this distortion have on other components? Can you have two "identical" amps, if so how? Can you prove the impact of burn-in is equal in each piece of equipment? What impact does the interconnect have on the given amp, and thus a potential variable? If your right though, shouldn't any amp of the same spec sound the same? How do you explain that they don't? I'm afraid your objective listening test is so potentially flawed that I discount the value of the science. I'm saddened that you will choose to protect yourself and not allow your self the chance to learn, but it's not my lose, it's yours. J.D.
I don't know why tubes and especially SET's are exempt from Jostler's generalized description of all amps sounding the same, but I am pleased that the exception was made. I will agree that similar amp designs sound "somewhat" alike, provided they are constructed with equal care, parts, circuit design techniques and are of near identical power. Unfortunately there are almost an unlimited number of problems that every amplifier must face in a high end system that can, and do make even that statement an exception. These problems substantially effect the sound, and ultimately, what pleases the listener. Just the very tip of this issue in broad terms are; The amps ability to drive non linear loads with a varying impedance. Ability and speed to electrically recover after driving such a load. Ability to reject or be nearly unaffected by a multitude of outside sources such as RF, EMI, brown downs, power surges, electrical noise, digital signals ( on AC from your electric company ), household appliances, and all the ground planes in the system and the house. If this sounds complicated, you are right. It is only a fraction of the reasons well informed and intelligent audiophiles argue about which amp sounds right in their system. Often the conclusion of a well conducted test in two locations with similar equipment will come to two completely different ends. I believe that very often, if the two testers could visit each others location, there may not be any disagreement about the test result in THAT system and THAT location. I believe that most of us are after similar high quality results. The enormous number of factors that effect the result of our tests are so many and so varied, that only listening with the intention of finding the best compromise will resolve the problem. Of course there are the issues of peripherals as well. This includes, but not limited to, all the variables of isolation, Interconnect and speaker cables, room dimensions, acoustics, and software. To illustrate my point. I could give at least six names of Audiogon members, who I have met in person after I began postings at Audiogon. Each have visited my home and listened to my system. Each one of them will tell you that the difference of removing even one isolation foot, changing one single wire or removing one weight off the top of a piece of equipment, is so big that it can be heard without any further discussion or tests. I know Jostler3 will not believe this, and I would be ( honestly!) pleased for he or she to come and listen at my home. I cannot predict in advance what combination of removing and replacing parts in my system would provide the most enjoyable tonal balance of music for this specific visitor, but I can absolutely guarantee that the difference will be so obvious, that there will be no doubt that the change was made. Most posters will probably have no problem understanding my assertions, because they have experienced similar results in their own system. The problem with scientific and numerical argument lies in the fact that the conclusions are correct, only if every minute possible variation can be considered in the test. I do not believe that anyone here has the resources to test in such a manner, which leaves the human ear as the only consistent and reliable tool. After all, it is what must live with your final decision in the end, and it will eventually reveal any mistakes you make that are based on prejudice, short term conclusions, or the numbers that science uses to describe only a single test situation.
Nicely stated Albert. I think the challange to the guys who require scientific proof is determaining how to predict the varience, not challange the fact. That would be of value to all of us, to simply hide from the things not understood and claim "science" as your protector is crazy. I just wish Jostler and his like thinking minority would use that potential brain power for something helpful. I'm crearly of a different mind than Jostler in that my whole life is about creativity not fact, but I just can't imagine losing as much of life as I believe he is missing. Too bad for Jostler, it just helps me learn who to listen to for good audio advice. Albert and Sedond you guys are true winners. J.D.