[bhobba]

Hi Hugh and All

I have just been looking over some of the old posts and came across the following by Hugh:

'One thing RMAF showed me conclusively is that when listening to a system, 95% of people think the sound quality comes from the speaker, not the amp.  The truth is, in my view, that about 60% comes from the amp, with the source and speaker making up the difference.  The distortions of an amp can sound truly horrible, no question.  I've always been able to pick a great amp with even a lousy, el cheapo speaker.  It really stands out.'

I am struck by how my views have changed over time.  While I do not hold to Hugh's view yet (I still believe the main determinant is the speaker) I no longer believe that straight wire with gain has been achieved, and all reasonably specked amplifiers sound basically the same.  For me that is rather surprising, as I am a proponent of double blind tests (I still am).  The change in my thinking is that I now believe the double blind tests that supposedly show amplifiers basically sound the same are flawed, and it was discussions with Hugh, Andy, and others on this forum that basically did it.

Hugh, Andy, and all the rest - keep up the good work.  I can see I will eventually end up being 100% aligned with Hugh.  Drats - I will never be satisfied with a cheap amp again.  I have now changed my view on the DEQX.  While I believe it is a great product, the cost of doubling up on amplification has now led me to pursue the good old passive route.

The only consolation is that I am not the only one.  Bob Smith from SP Technology seems to have had a similar metamorphosis in the sense that things he dismissed as 'hogwash' he now has changed his view on:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=40359.0

Thanks
Bill

[LM]

Bill,

As I noted on the Soraya thread, I have rather lately come to this conclusion myself.  I still believe that speakers make the most difference in the timbre or overall way they present the tonal characteristics of the sound, but there are lots of other ingredients in the sonic stew, be they contributed by the speakers and/or the electronics, that influence perceptions as well.  Low-level detail, timing and phase come readily to mind.

It’s not just the ears either, it’s the brain that interprets and flavours what the ears have picked up.  I remember reading about experiments some time ago that determined just how well people could recognise voices though pattern recognition even when badly distorted such as through a really bad telephone line.  The brain could not only recognise the person but learned quickly to cope with the distortions such that participants could soon converse relatively normally.  Thinking about it, that’s probably how I coped with some of my early lofi systems and even come to think of them as hifi.

So I don’t know if Hugh’s 60% or greater is true but I would have to say that subjectively, the Soraya gave as much improvement to my system as the speakers had in turn added over an earlier integrated amp when the speakers were first added to the system.  So I would tend to say about 40/40/20 for speakers, amp and source.  Don’t ask me to scientifically justify this though, I couldn’t.

On your other tack, I normally avoid joining in objective/subjective discussions on forums like the plague as opinions that are not blind tested are usually considered unscientific and DBT’s are seen to be the only way to confirm that 'real' differences exist.  However to me, I agree with you that many seem to be poorly set up or flawed.  For example, how is a person who does not believe in differences between cables ever going to report hearing differences in a cable-swapping test?  Likewise, someone who ‘expects’ to hear differences will most likely tend to whether they are there or not.  Well set up, a DBT is a powerful tool but often, the absence of a statistically significant difference being detected is taken as an absolute positive confirmation that ‘no’ difference exists rather than ‘no difference could be detected under trial conditions'.  In the end, such discussion becomes circular and pointless. 

The other problem of course is the ability to actually detect differences that in my opinion, varies widely.  In my early flying days, we were taught how to scan the sky and pick out distant aircraft even as faint ‘dots’.  Subsequently, passengers would often shake their heads at this mystical ability to see things in an ‘empty’ sky, but it was only visual training.  I believe the same principle applies to hearing and whether it be though experience, training or a combination of both, some are far better at hearing differences, particularly subtle, than others.  So provable or not, I do believe that at least one amp around here is good enough to stand from the pack, at least to my ears, and the differences are as significant as those from changing speakers.

[bhobba]

The other problem of course is the ability to actually detect differences that in my opinion, varies widely.  In my early flying days, we were taught how to scan the sky and pick out distant aircraft even as faint ‘dots’.  Subsequently, passengers would often shake their heads at this mystical ability to see things in an ‘empty’ sky, but it was only visual training.  I believe the same principle applies to hearing and whether it be though experience, training or a combination of both, some are far better at hearing differences, particularly subtle, than others.  So provable or not, I do believe that at least one amp around here is good enough to stand from the pack, at least to my ears, and the differences are as significant as those from changing speakers.

