• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Only $2,000 to improve your amp's performance

#161
seamonkey said:
+1

It's all about the "high priced" pushing the science out of it. They spend a lot of time, effort, and money to convince you you can hear a difference and that science isn't capable of measuring what you can hear. Science can easily measure what you can hear - ear doctors do it every day.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And then the discussion often devolves into grumbling about machines and scopes and "What are you gonna trust, some squiggles on a chart or your own hearing? Science or your ears?"

What's often missed is that what makes science scientific is not the machines per se but the methodology. A relatively low-tech experiment--like a blind listening test--is perfectly scientific if it's well conducted and appropriate for what it's trying to measure. If what you're trying to measure is your ears' capacity to discriminate between two signals, your ears are perfectly good measuring tools--perhaps the only appropriate tools--to use. Providing of course that the measuring test is well set up, and that the results aren't overgeneralized beyond their applicability, a good listening test isn't the opposite of science, it IS science.
 
#162
billfitzmaurice said:
Maybe Victor should endorse these too.
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm
Click to expand...
:scowl:
I've seen stupid stuff from Audiophile world but that tops it all!

A good way to see if these thing DOES make a difference is a NULL test. Play program material in the unit (AMP, preamp, AD/DA) , record , same thing with the other power chord. Using line out is a must.
Reverse phase of one of the track

If you hear anything at all , the slighest thing , then it DOES make a difference.
 
#163
fokof said:
:scowl:
I've seen stupid stuff from Audiophile world but that tops it all!

A good way to see if these thing DOES make a difference is a NULL test. Play program material in the unit (AMP, preamp, AD/DA) , record , same thing with the other power chord. Using line out is a must.
Reverse phase of one of the track

If you hear anything at all , the slighest thing , then it DOES make a difference.
Click to expand...

ah Yes - null testing
Carver used this technique in the infamous "Carver Challenge", sitting in a hotel room with some resistors.
After which, a blind test by an expert panel couldn't tell a difference.

Interestingly, if signals null then they sound the same.

On the other hand blind test may show two things sound the same even though they don't null. You can try this with a mix, just delay a couple of tracks by a ms, the sum mixes won't null - but they will sound the same.
 
#164
seamonkey said:
ah Yes - null testing
Carver used this technique in the infamous "Carver Challenge", sitting in a hotel room with some resistors.
After which, a blind test by an expert panel couldn't tell a difference.

Interestingly, if signals null then they sound the same.

On the other hand blind test may show two things sound the same even though they don't null. You can try this with a mix, just delay a couple of tracks by a ms, the sum mixes won't null - but they will sound the same.
Click to expand...

Does this mean there is a "flaw" in a/b box blind testing?
 
#166
Limeman said:
Does this mean there is a "flaw" in a/b box blind testing?
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means that it is possible for there to be a difference that is measurable with one tool (null testing) but not measurable with another tool (your ears in a blind listening test). IOW, for these purposes, your ears aren't as good as the null test. And since the basic question is whether you can hear a difference, it follows that a difference you can't hear is, in this context, equivalent to no difference.

The phenomenon seamonkey mentioned says nothing about the methodology. It says something about the resolution of the specific test equipment used.
 
#167
Jason P Bass said:
To be clear, when I was posting above, I was joking.

Here is when I am being serious:

Email from me to David Linn:

I was looking at your LANH 500 watt power amp and have a question.

What is the difference between the LANH 500 and the Behringer A500 amplifier? Feel free to be specific and technical because I have an EE degree and can understand it.

Thanks!
[real name here]

Response from David Linn

Jason;

You are right that this is basically a Behringer amp, but it has been modified to give high-end performance. The Behringer is a good design, and has pretty good performance as it is, but some of the components needed to be upgraded to improve the sound. I do not want to give details, since this is proprietary. But if you are familiar with the concept of "POOGE" popularized by the Audio Amateur magazine in the 80's, you will understand what we are doing.

POOGE stands for "Progressive Optimization of Generic Equipment,"
Click to expand...

Yup ... I remember the BOSS Pinto.

:rollno:
 
#173
JimmyM said:
dude, if they did that, they kniow it would be all over. thanks to the internet they're barely hanging on as it is, and they have to really cultivate suckers...not like before in the 70's and 80's when snake oil flowed like wine. don't know a guy sleeps at night after cashing a $3500 check for selling a behringer power amp, but at least the internet can save a few suckers.

and that's where my respect level for behringer just went up a notch. not by much, but at least behringer makes no bones about using cheap components and shortcuts to get the prices down. and they don't try to tell you it's worth $3500 when it's barely worth what they do charge. and honestly, after reading about that cheap vs expensive test, maybe some of the more expensive brands of gear might as well use cheap stuff, too. for all we know they probably are. hey, my sx basses sound just as good on recordings as any fender or more expensive bass i've owned or played. lots of cheap crap has found its way onto classic recordings as well.
Click to expand...
you wanna see snake oil check out the stereo rags.....when guys are paying fifteen grand for a power amp it seems perfectly logical to dump a few more thou on low ion cable etc...
 
#176
i don't know how people have the balls to take a $300 power amp, install a handful of $2 parts to replace the $1 parts, and charge over 10x the original price. man, are times that tough?
 
#177
JimmyM said:
i don't know how people have the balls to take a $300 power amp, install a handful of $2 parts to replace the $1 parts, and charge over 10x the original price. man, are times that tough?
Click to expand...

You're probably being generous about the value of the parts, Jimmy. ;)
 
#178
Well...... That does it.

Since I play enough venues where people are sharing the same head/amp combo for hours, I can safely say that I can stop practicing now FOREVER! I just need to bring a special Cable to sound different and amazing!

I only need to buy some expensive (And clearly Magic) cables.

While I'm at it, I am in the possession of a Unicorn. Anyone want Unicorn Hair Bass Strings? Upright only. I swear, for only $800 a string, you too can sound like a choir of angels singing in a prius!
 
#180
Limeman said:
From another thread at TB...
Click to expand...

Okay, I respect Pops as much as anybody, but what does that have to do with anything being discussed here? Such as blind testing, for example? Are you claiming that some people's liking for the sound of Ampeg 8-10s means that the pseudoscience behind the concept of a $2000 power cord must be valid?

Trust me, anyone who can really hear the difference between an Ampeg 8-10 and say, the speaker in the car door of my Subaru could easily prove it in a blind test, and anyone who couldn't prove it in a blind test can't hear the difference.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back