Out of Control

Gregm, seems something has gotten lost here in going from the general to the specific. My second post to you was made on the belief that you had said that you heard huge differences between the two sets of mono blocks I had taken has an example. As it turns out your statement was, from what I get in your reply to my various questions, of a more general nature. Seems the tone and content of my intervention here displeased a number of people. My contention is not that there are no differences. My belief is that most of these differences are a question of degree, certainly not of kind, and usually very few degrees at that. What I had in mind was more on the topic of power amps and not on differences between one complete system at a given price level with another at an entirely and much greater price level. I still believe that some components are easier to design and build than others, that with some parts in the audio chain a plateau has been reached and that further developments are less likely than in other areas. Power amps, to me are the prime example of components that may have reached a plateau (I don't know if digital amps will change my idea on this), whereas speakers are the prime example of an area where research and development would yield the greatest benefits. I am more apt to believe in considerable differences between two speaker systems than between two power amps. The other source for my questions is twofold. Firstly, I keep hearing comments on equipment that is not run of the mill and always wonder where on God's green earth did the person actually listen to such equipment. I, maybe unfortunately, jump to the conclusion that it was either in a store or at a show. From experience, I can tell you that I always feel under some degree of pressure in a shop and that I don't trust my judgment is that kind of an environment. Insofar as shows are concerned, I feel, maybe wrongly, that they are even worst in that your not dealing with one retailer, but with a whole bunch of manufacturers and distributors. Talk about for the frying pan to the fire. Secondly, the other aspect which opened up on the "dreaded subject", is my belief that we are imminently subject to the power of suggestion and that it should be avoided in the making of a decision which is just a notch below the purchase of an automobile. I may have imposed a standard of conduct that should only be required of persons making their living reviewing equipment, I don't know. In closing let me say that I feel entirely justified in encouraging audiophiles to use a greater degree of rigour and method in appraising equipment. This is echoed, I think, in a thread that I seem to have seen were someone was asking what type of music should be used to evaluate equipment or, I may be mistaken, speakers. Some say any music the person knows and likes. I can't disagree with that. No one should be forced to listen to music he/she doesn't like. But, on the other hand, I think that this is not a very useful or valid answer. I think one should have a variety of recordings, calling upon different qualities of any given system (including some poorly recorded stuff to see if the system may not be even too revealing in some instances), and that once chosen, a person should stick to these and play the same tracks to avoid confusion and to be able to form some kind of valid judgment. If this is too strict a procedure, I do believe that we have very little to gain in sharing our opinions. I believe well reasoned and enlightened opinions are the only ones worth sharing and considering, and, no, I don't profess to hold a patent on this. I trust that my esteemed (or is that steamed) colleague, disciple of Themis, will agree. Regards.

Pbb is correct. Blind testing does not have to include becoming stodgy and humorless. Some of us like listening to music, every now and then, (in between test tones.)

I guess this means I am banished as well.

Take care,

Charles F. Daniell, D.V.M
Brunswick, GA

Gallaine, I did what? I don't even own a gauntlet. I have not waived math since high school, and have never waived it as a sceptre. Nothing so aristocratic for me. I like the expression "arts & sciences" though and I think it applies to audio equipment quite well. I won't trouble you with a dissertation on trees falling in the forest with nobody there to listen. I have no intention of talking about paradigms or the lack thereof. I will not even mention that a bad theory is better than none at all. There are many ways of getting at the truth. When it comes to understanding the physical phenomena that surround us, I doubt anything has rivalled science thus far. Magic thought certainly hasn't. I would merely suggest that audiophiles should show some method to their own madness and have some sort of basic procedure when evaluating equipment so that the fewest variables are introduced. Maybe this standard should only apply to professional reviewers, I don't know. It seems to me unfortunate that comments, good or bad, can be made about equipment heard on the fly or in less than good conditions (unknown room, unfamiliar music, changing the music used every time and the list could go on). By the way, I do not own, nor I have I ever owned, an oscilloscope, spectrum analyzer, calibrated microphone, SPL meter, fast Fourier analysis computer or other such piece of equipment or an ABX box for that matter. I would certainly appreciate it though if the manufacturer of the equipment I buy does and uses them, and interprets the results properly. If the manufacturer stops there we may not have the sound we want, we do appreciate that the component be evaluated by actual humans, listening to music and that suitable tweaking be done to have it perform at its best. I simply doubt the manufacturer could get to the tweaking stage without benefit of the hard data to start with.

If I might insinuate myself into this conversation between Pbb and Gregm, I would say that I don't object to double-blind testing. It certainly is a means to guard against the power of suggestion. However, I don't see that it much applies to listening evaluations of amps or any other audiophile equipment. Many of us are pretty sure of what we hear, so any double-blind test would be for the non-believers like Pbb rather than for us. However, I will gladly participate in any double-blind amp evaluation test that Pbb would like to set up. If he would just send the airline ticket to me so that I can be at the location of this test ... As far as the sound quality of power amps are concerned, two amps, both highly respected and of similar quality quite often sound very different, in other words easily recognizable from one another, using double-blind testing or not. I would agree that speakers show more sonic variation than amplifiers, but amplifiers are still easily discernable and identifiable from one another. I think that because amps "measure" much better than speakers, they are considered to be much more accurate reproducers of sound. And, if they are more accurate, they must sound the same, very similar, or at least so similar that few can tell the difference between two high quality amps. I think that the mistake here is that what is measured for either power amplifiers or speaker systems is not necessarily the final determinant of what the human ear can hear or all the aural information the human brain can process. Eighty to ninety percent of the measurements taken today for amplifiers (or speakers) they were measuring 50 years ago and while amplifiers have improved by orders of magnitude, they still don't sound live or anywhere near perfect, or even that much alike. So Pbb, let us know where the double-blind test is to be held.

Pbb: It was Bryston 7s & Accuphase 1000 (not 2000). My mistake for sounding general. I was just detailing the system & surroundings, as you had asked for in your 11/9 post.
Thanks for yr latest informative response. I agree with your experiences re, shows and dealers and, indeed, your commendable rigorous approach to judging equipment, etc.

Cheers!