Thanks very much for your well thought out reply.  All I can say is - spot on.  I believe the reason they are flawed is those used in the test do not have the appropriate training and experience.  Certainly, those that believe a difference can be heard are biased - just as those that believe a difference can't be heard are biased.  But the point of a DBT is if a difference can be heard at all.  The claim by the objectivity brigade is that no test has ever detected a difference.  That is what is I dispute. I don't care if you judge it better or worse - personnel preferences are irrelevant.  The 'objectivists' claim a difference simply can not be heard.  I suspect those that make such claims are being quite selective in what they count as tests.  I have absolutely no doubt if Hugh or Andy participated in a test (these guys build amplifiers at least partly by ear so they should be able to hear a difference if one exists) with a tube, good quality by not spectacular amplifier (such as -  oh off the top of my head a Rotel - but that is just an example of many that could be used), and a lifeforce, they could tell the difference, just like a post I did recently about the guy that blew the claims of high bit rate MP3 being totally transparent out the window.  You would have thought this would have silenced those making such claims.  Not in the least - you still find people claiming it is totally transparent.  It really makes one wonder.

While penning the above I remembered a discussion I has a while ago with Hugh.  Peter Aczel, the high priest of all amplifiers sound the same, likes to categorise audio guys into 'black hats', and 'white hats'.  To him, the tweako brigade, led by Stereophile, are the 'black hats', (and certainly their bias can be questioned, but calling them 'black hats' is a bit too much) and the 'scientists', led by guys like Siegfried Linkwitz are 'white hats' (and - it doesn't matter how you cut and dry it - Siegfried is a 'white hat' - if you want to use that sort of terminology).  Anyway, to cut to the chase, Siegfried's views on amplifiers were carefully looked at:
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Orion-faq.htm#Q3
'Much has been written about the sound of amplifiers in the Hi-Fi Press. Amplifiers can sound different due to non-linear distortion which generates new spectral components. The typical total harmonic distortion specification is merely a guide post and not a complete measure of amplifier distortion. THD should be below 0.1%, as a starting point, for amplifiers not to sound different from each other. More important is the distortion at low output power levels, below 2 W, where an amplifier spends most of its time during music reproduction, unless it is for Hard Rock. The crossover distortion of Class A/B amplifiers is impulsive in nature. It is very broadband and easily overlooked in the noise floor of the amplifier output spectrum. It registers low in a THD measurement, but the spectral components add in the time domain. They are responsible for much of the "solid-state sound". Class A amplifiers do not suffer from this inherent problem, but a well designed Class A/B can match their performance in practice. Amplifiers can also sound different when their relatively high output impedance, or low damping factor, interacts with the combined loudspeaker and speaker cable load impedance to cause a frequency dependent drive signal at the speaker terminals. This is very much an issue with tube power amplifiers and passive crossover networks. The ORION drivers present a simple load to their amplifiers, which are essentially driving the voice coils directly. No inductors or capacitors are in the signal path. Even tube amplifiers could drive the tweeter and midrange, but the woofer presents too difficult a load to their transformer output'

Notice how carefully what he said is worded - and what Hugh noted at the time - how insightfull it actually is.  It certainly is not claiming all amplifiers sound the same.  Yet he is trotted out as a 'white hat'.  Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Thanks
Bill

[AKSA]

Bill,

I think much of the discussion in high end is ingenuous - a 'whore in Dior' if you will (thanks Paul, always liked that one hugely!!  ).  The reason is that in all marketing one must strive to confirm what the punter wants to hear, otherwise the mood is lost and sale will not close.

This is not so cynical as might appear.  I have enjoyed dialogue with SL, and once suggested to him that he try a power supply I'd devised for his active crossover which had profound effect on the presentation of his Orion.  Aurelius can testify to this;  he has one.  But SL rejected it with such vehemence I had to ask my wife if she too thought I was mentally defective.   

Wayne of Bolder Cable is now fitting a variant of this technology into his Ultimate Power Supply for the Squeezebox, and the effect is no less astounding.  It costs $US1500 and demand is ramping up.  See here: 
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=47138.0

The new power supply has marked sonic impact, but only those skilled at listening with an open mind will acknowledge this because it flies in the face of convention.  SL, Stereophile, and many of the EEs involved in audio have a confirmed view that such things do not make a difference;  yet materials science will tell you that if you make the strings of a violin from a different material, or use a different wood, or shellac, or bridge geometry, or bow hair, or bowing technique for that matter, the sound will be different and the cognoscenti will pick it immediately.  I would suggest that the same happens in electronic circuits which process audio signals - and I now know that each and every component choice is important, and so is the topology, and so are the operating points, and so is the nature of the metals and dielectrics, and the list goes on......

