Yet another bold claim...

i don't want to get involved in this as i'm a pure subjectivist (i likes what i likes) so objective tests tell me very little about what i will think of a piece of kit. at least i can draw no correlation between objective measurements and my subjective judgement. anyway as the amp is connected to a speaker during a null test does the speakers impedence curve not have some bearing as to what distortion is produced? i.e. you are not testing the amp alone but the amp / speaker combination? if this is the case then surely we are back to square one as they may measure differently with michaels dynaudios and with my ipl's. if i'm missing something here please enlighten me.
cheers


julian

 

But maybe the 'sound' of an amp IS its measurements?

 

Maybe, but how does that explain why one thinks the sim is better (poorer measurement) and another thinks the rotel is better(better measurement). so doesn't matter what the measurements are in this case, or maybe it's a combination of all measurements, but we buy on the sound we hear, surely, not what an oscilloscope tells us.

 

That's a commonly held view allthough the null test demonstrates quite clearly that all amps do not sound the same. To be more precise, it shows that different amps distort the signal in different ways and, since the difference signal is clearly audible (on all but a handful of amps) it would suggest that there is an audible difference between amps.

It's ironic in a way that the null test, one of the big guns of the objectivist brigade, can be used so effectively to blow away one of their dearly held beliefs (that all amps sound the same). In fact, if you take the following 2 "facts":

- there are objectively demonstrable differences between amps
- no one has ever been able to tell two amps apart in an ABX test

There are only two conclusions one can draw. Either:
a) No one is "golden eared" enough to be able to hear the differences that do exist
b) ABX testing is a croc and is not a reliable indicator of whether people can hear differences or not.

I believe that's what Aikido is all about, using your opponents weapons against them

Michael.

 

Some people are wrong. If you ask someone the time and they say it is nine o'clock but really it is five o'clock, then they are wrong. It isn't nine o'clock. Is it? It's five o'clock. You don't say "if it's nine o'clock to you then that is all that matters and you are also right".

The person who likes the 'worst' amp is wrong. They might like the worst amp more but that doesn't make it a better amp. It just means they have poor judgement.

Some people like marzipan but they are wrong. Marzipan IS horrible.

 

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. AFAIK neither BD nor TD has null tested (measured) the Sim.

That's likely to be true of all the traditional measurements such as THD as they aren't very real world. It might well be possible to tune an amp to perform astoundingly well on THD tests at fixed frequencies but that doesn't really tell us anything about how it will peform playing real music into real speakers. The nice thing about the null test is that it is a real time test using real music with real speakers.

Michael.

 

No, my friend. It is you who are wrong.

 

The problem I have with the pure subjectivist approach of "all that matters is whether I enjoy listening to it or not" is that there's no reference, no goal. By what criteria do you judge whether something is better or worse? What kind of sound are you striving for? Why is A better than B? I've not met anyone who simply says "I just prefer it" without being able to give at least some reasons such as, tighter bass, more defined soundstage or whatever. So, why is tighter bass better or more defined soundstage better? Becuase it's more accurate of course. Ultimately IMO we're all striving for the same thing whether we think we are or not.

Michael.

 

Michael,

I must admit I was thinking along the same lines regarding the objectivists seemingly contradictory opinions but felt it might be inflammatory to point them out

I am surprised however that you would null test after listening. Would you null test an amplifier that you really enjoyed listening through? If so why?

There seem to be so many "proven facts" about music reproduction that simply don't stand up all of the time for all of the people. This suggests to me that their worth is limited when applied in an all encompassing fashion.

The senses are wonderful things IMO, and yet, far from totally understood. Hell the stench of cigarette smoke clearly exists and yet many smokers fail to notice it.

So to conclude, some would say that amplifier differences exist but you cannot hear them except in isolation. Seems to make the test rather pointless to me, especially given that BD's "subjective" findings are so wide of the mark for most people as to suggest nothing more than a Portuguese version of a joke.

 

Not read all of the thread, so forgive me if I'm re-stating something. It strikes me that all these arguments are very similar to religious arguments. I'm an atheist but know many religious people, when debating with them it always seems to come down to them demanding that I prove what I'm saying. Of course ask the same question of them and they're horrified that you could question their belief...

 

The 'null test' was demonstrated by Peter Baxandall and David Hafler in two different forms way back in the 70s. The intent is to show 'subjectivists' that an amp that measures well also performs well in actual use with actual programme.

The fact that many 'hifi' amps are actually very poor (but obviously they 'sound' good) is really beside the point. The statement that all competently designed amps operated within their limits sound the same isn't challenged.

BTW TD should tell us how big the residue is relative to the output, after all being able to measure something doesn't imply that it's audible.

