$10k golden ears AMP challenge! (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

Further, if one of the amps dies because it can't handle the load, the test is scrapped.

I thought the preconditions prevented this from happening.

 

[Jonathan M]

Should the formula for 240 iterations be "the same" ie
x = z_p^2*240/(z_p^2+1)
I would have expected the number of correct answers to decrease (per centage wise) as # of iterations increased.

Yes - it should be the same, but the original formula was incorrect (Dropped an N in the algebra )
The corrected formula is:
x = (n+z_p^2 + z_p*sqrt(n+z_p^2))/(2*(1+z_p^2/n))
This has the asymptotic behaviour that you are alluding to - keeping z_p low in proportion to n, x tends to n/2 as n gets large, thus a lower proportion of correct answers is needed.
My other post has been edited.
Aggregate results would be very interesting - although each test may be with different equipment, inference could still be made if the proportion of success is high enough.

 

[Lin Park]

If it were my $10k and I could set the rules of the test, then I'd take that 1 in 64 gamble (and that's said in my best "I gots ta know" voice).

I'll be doing this test myself at my house this weekend using my wife as the subject. When she passes, we'll be visiting Mr. Clark and I hope he has the cash on-site because we won't accept equipment as payment.

Lin

 

[RobertR]

I'll be doing this test myself at my house this weekend using my wife as the subject.

If it's just you and your wife involved in the test, it will most likely be single blind, not double blind, which will leave enough potential for bias to invalidate the results as adequate evidence of differences.

 

[Chu Gai]

make sure you level match at the speakers using a test tone and a VOM and all that other nice stuff now

 

[glen donald]

Hi guys,
ALOT of points being raised. I can't answer each and everyone of them. If some things I say are my opinion, I will say it, otherwise I will quote Richard Clark's view in inverted commas.
Please read what I posted previously and CAREFULLY.
NO AMPS ARE EXCLUDED! - Richard has said:

i'll take a challenger that thinks he has the worlds best home amp up against a run of the mill car audio amp any day of the week------whats so special about "high end" home amps-------nothing except that the marketing BS is deeper--------tell them to pack em up and "come on down"----------i guess you havent read about the challenge i did with the company that makes high end tube amps------"single ended triodes"-------i made that challenge $45K------with the requirement only 6 out of 6 against a commercial grade Crown DC-300--------and they lost!!!!!----- it wasn't my normal challenge------the sales manager visited our CD plant and commented that we could improve our studios if we upgraded our amps-------i told him i didn't believe it would make any difference------i stated that if he could show me that he could hear the difference in his amps ( i believe they were 15K a stero pair) that i would buy them for all three of our mastering studios-------that would have been 45K-------i actually took a signed purchase order with me and laid it on the coffee table before the test------we did the test in his own listening room on his own equipment using LP records!!!!!!(you know cause vinyl is superior to CD's)------after only 4 or 5 tries he gave up and admitted he could not tell a difference--------if i remember correctly Manvill's wife Ellen was there and witnessed the entire thing.......... we did the test in his house on his personal system-------if you know them ask around------it is not possible for him to forget this even though i can see why he might want to...........RC
BRING THE WORLD’S BEST HOME AMP WITH YOU against what you think is a “crap” amp. He owns some of the most expensive Krell, Mcintosh…THE LOT!
As for the question about the $10k being legitimate; that’s just plain ridiculous. This guy is one of the most respected people in the audio/caraudio business. Over 2000 audiophiles have taken the test in the past (a lot of sore ego). Bring your laywer, sound engineer, who ever you might think would assist you in the challenge. IF you DARE to, why not pre-sign a legal contract that binds the $10k to the winner of the challenge, you money against his. BRING YOUR OWN EQUIPMENTS, ACTUALLY – BRING YOUR OWN EVERYTHING. Richard Clark said he has heard so many lame excuses over the years, it’s best to bring your own everything just incase “he cheated with his equipment”. WHAT THE HELL MORE COULD YOU WANT? Again – BRING YOUR OWN EVERYTHING.
THE CHALLENGE IS FOR EVERYONE Not only people in the industry. It was originally intended for car audio, but he is in the process of revising the amp challenge for home amps, car amps – vice versa. What ever amps you wanna compare.
Whoever attacked me about posting the Hearing cables challenge. What do you think I meant by that other than what I said? IF you can hear cables, pocket yourself some money – I think the cables challenge is worth a lot more than $10k, considerably A LOT more. IF you are one of those who believe in marketing voodoo, then apply for the challenge. IF you don’t obviously I wasn’t referring to you. Why get upset?