Example:  A child learns violin.  At first, the sound is terrible, sharp, screechy, pungent, unpleasant.  Then a virtuoso plays a single note, but bows with a certain technique and applies vibrating pressure where the string meets the board with an elegantly positioned finger.  The result:  the note is the same tone, but it sounds wonderful, longing, mournful and somehow tugs at our heart strings.  How is this, and why does it happen?  And how does one identify the skills which make the difference?

You touched on it earlier - harmonics.  The H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7 all bunch up to give the note its timbre.  The relative proportions of these harmonics has profound effect on the psycho-acoustic equipment of the perceiver - an organic, mammalian lifeform.  A trumpet played hard has around 0.05% additional H9 and H11 in it;  yet while this is difficult to measure, it is plain as the nose on our face to a human listener.  The perception of just a tiny shift in say H7 is profound, and it is these harmonic subtleties which make music for our souls.  Any machine which alters this harmonic distribution, even subtly, has the potential to completely alter the psycho-acoustic perception and this, I believe, is why two amps which measure the same will sound different.

Notice that these effects happen primarily at the higher harmonic end.  H2 and H3 has little effect except to convey the loose, vague terms of warmth and sharpness.  It is the higher harmonics which are profoundly influenced by electronic amplification due to the crossover event and the vagaries of feedback;  the speaker, as a mechanical transducer, tends to influence lower harmonics, although the passive crossover is something else again.

This has led me inescapably to the conclusion that measurement is not enough.  It is a first base, perhaps, but it does not go the country mile and certainly does not guarantee an exceptional amplifier.  Only a mammalian ear with a highly trained (and articulate!) perception can distinguish the various levels of sonic subtlety to create a good source/amp/speaker, and this is why good designers like Nelson Pass are accorded god-like status because not everyone can do it, little of this skill can be found in a text book, and these guys ain't talkin'.

Of course, it helps if they have an open mind and realise that everything makes a difference, and then are prepared to cremate thousands of silicon devices chasing sonic rainbows......

But not everyone does have this open mind;  the more education one receives, the more the mind focusses, and this can close a good mind right down to the point where the eyes almost merge.....  and education is a seductive thing, it is a club like any other, and those not in the club are shunned, because they did not negotiate the rites of passage by taking the same punishment in long, boring lectures!!  The aggression and ego I see daily on DIYaudio gives clear indication that wars will always continue and man will continue to prefer ideology over any misplaced love for the race, but this is an aberrant view I should not purvey.

On top of all this is the need to appeal to the consumer's pocket.  One must be politically correct.  Witness the party shenanigans taking place as we speak in Oz, with a general election tomorrow.  The voters must read between the lines, because to actually come out and say exactly what is on our leaders' minds would be wholly unacceptable and might jeopardise winning.  And so it is with audio......

Thanks for a great discussion, Bill, Lyn.   

Cheers,

Hugh

[kyrill]

you can hear differences that only 20 years later ppl are beginning to discuss and start to hear

isnt that strange? ppl start to hear it after the discussion while your ears presented it to you half a life ago.

other ppl mention it before the discussion but they stay alone as wandering priests for more than 20 years
for instance HP from the Absolute Sound said 17 years ago open enclosures sound more open  than closed ones

that wooden enclosures sound better period ! than any metal is still largely neglected

SO not everybody of course, but mainstream hears things after the discussion

that is why we live in self made paradigms

[andyr]

Mmmm, this is a very interesting thread which has had some heavy input ... which I would say I am not competent to engage with but, since Bill dragged my name into it (I'm not aware of another AKSA "Andy" owner, Bill?), I guess I will throw a few currants into the dough!  

There are so many threads raised in the above posts but perhaps I can comment on a few, as follows:

1.  "Which determines the sound ... source, amp, speaker?"
I think this is almost a futile exercise in navel gazing because there are so many variables ... however, as navel lint removal is a calming pastime, I'll try!  

