No reason I can think of, although you'd need a power amp to go with the 552, a 500 would be the obvious choice.
Precisely level matched to 0.1dB and unaware of which amp were playing, I'd doubt you'd do better than 50%.
Challenge From Harbeth - Free M40.1 For Those Who Can Identify Amplifier Differences
- Thread starter ryder
- Start date
- Status
No reason I can think of, although you'd need a power amp to go with the 552, a 500 would be the obvious choice.
Precisely level matched to 0.1dB and unaware of which amp were playing, I'd doubt you'd do better than 50%.
^This article needs additional citations for verification.^
Dinovector
pfm Member
So are the likes of Teddy Pardo, LesW are conning us all? (my apologies to both of you, I don't believe that)
Not intentionally*, you see I own an Avondale amp and have compared it with a couple of cheap integrateds blind and level matched... can you guess what the outcome was?
*You see to sell to the hard-core audiophool, these guys have to play the game else they'd simply not sell a thing.
Dinovector
pfm Member
So they're audiophools as well?
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I've just taken a look at that link. It cites the j-n-d as being the sort of tool used to develop processes such as lossy compression such that the losses remain below the j-n-d threshold.
Without wishing to light any fires on here, I am assuming that there is broad agreement among us that lossy compression (eg MP3) is clearly audible.
Does that suggest, perhaps, that there are different levels for the j-n-d and that, as audiophiles, we may be in a minority which perceives those differences, where the majority either don't, or don't consider them important. After all, we go to some trouble and expense to get a higher than average standard of replay quality for our music, and the great majority of people don't, and don't seem to care. That might suggest we perceive something as important which many do not.
I'm not suggesting any sort of golden-ears, merely that there is invariably a continuum in most aspects of human behaviour, a sort of bell-curve of typical and atypical behaviour and response. Perhaps audiophiles are skewed towards one end of that bell-curve as far as music perception is concerned.
Hey Sheldon!*
I'm not so sure any more, well seeing as the NAP 90 it replaced only had one channel, then yes, by having two working channels the 260 was 'better'...
But, back then I knew not of level matching and how important it is, had I known then what I know now, I'd have bought a Quad 34/306 and that would have been that, until I added the TV and DVD's to the system and more inputs were needed.
But when I compared it to a cheapie Marantz and Cambridge integrateds, and listened to both at the same volume, then I couldn't tell them apart...
They were all transparent, simply sounding like the CD being played.
Perhaps if I were using speakers like Saras, which are a legendary tough load for an amp and need plenty of Horse power, but I've always used efficient speakers, not as efficient as yours, of course... like royds and now the SHL5's so pretty much anything will drive them.
And now I listen to more music than ever before, all from a 200 squid squeezebox!
Of course being retired helps a bit, oh music, I have another recomendation for you, Britten String Quartets:
Available in Canada too
http://www.amazon.ca/Complete-String-Quartets-Britten-Benjamin/dp/B003BLFZFU/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1334333635&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Britten-Complete-Quartets-The-Quartet/dp/B003BLFZFU/ref=sr_1_2?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1334333161&sr=1-2
Superb!
*Damn you Mr P, caught a few eps from S5 BB, and of course you're right, it is funny... The one with Wil Wheaton... rofl!!!!!
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
No, not necessarily. MP3s above 256kbps have been shown in blind tests to be indistinguishable from the originals. Without an AB comparison against the original, my own tests show me that there's nothing obviously wrong with MP3s at far lower bit rates depending on programme content, such that I was unaware if the original CD or an MP3 was playing. It was only with a AB switched comparison that the MP3 showed up more or less clearly.
S.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
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?
The point was that one amplifier satisfied you more than the other. That's accepted. What I don't accept is that this had necessarily anything to do with audio quality. If you had done a blind AB test, and clearly came out in favour of one amplifier over the other, then it might have been a different argument, but as it is, all we can agree on is that you prefer to own one amplifier over the other, not that there's necessarily any sonic difference between them.
S.
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
FFS Serge, where's your rigour?
Under certain test conditions with certain listeners higher bit rate mp3 could not be identified. They were most definitely not indistinguishable as many people tested in a number of robust trials have clearly been able to detect them time and time again. if they were indistinguishable then no one would ever be able to pick them and that is not the case.
Closer to the truth to say that most people cannot tell them apart.
