Van Alstine?

I believe double-blind tests for music reproduction equipment evaluation is the only method which might produce reliable, believable, and convincing evidence for differences in sound.
However, I know that I have perceived differences in, for instance, amplifiers in my own system. I have perceived differences also in cables, tubes, and some tweaks. I do not and cannot know for certain whether my perceptions are reflective of real differences in the equipment or instead are internal constructs of my biases, expectations, hopes, beliefs, and maybe even aural inadequacies all combined with the fact that I always know when I have changed something in the system. Looking at a gorgeous Plinius amp, all bright silvery power and style, knowing it is playing, and then looking at the non-descript kind of cheap-looking Van Alstine amp I have compared it with, I know my internal, maybe non-conscious, preference is that I really want the Plinius to sound better.
I would love to participate in a double blind test because I wish to know if I am wasting $9000 on my amp when I could get the same thing for $2000 with the VA.
I intend, in fact, to set up the best thing I can in my listening room, which would be a single blind test (the one doing the switching will know which amp is playing but I will not). I will be comparing my pair of Plinius SA100MkIII's to a Sunfire Signature 600. If I can't decide which amp is which after some serious listening and switching, I will be satisfied that I-- and thousands of other perfectly decent, honest people-- have been expensively self-deluded.

Now, I will give my impressions of the Van Alstine 550, current version, as compared to Plinius, Sunfire, Wyred-4-Sound.
I was powering a pair of Shahinian Hawks, a difficult load, when I did the comparison. My PERCEPTIONS were as follows:
In all cases (VA vs. Plinius, VA vs. Wyred, VA vs. Sunfire) the Van Alstine sounded dry, a bit anemic and thin, reproducing strings, for instance, without much sparkle or sheen. There was a lack of bass dynamics and punch. Voices were clear and clean but lacked personality and some presence. There was overall more grain (less immediacy) than on any of the other amps. Somehow, the amp seemed much less powerful than any of the others. Therefore, I "believe" the Van Alstine 550 is a mediocre piece of equipment. But--what would blind testing show???
I don't know and neither do you.
What I do know is that it is certainly possible that it would reveal not differences in amps but flaws in my perceptive acuity.

Now, I will give my impressions of the Van Alstine 550, current version, as compared to Plinius, Sunfire, Wyred-4-Sound.
I was powering a pair of Shahinian Hawks, a difficult load, when I did the comparison. My PERCEPTIONS were as follows:

Rp, this is ironic. I am using my AVA for my Shahinian Diapason speakers. Are you sure in your listening it was the latest version? The current is the Double+, which improved upon the Ultra. I am currently running a 550 Double+ but have been running the same amp since it was an EXR5. I agree the Shahinians of any type are a difficult load, but in my listening the AVA has never been anemic or thin (even back to the EXR5). Funny how things sound in different systems. What preamp did you use at the time?

I've heard both the Hawks and Diapasons driven by Plinius amps, and while admittedly they do sound great, IME a Plinius of the same power characteristics as an AVA 550 will set you back a lot more money. Part of the reason why I never got one. On the flip side, my friend had used his 550 on his Hawks for many many years and I had never heard anything of the type you've described through his system (he's since moved up the Shahinian line). I'm not doubting you in the least; just funny how putting a whole system together may not always yield predictable results.

tonypony--
I was commenting on the Van Alstine (yes, the current model, undoubled) vis a vis three other amplifiers in the same setup. Nothing was changed except the amps, themselves. My whole point had to do with whether or not the differences I perceived are real or imagined.
The Van Alstine sounded appreciably more drab and lifeless than any of the other amps, to my taste and to my ears. All this means is that in an unblinded trial, I felt the VA came up behind the other amps for the reasons I gave in my last post.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT I BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE!

Every time I listened to the Van Alstine or one of the other amps, I knew which amp was playing and I could look right at it. Is it a coincidence that the amp with the cosmetics of a homemade kit sounded less desirable than the ones that looked prettier? (Maybe this isn't true for the W4S, with a garage-built look of its own.)
I'd like to be sure for the very reason you mention: If the VA fails to differentiate itself from one of the more expensive amps in a blind A/B test, I save thousands of dollars.
And I would know I need to do similar checks on my expensive cables.

Not much in carefully controlled listening tests from me, I'm afraid. My Linn LK1 preamp died of a control board fault after about 18 years of service and I replaced it with an Audio by Van Alstine OmegaStar PAT-5 (purchased used directly from AVA). Music was just as enjoyable (LP12/Ittok/LK2/Saras were the other components), which I couldn't say when pressing an NAD 1020B preamp into service when the LK1 was on the fritz.

More recently, I replaced the LK2 poweramp with an AVA Insight 240. System configuration was a bit different, with the LP12 sharing time with a Well Tempered Record Player (Grado cartridge and phono stage) and Vandersteen 1C's replacing the Saras (driver failure; no replacement parts available). Compared to the LK2, the Insight 240 retained what the 1C's were capable of with respect to pitch relationships, rhythmic coherence, and dynamics while adding a bigger, deeper soundstage with better space between instruments and more stable and precise imaging.

Jrtrent, thank you for your thoughtful response.