Re: Do all amplifiers sound the same?

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:47:44 -0800, Greg Wormald wrote
(in article <n7qdnZfpOJutqezanZ2dnUVZ_tWtnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):

> In article <GJidnSl7jtKxQvLanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>  Steve <goldstarsteve@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> Some time ago the now defunct stereo review had an interesting article
>> on blind a/b tests between different amplifiers - I saw a reprint
>> here;
>> 
>> http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf
>> 
>> After a hiatus of many years I am now putting together a system and
>> every one I talk to tells me there is a difference between amplifier
>> sounds. I am sceptical and in a recent audition could not tell a Creek
>> EVO from a NAD 325 BEE (through EPOS M12.2 speakers with a Creek cd
>> source).
>> 
>> Has any more work been done on this subject, esp. blind a/b tests?
>> 
>> Steve
> 
> Steve,
> 
> This is two of the topics most likely to generate a lot of heat--amps 
> sounding different and blind a-b tests.
> 
> Before it gets too wild let me put my two cents (Australian) in.
> 
> Of course different amplifiers sound different. Since they are made 
> differently, with different components, and they measure differently, 
> how could it be otherwise? Whether the differences are significant is a 
> matter of personal decision. You make your decision and plonk down your 
> money.
> 
> Some will argue that well-made amps that measure the same will sound the

> same. This is necessarily true--it is a tautology--assuming that we 
> measure everything that can be heard.

Isn't that the "rub" as Shakespeare would say?
 
> Blind a-b testing is the gold standard of testing for difference. It 
> does however have to be done well and usually isn't. Some of the subtle 
> differences in music reproduction are very difficult to pick, and often 
> require extensive experience or training to distinguish. As well, some 
> differences show up after long trials (days, weeks, or months!) and 
> testing of this longitude are as rare as hen's teeth. 
> 
> Our auditory memory is very short, and often very inaccurate, and that 
> is an argument NOT for short duration tests, but for using something 
> that is longer lasting and more reliable, namely the emotional response 
> to the music.

Exactly. People talk about "calibrating their ears" by listening to as
much 
live music as possible. Human auditory memory is so short, that it has
been 
found that just a couple of hours after a concert, the listener has
already 
reverted to his personal "taste" in sound, I.E. what type of bass he
likes, 
how much presence in the midrange, what kind of highs ring his bell, etc.
It 
has also been suggested that the female of the species has a far better 
auditory memory than the male....