McIntosh Amps

[whitedragon551 5,000+ posts]

If you keep all else in the study the same so that the only changing variable is the amplifier, and study participants can only tell which amp is which 50% of the time then you have pretty conclusivly demonstrated there are not audible differences between a 200$ amp and a 6000$ one. If there is something wrong with this methodology please describe it. Ive seen many of the discussions on this topic on many different boards and not seen a convincing argument that this is an invalid conclusion. Im not going to search through your 5800 posts to find your argument. If youve made it once it should be easy to make it again

By keeping everything the same you assume every amp has the same crossover sections, components, and tolerances when in reality they are vastly different.

 

[JimJ 5,000+ posts]

I wouldn't discredit ABX testing, but buying an amp based solely on the argument that it measures the same as an Audiopipe isn't exactly how I'd go shopping, either.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

Then that is your loss. Bottom line is that test only shows a watt is a watt and nothing else. There is more to an amplifier then just creating a watt. Just about everyone knows this. Perhaps you should reread the rules with an open mind and find the conclusion for yourself. It would seem you have made up your mind in this situation and there is not need to post further in hopes of educating anyone in this matter. If you wish to discuss this feel free to PM me at your convince and I will get back to as I have time to respond to your questions.

By keeping everything the same you assume every amp has the same crossover sections, components, and tolerances when in reality they are vastly different.

It doesnt matter if the the amplifiers have different components, topoligies, etc. Thats the very thing in question: does the more expensivly engineered product justify its cost? You test this by determining whether the human ear can distinguish between one or the other. This is about as simple as an experiment in science gets.

Editors of Stereo Review magazine (now called Sound and Vision) conducted a high profile test of their own, recruiting expert double blind tester David Clark of DLC Designs (who does such tests professionally for CD players and hi-fi VCRs). The test was reported in detail by Ian G. Masters and published in Stereo Review magazine. The test was designed to be as objective as possible, using the same system, speakers, playback etc. They had a panel that consisted of some 25 listeners all audio/hi-fi professionals with an equal number of hi-fi objectivists who believed there would be little to no perceptible difference between amplifiers, and audiophiles who believed there was a huge difference between expensive or tube amps and their cheaper counterparts.

-----------------------

It would seem you have made up your mind in this situation and there is not need to post further in hopes of educating anyone in this matter. If you wish to discuss this feel free to PM me at your convince and I will get back to as I have time to respond to your questions.

This is how an argument works: two people with opposing positions defend their own arguments and attack the other's. Depending on how much evidence is provided and how convincing that evidence is, one position will become increasingly untenable. If you dont want to participate in this i dont know why you bothered commenting on the thread to begin with.

 

[pro-rabbit 5,000+ posts]

I wouldn't discredit ABX testing, but buying an amp based solely on the argument that it measures the same as an Audiopipe isn't exactly how I'd go shopping, either.

The only thing worth credit in that test is that you can say a watt is a watt. It has no other bearing on anything audio past that point. And yes, no one should bases their purchase of such a test or anyone's test for that matter. No matter the situation, person, or product there is a since of bias in all real tests of product.

Commented because this has been discussed at great length many times. It has always ended with this "test" if you want to call it that is only proving that a watt is a watt when each watt is adjusted to match each other. When this is done you have achieved nothing but generate the exact same watt with in limited guidelines which are not in any way similar to an actual application.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

I wouldn't discredit ABX testing, but buying an amp based solely on the argument that it measures the same as an Audiopipe isn't exactly how I'd go shopping, either.

This is an important point to make and it is why i quoted and bolded these comments from the provided link:

When it came down to the blind A-B testing of the 25 testers, only 3 participants scored 60% or greater correct when they guessed which amp was which, when comparing between two. Nobody got higher than a 63% score. Most amazing was that in testing between the Pioneer amp and the Futterman array, only 114 of 212 listeners could tell the difference -- thats a 54% correct guess! This is the most extreme example: audiophiles not able to tell the difference between a $200 Pioneer receiver and a $12,000 separate mono-block tube amp array with separate power supplies.
$200 Pioneer amp sounds like a $6,000 mono - block tube array

What does it mean? It means that people who advise you to buy expensive amplifiers because they believe amps contribute coloration to acoustic quality probably couldnt tell the difference between their favorite exotic amp and a $200 Pioneer. It doesnt mean that you should only choose the cheapest amp you can. There are other considerations not the least of which is the longevity of the unit. A $200 receiver is more likely to have a short lifespan, but a decent quality power amp could last a lifetime. There are also other considerations: the one thing that will certainly present problems is clipping. In the test they set the gain equally to all amps, so there was no difference in the power output, and the gain was set well within the specified limitations of the amp itself. This might not be the case at home; the speakers you use could be of all different efficiency ratings. You have to ensure your amp has plenty of reserve power for handling spikes in the soundtrack without clipping. Clipping is distortion, and distortion is the simple explanation for the coloration people claim to hear from certain amps. So, the weak highs or muddy bass you might hear from a cheap amp is probably clipping, or it could be a placebo.