A terrible-sounding amp with a great speaker (or a good amp which cannot keep up with the demands of that speaker) sounds bad!  Likewise, a great sounding amp with a crap speaker.

Since both can affect the other so much, I lean towards LM's view that they're equal - ie. it's 20:40:40 (in terms of source, amp, speaker).  NB: that's no reflection on the cost ratio of these components!  Simply their contribution to the overall sound.

However, as Hugh mournfully put it ... the mug punter thinks that it's 90% due to the speaker!  

2.  "Active vs. passive ... and are there perfectly acceptable active options other than the DEQX?"
IMO a carefully engineered active XO wins out over a carefully engineered passive XO.  But you don't have to go digital to get a good active XO.  That's not to say that I wouldn't mind having a play with a DEQX on my 3-way active Maggies but I'd rather spend my money - as I have just done - buying 6 x LF module upgrades and keep my analogue active XOs.

What a DEQX does give you is the ability to do more than just implement active filters ... you have phase correction, room correction and time-delay tweaking available!!  

3.  "The value of DBTs."
DBTs do not cater for the "long term liveability" of a hifi component.  IE. sometimes quick changes between one component and another will cause you to like one of them.  However, living with it for a month can often reveal subtle negatives which weren't immediately obvious in the "wham bang" comparison of a DBT setup.

I would say you have to live first with one and then with the other to truly get a good comparison between the two.

4.  "Sight - distant aircraft as faint dots - vs. hearing."
While I can understand the ability to pick out "dots in the sky" is simple visual training and I certainly believe training your aural palate is important, I think that the emotional response which some musical components create is a "sense" on a different level of brain activity.

One does not need to be "trained" to elicit an emotional response to, say, what a singer is delivering.  It just "grabs you"!  

5.  "The extent of a "Guru's" knowledge" ... or "Can one believe everything a guru says?"
Yes, SL is a guru of crossover theory and one would have to say, loudspeaker design.  Yet I'm pretty sure I read on his web-site that he says there is no point in getting any better amp than the multi-channel one he recommends, for an Orion.

I'm sure marcus would agree that SL says that ... because he ain't heard an AKSA!!  

Also, on Rod Elliott's web-site (I use his active XOs, so I certainly think he's a guru!   ) he states, basically, that all caps sound the same and it's sheer folly to spend big $ buying "hi-fi caps" ... whereas we AKSA folk know that is sheer ... BS at best, and ignorance at worst!  

6.  "Measurement ... do we know what we need to measure?"
As I stated recently, in a "listening evening" at Gerado's house some months ago, we all heard the singer move forward into the room by several feet when Hugh's "Glass Harmony" SETs were used in place of a LifeForce.

So what can we measure that will explain why the singer moved forward 3' when one amp was substituted for another?  Not the difference in harmonic structure, as the timbre stayed the same - just the position of the voice changed!  

Regards,

Andy

[kyrill]

6.  "Measurement ... do we know what we need to measure?"
As I stated recently, in a "listening evening" at Gerado's house some months ago, we all heard the singer move forward into the room by several feet when Hugh's "Glass Harmony" SETs were used in place of a LifeForce.

So what can we measure that will explain why the singer moved forward 3' when one amp was substituted for another?  Not the difference in harmonic structure, as the timbre stayed the same - just the position of the voice changed!  Surprised"

repeat this enough Andyr, and you will be a wandering priest too
because what you say does not make sense, does it?
because what you say does not extend present knowledge and therefore to be neglected

most professionals does not matter what field, only trust "objective science" -without knowing that it has very specific boundaries dictated by historical knowledge-, at the cost of what they experience

a different approach i love to embrace, is trust your experience in the first place and start from there.
Now "taste" how unprofessional that sound, it does not fit present paradigm


logic has no reference to a fixed basis and is not faithful to truth, but to the domain of assumptions which expresses the thinker.

[Davey]

Is the "singer moving forward 3 feet" a good thing?


Hugh,

SL rejected your modified ASP power supply out of hand?  That doesn't sound like him and I don't understand that.

Dave.

[kyrill]

of course it is, if the band stays behind and 3 feet is a deepening of the sound stage
ever seen a singer behind or in the band?

if that is the case at the live recording then it would not be a good thing

[Davey]

Is the sound stage now deeper than it should be?  Maybe the singer was properly 'placed' when she was three feet further back?

I've seen choirs located "behind the band" and I've seen singers "in the band."

