Originally Posted by noway1
True. Also consider that blind testing may not be a good method of evaluating audio components because listening fatigue quickly sets in and obscures any differences.
It is the only accurate method we have so that, if it is a poor method, then there is no good method. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that sighted testing is unreliable. Flat out proven. Period.
Also, you may need to evaluate for a longer period of time to assess the true nature.
It does take some time for a listener to become accustomed to a sonic presentation and experience has shown that familarity breeds happiness with audio components. However, it is useless to attempt to compare subtle sonic differences over periods of time more than a few minutes because our brains can't remember them much longer.
We tested this once with two pairs of B&W 801 speaker systems. The purpose of the test was to see if speakers break in or change their sound after a period of time. The dealer was setting up a new pair of 801's in his listening room. One of our group brought a pair that he had been using for almost two years. We did our usual bias controlled listening tests and found no sonic difference between them. That says something positive about B&W's quality control to be sure. The owner of the used pair of 801's was dead certain that they had "mellowed" with age. Luckily for him, they had not.
Take a girl out for a first date but only for 30 seconds and you may not experience enough to get a proper evaluation of her characteristics although you might be able to evaluate superficial things like looks, wealth, etc. Thirdly, some listeners just aren't experienced enough or talented enough to tell the difference.
Thanks but this is non sequitur. Evaluating human compatibility and subtle audible differences in sound have nothing to do with each other.
There is nothing wrong with this and these people will be happy with Walmart rack systems for $199. As the cost/complexity/resolution of speaker systems increase, their interraction with the amplifier can be more unpredictable.
I believe the opposite is true.
So although it may be difficult to hear the difference between a Sony receiver and a Krell on $100 Walmart speakers the differences will become apparent to most when driving $20,000 speakers that present difficult loads.
Again, non sequitur. If you judge sound from different speaker systems, that doesn't say anything at all about the how the amps sound. When we did our amplifer tests several years ago a 200 wpc Class A Krell was one of the subjects of the test. It sounded exactly the same as all the other solid state amps we tested that weekend. There was no Walmart product but there was a $150 Onkyo receiver as one of the test subjects. They were both tested driving B&W Matrix 802 speakers. That is good news, by the way. The object of amplifier design is to increase the amplitude of the waveforms without changing their shape. All the solid state amps and one of the tube amps did that.
Yes the Krell would be able to drive low impedance speakers louder than the Onkyo receiver, no doubt about that. But the sound was the same when both amps were working under conditions within their design parameters. Our issues have been about audibility, not low impedance performance. Nobody is arguing about low impedance performance.
This doesn't mean that everyone should spend big bucks on an amp.
No argument there.