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

[Arkless Electronics]

Jez,

No one here or anywhere else doubts the fact that when amplifiers get closer to perfection their sound differences will converge and ultimately disappear once perfection is achieved one day but that's not what's being argued here. What's being argued is whether all competently designed amplifiers currently in existence and operated within design parameters will sound alike and not be distinguishable in blind tests:

"If, in a controlled experiment with all variables accounted for (incl. differences in frequency reponse and within the power range appropriate to the amps) under instantaneous A-B relay switchover, driving any Harbeth speakers, if you can positively identify an amplifier by sound alone, I will give you, FOC, a pair of brand new Harbeth speakers, up to and including a pair of M40.1 in any veneer you fancy.

I am quite confident that under controlled conditions, these fabled amplifier differences disappear and that I will never be parting with my money!..."

Forgetting tests, do you believe competently designed amplifiers sound the same when operated within their design parameters while playing music? For example, if we demmed a Levinson, Krell, Naim, Meridian and Yamaha amp with matched volume levels and a speaker that did not stress any of these amps do you believe you'd hear a difference between them blind or sighted?

regards,

dave

I do not believe for one moment that all amplifiers sound the same! There would not be much point in my striving for perfection in the amps I design and in my offering an upgrade service if I did believe that

However, the differences between the best, most "competently designed" amplifiers, are not huge and when correctly level matched etc it can be very difficult to tell them apart.

Many of today's valve amplifiers would probably be quite easy to pick out in such a test. Especially as standards seem to be going downhill in the design of valve amps..... Leak, Quad, Radford, the Williamson amp and the designs from Mullard were all offering 0.1% THD or better and damping factors of at least 10 or more way back in the day (I actually measured a Quad ll at around 0.05%). Many of today's offerings fail to match this performance! A SET amp should be very easy to pick out (should stick out like a sore thumb in fact) as they just don't meet the minimum criterion to be called hifi! Any amp with 2-3% THD, an output impedance of 1.5 Ohms and a dodgy frequency response is NOT competently designed... but it is what you will end up with if you build a zero feedback SET.

Oh... and yes I do repair them even if I don't like them! Can't afford to be partisan in business!

 

[whatsnext]

Why can only some people mainly calling themselves subjectivists hear differences and only under certain circumstances? So you sometimes hear differences but not always on the same combination.
Sounds like these differences are small and hardly worth the fuss.
Me I dont have a strong view either way and cannot be bothered to setup a valid test.
Carry on.

 

[Brian]

The test is biased toward the manufacturer of expensive loudspeakers proving cheap electronics sound the same as expensive electronics. What's the surprise there?

 

[Robert]

Alan does not believe it, it is knowledge, based on many tests. He is putting his money down to make those willing to further test his point. He is a respected manufacturer with a viable business not a bat eared music lover with nothing to lose but the pride in their beliefs.
If the opposite view is held by others and they are willing to test their view/ belief/knowledge, they can. I don't think he is particularly interested in others beliefs, just wanting the vocal ones to "put up or shut up".
I like the way he has stipulated the basic rules but left the hardware to the challengers, this gives less ammunition for the naysayers but has not put them off entirely I see, the ability to hear a switch, his speakers are so rubbish you could not usefully use them or being a music lover means the inability to devise a test being the most delicious examples.

Good post, and as you say, Alan isn't actually that interested because he's put aside the time, done the blind testing and settled the issue in his own mind.
I've done the same thing which means all this talk is no longer an issue for me, but I still enjoy demonstrating these things to others (and do reasonably often) and seeing people 'wise-up'.

Its worth noting that this 'challenge' appeared some way down a thread buried way down the page on the Harbeth user group. He's hardly shouting about it, and quite rightly since the issue isn't on the agenda for most people.

 

[Brian]

I do not believe for one moment that all amplifiers sound the same! There would not be much point in my striving for perfection in the amps I design and in my offering an upgrade service if I did believe that

However, the differences between the best, most "competently designed" amplifiers, are not huge and when correctly level matched etc it can be very difficult to tell them apart.

Many of today's valve amplifiers would probably be quite easy to pick out in such a test. Especially as standards seem to be going downhill in the design of valve amps..... Leak, Quad, Radford, the Williamson amp and the designs from Mullard were all offering 0.1% THD or better and damping factors of at least 10 or more way back in the day (I actually measured a Quad ll at around 0.05%). Many of today's offerings fail to match this performance! A SET amp should be very easy to pick out (should stick out like a sore thumb in fact) as they just don't meet the minimum criterion to be called hifi! Any amp with 2-3% THD, an output impedance of 1.5 Ohms and a dodgy frequency response is NOT competently designed... but it is what you will end up with if you build a zero feedback SET.

Oh... and yes I do repair them even if I don't like them! Can't afford to be partisan in business!

Why do they sound good? Or at least some, 'cos like anything else, I've heard good and bad.