The reason the singer moved forward when the amplifier was changed seems fairly straightforward to me.  The higher output impedance of the SET amplifier interacted with the complex impedance load of the speaker and boosted the midrange relative to the other amp.  I actually think that would be easily measurable.  Am I wrong?

Dave.

[gerado]

These are always endless and polarized discussions.

What is one trying to establish? if one amp is better than the next, if speakers or amps are more important and how much placebo effect there is in this perception?

Has there  actually ever been  a proper scientific , statistically significant double blind study, testing out the theory if we are dealing with  perception/expectation bias or reality when it comes to what contributes the most to sound quality?

A blind study alone with a handful of people or worse friends will more than likely yield the results you expect and want.
 
A double blind study with 50-100 people or more(the more the better), who are unable to see and unaware what they are listening to , on different occasions , tested by researchers who also have no idea what they are listening to is more likely to give reliable results. Ideally this test group should include all the gurus, just to see if there is any difference between experts and amateurs like me.

I have not done a search but doubt anyone has gone to the trouble of doing such testing. Not much commercial advantage doing something like this I suspect when its significance is difficult to sell at the supermarket hifi stores.

Meanwhile the discussion goes on but its one man's beliefs or educated views over another's, not science. Just educated opinions, just as flawed as those who chose the  speaker or amp better sounding because it has more drivers, is bigger or has more power. Influenced  by more experience and more knowledge, but still influenced towards one end or the other of the argument.
I can almost hear Hugh pointing out that one cannot measure equipment's musicality on a lab bench. You can however measure people's  perception what sounds good or bad without influencing their response with any prior information what equipment they are listening  to . You can swap good ,better and bad amps and keep everything else the same and grade the difference in improvement or deterioration in perceived sound. Can do the same with speakers and so on, even with expensive and cheap caps.
In the end what matters is how we enjoy ourselves, well after the visual cues stopped influencing our ears or the size of the whole in our wallet is no longer telling you how good something sounds.
No matter how much one thinks is objective we are still influenced by our biases. Is it the speaker or the amp contributing 50% or 90% to the quality  sound. How can you really tell.How can you really be sure unless you test it out properly. Is it not how things work together and how this black art of successful combination is mastered thats important. Great amps, top speakers and sources can still sound crap if they do not complement each other . Its how we coax out the full potential of each component as a whole which is most important but  eludes most of us.
A cutting edge amp and speakers can be made to sound exceptional and can be made to sound bad. A crappy amp and speakers will more than struggle  to sound cutting edge.

Is this what this discussion is all about because I was not entirely sure

[Davey]

Yep, good posting gerado.

Yes, I can also hear Hugh pointing out that musicality can't be measured on a test bench.    However, I think it's still a worthwhile effort to look (measure) for things like this rather than accepting blindly.  It could explain various subjective aspects of what we're hearing and further our understanding of how to achieve those subjective traits...should we want to...in future designs.

I'm a little surprised that some folks would attribute 60% of the sound quality of a system to the power amplifier.  I'd have to put amps in fourth place myself.....after speakers, listening room environment, and source material.  But ahead of line-level components like preamps, etc.  I'm not sure of my percentages....but I'm comfortable with the rankings. 

Sorry to interrupt the circle here again.  The comments about SL caught my eye and I'd like to hear more from Hugh on how that situation transpired.

Cheers,

Dave.

[JoshK]

after speakers, listening room environment, and source material.  But ahead of line-level components like preamps, etc.

That is my personal ordering as well, but I still play with amp building.  Not much I can do about my room at the moment.  I seem to have plenty of speaker and amp projects going.

Just to throw a monkey wrench in the whole thing, I have come to think that power supplies (and any power filtering) affects the sound of electronic components as much as the circuits themselves, and whatever you do to improve the power supplies helps the electronics a great deal.  So where does that fit in the order?  I don't know.

[2bigears]

   60% from amp only sounds out-there....

[stvnharr]

Interesting thread, to be sure.  

I would have to say that the room environment is the most important single factor, especially where you put the speakers in the room!  Anyone who visited either of the "Soundings" rooms at RMAF heard a very good demonstration of this very point about speaker setup in the room.

However, most folks like to speak of things like amplifiers, speakers, and such. I'm not sure about assigning percent numbers to a part of an audio system deemed most important. What I find most interesting about that kind of thinking is that each piece of the audio system is deemed a separate unit all unto itself.  I think only a source component is truly a separate item.  I don't think amplifiers and speakers are separate at all, but more of a single unit, that single unit being the amp power suppy - voice coil interactive system.  

