Leak Stereo 230 integrated amplifier Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements

I measured a different sample of the Leak Stereo 230, serial number LH000805CFD1195, than the one RS had auditioned. I performed the measurements using my Audio Precision SYS2722 system. I preconditioned the Stereo 230 by following the CEA's recommendation of running it at one-eighth the specified power into 8 ohms for 30 minutes. At the end of that time, the black grille on the amplifier's top panel was hot, at 118.1°F/47.9°C.

Looking first at the amplifier's behavior with its single-ended analog line input, with the Leak's volume control set to its maximum the voltage gain at 1kHz into 8 ohms measured 32.7dB from the speaker terminals, 0.6dB from the preamplifier output, and 10.37dB from the headphone output. The line input preserved absolute polarity (ie, was noninverting) from both output types, and the input impedance was slightly lower than the specified 10k ohms, at 8.23k ohms across the audioband.


Fig.1 Leak Stereo 230, line input, frequency response at 2.83V into: simulated loudspeaker load (gray), 8 ohms (left channel blue, right red), 4 ohms (left cyan, right magenta), 2 ohms (green) (1dB/vertical div.).


Fig.2 Leak Stereo 230, line input, small-signal, 10kHz squarewave into 8 ohms.


Fig.3 Leak Stereo 230, line input, frequency response at 2.83V into 8 ohms with treble and bass controls set to their maximum and minimum (left channel blue, right red).

The preamplifier output impedance was a low 90 ohms from 20Hz to 20kHz; that at the headphone output was a very low 5 ohms, again at all audio frequencies. The loudspeaker output impedance was low at 20Hz and 1kHz, at 0.11 ohm, but rose to 0.14 ohm at 20kHz. (These values include the series resistance of 6' of spaced-pair speaker cable.) Consequently the variation in frequency response with our standard simulated loudspeaker (fig.1, gray trace) was minimal. The small-signal response into resistive loads (fig.1, blue, red, cyan, magenta, and green traces) didn't start to roll off until well above the audioband. Fig.1 was taken with the volume control set to its maximum; a 0.5dB difference, in favor of the left channel, appeared at lower settings of the control. The Stereo 230's reproduction of a 10kHz squarewave into 8 ohms (fig.2) featured short risetimes and no overshoot or ringing. The bass and treble controls offered boosts and cuts of up to ±10dB (fig.3).


Fig.4 Leak Stereo 230, line input, Direct mode, spectrum of 1kHz sinewave, DC–1kHz, at 1W into 8 ohms with volume control set to the maximum (left channel blue, right red) and to –20dB (left green, right gray) (linear frequency scale).

Channel separation below 2kHz was good, at >80dB in both directions, but decreased to 63dB at 20kHz due to the usual capacitive coupling between the channels. In Direct mode, with the Stereo 230's line inputs shorted to ground and the volume control set to the maximum, the wideband, unweighted signal/noise ratio (ref. 2.83V into 8 ohms) measured a good 77.2dB in both channels. Restricting the measurement bandwidth to 22kHz increased the ratio to 88.4dB, and an A-weighting filter increased it further, to 91dB. With the tone controls active but set to do nothing, these ratios were all 6dB worse. Spectral analysis of the Leak's low-frequency noisefloor in Direct mode with the volume control set to the maximum (fig.4, blue and red traces) revealed that AC power-line–related spuriae were present, albeit at low levels. Reducing the volume by 20dB and increasing the input level by the same 20dB reduced the levels of the odd-order supply harmonics (green, gray traces). The random noise was 6dB higher with the tone controls active but dropped by 10dB with the volume control set to –20dB.


Fig.5 Leak Stereo 230, line input, THD+N (%) vs 1kHz continuous output power into 8 ohms.


Fig.6 Leak Stereo 230, line input, THD+N (%) vs 1kHz continuous output power into 4 ohms.

With both channels driven, the Stereo 230 is specified as delivering maximum output powers of 75Wpc into both 8 ohms (18.75dBW) and 115W into 4 ohms (17.6dBW). With our usual definition of clipping as being when the THD+N reaches 1%, the Stereo 230 slightly exceeded the specified powers, clipping at 80Wpc into 8 ohms (19dBW, fig.5) and 120Wpc into 4 ohms (17.8dBW, fig.6).


