All Amps Sound the Same....

Russ 69:

while the quote you have chosen is preposterous, it illustrates how ignorant people are.

one should not make statements about component differences without some evidence.

the statement "all amps sound the same" can only be proven mathematically. while it seems intuitive that the statement is false, a definitive proof is necessary.

relying on sense perception is invalid because the senses are unreliable.

can anyone offer a mathematical proof ?

hi rodman. you're right but you have to listen to an amp to hear it. the fact that you can measure them , does not constitute a proof that they "sound" different.

hi russ69:

my point is that one should not trust the senses. it's one thing to be confident that there is a difference between two amps, its another to know it and prove it is true,.

there is no valid proof that is based upon sensation.

sensation is a form of opinion in that there is a probability that the sensation is true and a probability that it is false.

all statements which assert superiority of one component over another , or an attempt to describe the sound of a component can not be knowledge, hence they are probabilistic.

the senses are unreliable. witnesses to an event often present different versions of an event.

what you hear one day, you may not hear on another.

there is a myriad of experiemnets in the psycholgy journals, which discuss the unreliability of perception.

when you trust your senses, the result is probably true and probably false.

most audio discussions are philosophical disccsions.

they have no definitive conclusion.

let me give you an example.

suppose two people are auditioning a stereo system. the evaluation by each one will probably differ, one from the other.

in my hypothetical example, it is impossible to determine which assessment is true and which is false.

in fact "truth" and "false" are hard to establish in these audio discussions.

hi russ69:

you are right about ears as an instrument, so long as you acknowledge that what you hear does not constitute knowledge, and what you hear is an opinion.

what you hear or what i hear cannot be proven.

what one hears is neither true nor false. it is also not a fact.

music is about the brain. there is plenty of music which is cerebral in nature, e.g., bach's well tempered clavier.

music need not induce an emotional response to be enjoyable.

hi frogman:

does all music have to evoke an emotional response ?

i think some music is cerebral in nature.

have you listened to bach's harpsichord music ? if do, what emotional response do you experience?

there is some harpsichord music with intricate harmony which could stimulate the cerebrum.

i think you are a bit dogmatic when you assume that all music evokes an emotional response. you are not taking into account differences among listeners as to how one may respond to music.

hi frogman:

thanks for the link. people are different in their reactions to music. i find the well tempered clavier very helpful when solving mathematical problems.

the intricate harmony has an affinity to mathematics.

granted, i may have an idiosyncratic response and be in a minority of listeners.

in addition to bach, i would include purcell, scarlatti,froeberger, and other composers who wrote harpsichord music during the baroque period as very helpful when thinking is the sole activity.