 

[Robert]

The test is biased toward the manufacturer of expensive loudspeakers proving cheap electronics sound the same as expensive electronics. What's the surprise there?

The surprise is that Harbeth aren't shouting about it or publicising this in any way.
You are, and the good folk of pfm.

 

[Arkless Electronics]

Alan does not believe it, it is knowledge, based on many tests. He is putting his money down to make those willing to further test his point. He is a respected manufacturer with a viable business not a bat eared music lover with nothing to lose but the pride in their beliefs.
If the opposite view is held by others and they are willing to test their view/ belief/knowledge, they can. I don't think he is particularly interested in others beliefs, just wanting the vocal ones to "put up or shut up".
I like the way he has stipulated the basic rules but left the hardware to the challengers, this gives less ammunition for the naysayers but has not put them off entirely I see, the ability to hear a switch, his speakers are so rubbish you could not usefully use them or being a music lover means the inability to devise a test being the most delicious examples.

+1 Well said that man

 

[Brian]

I do not believe for one moment that all amplifiers sound the same! There would not be much point in my striving for perfection in the amps I design and in my offering an upgrade service if I did believe that

However, the differences between the best, most "competently designed" amplifiers, are not huge and when correctly level matched etc it can be very difficult to tell them apart.

Many of today's valve amplifiers would probably be quite easy to pick out in such a test. Especially as standards seem to be going downhill in the design of valve amps..... Leak, Quad, Radford, the Williamson amp and the designs from Mullard were all offering 0.1% THD or better and damping factors of at least 10 or more way back in the day (I actually measured a Quad ll at around 0.05%). Many of today's offerings fail to match this performance! A SET amp should be very easy to pick out (should stick out like a sore thumb in fact) as they just don't meet the minimum criterion to be called hifi! Any amp with 2-3% THD, an output impedance of 1.5 Ohms and a dodgy frequency response is NOT competently designed... but it is what you will end up with if you build a zero feedback SET.

Oh... and yes I do repair them even if I don't like them! Can't afford to be partisan in business!

The surprise is that Harbeth aren't shouting about it or publicising this in any way.
You are, and the good folk of pfm.

Daft comment. That was my first post in this thread and it's an accurate one, I'm hardly shouting about anything.

It's clearly in the interest of anyone manufacturing expensive loudspeakers to claim electronics are not important.

 

[Robert]

Why do they sound good? Or at least some, 'cos like anything else, I've heard good and bad.

Good sound is easy to achieve with even pretty crummy electronics.
My electrostatics sound great driven by 12w T amp that cost me £15 and runs on a pack of AA batteries.

The bar for getting enjoyable sound from electronics does't need to be very high.
It needs to be set much higher for electro-mechanical devices, which is why for example cheap turntables and cartridges sound pretty rough.

I'm not advocating the use of a shitty little T amp, because spending as bit more does give you better sound, but it still gives enjoyable results.

 

[Arkless Electronics]

Why do they sound good? Or at least some, 'cos like anything else, I've heard good and bad.

They don't! I've yet to hear an SET that wouldn't be blown out of the water by even a NAD 3020.
In conjunction with suitable speakers they may well make a "nice" sound to some peoples ears.... in the same way as old radiograms were described as having "a nice tone". They certainly ain't hifi though. By Allan Shaw's criterion of testing against live speech and music (which has to be the ultimate test of how HIGH the FIDELITY is!) I reckon a SET would be ruled out of the running after a few seconds

 

[Robert]

Daft comment. That was my first post in this thread and it's an accurate one, I'm hardly shouting about anything.

It's clearly in the interest of anyone manufacturing expensive loudspeakers to claim electronics are not important.

Your comment is inaccurate - go and read the Harbeth user group.

It could be in the interest of anyone manufacturing expensive loudspeakers to claim electronics are not important.

Plus of course he's saying no such thing. Electronics are clearly extremely important given they need to reach an acceptable level of performance.
Alan Shaw simply argues that the focus be placed on build quality, facilities, aesthetics and after care service.

You'd know this if you'd bothered to read the stuff over at Harbeth.

 

[Brian]

Why do they sound good? Or at least some, 'cos like anything else, I've heard good and bad.

They don't! I've yet to hear an SET that wouldn't be blown out of the water by even a NAD 3020.
In conjunction with suitable speakers they may well make a "nice" sound to some peoples ears.... in the same way as old radiograms were described as having "a nice tone". They certainly ain't hifi though. By Allan Shaw's criterion of testing against live speech and music (which has to be the ultimate test of how HIGH the FIDELITY is!) I reckon a SET would be ruled out of the running after a few seconds

That's your opinion. In my opinion I've heard quite a few SET amps that sound way better than a NAD3020, and I've heard a NAD 3020 in my own home.

You have a weird notion of hifi.

 

[Brian]

Your comment is inaccurate - go and read the Harbeth user group.

It could be in the interest of anyone manufacturing expensive loudspeakers to claim electronics are not important.