Fig.7 Leak Stereo 230, THD+N (%) vs frequency at 12.67V into: 8 ohms (left channel blue, right red), and 4 ohms (left green, right gray).


Fig.8 Leak Stereo 230, line input, 1kHz waveform at 20W into 8 ohms, 0.0026% THD+N (top); distortion and noise waveform with fundamental notched out (bottom, not to scale).


Fig.9 Leak Stereo 230, line input, spectrum of 1kHz sinewave, DC–10kHz, at 20Wpc into 8 ohms (left channel blue, right red; linear frequency scale).


Fig.10 Leak Stereo 230, line input, HF intermodulation spectrum, DC–30kHz, 19+20kHz at 40Wpc peak into 4 ohms (left channel blue, right red; linear frequency scale).

The distortion levels at 12.67V, which is equivalent to 20W into 8 ohms and 40W into 4 ohms (fig.7), were very low. Although the THD rose in the top two audio octaves, it remained below 0.1% (–60dB). The distortion signature appears to be primarily second-harmonic in nature (fig.8), lying at just –97dB (0.0014%, fig.9). Intermodulation distortion was also low (fig.10), the difference product at 1kHz lying at –71dB (0.03%) and the higher-order products at 18kHz and 21kHz at –80dB (0.01%).

Turning to the Stereo 230's MM-compatible phono input, I connected a wire between the ground terminal on the amplifier's rear panel and the analyzer's chassis ground, which minimized noise. This input preserved absolute polarity at all of the Leak's outputs. The input impedance, specified as 47k ohms, was 45k ohms at 20Hz and 1kHz, and 39.2k ohms at 20kHz. The maximum gain at 1kHz was 74dB at the speaker outputs, meaning that 1kHz at 5mV results in a signal just below the clipping power. The maximum gain at the preamplifier output was 41.8dB and 51.8dB at the headphone output. To avoid clipping the power amplifier stage, I used the headphone output for the phono input testing, which mutes the speaker outputs.


Fig.11 Leak Stereo 230, phono input, response with RIAA correction (left channel blue, right red) (0.5dB/vertical div.).


Fig.12 Leak Stereo 230, phono input, spectrum of 1kHz sinewave, DC–1kHz, for 10mV input with volume control set to the maximum (left channel blue, right red, linear frequency scale).

The phono input's RIAA correction (fig.11) was accurate and well matched between the channels. The wideband, unweighted S/N ratio with the inputs shorted to ground and the volume control set to its maximum was a good 68dB ref. 1kHz at 5mV in both channels. Restricting the measurement bandwidth to the audioband increased this ratio to 71dB, while inserting an A-weighting filter gave a further improvement to 83.4dB. The phono input's noisefloor was commendably free from power supply–related spuriae (fig.12).


Fig.13 Leak Stereo 230, phono input, spectrum of 1kHz sinewave, DC–1kHz, for 10mV input with volume control set to the maximum (left channel blue, right red, linear frequency scale).


Fig.14 Leak Stereo 230, phono input, HF intermodulation spectrum, DC–30kHz, 19+20kHz at 150mV peak input (left channel blue, right red; linear frequency scale).

The phono input's overload margins, measured with the volume control set to 2 o'clock to avoid clipping the headphone output, were good, at 21dB ref. 1kHz at 5mV from 20Hz to 20kHz. Harmonic distortion via this input was very low; with an input 10dB below the overload point, the second harmonic was the highest in level at just –90dB (0.003%; fig.13). The levels of the intermodulation products with an equal mix of 19 and 20kHz tones were vanishingly low (fig.14).

To examine the performance of the Leak's digital inputs, I used the Audio Precision's optical S/PDIF output, as well as sending test signals to the amplifier via USB from my MacBook Pro. The Stereo 230's S/PDIF input locked to datastreams with sample rates up to 192kHz. Apple's USB Prober app identified the Leak as "LEAK USB Audio 2.0" and revealed that the USB port operated in the optimal isochronous asynchronous mode. Apple's AudioMIDI utility showed that the Stereo 230 accepted 24- and 32-bit integer data sampled at all rates from 44.1kHz to 768kHz via USB.

