@geoffkait - I view it as more of a probabilistic inference, but I'll happily grant your point if it helps turn the dialogue in a more productive direction.
How far have ss amps really come in the last twenty years?
I have owned and enjoyed my Jeff Rowland model 8 ( recently modded and upgraded by Jeff to the last version) for many years. I recently had the opportunity of comparing it ( after mods) to a few of the current ss models from Gamut, D'Agostino, YBA, Parasound, Sim audio, CH precision, Constellation,PS audio,Pass Labs and Musical Fidelity. The results were very interesting, because to my ears and in the systems that we did the comparison, the Rowland held its own against all but the most expensive D'Ag and CH amps. Even those were only very slightly outclassing the Rowland in the areas of top end resolution...and a tad in the bottom end resolution. Now the thing is that the last revision to the Rowland 8 was designed by Jeff over ten years ago!
So, my question for those more technically inclined than myself is...how far has the design of ss amps come in the last ten...or even twenty years?
So, my question for those more technically inclined than myself is...how far has the design of ss amps come in the last ten...or even twenty years?
Showing 14 responses by ahofer
Alan Shaw would say there is very little new in amplifiers. Indeed, amplification technology is widely used and optimized for many purposes, not just audio, and is more or less a "solved" problem. For those of you who haven’t had the pleasure, this thread will show you some of his thinking. https://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/forum/subjective-soundings-your-views-on-audio/electronics-sources-stands-cables-accessories/amplifier-discussion/2390-the-last-words-on-audio-amplifiers-jan-2015 And if you disagree, and can prove an audible difference under his conditions (gain matching), he's offering a pair of his top-of-the-line speakers (see the first few posts). |
@mrdecibel What a strange request! I don't know him any better than you, but he's quite available in those forums. Sounds like you aren't completely serious. Set it up yourself. I'll do you one better - I'll bet you another grand ($1000) even odds you will fail (you wouldn't have to pay if you can't agree on set up). But only you can negotiate the terms with Alan. Maybe at the next expo where there's a Harbeth booth. No, in my limited experience, I often don't hear the difference between amplifiers (with the exception of underpowered or tube-bloated amps), and I resent it when someone tries to convince me that the new power supply they just swapped in makes any perceptible difference at all. I sort of want there to be a difference in my heart (I own some expensive gear), but given a review of the actual evidence, I'd have to *bet* that 95% of the people on this forum, and of the dealers I've met, couldn't pass a properly constructed blind or ABX test (to a reasonable confidence level) of level-matched, properly-powered amplifiers. I may be missing something (point it out to me), but there's almost no convincing evidence out there to support repeatably audible differences between high quality cables or amps (I assume this list is reasonably complete - https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/ ). The only people who claim to have done this consistently seem to have been by themselves when it happened. In fact, there's only scant evidence that audiophiles can tell the difference between levels of digital resolution (and I have an extensive hi-res collection!!). See Archimago's repeated tests - https://archimago.blogspot.com/ This is unpleasant stuff to acknowledge about ourselves, but I don't think the hobby does itself any favors by wishing it away. Let's disprove or confirm it! Nothing to lose and everything to gain. So I'm in the enviable position of both being willing to bet, and kind of hoping I lose. |
@mrdecibel My interest in this is about the tension between my subjective and objective self, really. I’ve enjoyed the equipment I’ve owned (although I don’t upgrade nearly as much as the average audiophile) and that’s enough for me. Unfortunately, being an audiophile is negative status, if anything, in my part of finance. Exotic athletic achievements, massive watches, and ultra-casual seem to be the thing now. It is indeed possible my hearing is shot. I’ve played in big bands and attend concerts every two weeks, as well as ride the subway daily. I actually want to know if Shaw is right or wrong, whether my subjective impressions overcome or create the illusion of audible differences. The subjectivists have done a very poor job of proving him, and his ilk, wrong after 30 years, but I’m not entirely convinced yet. I want one of you guys to go for it, or go for it elsewhere - level matched, properly controlled. Or maybe you have and I haven’t seen it. One thing that is important in my line of work - separating objective observations against your feelings. If you can maintain allegiance to the former in difficult times you can make a lot of money. I’m lucky enough to have been successful at that a few times (and less successful a few other times). Now I observe that despite nearly $20k of available inducement, you won’t try to back up your assertions. I really don’t mean this to be snarky, but shouldn’t I view that as revealing? |
Teo, it's an appeal to authority because it isn't backed up with any evidence or answer, merely assertion about talent/credentials. Your response reduces to an irrelevant and incomplete assertion of what ears do (even if we stipulated that, it wouldn't necessarily bear on audibility of differences), and then has several paragraphs that can be summed up as "I'm awesome, you're an idiot, get off my lawn".
