Originally Posted by urapnes1
Originally Posted by KidHorn
I'm glad you posted this because I have an amp that sounds better than my receivers too. I'm sick of people stating that I didn't do a double blind, bla, bla bla... Seriously, do they think everyone's opinion is moot unless they setup an extensive test. It's not a huge difference, but I can hear it in certain passages. I'm not imagining it.
I generally don't recommend buying separates because the differences, in most cases, doesn't justify the cost.
Yeah, in normal conditions there should not be a difference between 2 amps, signal goes in, gets bigger, comes out. But I don't think we should take manufacturer ratings as gospel either. I agree that two amps should always be 100% equal across all frequencies at all impedences, etc but I don't believe that this is possible in real life, not at the price points we are talking about. I also believe that manufacturing defects can and do happen which may cause an amp to run at less than perfect operation. If a cap was poorly soldered or a card not fully seated, there would be a reduction in the current being able to be supplied. My point is that words like always, must, every, are troubling because they fail to take into account real world events which can have an effect.
When I can, I look at AVRs from the standpoint of their service manuals, which include schematics. AVR power amps use many of the same circuits and output devices as separates. So there is no lacking there. They are often less beefy in the realm of power supplies and heat sinks, but for month or three I've been using technical arguments to explain why that doesn't have to be a problem.
My comments on the differences between bench tests and actual use are partially based on my experience with doing bench tests of power amps since I was 13 - now over 54 years. Besides being a music lover, I'm a test equipment junkie and among other things have two operational Audio Precision test sets in my lab.
One of the more enlightening experiences was a day several years ago where a friend (Tom Nousaine then of Sound and Vision) and I tested about 10 amps in a day. This is no mean feat and the centerpiece of the testing involved playing a recording of test tones and music into both resistive and loudspeaker loads and recording the output of the amps with a fantastically clean new audio interface. It quickly became apparent that the segments of the tests involving test tones and resistive loads put a ton more stress on the amps then the segments involving music and speaker loads.
I'm sick of people stating that I didn't do a double blind, bla, bla bla... Seriously, do they think everyone's opinion is moot unless they setup an extensive test.
You seem to have zero practical experience with the difference between sighted evaluations and well-done listening tests. In about 95% of all cases they change people's thinking away from where you are now in short order. The other 5% are dealers, high end manufacturers, and die hard true believers. The tech staff of mainstream manufacturers are usually as quickly convinced as everybody else.
The reason why people think that opinions are moot unless people do proper listening tests is because of the evidence of their ears. It changes dramatically when you level match, time synch, blind, and provide people with the opportunity to quick switch when they want to. Being able to do those things dramatically improves your true ability to hear small differences. That is one of the things under the heading of "The evidence of your ears".
If you haven't had the experience, you really have very little to say but "When can I do a blind test?" ;-)