Plus of course he's saying no such thing. Electronics are clearly extremely important given they need to reach an acceptable level of performance.
Alan Shaw simply argues that the focus be placed on build quality, facilities, aesthetics and after care service.

You'd know this if you'd bothered to read the stuff over at Harbeth.

Ok, I did as you suggested.

Going along with this obvious publicity stunt I've just read the stuff below from the Harbeth website where I found some items that might be of interest to you Rob, given that like Serge, I expect you believe Mr Shaw has a lack of tolerance for the typical audiophool (as described by Serge and others, not Mr Shaw).

"We know exactly how to deliver musicality and a lifetime of listening pleasure"

Q. How do you measure "musicality" exactly?
Q. How do you measure "listening pleasure" exactly?

Rob, I'm expecting you'll confirm for everyone here that in fact you can't measure those things, they are both "audiophool" waffle but were taken directly from the Harbeth website.

What about this bit:
An entire generation of listeners have enjoyed around five million hours of listening to music on Harbeths - proof that the Harbeth formulae for natural sound at home is truly unbeatable.

An entire generation, then. Well that's quite a boast but what does it mean exactly and how did they come up with that?

Natural sound? Q. How do you measure that?

From reading the blurb it seems Harbeth have some mysterious thing called RADIAL going for them, maybe that's the key? Anyway, we'll never know 'cos they won't be telling.

What we do know is these speakers apparently sound the same with a cheap Behringer as they do with a decent amplifier, so don't buy the decent amplifier, buy the cheap Behringer instead and you'll have more money left over for a natural sounding pair of loudspeakers that are musical and will increase your listening pleasure.

I think it's about company profile and sales and that's all it is.

 

[Steven Toy]

Great post Brian.

 

[Joe P]

Jez,

Many of today's valve amplifiers would probably be quite easy to pick out in such a test. Especially as standards seem to be going downhill in the design of valve amps..... Leak, Quad, Radford, the Williamson amp and the designs from Mullard were all offering 0.1% THD or better and damping factors of at least 10 or more way back in the day (I actually measured a Quad ll at around 0.05%). Many of today's offerings fail to match this performance!

What solid state amp would you recommend to the discerning gentleman with vintage British speakers dating to the late 1950s?

Joe

 

[droodzilla]

To those picking fault with the terms of the test, why not direct your concerns directly to Alan Shaw? For example, regarding listening fatigue, has Alan actually insisted the test be carried out in a single sitting? Anyway, he's obviously an approachable chap who posts regularly on the Harbeth User Group, so why not ask him.

Maybe you could reach an agreement and then go on to demonstrate the differences between amplifiers that are so evident to you. If I were that confident, the prospect of earning £8K for - what? a day's work - would be more than enough to make me want to pursue this further.

Instead, I see nothing but squirming and ad hominem attacks on someone who, as far as I can tell, has a lot of integrity by the usual standards of the hi-fi trade.

Threads like this convince me, more than ever, that there is a huge amount of bullshit spoken about hi-fi, and that I will be better off buying a cheap but competent amp and be done with it.

 

[Steven Toy]

It's a free world.

 

[Michael P]

He's said that like us he's heard clear differences between power amplifiers in sighted tests, but (unlike the majority of people decrying this) he tested them in a blind abx test to remove the psychological factor of visual identification and found he couldn't tell them apart. He's inviting anyone to try the same test, and he's generously offered a prize as an incentive towards taking this entirely logical next step.

All seems perfectly reasonable to me. What seems unreasonable is turning this into something it is not, like a statement that he's "claiming electronics are not important", or that he's deliberately rigged the test, or plucking sentences from his website to attack him on a different front rather than honestly engage with his argument. He's not trying to persuade you that your god doesn't exist, or your wife is ugly, or anything that you could understandably get worked up about. It is just a simple test of a part of a hi-fi, with nothing to lose and the potential to either win new speakers, or gain a little insight into the fascinating area of psycho-acoustics.

 

[avole]

The switch remains a requirement though for some inexplicable reason. Equally inexplicable is the requirement to get it right 60/100 times, presumably to induce listener fatigue, instead of 18/20 which would still be statistically significant.

This is nothing more than a publicity stunt and a marketing strategy that says spend the bulk of your money on speakers, our speakers.

You're saying this because, like so many others, this has you running scared. Not only does it challenge your beliefs, but is forcing you into a kind of hi-fi self examination which you're not finding pleasurable.

I suggest you do the right thing and contact Harbeth tomorrow and find out more about the challenge and what lies behind it, rather than make allegations based on pure ignorance.

That goes for Brian, as well, who seems to have joined the "let's discredit the test" in case it might be true.

Cowards! Put your libels where your mouths are and accept the challenge. No-one is really going to care anyway, but I'm sure you'll find reasons to discredit the results and live happily ever after in the event of a catastrophe.

 

[droodzilla]

Agreed. Contact Alan Shaw and agree the terms. Do the test, collect your £8K speakers and flog them for £6K. Nice work if you can get it, surely?