 

[glen donald]

And WHAT is up with all these statistics? WHAT FOR? This is a challenge, NOT an invitation to gamble. IF you can hear differences, is there a need for statistics?

 

[John Kotches]

Jonathon,

Nice to know at least one or two of the principles from Probability & Statistics are still active in my brain -- I don't want to admit how long ago I took that class.

Regards,

 

[John Kotches]

Glen,
It's funny that all these steps are taken to diminish differences between amplifiers, yet the minute someone starts pointing out issues with the tests, and the completely biased setup you say

What is up with all these statistics?

The brief answer: Statistical Analysis
Regards,

 

[Jonathan M]

The statistics are important because of what John pointed out above.

If Richard Clark made the results of the 2000 participants available, then we could all see if there is any audible difference between the amps that were tested. Just because someone fails to get 24/24 doesn't mean there is no difference, all it means is they couldn't distinguish 100% of the time. I'd be highly surprised if people could distinguish many only slightly different things (Coke/Pepsi, Brands of Peanut Butter etc.) 24 times in a row!

Seeing as noone has yet to pass the test (I assume) the audible differences are clearly not very large. In order to help quantify just how audible any differences are, it would be useful to run the statistics over all participants. If they all fail, yet overall can tell the difference 70% of the time, then the audible differences are not significant enough to get right 100% of the time, but ARE audible in the long run.

Armed with this additional info, consumers can then decide for themselves how high-end they wish to go.

 

[glen donald]

Statistical Analysis is ONLY relevant in forcasting and predicting certain outcomes. Why would it be relevant to the challenge? It’s not a gamble. It’s inviting those who can clearly hear amps. Next time you read an audiophile mag, notice the words they use to describe differences in SOUND QUALITY b/w amps, many people claim small tweaks in amp give them “huge improvements” in the soundstage. If you can hear slight tweaks, you definitively can hear amps. Why Statistical Analysis?


“Steps take to diminish differences” during the setup? This is what Richard Clark said about it: What’s the point of comparing two amps when one has the bass set to +12dB and the other has treble gain set to -12dB? Or when the cross over of one amp is set different from another amp? Or when one amp is being driven to clipping while the other isn’t? Should SOUND QUALITY be measured by “gain settings” or “cross-over points”? Remember claims are not made based on bass/treble/crossover settings; it’s based on “sonic bliss”. It makes sense to level all that out when comparing amps?

 

[glen donald]

Oh I think the success of picking amps correctly over years is something like 50%.

One persona did it twice, the first time he got 80% correct, the second time it was down to 10%.

That tells you people don't hear differences, it was all "toss of a coin".

Remember we are comparing 1 watt from amp A to 1 watt from amp B or 100watt Amp-C vs. 100watt Amp-D and NOT "crossover,bass-boost,treble settings" from Amp-X Vs. Amp-Y.

