Originally Posted by runnin'
You say that I can't use anecdotal evidence of my experience to suggest that if 2 amps can sound different, then it may be possible that all amps do not sound the same. Then you use anecdotal evidence of this fellow ripping music to prove your point. Sorry if I remain unconvinced.
Not sure what you are reading from my post, but you might want to re-read it.
I am saying that you can't "disprove" using anecdotal evidence. I used an anecdote to show you that someone who did exactly as you did, finally came around.
The parallels are very clear. You claim that in your two samples, that under conditions where neither of your test candidates are stressed that there is a difference. This other gentleman did the same. People chimed in with science to suggest that unless there is something faulty or suspicious about the testing, then there should not be a difference. You continue to cling onto the fact that your test sample of two is "proof" that these science folk are wrong, same as the other gentleman clung onto the fact that he can "hear" a difference between the two formats that lossless was not lossless. Only difference now is that you are not yet at the stage to find out what it is that is causing this difference between your sample of two, whereas the other gentleman had discovered the cause for the differences he perceived. In your case, figuring out what is causing the differences is much harder.
A lot of times, we use car analogies as it is easier to understand, they are usually not perfect parallels, but if you limit the comparison enough, then it should help.
e.g. lets compare the job of an amplifier with the speed of a car. Within the comfort zone (speed limits of each vehicle) then two cars, a ferrari and a toyota corolla should exhibit no difference in speed when they are doing 60km/h - or put another way, there is no way that the ferrari can do 60km/h faster than a corolla can do 60km/h. 60km/h IS 60km/h. Inevitably someone will bring up the whole, "but the ferrari will be able to accelerate to 60km/h faster, it is able to do 60km/h more effortlessly or it might be more comfortable at 60km/h or more surefooted or that there are differences in efficiency" etc. etc. This goes back to the statement made earlier that an amplifier is not a tone control, that we are not discussing comparisons where one is stressed and the other is not, nor are comparing efficiencies of the various topologies or the quality of the DAC etc. etc. The job of an amplifier is well understood, just as travelling at a specific speed is understood. All those other touchy feely aspects that go about drawing one person towards one product over another is not in discussion so please do not misunderstand. I've nothing against power amps, nor do I have anything against expensive power amps. There are a lot of good reasons to spend more for an amplifier, e.g. the build quality, the after sales service, the look, the reserve power, the heat dissipation capability, the quality control to reduce sample variance, the design used to reduce possible degradation from particular installations (e.g. balanced connections for longer runs) etc. etc.
Myself, I like power amps because I did not want to have to upgrade AVRs each time a new audio format came out. If buying today, I'd have to carefully consider things as AVRs are getting to be very full featured and technology like room correction has a far greater impact than the quality of the amp, the quality of the DAC. That is not to say the amp will go to waste as I common complaint a lot of these AVRs get is that they overheat etc. so having the amplification offloaded is a nice thing to have. This is kind of getting off topic though.