In Reply to: So Pat, why haven't you brought up this point with the other example i cited? posted by Analog Scott on July 22, 2010 at 11:02:32:
I don't even have a copy of it.Also, I know that some amplifiers do indeed sound different from some other amplifiers. DBTs have shown some high fidelity amplifiers sound different when driving complex loads such as found in many speakers. That has not prevented a number of people from saying that others believe every amplifier sounds the same--it's a big straw man thrown around in controversy. Some throw that idiocy at me from time to time.
In the June 1991 issue, Stereo Review published an article by E. Brad Meyer called "The Amp/Speaker Interface: Are you loudspeakers turning your amplifier into a tone control?" A tube and a solid state amplifier were tested with two different speakers. One speaker offered a difficult load to the amplifier, one did not (the loads are not specified). With pink noise, the tests showed to a very high degree of probability that the differences between the two amplifiers were audible using either speaker.
With the music selections, the tests showed audible differences between the two amplifiers to a high degree of probability using the speaker with a difficult load. Using the speaker presenting the easier load, the tests results did not disprove the null hypothesis using those music selections, though it's always possible that with other music or other listeners the differences would have been shown to be audible. In any case, they were shown to be audible with pink noise.
Stereophile and Soundstage show the frequency responses of the amplifiers they measure into a standardized dummy speaker load. Some of the mainstream magazines did so, too. Quite a while ago, I emailed Doug Schneider of Soundstage and suggested that they include a graph of the load offered by the dummy speaker load used by BHK labs in amplifier tests. He agreed and the graph showing impedance vs. frequency and electrical phase vs. frequency is now shown at the following URL as part of the explanation of how they measure amplifiers:
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/test_amplifiers.htm
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Edits: 07/22/10 07/22/10
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Have I cited that article? - Pat D 16:15:05 07/22/10 (53)
- No, I cited it. You chose to ignore it. More cherry picking - Analog Scott 03:07:48 07/23/10 (52)
- How could you cite it since you don't even seem to know what it was? - Pat D 06:18:51 07/23/10 (51)
- You never have been one to let the facts get in the way of your beliefs. two simple facts - Analog Scott 09:12:53 07/23/10 (50)
- LOL! Prove the 1985 article exists! (nt) - Pat D 11:14:27 07/23/10 (49)
- Seriously? do you want me to prove Russia exists too since you haven't seen it in person? - Analog Scott 11:25:04 07/23/10 (48)
- Who wrote the alleged 1985 article? What is its title? - Pat D 19:12:49 07/23/10 (47)
- actually I misremembered. it was a 1987 article - Analog Scott 16:58:45 07/24/10 (1)
- RE: actually I misremembered. it was a 1987 article - Pat D 19:52:59 07/24/10 (0)
- Its great fun to stay away from this sandbox for a while... - robert young 07:55:34 07/24/10 (44)
- AS wants to argue about an article he doesnt have. - Pat D 10:38:22 07/24/10 (43)
- You are wasting your debating skills... - robert young 11:18:47 07/24/10 (42)
- RE: You are wasting your debating skills... - Pat D 16:09:26 07/24/10 (41)
- I predicted 20 posts of pure obfuscation from you on this thread - Analog Scott 17:03:52 07/24/10 (30)
- Have you found those FR differences you mentioned that exceed known audible thresholds yet? - Pat D 18:15:23 07/24/10 (29)
- I am truly very sorry if you believe - E-Stat 18:33:00 07/26/10 (28)
- Irrelevant remarks. - Pat D 19:20:11 07/26/10 (27)
- Absolutely - E-Stat 05:59:31 07/27/10 (26)
- RE: Absolutely - Pat D 09:03:08 07/27/10 (25)
- Simple - E-Stat 09:28:28 07/27/10 (24)
- You are totally confused. - Pat D 20:04:52 07/28/10 (23)
- Apparently, you are unaware of how dated your source is - E-Stat 07:30:13 07/29/10 (22)
- It's not my source but one Analog Scott was using to make some point or other. - Pat D 12:18:16 07/29/10 (21)
- I caught Analog Scott out on two things. - Analog Scott 07:30:08 07/30/10 (16)
- RE: I caught Analog Scott out on two things. - Pat D 18:39:14 07/31/10 (15)
- Gotta hand it to ya Pat. you never have been one to let facts get in your way - Analog Scott 19:54:14 07/31/10 (14)
- When you have to hurl personal accusations to prove your point, youve already lost the argument. - Pat D 20:29:55 08/03/10 (13)
- Let me know when that happens. - Analog Scott 17:15:39 08/04/10 (11)
- Well, you may have points, but no real arguments for them. - Pat D 17:37:08 08/05/10 (10)
- You have no arguments that I have no argument - Analog Scott 13:42:52 08/06/10 (9)
- I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - kerr 08:31:19 08/08/10 (8)
- RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - Analog Scott 17:48:03 08/08/10 (4)
- RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - kerr 06:27:37 08/09/10 (3)
- RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - Analog Scott 02:43:37 08/11/10 (2)
- RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - kerr 05:39:56 08/11/10 (1)
- Now I have the rightmost post in "classic view". nt - kurt s 07:19:31 08/12/10 (0)
- RE: I wonder if he will post an argument to your argument that he has no argument against your argument. - Tony Lauck 09:51:28 08/08/10 (2)
- I got to the part about... - kerr 06:28:49 08/09/10 (1)
- RE: I got to the part about... - Tony Lauck 10:48:47 08/09/10 (0)
- I missed the connection between the title of your post and the content. nt - Tony Lauck 09:27:39 08/04/10 (0)
- Congratulations - E-Stat 12:51:44 07/29/10 (3)
- "Yeah, your wording was an absolute hoot." - robert young 17:59:46 07/29/10 (2)
- RE: "Yeah, your wording was an absolute hoot." - Tony Lauck 18:55:49 07/29/10 (1)
- RE: "Yeah, your wording was an absolute hoot." - robert young 00:40:31 07/30/10 (0)
- And what's more.... - robert young 16:58:42 07/24/10 (9)
- RE: And what's more.... - Pat D 18:32:39 07/24/10 (8)
- I'm still laughing... - robert young 20:44:50 07/24/10 (7)
- LOL - Pat D 05:27:05 07/25/10 (6)
- No, not THAT world, Pat. - carcass93 08:15:30 07/25/10 (2)
- Yeah, illusions can be fun. - Pat D 09:23:26 07/25/10 (1)
- I suppose - kerr 04:38:48 07/26/10 (0)
- An adult using LOL and GMAB.... - robert young 07:40:17 07/25/10 (2)
- Hmmm . . . I learned most of such acronym here at AA. (nt) - Pat D 09:24:50 07/25/10 (1)
- Oh, GMAB! - kerr 04:40:30 07/26/10 (0)