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

[Yogi]

Why are we even discussing this thread. It doesn't seem to change any ones opinions. Its purely academic. I think we should go back to enjoying our systems, while Mr. Clark can keep designing complex tests in his favor. How do you know his true intentions are not to get a publication in the 'journal of surreal statistical analysis' and all this audio stuff is just bait.
Lets get back to our music (and statistics textbooks) and leave Mr. Clark and his crusade alone. After all did his crusade help level out the sales of any high end manufacturer? I think not. I think the sales of high end makers like Krell and Madrigal are on the rise year after year and will continue doing so. So leave him alone. Everyone needs a purpose in life. He has found his and let us find ours.

 

[Chu Gai]

To be honest, I think those that'd have said it meant well and probably meant it in all sincerity. I would suspect when the other half has noticed there are a slew of quite obvious reasons why that's been so.

Getting back to the challenge though, while I'm highly skeptical that anyone would achieve a perfect score using conventional approaches, I do think that there's a way, if the criteria for confidence level was reduced to say 1-sigma, a person, given that the # of correct hits is less, just might be able to walk off with that 10 grand. Would anyone care to hazzard an approach (strictly legit mind you) that would enhance their ability to reliably distinguish between two different amps or receivers? This is of course assuming that the output of both amps are level matched and neither amp is driven beyond its specifications.

 

[Seth_L]

Would anyone care to hazzard an approach (strictly legit mind you) that would enhance their ability to reliably distinguish between two different amps or receivers? This is of course assuming that the output of both amps are level matched and neither amp is driven beyond its specifications.

Chu, This is simple. Allow the person to do the test in control of A and B. They can pick which one they're listening to. They can go back in the music. They can do whatever they want. Let them lament and praise how much better one is than the other.

The catch is that the amps are in black boxes and they don't know which one is which. They won't know if A is the boutique amp, or if B is the boutique amp. To futher keep things honest some people would not get a boutique amp at all. They might be doing an A/B between two identical pioneer recievers. Or they might be comparing two identical Mark Levinsons to each other. Have 6 sessions and in between sessions change the configuration. Switching either A and B, or not, or some other combination.

Seth

 

[Marty Neudel]

Listener fatigue seems to be an overlooked factor in this discussion. We stop being able to distinguish between subtle differences very quickly. This doesn't mean they are not there, or that we can't hear them. Our brain has been hard-wired to govern our hearing for survival, not for enjoying the latest version of "The Mummy" or the most recent New York Philharmonic concert.

We know which electonics and speakers please us best over time. We don't have to prove this to anyone else. That's all that matters.

Marty

 

[Yogi]

We know which electonics and speakers please us best over time. We don't have to prove this to anyone else. That's all that matters.

Thats exactly what I meant when I said earlier that differences become more apparent over longer periods of time like in a month or even a year. There might be subtle differences at first hearing but some systems wear you out while others you can listen to eternity without feeling tired. In the long run thats what counts.

 

[RobertR]

differences become more apparent over longer periods of time like in a month or even a year.

I'd be more impressed by this sort of claim if I didn't see so many posts, magazine reviews, and advertising claims filled with phrases such as "obvious", "jaw dropping", "astonishing", "stampeding stallions", "apparent from the first note", etc. It's funny how no one ever seems to have trouble hearing the differences right away under sighted conditions, and the "longer periods" business only appears when talking about DBTs. I've NEVER seen someone say that he auditioned an amp for a YEAR prior to purchasing it. The typical post describing an audition involves an afternoon visit to the dealer. Hardly a "month" or "year".

 

[Chu Gai]

Seth: I'm serious though. Not by the user controlling what he/she listens to. I'm talking about within the confines of a DBT. I do think there's a way to discern one amp from another with some degree of success.
Yogi: its beyond me as to how one could do what you're suggesting and keep it separate from every other thing that'll influence ones perceptions. However, out of curiousity, in your opinion, what two amps or receivers do you think represent different poles on the magnet?

 

[Yogi]

I've NEVER seen someone say that he auditioned an amp for a YEAR prior to purchasing it. The typical post describing an audition involves an afternoon visit to the dealer. Hardly a "month" or "year".

Yes sadly thats the case and thats why you see so many people upgrading amps so aften. I take mag reviews with a grain of salt as I too believe that differences are subtle and wouldn't be apparent unless you knew what you were looking for. For example I have listened to the amps in my B&K 7250 and my Denon 3802 and for most part on most musical pieces you would only hear slight differences (sighted) and If I were to randomly choose a musical score and pick one out of those two in a DBT I would certainly fail more than once in 12 trails. On the other hand when I watch the Monsters Inc. DVD where they put the kids sock in a some kind of an enclosed explosion chamber and blast it to dust, I can easily tell the B&K and the Denon apart in the way each controls the woofers. So if I were to do a DBT on that particular explosion scene I would most certainly pick the B&K 100% of the time.

I usually shop at B&M dealers with good return policies like Tweeters, Sounds Incredible (they have a take home audition policy) etc and atleast compare amps for more than a week or two before making a choice. Thats why you wont hear me next year or even the year after, upgrading amps. Its a bit of an effort but pays well in the long run. Over longer periods of time the differences do become more apparent, IMHO.

 

[Seth_L]

I'd be more impressed by this sort of claim if I didn't see so many posts, magazine reviews, and advertising claims filled with phrases such as "obvious", "jaw dropping", "astonishing", "stampeding stallions", "apparent from the first note", etc. It's funny how no one ever seems to have trouble hearing the differences right away under sighted conditions, and the "longer periods" business only appears when talking about DBTs. I've NEVER seen someone say that he auditioned an amp for a YEAR prior to purchasing it. The typical post describing an audition involves an afternoon visit to the dealer. Hardly a "month" or "year".

