advertisement


Challenge From Harbeth - Free M40.1 For Those Who Can Identify Amplifier Differences

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quite the reverse. The first amp has a reputation for sounding very beautiful, quite valve-like. There wasn't a trace of harshness.

Nor is there in its replacement.
Sorry Sue, it was meant just as an example of some phenomena or other that might have made the sound less (or more) enjoyable but different to the second amp
 
No problem Dinovector.

Actually, the first amp was so un-harsh I think I simply got bored of it.

My point being that on a brief audition, especially switching between the two, I'd doubt my ability to reliably pick one from the other as required by the Harbeth test. Neither would have any problems meeting the basic techy criteria required by the test, they're not at all unusual in terms of output power, impedance or other requirements. But one meets my needs pretty much exactly, whereas I was glad to see the back of the other one.

To answer Serge's point, I don't think the fact that I listened to much less music with one, and much more with the other, can really be attributed to any sort of expectation bias. I owned one, then the other, and didn't have them both at the same time. I'd expected to like both, and having lived with both for a few months, I found that I only liked one of them.
 
......

Is it not then a more universally useful approach to define performance in terms of the measurements and facilities and allow readers to decide if amplifier A suits their needs better than amplifier B? It's how I've bought my HiFi and anything else technical, like camera, TV, car etc for the past 40+ years

S.

Maybe, maybe not.. problems are:

a) technical superiority is no guarantee of preference. e.g. I see plenty of peoples TVs with the colour turned right up because they honestly think its "better" despite the fact technically it's far less accurate. Same principle applies to audio.

b) Practically no one would actually be able to translate the measured performance to a system sound that they would actually enjoy more. It takes a lot of personal experience and experimentation to understand how just frequency response changes affect the overall sound of a system for example. Speaker developers may have a reasonable handle on it, joe public has no clue and therefore technical measurements are useless to them in terms of being able to make a choice. (see point a)
 
good argument.....

where's the proof for your well thought out theories then....have not seen any evidence yet....unless your evidence tallies with your last post!!!

With no due respect, you're an idiot!

I'd expected to like both, and having lived with both for a few months, I found that I only liked one of them.

Is the point exactly, no science involved and I assume no visual preference but a difference was heard
 
Is the point exactly, no science involved and I assume no visual preference but a difference was heard

Not necessarily. A difference was perceived, not necessarily heard. This could be due to many things, sound quite possibly, but other things too. There's no definite here unless a blind test was done between the two.

S.
 
Not necessarily. A difference was perceived, not necessarily heard. This could be due to many things, sound quite possibly, but other things too. There's no definite here unless a blind test was done between the two.

S.
So if I have 2 identical Naim amps of some sort, I take one to Les at Avondale to be modified, will it sound the same or different in a blind test against the other?
 
So if I have 2 identical Naim amps of some sort, I take one to Les at Avondale to be modified, will it sound the same or different in a blind test against the other?


I would be surprised if they sounded any different after modification, but I would have to see the measurements before and after to be sure. Given that a standard Naim amplifier is transparent, if any modification sounds different, then the modified amplifier must be technically worse. If it's technically better, then it still won't sound any different given that the standard one is already as good as it gets sonically.

S.
 
To take Serge's point in relation to my earlier post: I'm pretty sure the measurements would be within the normal expected range and differences would not be considered critical to performance.

I didn't make a conscious decision to like or dislike either of them, and had equally high expectations of both of them. The rest of the system remained the same. The fact that I subconsciously listened to a lot less music with one amp suggests, quite strongly, that I got much less meaningful musical experience out of my system with that amp in place. Again, my personal circumstances hadn't changed. No more, nor any less access to my system, or time in which to listen.

So, the obvious variables having not changed, I think it's a reasonable conclusion that the amps were the difference. I merely point out that I doubt the Harbeth Challenge(TM) would have flagged up these differences which, for me, have turned out to be fundamentally important.
 
To take Serge's point in relation to my earlier post: I'm pretty sure the measurements would be within the normal expected range and differences would not be considered critical to performance.

I didn't make a conscious decision to like or dislike either of them, and had equally high expectations of both of them. The rest of the system remained the same. The fact that I subconsciously listened to a lot less music with one amp suggests, quite strongly, that I got much less meaningful musical experience out of my system with that amp in place. Again, my personal circumstances hadn't changed. No more, nor any less access to my system, or time in which to listen.

So, the obvious variables having not changed, I think it's a reasonable conclusion that the amps were the difference. I merely point out that I doubt the Harbeth Challenge(TM) would have flagged up these differences which, for me, have turned out to be fundamentally important.

I agree that it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion, possibly the only reasonable conclusion. What I don't necessarily agree with, though, is that it was anything to do with the sound having changed, but with the amplifier itself, and your relationship with that amplifier that changed. This is impossible to prove other than with a blind test between the amplifiers.

S.
 
I would be surprised if they sounded any different after modification, but I would have to see the measurements before and after to be sure. Given that a standard Naim amplifier is transparent, if any modification sounds different, then the modified amplifier must be technically worse. If it's technically better, then it still won't sound any different given that the standard one is already as good as it gets sonically.

S.
But isn't this Harbeth test about any amplifier regardless of how they measure? I agree with you about transparency but they all aren't at or close to that ideal

I don't want to criticise Avondale, I'm sure they would sound different (and measure differently, not that I have listened to their stuff to know either way)
 
But isn't this Harbeth test about any amplifier regardless of how they measure? I agree with you about transparency but they all aren't at or close to that ideal

I don't want to criticise Avondale, I'm sure they would sound different (and measure differently, not that I have listened to their stuff to know either way)

Serge,

Count to 10 before replying...


Sheeeeesh...
 
I agree that it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion, possibly the only reasonable conclusion. What I don't necessarily agree with, though, is that it was anything to do with the sound having changed, but with the amplifier itself, and your relationship with that amplifier that changed. This is impossible to prove other than with a blind test between the amplifiers.

S.

I'm not sure I understand your point. I don't really see how a blind test would prove anything about my relationship with the amplifier.

My point remains that, once the honeymoon period was over (we are talking about having relationships with our kit here, aren't we? ;)) a strong preference for one amplifier over the other has emerged and would have been most unlikely to emerge during an A/B test, whether or not that test conformed to the parameters set by Harbeth.
 
Maybe, maybe not.. problems are:

a) technical superiority is no guarantee of preference. e.g. I see plenty of peoples TVs with the colour turned right up because they honestly think its "better" despite the fact technically it's far less accurate. Same principle applies to audio.

b) Practically no one would actually be able to translate the measured performance to a system sound that they would actually enjoy more. It takes a lot of personal experience and experimentation to understand how just frequency response changes affect the overall sound of a system for example. Speaker developers may have a reasonable handle on it, joe public has no clue and therefore technical measurements are useless to them in terms of being able to make a choice. (see point a)

I don't really understand why it is that tone controls (graphic equalisers) are forbidden.
You could have whatever sound you want then. And there would be nothing to fight about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top