With the volume control set to its maximum, a 1kHz digital signal at –20dBFS resulted in an output level of 9.81V into 8 ohms from the loudspeaker output, which is 8.2dB below the clipping voltage into this load. The Leak has 12dB too much gain for its digital inputs. The level at the preamp output with this signal was 240.7mV; that from the headphone output was 762.1mV. I used the headphone output for the digital input testing. With the volume control at its maximum, data at 0dBFS clipped the headphone output. I reduced the volume so that the level with 0dBFS data was 5V, well below clipping.


Fig.15 Leak Stereo 230, digital input, impulse response (one sample at 0dBFS, 44.1kHz sampling, 4ms time window).


Fig.16 Leak Stereo 230, digital input, wideband spectrum of white noise at –4dBFS (left channel red, right magenta) and 19.1kHz tone at 0dBFS (left blue, right cyan), with data sampled at 44.1kHz (20dB/vertical div.).

There is just one reconstruction filter; its impulse response with 44.1kHz data (fig.15) revealed that it is a short minimum-phase type, with a small amount of ringing following the single sample at 0dBFS. With 44.1kHz-sampled white noise (fig.16, red and magenta traces), the Stereo 230's digital input response rolled off gently above 20kHz, with the slow rolloff typical of the reconstruction filter used by MQA-enabled DACs for non-MQA data (footnote 1). The aliased image at 25kHz of a 19.1kHz tone at –3dBFS (blue and cyan traces) was attenuated by just 20dB, though the distortion harmonics of the 19.1kHz tone are all very low in level, at or below –90dB (0.003%).


Fig.17 Leak Stereo 230, digital input, spectrum with noise and spuriae of dithered 1kHz tone at –90dBFS with: 16-bit data (left channel cyan, right magenta), 24-bit data (left blue, right red) (20dB/vertical div.).


Fig.18 Leak Stereo 230, digital input, waveform of undithered 1kHz sinewave at –90.31dBFS, 16-bit data (left channel blue, right red).

Increasing the bit depth from 16 to 24 with a dithered 1kHz tone at –90dBFS lowered the noisefloor by 18dB (fig.17), meaning that the Stereo 230's digital inputs offer around 19 bits' worth of resolution. With undithered data representing a tone at exactly –90.31dBFS (fig.18), the three DC voltage levels described by the data were well resolved and the waveform was perfectly symmetrical, though overlaid with high-frequency noise.


Fig.19 Leak Stereo 230, digital input, HF intermodulation spectrum, DC–30kHz, 19+20kHz at –3dBFS peak, sampled at 44.1kHz.

The second-order intermodulation product at 1kHz with an equal mix of 19 and 20kHz tones with a peak level of –3dBFS lay at a very low –103dB (0.0007%, fig.19). As expected from fig.14, the aliased products at 24.1kHz and 25.1kHz are relatively high in level.


Fig.20 Leak Stereo 230, digital input, high-resolution jitter spectrum of analog output signal, 11.025kHz at –6dBFS, sampled at 44.1kHz with LSB toggled at 229Hz: 16-bit TosLink data (left channel blue, right red). Center frequency of trace, 11.025kHz; frequency range, ±3.5kHz.

The Leak's rejection of word-clock jitter with 16-bit data was identical with USB and S/PDIF data. While all the odd-order harmonics of the LSB-level, low-frequency squarewave were at the correct levels, indicated by the sloping green line in fig.20, the spectral spike that represents the high-level tone at one-quarter the sample rate is broadened at its base, this due to low-frequency random-noise jitter.

The Leak Stereo 230 amplifier offers excellent measured performance from all of its inputs.—John Atkinson


Footnote 1: See, for example, fig.2 here.

COMPANY INFO
Leak Audio
IAG House, 13/14 Glebe Rd.
Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE29 7DL
England, UK
(312) 841-4087
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
hemingway's picture

Engaging and entertaining, but also leave having a sense of this component's sound.

cognoscente's picture

Fortunately not another review of a Bugatti, because no one (here) buys one. I'm always a bit suspicious of fashionable retro vintage look equipment. Luckily this is one that sounds good. But "just" (unexpectedly) good for the price, or outstanding in its price. That is what we all ultimately want to read here, how does it sound in comparison to the reference in the price range.

