• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Watt nonsense!

62caddy said:
One of the best articles ever to appear in a major hi fi magazine. Written in a time when the audio press actually had the journalistic integrity to speak the truth. The article made the case - fairly conclusively and credibly - that differences in performance between various amplifier is likely to be imperceptible among a wide variety of listeners. To my knowledge, there has never been a study credibly showing statistically significant audible differences between competently designed amplifiers that are operated within their design limits. I'm truly saddened to hear that you "got over it". meaning that you have allowed yourself to betray your own reason in order to go along with some popular/cliquish narrative.

The following quote by Bertrand Russell sums up the situation perfectly-

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatsoever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
Click to expand...
That is absurd and not even close to the truth, if you cant hear the difference between 12 different amps then buy a clock radio and be finished.
 
Snow said:
That is absurd and not even close to the truth, if you cant hear the difference between 12 different amps then buy a clock radio and be finished.
Click to expand...

In the study there were many people who felt exactly the same as you - who had been humbled.

I doubt you even read the article and if not, I suggest you study & digest it thoroughly before commenting.

https://worldradiohistory.com/Archi...iFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf

Article starts page 80 of the pdf. Prepare to spend an hour.
 
Actually I have read it 30 or so years ago and felt it was nonsense then and my opinion has not changed since.. You could pick any 12 amps or receivers you wish and there is no doubt they will all sound differently to my ears some may be similar but they will all sound different to me. Honestly if you cant hear the difference between amps then just buy the cheapest piece of crap you can find and listen to it. I know you like Mcintosh amps other then their looks and ability to maintain or increase in value why would you own one if you cant hear a difference between it and a similar powered cheaper amp like a peavey? I know that musical memory does not last long for most folks but I bet if I were to take a 200 watt Mcintosh amp and a 200 watt peavey amp with the same preamp speakers and source and material playing at the same decibel level you would choose the Mcintosh every time in a blind test, if not then sell the mac and buy a cheap peavey.


Regards Snow
 
Last edited:
62caddy said:
In the study there were many people who felt exactly the same as you - who had been humbled.

I doubt you even read the article and if not, I suggest you study & digest it thoroughly before commenting.

https://worldradiohistory.com/Archi...iFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf

Article starts page 80 of the pdf. Prepare to spend an hour.
Click to expand...

The test is only valid for the pair of speakers used. Other speakers may have revealed larger differences in different areas of the audio band or in those intangables like imaging.
 
sberger said:
I've owned some pretty powerful amps but I'm done with them. These days, in my medium space, I enjoy McIntosh tube amps that are rated (conservatively) at between 25-40 watts, and I use them to drive speakers that are notoriously inefficient. These include AR3's, Allison One's, and Bozak 302's. While I hold no dispute with those that sprout the party line that those speakers are best used with amps that offer much more current and watts then my Mc's, for the music and listening levels that I prefer, those speakers sound fantastic to me with those amps. I've tried larger amps with all of them, and yes the sound is different, but simply not as engaging to me as the Mc's.

So once again it's a matter of taste, and everybody should use their own ears to decide on what works best for them.
Click to expand...
I believe the OP was talking about differences between SS amps and receivers not tube amps and preamps. I am of the belief that you cant compare the two different types in this case, for one thing tube amps sound louder at the same amount of watts being used secondly you can easily change the sound by changing tubes for example if you used cheap Chinese preamp tubes it would sound awful and if you changed to nice Telefunken or Mullard preamp tubes there would be a huge difference in sound.

Regards Snow
 
62caddy said:
In the study there were many people who felt exactly the same as you - who had been humbled.

I doubt you even read the article and if not, I suggest you study & digest it thoroughly before commenting.

https://worldradiohistory.com/Archi...iFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf

Article starts page 80 of the pdf. Prepare to spend an hour.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, I shall read it. I'll declare beforehand that I'm of the belief ("opinion"?) that there are audible differences between amps. I've heard them and doubt that I imagined them, but I'll read the article with interest.
 