Paul

 

It's a pity. The idea of the null test is so very compelling and it would be interesting to have a sensible debate about it but it's a shame that BD is not being very helpful in this regard. Coming across as if he has just discovered "the truth" and that everyone else is just lost in the wilderness is indeed like religious preaching (and Mana advocacy ) and extremely unhelpful to having a rational argument

Well, if you null test first then, if you believe in the null test, your subjective opinion is bound to be coloured by the null test result. If you listen first, and then null test, you're more able to judge whether the null test result correlates with your listening experience because the null test won't be influenced by what you heard.

Michael.

 

BD,

Here's a question for you : You have two amplifiers, and you null test both of them. One measures better than the other. But, extended listening tests show that, despite the 'worse' measurements, you actually prefer the sound of the amp with the worse measurements.

Which amp would you choose for your system?

 

application of scientific method to appreciation of the arts - Popper would approve.

 

The silly thing about this whole argument is that there is no argument! There are clearly two very distinct, very well-defined goals in audio: the goal of total fidelity and the goal of greatest subjective enjoyment.

The objectivist has a more "scientific" (or possibly "engineering") point of view regarding audio - they want their audio equipment to most accurately reproduce the original musical event. For sources, recording media, etc this gets rather hazy and tricky, but for amps it's very straightforward - straight wire with gain is the goal, that's it. To an objectivist, the recording itself should be able to provide all of the musical satisfaction and personal enjoyment, and if it doesn't (e.g. shoddy recording quality), then tough.

The subjectivist viewpoint on the other hand is (and please forgive the term - it's not meant in a bad way!) kinda "new agey" by comparison. A subjectivist doesn't care if the hifi equipment is accurate, as long as it sounds good. To them, if the hifi adds its own character it can be a good thing (if the character is pleasing).

Some people (clearly a lot of people, though I suspect we are a very vocal but very minor minority) adhere almost religiously to one or the other and that's fine - the problem is when one of these "zealots" hits the pulpit and starts preaching in absolute terms on the merits of their point of view. As far as I'm concerned this is all well and good - freedom of speech and all that. But for zealots of the opposing argument (who will never be convinced of the opposing POV) this really gets their hackles up and these silly, pointless bile-fests ensue.

The key point I'm trying to make, though, is that both points of view can quite happily coexist! There's no reason for any argument! The only argument that is valid is regarding specific bits of kit (and possibly specific hifi designers/companies), and whether they follow one viewpoint or the other.

So if you're a zealot of one camp or the other, and you see a zealot of the opposing camp waxing lyrical about why their viewpoint is so much better - ignore it! Let it go. Chill, man. And if said zealot tries to get you riled up by saying that one of your favourite bits of kit is crap, you can happily let that slide as well, safe in the knowledge that Enemy Zealot's opinion holds no weight with your point of view because your criteria for goodness/crapness are totally different!

...And the world of ZeroGain will be a much more peaceful place.



"Groovy" Dunc

 

Here's an interesting article about subjectivism which, amongst other things, explains the null test setups used by Baxandall and Hafler.

Michael.

 

Tube Dude's null test is all about CIENCE.

An oscilloscope has far more resolution (because we can see its measurings) than the human ear when determining the difference (which is a signal itself) between two simultaneous musical signals (because they don't mask each other).

The problem with just earing is simple:

How can you possible ear the signal from your CD player without some kind of amplification?

When your ear a CD player, what are you actually earing: the CD player, the amp or both?

Connect the CD player output to an oscilloscope and you'll see the signal. Connect the amp output to an oscilloscope and you'll see the signal. Null test it and you'll see the difference. If the difference is zero or a null then you'll know that all you are earing when using such an amp is what your CD player is capable of.

I'm earing you say, but what about the speakers? Well you can always use good headphones which are far more accurate than loudspeakers (and they also eliminate all room problems). Then when you have determined your favourite CD player you can work out the best speakers by null testing the amp again. (A perfect amp should ideally exhibit a perfect null with all normal standard, 4-8 ohm nominal impedance, dynamic loudspeakers.)

At least you have a component about which you can securely say it is accurate or not by null testing it: the amplifier.

The Rotel 1062 is an accurate amp and therefore it sounds fabulous. The best commercially available amp I've ever heard.

 

which included the following:

"A single tone flipped back and forth in phase, providing it has a spiky asymmetrical waveform and an associated harsh sound, will show a change in perceived timbre and, according to some experimenters, a perceived change in pitch."

!!!

 

I believe he's quoting or paraphrasing the results from someone elses experiment. He's not claiming it as a fact. Still, without trying it myself I wouldn't be so quick to write off that result. The ear works in mysterious ways.

Douglas Self has written a book about amplifier design:

Amazon link

His link

Michael.

 

better than an a1000? very hard to believe, one of the best tranny amps there is.
I do know rotel are excellent.