I was resisting the urge to reply since it's fruitless, but Douglas and then freshcut's reply reinvigorated me.
To preface, for tubes vs. SS, I am in complete agreement their is an audible difference, and I don't think that's even being discussed anymore.
Originally Posted by idfnl
I'm not dismissing anything, what I'm saying is there is a big difference between what equipment measures and what is audible. I know the research you point to, but I return to the car analogy which I am not sure you understood... you can (for argument's sake) measure 2 cars to be identical in all kinds of key metrics, but you drive them and they feel completely different.
You can put a science hat on and claim its impossible since scientifically they measure the same, and I will say sure, they do but they cars feel completely different to me...
On the contrary, you obviously did not understand me in the slightest. You absolutely can not measure two cars identical in all quantifiable aspects that will feel different.
Here are useful articles on how dynamic measurements correlate to feel and feedback:
If they feel different, they measure different, period. There is not 6th-sense between car and man; it is fully tactile and obeys the laws of physics.
Just like an amp sounds much better when its warm and has been running a few hours. And that equipment needs break in time.
This is even more audiophile salesmanship bull. What adjusts to the sound is betwixt your ears, not the equipment. The degree to which electrical equipment undergoes any transformation is instantaneous and/or minute (ie within tolerance) enough to have no effect on the circuit.
Measurements are fine, but what really counts for me for an amplifier is how fast/slow it is, how musical or colored it is vs flat response, and most important of all its ability to produce resolution.
Slew rate, Jitter, THD, frequency response, resolution, dynamic range... these are all quantifiable. Any amp worth it's weight is flat 20hz-20khz, <0.10% THD, etc.
I cannot tell you how many reference recordings I have that I have tried on new amps and heard new nuances in the music... you can't really measure resolution, but you can sure hear it.
Haha, what? This is sampling rate and why the sell 24-bit, 352kHz "extreme-HD" recordings specifically to people like you. Sony & Phillips knew what they were doing when they created the Redbook format. The human hearing can not discern differences beyond 16bit/44.1kHz. I've hashed this over in this thread already discussing the merits of digital over analog, Nyquist et al.
You can't even hear the difference between uncompressed formats and a 320kpbs mp3. This has been documented ad naseum.
This site goes one further and does 128kpbs vs. 320kpbs: http://mp3ornot.com/
But ya, you sure can hear the difference in quality between a radio stream and a CD... and you can also measure it.
And finally, if you fail to hear a difference between a $399 best buy amp and a Pass Labs then fine, but its unfair to discount that others can and dismiss it as psychobabble.
It is highly unlikely you would be able to differentiate between comparable SS amplifiers in an proper level-matched double-blind (ABX) test, as no one else on the planet has been able to with any authority.
I proffer scientific studies and expert opinion and you are bringing evidence that is very personal, limited, anecdotal and linked to a vested interest in the audiophile industry. The burden of proof is on you.
Originally Posted by freshcutgrass
It seems to me that it was the SS fan that informs himself based purely on other people's opinion marauding as academic info.
Give me a break. The ABX tests are within strict adherence to the scientific method, and the 'other people' are well established with lofty credentials that make them much more of an authority on the subject than your own personal myopic standpoint.
The audiophile argument strongly parallels Science vs. Faith.
Anyway, I guess I'll go back to threads about shoes and leave you guys alone to continue your "which amp is good?" thread.