 

[John Kotches]

Glen:
If the challenge is open to all amplifiers, and any speaker is permissible, why haven't the rules been updated to reflect the changes? Not additional text, the posted rules.
Also, if Mr. Clark is so certain of his convictions, why wouldn't he be more than happy to provide the results of these thousands of tests?
Of course, the more tested, the less deviation from random chance to provide a statistically meaningful result that audible differences can be determined with amplifiers.
Anyone who takes the test, as currently designed is setting themselves up for failure.
Regards,

 

[glen donald]

The results are 50% over the years. There you go math whizzes, analyse that No one has aced the challenge yet!
There are some points which I cannot speak on his behalf, but I will let him know your arguments and his responses if possible.
It was only recently that he not only extended it to home amps, but also Home amp Vs Car audio amps as well.
So it's any amps (home or car) vs any amps (home or car) as long as they are commercially produced (that's where he feels the marketing BS is).
He is revising the "Rules and Limitations" at the moment, don't know when the update will be available, but don't expect it to be too different exept for something like "all commercial amps as well as car amps are permitted and well as anyone can take it...bla...bla.."
But he is very busy, I'll let everyone know whenever it's revised.

 

[Stephen Houdek]

I see a great deal of stats refreshers, questions about he rules, and EVEN some lunacy about the form of money! (Thanks for your refreshing irrelevance Lee!)

His money will still be in his pocket 20 years from now because there isn't a single "Audiophile" who could hear the difference. But they're more than willing to stand in line to criticize the test.......Sound familiar?

 

[Jack_P]

I asked RC how close people have been. I suspected that someone probubly got a high score just by the number of people that were tested
"------nearly anyone believes they can pass it till they actually fail at it-------my experience is that when folks take it only one in ten accepts the obvious and the other 9 just discredit the test-----i guess their pride or pocketbook will not allow them to accept defeat-----with the 8 session trial there are a few that have aced it and even more that have met the 6 out of 8 requirement-------BUT in the qualifying trial I only match the levels with a simple voltmeter----its really just a time saver since it weeds out 98% of the challengers------it only takes about 5 minutes to match levels with a voltmeter-----it can take 15 to 30 minutes to get things really close ( +/- .05dB with an AUDIO PRECISION ------a volt meter will get things close enough so that unless you have very sensitive hearing you will not pass my minimum requirement of 6 out of 8---------in the 12 trial session no one has done better than 7 or 8 out of 12------------and when all the scores are averaged everyone together has a perfect 6/12..............RC"

 

[Craig_Kg]

My 20 years in pro and home audio (14 album credits) tell me that this is simply not true. Science cannot explain everything. Texture, tonality, and midrange purity as well as soundstage are not explained by any amplifier stats I know of. I wish it were that simple, it would simplify my purchasing greatly. I have no bias against science either as I operate a small AI software company as my day job. The best combination in AI is a blend of "art and science".

Science can explain all of these things. It's just that our science isn't advanced enough to make the measurements that are required to explain the differences. We live in a world with rigid physical laws (above the quantum level) but we just can't model all of them due to the complexity.

 

[Seth_L]

If Richard Clark made the results of the 2000 participants available, then we could all see if there is any audible difference between the amps that were tested. Just because someone fails to get 24/24 doesn't mean there is no difference, all it means is they couldn't distinguish 100% of the time. I'd be highly surprised if people could distinguish many only slightly different things (Coke/Pepsi, Brands of Peanut Butter etc.) 24 times in a row!

Blah, blah, blah...

So if I take two different color squares one red and one blue and alternate them in front of you in a similar fashion to a DBT asking you which is which you wouldn't get 24 out of 24 right? That would be unreasonable? You would only need to get it right 17 times to be statistically significant?

I think not.

If the differences in amps are anywhere near as large as the boutique amp makers would have us believe 24 out of 24 should be no problem. Especially for the people whose wives can tell the difference from the other room.

Seth

 

[Chu Gai]

Ever think that maybe the reason your significant other heard the difference from the other room is because he/she is just tired of it all and looking for you to rejoin the human race and get some things done around the house?

 

[RobertR]

Chu. What's funny is that people will use "wife evidence" as if it's somehow more "objective", ie being a wife somehow endows them with armor plating against all bias. Yeah, right, as if they're really going to say "Fred, that megabuck amplifier is a complete waste of money and I couldn't care less if taking it back makes you pout, take it back NOW", or they're not going to say "You're right, Mr. Electronics Guru, it does sound better, now where's the new dress you promised me after you bought it?".