I think what is more important than percent numbers of unit importance is where music information losses occur in the audio system, as once something is lost it cannot be later retrieved.  The first source would be in the source component, be it transport time error (jitter) or dac conversion, or error sources in an analogue system.
The other major source of error loss would be in the amplifier output stage, and mainly in the output stage's ability to amplify at very low output levels and amplify the low level details and subtle characteristics of the music that are easily heard in a musical instrument.  This could very well be the single most important source of music information loss in the audio system,and could certainly make an "amplifier" the most important component in an audio system, as traditionally thought.
I think analogue output stages in a digital player and amp/pre-amp gain stages also contribute to losses, but far less than the above.

But as to what is important to what we actually hear and listen to - the loudspeaker, as the unit that actually turns the electrical information into sound pressure that we hear as music, is very critical, and I think the source of more of the tonal colorations and variations that we hear due to the wide variety of cone materials and physical configurations of the loudspeaker. Amps do contribute to tonal characteristics, but I don't think as much as speakers.

My own observations are that amp designers always say it's the amp, speaker designers always say it's the speaker, and I say it's the room setup.

The big "problem" is that one never, or at least hardly hardly ever, really knows what the original music actually sounded like. It's all just comparative listening.

[kyrill]

Dear Gerado

except the content (audio)  the deeper discussion i sense is about positivism/modernism (1)  and social constructivism(2)

A beliefs in an objective world "out there" with sensory organs and its extensions ( measurements with instruments) However there can be no NO OBJECTIVE PROOF  apparent  proofs fall under B)
This point of view neglect or is not aware of Autopoiesis theorie* of Maturana and Varela and the working of nervous systems, never originated and developed to and completely unable in translating "out there" in objective terms. The best observations can do, is creating reflections of itself with metaphors about unknown "environmental triggers"
B beliefs the basis of reality comprehensions distinct the meaningless form the meaningful. Meaningless "facts" are not worth communicating about and almost always fall under the threshold of awareness or pushed outside the dialog
What is talked about falls into the awareness of human experience,  BUT is not an objective fact but a social constructed one, Therefore we can talk about it in a linguistic domain. ( metaphors about metaphors)

If A) meet believer B) we get such nice and also well known human discussions as in forums 

ah well difficult for me to explain in one paragraph

* Autopoiesis and cognition
The realization of the Living       1980 ISBN 90-2771015-5

[AKSA]

Dave,

The Zout of the SET 'Glass Harmony' is 50 milliohms, down there with conventional global fb SS. 

I've PMed you on the other matter, which I won't discuss any more here.

Cheers,

Hugh

[jules]

I reckon you're mellowing with age Hugh ... once upon a time you would have gone for 90% amplifiers 

jules

ooops, late edit

[bhobba]

I think much of the discussion in high end is ingenuous - a 'whore in Dior' if you will (thanks Paul, always liked that one hugely!!  ).

I have reached that conclusion as well.

This is not so cynical as might appear.  I have enjoyed dialogue with SL, and once suggested to him that he try a power supply I'd devised for his active crossover which had profound effect on the presentation of his Orion.  Aurelius can testify to this;  he has one.  But SL rejected it with such vehemence I had to ask my wife if she too thought I was mentally defective.   

That is sad.  I must say SL's automatic 'white hat' status has gone down a little.  I suspect the silliness of some 'tweako weirdo' types may have jaundiced him.  I have not read the rest of your reply yet so you may have addressed what I am about to suggest but here goes anyway.  To me the logical counter is a blind listening test.

Wayne of Bolder Cable is now fitting a variant of this technology into his Ultimate Power Supply for the Squeezebox, and the effect is no less astounding.  It costs $US1500 and demand is ramping up. 

I have been following Wayne's work on the squeezebox for some time.  When the time comes it may be the direction I go.  The only caveat I have is one not based on sonics, it is based on the direction I think computer audio will take.  Rather than devices connected to a network I think a dedicated laptop into a USB dac has greater flexibility e.g. specific algorithms correcting your speaker and room can be used.     