Snow said:
Actually I have read it 30 or so years ago and felt it was nonsense then and my opinion has not changed since.. You could pick any 12 amps or receivers you wish and there is no doubt they will all sound differently to my ears some may be similar but they will all sound different to me. Honestly if you cant hear the difference between amps then just buy the cheapest piece of crap you can find and listen to it.
Click to expand...

That is the problem. You have only one way of thinking. There is nothing more to be done.
 
toddalin said:
The test is only valid for the pair of speakers used. Other speakers may have revealed larger differences in different areas of the audio band or in those intangables like imaging.
Click to expand...

The speakers and all ancillary equipment used was state of the art in 1987.
 
Snow said:
I cant change my way of thinking because I can hear a difference.

Regards Snow
Click to expand...

Well...saying and proving are two different things...;) Who knows, perhaps there are some slight discernable differences in certain cases. But I seriously doubt it's anything near the night/day difference it's made out to to be.

There is at least one documented case of the hi fi "guru" who's "upgraded" amplifier actually turned out to be a far worse performer than the model he had traded up from. According to Dave O'Brien, his reputation as an 'audio expert' was severely damaged after this episode.
 
Last edited:
Snow said:
Why do you like Mcintosh amps? Do they sound better or the same as other amps to your ears?

Regards Snow
Click to expand...

Because I appreciate McIntosh's heritage for engineering excellence & product longevity and quality, it's well supported for parts & service, strong resale value which usually means it can be sold for a profit after having been enjoyed for years (probably the single best reason of all) and Audio Classics is only an hour drive away from me. Plus I love the way it looks and sounds great to my ears. So you see, there are non-SQ-related considerations that are just as important.

If you ask whether my McIntosh audibly performs any better than any number of pieces I've had in the past, I honestly can't say. As it happens my favorite Mc of all is the MAC1500 which on paper should sound nowhere near as good as my Mc separates. But that's another story involving it's loudness comp circuit.
 
Last edited:
62caddy said:
Because I appreciate McIntosh's heritage for engineering excellence & product longevity and quality, it's well supported for parts & service, strong resale value which usually means it can be sold for a profit after having been enjoyed for years (probably the single best reason of all) and Audio Classics is only an hour drive away from me. Plus I love the way it looks and sounds great to my ears. So you see, there are reasons other than purely for SQ that are just as important.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with any of those reasons and feel they true and valid, I am just surprised that you cant hear the difference between your mc amp and some lesser one.


Regards Snow
 
Snow said:
I don't disagree with any of those reasons and feel they true and valid, I am just surprised that you cant hear the difference between your mc amp and some lesser one.
Click to expand...

The only "lesser" type unit I still have around is the Proton D940 receiver I bought new in '89.

Lately I have only used it as a stand in for its tuner section, I've never directly A/B'd its power amp section directly against any of my Mc amps but I've A/B'd many Mc amps against each other-including against the MAC1500 receiver. To be brutally honest I could never hear much of a difference between any of them including, pr MC30s, MC240, MC2505 (SS), a MAC4100 and the MAC1500 (all tone/EQ controls set to flat of course).

As to the D940's tuner section - I have to say it's much more advanced and quieter when dealing with weak signals than any of my Mc tuners.
 
rothwellaudio said:
Eh? :dunno: So you are saying that crossover distortion doesn't exist? Or not?
Click to expand...

