2. speakers
  3. 1217550410

The Richard Clark "all amps sounds the same" test


Okay, I know there has been tons of commentary on this issue, but I have a specific question. And it will make it clear why I'm posting this amp question in the speaker threads.

I'm curious if anyone knows if Maggie 20.1s or something equally hard to drive and equally transparent has been tested? I know planars have been used on his test, but I don't know any details.

Oh - for those who don't have any idea what I'm talking about see:

http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/rcrules.htm
and
http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm

and if you google it there is almost endless commentary on it.

Okay - but I want to test the following:

Magnepan 20.1s
Pass Labs X350.5 or XA160.5
Pass Labs Pre? (Don't care as much)
EmmLabs CD Player

Then, we need a low-cost amp. Now, the trouble is, he has a reasonable request in his test, each amp has to be used within its thresholds, so no using them at 300 watts when one is rated at 30 watts. Obviously with one clipping and the other one not clipping you will hear a difference.

This also applies to a 4-ohm speaker. So, assuming someone hasn't done an extremely similar test and can just tell us the difference, the next question is what is the worst amplifier that is rated at 4 ohms? While the X350.5 is high-power, the test could be done at 85 db, so you don't need too many watts to make that work.

This would effectively answer all the "maggies need high power to by dynamic" and lots of other similar questions. Because the test is at one db level, does one amp really push more bass out of them than another?

Hey - actually wouldn't Tympani IVs be harder to drive? Maybe we should use Tympani's :).

What do people think, is this issue still alive or has someone resolved these issues? I have to think I could hear the difference and may have my wife run some singly-blind tests for me - I don't have any of the equipment above, but do have 3.6s and an Aleph 5. See how that Aleph sounds compared to some sort of $100 amp rated at 4 ohms.

Might there be a 4-ohm rated amp in a boombox or bookshelf system? I'll poke around. Sure a single op-amp chip in a bookshelf system (often what $100 system amps consist of, just a few chips) would sound worse than a Pass Labs Aleph, which Stereophile said compared to the Levinson 300 lb amps?

Oh - and the essence of my idea with this test is that perhaps the sound is 'more similar' on speakers that are easier to drive, but with 20.1s - and this is just as important - with a highly resolving ribbon speaker - the difference might become more apparent.

Oh - also, I'm not sure if he allows me to choose the music, but I have found over the years certain parts of certain passages that show the differences of components more than others. I think that would also be important - what passages are played, as on some I would believe the differences would be impossible/difficult to detect.

If I'm just repeating stuff that can be found elsewhere let me know... Just seems like we should be able to bust this test.
lightminer

Showing 4 responses by johnnyb53

johnnyb53
3,510 posts
 
Tests such as Mr. Clark's are pointless in my experience. If he "proves" his premise, it's just a parlor trick anyway. It often takes me weeks to get my head wrapped around how an amp or preamp sounds, and more importantly, how it makes me FEEL when I'm listening to music with it. A test where two or more amps are dialed in to the same sonic signature, are not tested to their extremes, and switched back and forth for comparison in far less time than I take to evaluate an amp throws out most of the criteria and methodology to determine whether one amp sounds better than another. Like I said, a parlor trick.

The limitations he puts on the test are any of the very ones that makes one amp more pleasurable to live with than another, such as how they perform at the frequency extremes, how linear the response is, and how it sounds when pushed, including how much headroom it has on crescendos.

Furthermore, if you think being able to push the Maggies to 96dB is plenty, guess again. If you want it to sound like real music, you want to be able to produce clean, fast peaks above 100 dB even if the average listening level is around 80 dB. Transients, sforzandos, crescendos, drum beats, and all that. A system that can only produce clean peaks to 96 dB is going to have a very limited range of program material that sounds good. I hope you like acoustic folk trios.
johnnyb53
3,510 posts
 
Gawd, I LOVE Shostakovitch. You can't have too much power in da house to play him back realistically.

I was fortunate enough to see Rostropovich conduct the Seattle Symphony Orchestra in April 2006 to commemorate Shotakovich's 100-yr birthday. I was sitting in the front row, about 4' from Rostropovich himself.

Now THAT was dynamic. I'm so glad I got to see Mischa one more time before he left us.
...the meter can't really keep up with the quick changes - so it [maximum SPL peaks] might be a tiny bit higher.
Count on it, like 110 dB or so. You could easily eat up 150 wpc powering Maggies playing Shostakovich.
johnnyb53
3,510 posts
 
08-12-09: Lightminer
MrTennis and Atmasphere - give the guy a call. Here is one page with the info.
Win the jackpot that a couple thousand people haven't won of $10,000 that he
offers for winning!
One year later and you still seem to
confuse us with someone who:
1) gives a $#!+, and
2) is stupid enough to pay $200 to play a parlor trick.
johnnyb53
3,510 posts
 
08-18-09: Rpfef
Personally, I would love to be able to take part in a fair double blind comparison. I do believe double blind tests are by far the best way to get at the truth of our own perceptions. ... What I want to find out is if my perceptions are to be trusted.
Maybe your perceptions are to be trusted, and double-blind tests applied to audio are what is untrustworthy.

Double-blind tests in medicine are passive. They measure what happens *to* you. Double-blind tests in audio attempt to determine what you can perceive in an interactive activity under rigid test conditions--an activity normally done for pleasure and/or relaxation.

To me, even if you flunked a double-blind test in audio, it doesn't mean your perceptions are untrustworthy; it may only mean that your perceptions are diluted or masked by the test conditions--or your interaction with the test conditions--themselves.
More to discover