Simple really... "listener fatique" and the whole "long time" thing are just excuses offered by the believers in the audible superiority of boutique amps. I'm with you.

I say we give an small group of audiophiles 4 sealed black boxes that have a gain knob, speaker outputs, an input, and a power cord. Let them sit on them and listen to them for months and see which one they like better. That would prove very interesting IMHO.

Seth

 

[RobertR]

That would prove very interesting IMHO.

It certainly would, Seth. I suspect, though, that the believers would labor hard to come up with some other excuse to replace the "fatigue" or "test stress" or "extended time" excuses.

 

[Ted Kim]

If the designer of the test just wanted to establish reliably hearing differences, 24/24 is too demanding, as other posters have pointed out. The odds are too low for a SUBJECTIVE test, where you have to rely on your sonic memory to be perfect.
Even in a more OBJECTIVE regime, how many can say that they were perfect on their exams in college, in a major math or hard science, where the tests can be more objective and prepared for than a subjective hearing test. The odds of getting a perfect score on such an exam are dependent on how difficult the designer of the test makes it. Obviously, a professor could design a test that everyone can do well and another where 100% is nearly impossible. I would estimate the percentage of people getting a perfect 100 on a major college math or science test, even once, to be less than 20%. My point is perfection is an elusive goal, especially if the only way to "pass" the test is to be perfect.
So we have multiple factors going on here, a subject's test taking skills, ability to be confident in their choices -- it's very easy to second guess yourself when their only two options, listening fatigue (as previously pointed out) and the pressure of trying to win the $$$.
Has anyone considered how much money the tester has made? At $100 per ($300 for people in the industry) and 2000 testers. That's well over $200,000. Hey my time is worth that much. Come on over to my house, if doesn't matter if you're partially deaf, I'll take your $$$

 

[RobertR]

how many can say that they were perfect on their exams in college, in a major math or hard science,

If the college exams consisted of people being asked in a DBT if they could taste the difference between Coke and 7-Up (which is the sort of "obvious" difference the High End Poobahs claim to hear all the time), all of us would get 100%. There would be nothing "elusive" or "too demanding" about it, NO one would say BOO about "hard" it is to have a "perfect" taste memory, and we wouldn't even have to study!

 

[Yogi]

My point is perfection is an elusive goal, especially if the only way to "pass" the test is to be perfect.

But thats exactly the point of this test. Be perfect or help me become rich.
Anyway all the best trying to support or debunk this guy. I'll go back to listening to my music while you all sort this out
Best of luck.
Over and out.

 

[Ted Kim]

One other thing,

My father has a phD in statistics and works in that field. He has taught that subject at the university level and has a number of publications in refereed journals. So if anyone has any statistical questions related to what this topic has been about, that go beyond the really basic, I may be able to get his opinion.

 

[AjayM]

Who's $10k is on the line again? Or did nobody read this line?

12. Although anyone is welcome to take the test, only subjects employed in the car audio industry or Car Sound subscribers are eligible for the $10,000.00 prize.

So not only is he padding his wallet ($100 a test) with a test that is questionable with it's specs, he's also getting you to subscribe to a magazine (that I'm sooooooooo sure he has no financial interest in :rolleyes.) just to give you the chance to collect the money.
Andrew

 

[Manuel Delaflor]

What is really happening on this thread? Is it that we are really interested in DBT's, science, statistical analysis, or how an amplifier sounds?

I think not.

What I see is that we will remain in our opinion (whatever it is) and think that anyone else who don't thin like us is wrong.

I never see this kind of threads advancing toward anything at all. Every post confirms that every person will not change its mind. Its like if people ceased to read and was only able to write.

I believe the test is absurd, nor to say that DBT's are unnecessary for the industry, nor to say that I believe that under the test conditions the amplifiers do sound different.

I believe also that there are more important factors to buy something than the particular sound it is able to achieve.

I believe that people hear differences, no matter if those differences are in the real world or only in their heads.

I believe that an individual will feel better driving a Porsche even when the Porsche do exactly the same as a Yugo (at some carefuly castrated circumstances of course).

I believe that objectivists, generally speaking, can't afford some expensive equipment, and they have found a way to feel good about it.

I believe that subjectivists have the right to believe whatever they want to believe, even if in reality the sound differences between their gear and a less expensive one doesn't exists.

But above all. I believe we ALL need to enter this kind of threads with an open mind, not to state categorically that we are better than anyone else.

 

[Yogi]

I believe that subjectivists have the right to believe whatever they want to believe, even if in reality the sound differences between their gear and a less expensive one doesn't exists.

Again well said.
To each its own.
Peace

 

[John Royster]

I believe that if either side were truly correct then this would have been settled ages ago.

It has not been settled as both sides have performed tests to verify their position.

 

[RobertR]

I believe that objectivists, generally speaking, can't afford some expensive equipment, and they have found a way to feel good about it.

There is no factual basis for this claim. The question is not how much do you spend, but what do you spend it on.

For example, let's say you have person A, who's an objectivist. He's spent his money as follows:

Speakers: $9000
Amplifiers: $4000
Prepro: $3000
Source components: $2000
Sony G90 CRT front projector (the best such projector in the world): $17,000
Interconnects and cabling: $250

Person B is a subjectivist. He's spent his money this way:

Speakers: $4500
Amplifiers: $16,000
Prepro: $5000
Source components: $4000
Display: Sony WEGA $1500
Interconnects and cabling: $4000

Who's spent the most money? Who genuinely thinks he has a better setup?

 

[Manuel Delaflor]

Who genuinely thinks he has a better setup?

Answer: Both of them!