Your response to this is "you're an ignoramus, get out of the hobby". This attitude closes, rather than opens, minds. Furthermore, it is suspicious. I've come to understand from my 31 years of business experience that nasty bluster is most often a smokescreen. |
Feel free to augment or quibble, but I would call an "objectively audible difference" between amplifiers as follows:
when the equipment is gain-matched to be sure the difference is not simply due to different overall volume levels, listeners can still repeatably distinguish between different pieces of equipment *only by listening*. After reviewing what I can find online, it seems people, audiophiles and engineers very much included, have a lot of trouble with that, especially with respect to cable, differing digital resolutions,and reasonably powered amps that meet or exceed (essentially mid-fi Japanese) distortion specs. I see a lot of people here asserting confidently that they can easily do this, but not a lot of verifiable evidence. That really piques my curiousity. Although we are talking about amps here, I'm even more curious about high-res digital. Even if I came away fully convinced of an extreme objectivist case, I would still probably go for lower distortion, high quality amps, I would probably still by high-res digital (after all, it should speak to the company's dedication to high audio standards) and I would still audition equipment mostly to ascertain whether the experience was likely to give me pleasure every night, as opposed to just on paper. But I'm very curious, and I think hobbyists (but perhaps not dealers who rely on the constant tweak & upgrade cycle) would benefit from an open mind.. btw, I totally reject the idea that only self-appointed "Golden Ears" should engage in this discussion. That seems not only snobby and unintentionally hilarious, but far too exclusive for what is, sadly, a hobby seriously on the wane. Don't you agree? To say otherwise seems like a formula for devolving into incestuous irrelevance. |
The reality is, if we all, the audiophile community, heard no differences, wouldn’t the high priced gear go bye bye, or, just 1 or 2 manufacturers would be left for all of us ? I'm not sure. First of all, we'd have to concede we don't hear differences, second, we'd have to decide that the other expensive hallmarks of quality don't matter enough to pay for. Finally, there are still features, appearance, and ergonomics to consider. In sum, no, I don't think it would change as you suggest. Consider the high-end watch business. You bring up the sommelier analogy. I've always considered it a point in that industry's favor that it's highest accreditation requires an incredibly difficult blind (to label) identification process. But even in that test, there are many other hallmarks other than taste (color, viscosity) that inform the well-defined method that passes the world's hardest test. There is a great book about that called "Cork Dork" by Bianca Bosker, I highly recommend it - if you can accept a referral from a "troll" such as myself. Yes, I like wine as well, and I'm certain that enormous amounts of contextual subjectivity enter into my evaluation of each sip, and I'd love to understand it better. That, rather than stuffy assertions of exclusivity, is what the hobby is about. |
Ahofer, you never responded to my comment, as to why you own expensive audio gear ( what are your components ? ), as I suggested, simply for prestige. And comparing it to a watch ? Maybe, if it is all about prestige. I believe my comparisons were more legitimate, as it showed a certain ability, familiarity and expertise, by the individuals, in their respected interests and fields. You are welcome to go on and on, but simply, I will no longer respond to you, as this " need to know " thing, is " your " thing, not mine, or anyone else’s here. So take care, and Enjoy ! MrD.I did indeed respond in full (I have no problem enjoying it regardless of what I learn or unlearn), and I've described my system elsewhere on the forum. I can't make coherent sense out of the rest of your comment or claims of "legitimacy" whatever you mean by that. But, by all means, show me the evidence I have missed or ignore me if you don't want to spend the time. That would be the best course of action for everyone. |
@atmasphere Thanks for both points - yes, I meant a *difference* that is objectively audible, sorry if that wasn't clear. I too would be interested to know which amps are typically excluded and why. I agree that seems to be a gap in the discussion, and also an interesting point in general about design (would you call it optimizing knowingly inaccurate artifacts for real world listening?). I’d still be curious where the threshold of audibility is for some of these characteristics, and whether listeners can distinguish consistently between characteristics that are harder to measure. These seem like important design questions. I definitely hear the criticism that objectivists overplay their hand. I’ve kind of felt that way since the Stereo Review blind amplifier comparison in 1987, although that was my introduction to self-doubt on the topic. At the risk of being a milquetoast "both-sides"-er, I’d say both sides should have more humility in their claims, and that might allow a more scientific approach to the truth. As it is, this looks like a "broken dialogue", per Dan Kahan: the more people learn, the more polarized they become. Climate change is the prototypical broken dialogue ( http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2012/5/27/climate-change-polarization-fast-and-slow.html ) It’s fascinating how new facts are assembled to be soldiers to one’s predetermined point of view. Jon Haidt (channeling Dr. Gazzaniga) draws the analogy to the rider and the elephant ( http://sourcesofinsight.com/the-elephant-and-the-rider/ ). However you look at it, it seems to me the two camps have hunkered down in their corners. This guy gives me hope - https://archimago.blogspot.com/ Over the years, I’ve written on the unnecessary "war" between "objectivism vs. subjectivism" when I’ve thought it worth addressing articles written by some members of the press and at times the strange fear of scientific methodology in high-fidelity. We’ve talked about the basics of what subjectivity and objectivity mean, and further elaborated on it. In summary, "pure subjectivism" and "pure objectivism" are both extreme positions to take. The problem I find is that for decades in the audiophile press, subjectivism has been posited as somehow more important if not the only worthy position to take to the point where the vast majority of hardware reviews available these days including online sources have lost the objective component. In the process, most reviews have also lost the power to elucidate truth among the subtleties of sonic differences. Without objectivity, sound quality cannot be adjudicated based on the ideal principle of high fidelity. @sidekick_i that’s no doubt true, but components are designed individually and contribute individually, and good experiments require controls. So in a perfect world, you’d build your system holding most of the chain constant while varying one part as you moved towards the right all-in system. Wouldn’t it be nice to have the luxury of infinite time and resources! |
Doesn't seem like a silly question to me. Differing pace of innovation, both in product, and in particular aspects of products, are everywhere. Have we changed how we dry clean much? Air conditioners and combustion engines and vehicle suspensions work basically the same way, but innovation in efficiency has improved dramatically. I don't think progress travels in a linear fashion. |