The new power supply has marked sonic impact, but only those skilled at listening with an open mind will acknowledge this because it flies in the face of convention.  SL, Stereophile, and many of the EEs involved in audio have a confirmed view that such things do not make a difference;  yet materials science will tell you that if you make the strings of a violin from a different material, or use a different wood, or shellac, or bridge geometry, or bow hair, or bowing technique for that matter, the sound will be different and the cognoscenti will pick it immediately.  I would suggest that the same happens in electronic circuits which process audio signals - and I now know that each and every component choice is important, and so is the topology, and so are the operating points, and so is the nature of the metals and dielectrics, and the list goes on......

Yes Yes Yes (with a minor caveat). This was the point of my post.  I originally held views similar to Peter Aczel, but with a difference, I suspect I have a more open mind than Peter.  It is interesting that Bob Smith from SP Technology has had a similar journey.  He believed all cables sound the same - they simply transport electrical power.  His ideas gradually changed so that now he has his own theories on why cables sound different and is incorporating them into his products.

Now for the caveat.  I am not so sure Stereophile fits your description.  James Randini has issues with some of the stuff they write.  There is only one way to back up claims that seem so far out of left field that they attract the attention of professional debunkers like James Randini - a blind listening test.

But not everyone does have this open mind;  the more education one receives, the more the mind focusses, and this can close a good mind right down to the point where the eyes almost merge.....  and education is a seductive thing, it is a club like any other, and those not in the club are shunned, because they did not negotiate the rites of passage by taking the same punishment in long, boring lectures!! 

Hmmmm.  Broadly, a valid point.  My experience with cranks on sci.physics.relativity shows a counter trend - a distrust of education.  They speak about parties where theories are rigged by the 'in crowd' and other obvious 'junk' - as one scientist said - they would like to know where these theory rigging parties happen and how he can get an invite - they sound like fun.  I believe the key to education is learning about the technicalities and accepted wisdom enough to know what can reasonably be challenged and what is going off the deep end eg the reason Einstein was able to challenge the orthodoxy was that he understood that orthodoxy rather well.  The attitude of cranks, IMHO, is a  reaction to a belief the educated are acting like 'high priests' of knowledge or similar feelings about how their behaviour is perceived - it is not based on a reasoned dialectic.

Thanks for a great discussion, Bill, Lyn.

Thanks for the patience in explaining stuff.

Thanks
Bill

[bhobba]

Mmmm, this is a very interesting thread which has had some heavy input ... which I would say I am not competent to engage with but, since Bill dragged my name into it (I'm not aware of another AKSA "Andy" owner, Bill?), I guess I will throw a few currants into the dough!  

You're it Andy.  The reason I mentioned you is that I know you actually design and listen to amps.  This is not to slight others, people like Kyrill, who obviously have a lot of experience with tweaking and listening, and whose posts I also enjoy, and opinions I respect, it is simply the name that came to mind when I penned my post. 

DBTs do not cater for the "long term liveability" of a hifi component.  IE. sometimes quick changes between one component and another will cause you to like one of them.  However, living with it for a month can often reveal subtle negatives which weren't immediately obvious in the "wham bang" comparison of a DBT setup.

Yes - which is why they should be regularly repeated.  My advice to those building a system is to start with the speakers, because to those without a lot of experience, differences between speakers are more apparent.  Listen carefully to a lot of different speakers until you have found the one you like that fits in your budget.  Then get a 'cheap' receiver like a Denon, Marantz, or Cambridge Audio and a cheap DVD player like a Panny.  I originally recommended the Panny as an amp, but unfortunately is does not have pre outs to give an easy upgrade path.  Take it home and enjoy it.  Over time your appreciation of what you system delivers in your environment will grow.  Have some like minded friends over.  Get them to bring their amps and players etc, go to their places, listen to their systems.  Join an audio club and attend their meetings. They often conduct listening tests - blind and otherwise.   Participate in forums like this.  In general start to get experience in listening and an understanding of the issues involved.  Then when you see an amp you like, or hear about, get an in home audition.  Good audiophile companies like Aspen will advise on how you can do this eg they sometimes have products doing the rounds for this exact purpose.  Listen carefully during the auditioning period and conduct blind listening test regularly.    At the end you the auditioning period you are in a position to know if you should buy or not. 

Personal comment.  Do I do this?.  Not entirely.  I have rather severe arthritis that limits my mobility.  I must base my decision to a large extent on what others who opinions I respect say.  Hence my participation in, and reliance on, forums like this.

Thanks
Bill