Joe P
Memory Alpha incarnate | mod; Shatner number = 2
Baz,
I agree that level matching tends to be a leveller of performance, but I still don't think all competent amps sound the same. As as example, to my ears a pair of 135s is better than a 110 even if the load is benign and both amps are running well within their comfort zones.
I know it's become fashionable to dismiss all subjective accounts as unproven pseudoscientific nonsense, but I'm right so bite me.*
Joe
* ;-)
I agree that level matching tends to be a leveller of performance, but I still don't think all competent amps sound the same. As as example, to my ears a pair of 135s is better than a 110 even if the load is benign and both amps are running well within their comfort zones.
I know it's become fashionable to dismiss all subjective accounts as unproven pseudoscientific nonsense, but I'm right so bite me.*
Joe
* ;-)
And that's the problem, yes I know it was a joke, I do get them occasionally... but just how far would 'but I'm right so bite me.' get you when being peer reviewed?
[YOUTUBE]OHQVKu2guWQ&NR=1[/YOUTUBE]
Brian
Eating fat, staying slim
I've never bought anything based on how I feel.
I bought a Naim 42.5/110 based on the fact I preferred how it looked over a Quad 34/405, I couldn't tell any difference in the sound between them and I wasn't wearing a blindfold at the time. You need to stop believing everyone suffers the same limitations.
It's not a problem for most people, probably around 99.9999% of the planet. If you prefer what others believe to be "harsh"....so what?
You let people buy (spend their own money on) what they prefer for whatever reason they may prefer it. The majority don't understand measurements, it's meaningless to most people, they have to buy based on what they hear or simply like the look of.Serge said:
So your tests told you it was fine then listening told you it was inferior.
Have to include this one just for grins..
Dinovector
pfm Member
Winding up aside and I apologise Basil, I do agree with this point of view, maybe I am an audiophool but at this point I'm 100% certain I can hear differences when changing equipment, not straight away it can take time but they are there I'm convinced. Like Sue above, they aren't always obvious but they become apparent, you hear things you couldn't before or vice versa, the tone (colouration) is more in your preference. And to be honest it's the only way I can see how the hell I've ended up with such a butt ugly set of amps!
sergeauckland
pfm Member
What I was referring to was some tests done on MP2 and MP3 codecs, but I can't now find the reference. It's not the one I have on my web site, http://sites.google.com/site/audiopages/Codecevaluationtests.pdf?attredirects=0 which compared different types of codecs at lower bit rates. The conclusion was that at 256kbps, statistically no-one could tell the original 16/44.1 material from the MP3. If you can give me a reference that shows differently, I'd be grateful. You can PM me the information to avoid cluttering up this thread.
S.
darrylfunk
Banned
the mp3 vs other is not relevant.
can people consistently id volume matched amps that either null test well and a technically close to a straight wire with gain in un clipped conditions blind.
probably not according to most data from test of the last 50 years.
do avondale and naim amps sound different when volume matched....i'd suggest they may sound a bit different but it would probably be due to a factor that could be explained by measuring them.
do naim amps sound good - obviously they are capable of sounding good in a matched system.
do some valve amps offer a similar enjoyable sound - obviously yes in a well matched system.
sadly abusive nonsense spouted aggressively will put pay to a proper discussion as people are entrenched.
why can't we know what amps people are talking about to....
for instance we know many valve amps can or do not have good damping factors and also poor output impedance so have to be used with gear that has this taken into account.
the fact is that our hearing perception is complex and easily fooled whereas electronics have been virtually transparent if the designer chooses for years and years.....
if people are not volume matching properly within 0.1 db when comparing gear all bets are off.....
can people consistently id volume matched amps that either null test well and a technically close to a straight wire with gain in un clipped conditions blind.
probably not according to most data from test of the last 50 years.
do avondale and naim amps sound different when volume matched....i'd suggest they may sound a bit different but it would probably be due to a factor that could be explained by measuring them.
do naim amps sound good - obviously they are capable of sounding good in a matched system.
do some valve amps offer a similar enjoyable sound - obviously yes in a well matched system.
sadly abusive nonsense spouted aggressively will put pay to a proper discussion as people are entrenched.
why can't we know what amps people are talking about to....
for instance we know many valve amps can or do not have good damping factors and also poor output impedance so have to be used with gear that has this taken into account.
the fact is that our hearing perception is complex and easily fooled whereas electronics have been virtually transparent if the designer chooses for years and years.....
if people are not volume matching properly within 0.1 db when comparing gear all bets are off.....
- Status