Speakers are the device that creates the sound you hear. The room in which they produce sound is almost equally important to the speakers; room acoustics provide reflections or dampen sound, which will make or break many sound systems. The amplifier only powers the speakers to let them do their job. Beware of adjective laden descriptions of acoustic colorations from an amplifier.

 

[pro-rabbit 5,000+ posts]

This is an important point to make and it is why i quoted and bolded these comments from the provided link:

All that statement says is that the test means nothing. There are to many other variables in which an amplifier can generate an altered sound. Not to mention the nature of audio is subjective and such a test does nothing with in the actual guidelines of mobile audio. It is only a scientific test to show that indeed a watt is a watt(when altered to be the same).

 

[wenn_du_weinst 10+ year member]

I have had many of McIntosh amps and still have a few. Some of the most amazing amps I have ever had the pleasure of testing/playing with.

I know right? I just wish they made a 1kw mono block

 

[Chuck Manfre 10+ year member]

I probably should not put thoughts in on this. This argument will go on till the end of time. This is what I would do, regardless of what has been said thus far. Everyone has great points, this is what you do. Find someone with the amp, get in the car and see how well it really sounds. Make your own decision based on what you think in the end. I think the amps are over rated but then again I have my set up for just ground and pound. With this in mind, what I think is good is probably going to be way different then the SQ guys, possibly on opposite ends of the spectrum. If I had the money and was going for SQ then I would buy one.

 

[Chuck Manfre 10+ year member]

I probably should not put thoughts in on this. This argument will go on till the end of time. This is what I would do, regardless of what has been said thus far. Everyone has great points, this is what you do. Find someone with the amp, get in the car and see how well it really sounds. Make your own decision based on what you think in the end. I think the amps are over rated but then again I have my set up for just ground and pound. With this in mind, what I think is good is probably going to be way different then the SQ guys, possibly on opposite ends of the spectrum. If I had the money and was going for SQ then I would buy one.

 

[wenn_du_weinst 10+ year member]

um all amplifies color the sound. I lose all respect for the person who says otherwise.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

um all amplifies color the sound. I lose all respect for the person who says otherwise.

If this is the case then golden ear audiophiles should be able to distinguish the difference in a double blind. If the "color" is not measurable in any way or detectable to the human ear in a double blind then there is not reason to believe it exists. Show evidence to the contrary don't just claim it. In this context I'll say that there may be a noticeable difference between a tube amplifier vs solid state but I only say that because Ive heard of double blind studies demonstrating this.

All that statement says is that the test means nothing. There are to many other variables in which an amplifier can generate an altered sound. Not to mention the nature of audio is subjective and such a test does nothing with in the actual guidelines of mobile audio. It is only a scientific test to show that indeed a watt is a watt(when altered to be the same).

I don't understand this statement? A watt is indeed a watt, and if two amplifiers produce the same amount of power, both with inaudible levels of distortion then why would you want to spend 5000 for one as opposed to 500 for the other? (issues of longevity/durability ignored)

 

[Dirtrider4eva 10+ year member]

im in your side perfection.

Rabbit dude come on, with roughly 60% of people who can tell the difference between the two amps, doesnt justify the price.

look at arc audio and vibe, they are basicaly rebadge of the same items, but yet their prices are nearly 3 times apart?

i expected more from you...

the audible difference is mroe than likely not worth the price. in the longetivity aspect, who cares, you can buy 20 of those 200 amps for the price of the mcintosh.

I appreciate higher brand equipment a ton, but when the price curve hits a point, its not worth the price.

i found my self a $750 pair of tweeters by Brax, and your going to tell me your going to hear a world of difference between those and my Diamond audio HEX S600 tweeters? probably not all that much, and thats another huge difference.

 

[pro-rabbit 5,000+ posts]

I'm not saying that amp A that costs $5000 is better then amp B that costs $100...I'm saying that this test alters the sound produced to mimic each other. Thus you are not actually doing anything other then reproducing the sound as close to exactly the same.

Perhaps I should just do a large write up to explain this as many people seem to forget what an amplifier actually does and how they function and how this test negates all aspects of amplification by adjusting the sound to be as close as possible.

No matter the situation or our outcome any and all audio is subjective and any decisive answer will never be found because of this. No matter what. That is what keeps this debate alive. There has been proof for years showing why this test is not possible to beat because it is adjusted to ensure it can not be in every case as per the rules of the test. It is in black white in those very rules.

This is just never going to end. If anyone would like to debate this more feel free to PM me at any time and i will be happy to continue this topic. As for the actual debate it is more of beating a dead horse then anything...

 

[LosIsATool 5,000+ posts]

amps sound different. Its that simple. Different procesors sound better and cost more to build. Better parts are better. Nothing you can do about that. Is a 9 second Civic as good as a F430?

 

[Dirtrider4eva 10+ year member]

amps sound different. Its that simple. Different procesors sound better and cost more to build. Better parts are better. Nothing you can do about that. Is a 9 second Civic as good as a F430?

for about 1/20 of the price.

i think so...

motortrend rated the f430 the best drivers car, 2nd was the gtr.

price difference, iirc 300kISH? which would you pic..