Oh oh. I sense we are about to dive down a rabbit hole. Of course crossover distortion exists at some levels. But at very low levels all class AB amps are running in class A. Only at levels above this does the amp cross into class B. That is where crossover distortion happens. The level is determined by the bias current. So at very low levels there is no crossover distortion.
But that isn’t what I was pointing out. I was just saying that the reason you see the plot of %THD+N increasing at low levels is just due to the noise of the amp ( and measurement system). The constant noise level plotted as a percent of the decreasing signal level causes the plot to rise as the signal level gets smaller. The THD+N is constant, but the %THD+N increases as the signal level gets smaller. The distortion isn’t increasing. Distortion + noise is pretty constant but divide a constant number by a smaller number and the result gets bigger. So the plot rises as the signal decreases.
This is only an issue when the plot is percent THD+N. If you look at a plot of THD+N vs output level ( not in percent) then you won’t see this. The distortion plus noise will be constant at low levels.
The distortion gets smaller as the signal level decreases but at some level the noise starts to dominate. That’s the point on the plot where the line starts to increase as the signal level gets smaller.
 
62caddy said:
The only "lesser" type unit I still have around is the Proton D940 receiver I bought new in '89.

Lately I have only used it as a stand in for its tuner section, I've never directly A/B'd its power amp section directly against any of my Mc amps but I've A/B'd many Mc amps against each other-including against the MAC1500 receiver. To be brutally honest I could never hear much of a difference between any of them including, pr MC30s, MC240, MC2505 (SS), a MAC4100 and the MAC1500 (all tone/EQ controls set to flat of course).

As to the D940's tuner section - I have to say it's much more advanced and quieter when dealing with weak signals than any of my Mc tuners.
Click to expand...
Well I will just have to take your word for it. I have a brother who has eyesight like an eagle it must be 20/10 or better because I kid you not he can read a license plate a half a mile away easily where as I can barely see across a small room but I have always had exceptional hearing I used to joke that I could hear a mouse fart in a hurricane and tell you it's location. I forget sometimes that not everyone possesses the same hearing eyesight sense of smell ETC.


Regards Snow
 
62caddy said:
The speakers and all ancillary equipment used was state of the art in 1987.
Click to expand...
While I found that the Magneplanar MG-III was an excellent design (owned the MG-II myself), state of the art it was not. That would be the domain of speakers like the Infinity IRS, Dayton-Wright XG-10, Acoustat 8, among others.

The real problem with the test is the uncontrolled assumptions made by using the ABX box. Someone else recently referenced that aged test and I linked to what Frank Van Alstine (not exactly a flake) observed in this post.
 
TerryS said:
Oh oh. I sense we are about to dive down a rabbit hole. Of course crossover distortion exists at some levels. But at very low levels all class AB amps are running in class A. Only at levels above this does the amp cross into class B. That is where crossover distortion happens. The level is determined by the bias current. So at very low levels there is no crossover distortion.
But that isn’t what I was pointing out. I was just saying that the reason you see the plot of %THD+N increasing at low levels is just due to the noise of the amp ( and measurement system). The constant noise level plotted as a percent of the decreasing signal level causes the plot to rise as the signal level gets smaller. The THD+N is constant, but the %THD+N increases as the signal level gets smaller. The distortion isn’t increasing. Distortion + noise is pretty constant but divide a constant number by a smaller number and the result gets bigger. So the plot rises as the signal decreases.
This is only an issue when the plot is percent THD+N. If you look at a plot of THD+N vs output level ( not in percent) then you won’t see this. The distortion plus noise will be constant at low levels.
The distortion gets smaller as the signal level decreases but at some level the noise starts to dominate. That’s the point on the plot where the line starts to increase as the signal level gets smaller.
Click to expand...
Did you even look at the link I posted?
 
rothwellaudio said:
Did you even look at the link I posted?
Click to expand...
Yes, of course I looked at it. But you are missing the point. You don’t have to take my word for it. Take a piece of graph paper , a pencil and a pocket calculator. Plot the % THD + N vs signal level for a mythical amp with zero distortion, only a constant noise. So you are just plotting a constant noise voltage against a signal level. The plot will look just like the portion of a %THD+N vs signal level of any amp at low levels (well below a watt). It is just the nature of that kind of plot. When you see a distortion plot that has that characteristic then you know the noise level is more significant than the distortion level at those levels. That’s all I was trying to point out. But I guess I did it poorly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom