Before upgrading your Cables and Amplifiers!

Ambio

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
411
Points
0
Location
M'sia
Maybe, this is an old news but if you haven't read about his elsewhere here is your chance. If you think it is time to upgrade your amp or cable, why not take up the challenge. You could win 1 million and buy your ultimate system.


Does this mean all amps sound the same in a normal install?

No. Richard Clark is very careful to say that amps usually do not sound the same in the real world. The gain setting of an amplifier can make huge differences in how an amplifier sounds, as can details like how crossovers or other filters are set. When played very loud (into clipping), the amplifier with more power will generally sound better than a lower powered amp.

Most people perceive slight differences in amplitude as quality differences rather than loudness. The louder component sounds faster, more detailed, more full, not just louder. This perceptual phenomenon is responsible for many people thinking they liked the sound of a component when really they just liked the way it was set up.

I changed amps in my system to another one with the same measured power and I hear a sound quality difference. Does this show that the test results are invalid?

No. Installing a new amplifier involves setting the gains and crossovers, and any slight change you make to those settings is going to affect how things sound.

Is adding an equalizer just a way of dumbing down the better amplifier ?

Richard Clark allows the equalizer to be added to whichever amplifier the listener wants. It can be added to the amplifier that the listener perceives as the weaker amplifier . The EQ is most likely to be used when comparing a tube amplifier (which exhibits slight high frequency rolloff) to a solid state amplifier . In that case Richard Clark says he can usually fashion an equalizer out of just a resistor and/or capacitor which for just a few dollars makes the solid state amplifier exhibit the same rolloff as the tube amplifier, and therefore sound the same. If the tube amplifier really sounded better, then modifying the solid state amplifier to sound indistinguishable from it for a few bucks should be a great improvement.

How might allowing clipping in the test affect the results?

It's impossible to know for sure because that would be a different test that has not been done. But Richard Clark seems to think that in clipping, conventional amplifiers would sound about the same, and tube amplifiers would sound different from solid state amplifiers.

Richard Clark reported that he did some preliminary experiments to determine how clipping sounds on different amplifiers . He recorded the amplifier output using special equipment at clipping, 12db over clipping, 18db over clipping, and 24db over clipping. Then he normalized the levels and listened. His perception was that with the same amount of overdrive, the conventional amplifiers sounded the same. With the same amount of overdrive the tube amplifiers sounded worse than the conventional amplifiers . On the basis of that experiment, he said I believe I am willing to modify my amplifier challenge to allow any amount of clipping as long as the amplifiers have power ratings (actual not advertised) within 10% of each other. This would have to exclude tube amplifiers as they seem to sound much worse and it is obvious

If a manufacturer reports false power ratings, will that interfere with the test?

No. The test is based on measured power, not rated power .

Does this mean that there is no audible difference between sources, or between speakers?

No. There are listening tests that show small but significant differences among some sources (for instance early CD players versus modern CD players). And speakers typically have 25% or more harmonic distortion. Most everyone agrees that differences among speakers are audible.

Does the phrase "a watt is a watt" convey what this test is about?

Not quite but close. Richard Clark has stated that some amplifiers (such as tubes) have nonlinear frequency response, so a watt from them would not be the same as a watt from an amplifier with flat frequency response.

Do the results indicate I should buy the cheapest amp?

No. You should buy the best amplifier for your purpose. Some of the factors to consider are: reliability, build quality, cooling performance, flexibility, quality of mechanical connections, reputation of manufacturer, special features, size, weight, aesthetics, and cost. Buying the cheapest amplifier will likely get you an unreliable amplifier that is difficult to use and might not have the needed features. The only factor that this test indicates you can ignore is sound quality below clipping.

If you have a choice between a well built reliable low cost amp, and an expensive amplifier that isn't reliable but has a better reputation for sound quality, it can be inferred from this test that you would get more sound for your money by choosing the former.

Do home audio amps qualify for the test?

Yes. In the 2005 version of the test rules, Richard explicitly allows 120V amplifiers in a note at the end.

How can people take the test?

They should contact Richard Clark for the details. As of 2006 Richard Clark is reported to not have a public email account, and David Navone handles technical inquiries for him. Most likely they will need to pay a testing fee and get themselves to his east coast facility.

Is this test still ongoing?

As of early 2006 , there have not been any recent reports of people taking the test, but it appears to still be open to people who take the initiative to get tested.

Do the results prove inaudibility of amplifier differences below clipping?

It's impossible to scientifically prove the lack of something. You cannot prove that there is no Bigfoot monster, because no matter how hard you look, it is always possible that Bigfoot is in the place you didn't look. Similarly, there could always be a amplifier combination or listener for which the test would show an audible difference. So from a scientific point of view, the word prove should not be used in reference to the results of this test.

What the test does do is give a degree of certainty that such an audible difference does not exist.

What do people who disagree with the test say?

Some objections that have been raised about the test:

Richard Clark has a strong opinion on this issue and therefore might bias his reports.
In the real world people use amps in the clipping zone, and the test does not cover that situation.
Some audible artifacts are undetectable individually, but when combined with other artifacts they may become audible as a whole. For instance cutting a single graphic EQ level by one db may not be audible, but cutting lots of different EQ levels by the same amount may be audible. Maybe the amps have defects that are only audible when combined with the defects from a particular source, speaker, or system.
Some listeners feel that they can't relax enough to notice subtle differences when they have to make a large number of choices such as in this test.
There is a lack of organized results. Richard Clark only reports his general impressions of the results, but did not keep track of all the scores. He does not know exactly how many people have taken the test, or how many of the people scored better than average.
If someone scored significantly better than average, which might mean that they heard audible differences, it is not clear whether Richard Clark followed up and repeated the test enough times with them to verify that the score was not statistically significant.
Is there one sentence that can describe what the test is designed to show?

When compared evenly, the sonic differences between amplifiers operated below clipping are below the audible threshold of human hearing.

Richard Clark Amplifier Challenge FAQ

James Randi Offers $1 Million If Audiophiles Can Prove $7250 Speaker Cables Are Better
 
Ambio..this will open some of eyes in the forum specially in case of cables..

Any audio grade cable is same as $$$$ cable..

Recordings are done on the likes of mogami, belden, canare , Gotham etc..
and to reproduce this sound you need $$$$ cables is laughable matter.

and the biggest joke is power cable, if such cables can change the electrical signal, then for getting such signal, we need to change the cables till power house.
 
We must be careful and read between the lines. All amplifiers are same provided they are driven within their limits. Unfortunately, not many know what's the limit. For an example, I know that my amplifier will be driven into clipping when the preamp volume is around 4 o'clock. I usually listen at 10 or 11., I.e. average loudness around 75 to 85dB with peaks reaching 96 dB. Even then, I also know it is not my amp is being driven into clipping but the little miniambio that sits between the pream and Amp.

Using the above example, I can make an educated guess whether to upgrade the amplifier or not. This is the little tricks that I think all audiophiles should know before making another upgrade decision. To reach that we have roll up our sleeves and experiment. Until you reach that maturity you would continue with upgrades WITHOUT being satisfied.

Some of the crazy tweaks that I have done was simply too embarrassing to mention and now when I look back at the diamond racing cone lying around it makes me laugh at my foolishness.

About cables, it shouldnt but maybe it does but if you can't tell which cable is being used without side by side comparisons then it doesn't matter. If you could then congratulate yourself and enjoy the music. Don't doubt your purchase otherwise it will kill your musical enjoyment.
 
Deja vu? Then I remembered reading about Mr Clark and his test some time back.

Of course, it doesn't help that people are sometimes talking about different kinds of deciBels, but not everyone agrees as to what is the smallest change in sound pressure level that we humans can detect. But I think we detect very small changes. We may not detect them as volume changes, but we detect them as changes to the quality of the sound.

Louder, unless already too loud, always sounds better.

Hence my joke, but I think it is true: the cheapest possible upgrade is the volume control: it costs nothing to turn it!

Hifi salespeople know this, of course.
 
Louder, unless already too loud, always sounds better.

Hence my joke, but I think it is true: the cheapest possible upgrade is the volume control: it costs nothing to turn it!

Hifi salespeople know this, of course.

Unfortunately, to an ordinary non technical person like myself, may not really agree. I don't even recall ever playing any new equipment at the normal volume I am accustomed to before falling in love with them.

We go to a showroom, look at an amplifier. Get it plugged in and the play at relatively low volume at first. Then we gradually increase the volume until we are comfortable with before making a judgment.

My question is how and when the "louder is always better" scientific phrase became relevant in my decision. There was no relative loudness to compare with. It could be very well I am playing this amp much softer than the previous and yet I fall in love with the former.
 
If you are not comparing similar sounds, then perhaps it doesn't count. Added to which, there are always awkward customers like me, and maybe like you, who pay a lot of attention to how the equipment sounds at very low levels. Some of us often listen at very low levels.

But have you not observed that a thin sound, lacking in bass and treble, can be improved by a slight turning of that knob? I suppose it has a lot to do with the sensitivity curve of our hearing.
 
Yes but it still doesn't help us to make a correct conclusion when purchasing another cable or amp. The loudness factor did not influence our decision.
 

To be fair to the Cable-istas, IIRC, Michael Fremer took up the challenge and James Randi backed out.[/QUOTE]

I don't think so unless something happened in the last few years. As far as I remember, MF wanted to use his own referance cable to which Randi declined. The cables used for the challenge were Pear, Monster and one more. monster was a $40K cable.

Do you have any link?
 
I don't think so unless something happened in the last few years. As far as I remember, MF wanted to use his own referance cable to which Randi declined. The cables used for the challenge were Pear, Monster and one more. monster was a $40K cable.

Do you have any link?[/QUOTE]

No, this happened long back.....in 2007 or so. But I do recall that, the overwhelming sense on most international forums at the time was that it was Randi who took the side exit.

The challenge was that the listener should be able to distinguish between a $7250 Pear Anjou cable, or a $43000 Transparent Opus cable and a Monster cable. From what I remember, Pear chickened out and withdrew their cable from the challenge, so MF offered to go ahead with the challenge with his Reference cable against any cable that Randi proposed. Randi declined.

