Please Read Objectively... (1 Viewer)

[JimMIT]

Angelo's comments, as undiplomatic as they might appear to some, may have some credence.

Being a newbie who's interested in acquiring decent audio/HT gear, I've been doing some research. In addition to reading what folks have to say on this and other audio forums, I've thus far written to two professional audio reviewers who have been kind enough to respond. Most recently I received a reply which read, in part, as follows:


This comes from a well-respected professional who is a contributing technical editor for Sound and Vision magazine. I can't think of a reason why he would say this other than it is true.

 

[Drew_W]

Funny, then what we hear must be only in our heads. There is a noticeable difference between when I use my Yamaha alone and when I use it coupled with a Rotel amp.

If every amp sounds the same, why bother spending the big bucks on super amplifiers? If it's only the speakers that determine audio quality, please excuse me while I trade in my Pioneer Elite and Rotel products, and get a Quest or Precision Acoustics el-cheapo receiver and upgrade my speakers. Clearly that'll make my system sound better...

 

[Kevin Alexander]

Those comments are nonsense. There is clearly a tonal difference between my old HK amp, and my current Adcom amp. Am I being told that I don't know what I'm hearing? Really, I can't believe this is a debatable topic.

 

[JimMIT]

Easy fellas -- get a hold of yourselves. I wasn't intending to insult anyone or begin a debate. I didn't get sarcastic or use terms like "nonsense." I merely added comments from an audio professional which I thought were on point. I offered a contribution to what I thought was a discussion. Isn't that what this forum is about?

Like I said, I'm new to this and don't have the listening experience you folks have. You are free to believe whatever you want about what you hear -- if you say you hear a difference then you hear a difference. On the other hand, I am free to give credence to a professional audio reviewer who probably has as much or more listening experience as you -- at least until I hear the differences you hear.

 

[JimmyK]

Some years ago I remember reading and article that talked about whether or not there were audible differences between various well designed amps.

The point they made was that even though different amps may have measured the same under a fixed load, such as 8 ohms, they may not behave the same when presented with a dynamic load from speakers. This may account for the differences some people hear.

This certainly seems to make sense. Perhaps someone with a more technical background could let us know if this has any merit.

I wonder if anyone has actually measured what an amp is doing given a varying load and compared it to it's performance under a constant load.

JimmyK

PS - Just for reference, I tend to be one of the skeptics on this issue.

 

[Angelo.M]

It's not only the speakers, but their importance is an order of magnitude more significant than the amplification source. Your biases/experiences/expectations, the room geometry and room treatments, processing, choice of software, etc are all more important than amplification. You can do far more to change the "sound" of your rig with a well-placed wall hanging then you can by swapping out a Rotel amp for an NAD.

 

[Steve_AS]

I agree entirely with Angelo's sentiments, and with the reply you received and posted. I was having a chuckle because *I* made a conscious attempt to be diplomatic, since bald statements of what is, IMO, the truth, often lead to exactly the sorts of followups you're seeing here -- e.g., the 'are you telling me I'm NOT really hearing what I think I hear? That's ridiculous!', argument-from-incredulity sort of reply.

To them, btw, I would say that, no, it's not ridiculous. What's *ridiculously* easy, as psycholigical literature will attest, is for people to persuade themselves they are seeing/hearing vastly different things, when nothing in fact has been changed (e.g., a 'phantom switch' comparison). Given that human failing, which we all share, one should be careful about asserting claims of real audible difference from perceived ones.

Btw, here's a cool and astonishing *visual* demonstration of
the fallibility of our perceptions of difference:

Checkers

 

[Angelo.M]

Had I taken my medication, or had a Grolsch (), I might have been more so myself.

Enjoy your gear. Enjoy what you hear. Rock on...

 

[JimMIT]

Steve - I went to the "checkers" link you posted. I was absolutely amazed! I didn't believe it until I printed the figure out on my printer, cut the two squares out and compared them side by side. I've seen optical illusions before, but that one takes the cake! More importantly, it certainly tends to, as you say, demonstrate the fallibility of our perceptions.