In my book, if Randi was sure that MF would not be able to distinguish between 2 cables, period, then he should have had no objection to MF's reference cable being one of them.

It would have been interesting to see the outcome.
 
..In my book, if Randi was sure that MF would not be able to distinguish between 2 cables, period, then he should have had no objection to MF's reference cable being one of them.

It would have been interesting to see the outcome.

I just checked Randi's website and I think it was a non issue. Not all cables are straight wires. Some changes the sound by manipulating the capacitance or something else. MF cable did not meet the pre-agreed conditions.
 
We need to look at this carefully.
For some tests where people hear differences , did they ensure that all interconnects and cable connectors were super clean ? We all know ( all?) that cable capacitance and complex input and preamp output impedance can cause errors in frequency response . That would be audible.
For speakers it can make a difference. Not because one cable is better than the others. All cables have resistance, inductance and capacitance parameters. These can vary a lot and that in turn could affect the amp that is driving them , in subtle ways ( affecting real world frequency response ). Sometimes in dramatic ways and sometimes cause RF oscillation and destruction ! There have been cases of very expensive cables blowing up expensive power amps. That the amp was marginally stable into complex loads doesn't speak so well of it !

Bottom line is in the real world, you can have different sound between cables and not because one is better than the other. But because of it's real world parameters which interact with the equipment ,which should be visible on simulation also.
However in the practical world with decent cables and well designed stable amplifiers , it should be pretty hard to say which was which!
 
One of the best reads about cable challenges, especially for those of us who are a bit hard-line on the subject, is Frank Van Alstine's challenge and the subsequent results.

I'm sure lots of members have read it already (I know I've mentioned it a few times) but for those who have not, I'll leave you the pleasure of a good read, so no spoilers. Be sure to click on the results link at the bottom of the above link.
 
Please ignore. This is just a test message as my two previous message didn't go through. I am getting something like "Thank you for posting ...Moderator..." and before I could finish reading them they disappear. I am just checking if this message can get through.

Thanks.

Added.

Looks like I cannot start a new thread.
 
Last edited:
Just sharing my experience: I felt a difference in sound quality when I changed my speaker cables from a CHORD ODYSSEY to Acoustic Zen Satori.
 
Just sharing my experience: I felt a difference in sound quality when I changed my speaker cables from a CHORD ODYSSEY to Acoustic Zen Satori.


It should be. One is $25 and the other is $600. One is so thin and simple and the other one looks heavy and thick. Even myself, I am using the more expensive and 10 times the size of another cable despite DBT saying otherwise. I always felt the car performed better when serviced at the authorized dealer rather than the ordinary workshop despite once the authorized dealer didn't even change the engine oil!

It is possible that we may experience genuine improvement. That is real.

I am just pointing out that if you conditioned your mind differently than the difference may not be real. Watch 1.07 onwards.
 
I always felt the car performed better when serviced at the authorized dealer rather than the ordinary workshop despite once the authorized dealer didn't even change the engine oil!

It is possible that we may experience genuine improvement. That is real.

I am just pointing out that if you conditioned your mind differently than the difference may not be real. Watch 1.07 onwards.

+1. There is an ancient kannada adage that goes "Shanka Dinda Bidrene Theertha" Literal meaning - "Its considered holy water only if it falls from the conch" not withstanding the fact that it is mere plain ordinary water!

The most riveting pointer to "mind over matter" a.k.a Placebo effect can be seen in the movie Kung Fu panda... the following dialogue between Po & his father Mr. Ping is so profound......

Mr. Ping: The secret ingredient isssss... nothing!
Po: Huh?
Mr. Ping: You heard me. Nothing! There is no secret ingredient.
Po: Wait, wait... it's just plain old noodle soup? You don't add some kind of special sauce or something?
Mr. Ping: Don't have to. To make something special you just have to believe it's special.
[Po looks at the dragon scroll again, and sees his reflection in it]
Po: There is no secret ingredient... [realizing that he is the Dragon Warrior if he believed so...]
 
+1. There is an ancient kannada adage that goes "Shanka Dinda Bidrene Theertha" Literal meaning - "Its considered holy water only if it falls from the conch" not withstanding the fact that it is mere plain ordinary water!

The most riveting pointer to "mind over matter" a.k.a Placebo effect can be seen in the movie Kung Fu panda... the following dialogue between Po & his father Mr. Ping is so profound......

Mr. Ping: The secret ingredient isssss... nothing!
Po: Huh?
Mr. Ping: You heard me. Nothing! There is no secret ingredient.
Po: Wait, wait... it's just plain old noodle soup? You don't add some kind of special sauce or something?
Mr. Ping: Don't have to. To make something special you just have to believe it's special.
[Po looks at the dragon scroll again, and sees his reflection in it]
Po: There is no secret ingredient... [realizing that he is the Dragon Warrior if he believed so...]

Hahahaha...what a lovely analogy to the cable makes a difference discussion.....everyone should watch that scene before investing money on expensive cables and even amps to a certain extent....
 
Follow HiFiMART on Instagram for offers, deals and FREE giveaways!
Back
Top