Tom Gibbs's picture

Great review, Rob -- I really love the Leak gear, especially its retro-cool vibe. And it was my utmost pleasure to assist!

Enjoy the holidays!

Tom

rschryer's picture

You too, my friend.

Stay well.

Rob

michelesurdi's picture

attack of the chinese zombie!

Ortofan's picture

... $1,800 Yamaha R-N1000N, which includes a room correction function - but lacks a wood cabinet.

https://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio_visual/hifi_components/r-n1000a/index.html

hollowman's picture

This is the only place to post on this SERIOUS issue/development with Stereophile.
Its long-time running Forum and all content seem to have been VANISHED.
Many of us have contributed time and effort into our posts in the Forum. For almost two decades.
It's OKAY for Stereophile to discontinue the FORUM as Stereophile deems necessary. But please leave the content in place. It's disingenuous to disappear it from existence without proper, public notice.

ChrisS's picture

...some curlies left behind?

mosfet50's picture

Too bad, class D is the best you can get. Why? Because you can make class D sound like any amp ever built, put a tube on the input stage and bias it just right and bingo the output sounds like a tube amp. A jfet, sure, if that's the sound you want.
It's not magic, it's electronic engineering, it's based in science. The only difference between an oscilloscope and an amplifier is what you want the instrument to do.

I get it there's no flash, no mystery and less money to be made but those are the facts, that's the science and just like it takes science to design an amp it takes science to design an arbitrary wave form generator (AWG).

I laugh when I hear all about how the power supply is different or the bias is different, etc.
We can make an electric car for $30k with sophisticated motor technology but we can't seem to make a decent turntable for $1k.
This is why engineers find audio so amusing, we need to break in an amp for 100 hours before it works right. I have instruments than can measure down to picoamps. I've never been told or read anywhere in the instructions that I have to run it in for 100 hours before it works right!

kelven's picture

Yes, measurements are important.
So, too, is blind listening--where not uncommonly what is qualitatively discerned has yet to be captured through quantitative means.
I'll leave it at that.

mosfet50's picture

Can anyone hear a signal that's 100 dB down and 60 kHz? Forget the 100 dB down, 0 dB. No one can hear it, your dog can't hear it, but you can measure it on a instrument easily.

Anyone ever buy a test instrument where the manufacturer told you to use it for 100 hours before it works right? No one would buy it!

Anyone ever buy a modern instrument with a rectifier tube? No, you can't hear DC. An engineer who designed a scope with a rectifier tube would get laughed at and fired.

Here's the problem, audio reviewers don't know electronics, so some marketing guy gives them a a pile of nonsense and they have no reference to understand that it's meaningless, so they parrot it like it actually makes a difference in how something sounds or works. So now we have these $100k turntables that are nonsense and we have line conditioning that's useless.

My favorite, stands to keep wires off the floor... no wait vacuum tube rectifiers .. no wait, $1k a foot cables... no wait.....

The only valid testing is a DBT, that's science, everything else is subjectivity.

ChrisS's picture

...they shop

and buy what they like.

mosfet50's picture

We know what makes an amplifier sound a certain way. For example we know people like harmonics. Nelson Pass did a brave thing, good old Nelson! He sat people down in front of amps and asked them what sound they liked. He then designed his amps for that distortion - we like distortion, just certain harmonics. Before Nelson everyone was clamoring about low distortion so he comes out with an amp full of second harmonics, if you look at a scope you can see them. People love his amps, I love second harmonics, I put tubes in front of class D full of second harmonics that I contoured to what I like. No mystery, no voodoo, basic science and at a reasonable cost.

So we know what sounds we like and we know how to get them.
Electronics is a very sophisticated field, there's no amp today that we can't contour to the sound people like - whatever that sound is.

The problem is there's a lot of money in audio so a reviewer who can't hear the difference between two amps or turntables is sunk, he'll never get another piece of equipment to review, that's why they don't do DBT's.

Caveat emptor, I'm giving you the uncommercialized science. When I say class D is the future and it shadows everything else you can bet I've tested it and tested it. Class D can give you any sound you like, it's neutral, go listen to Bruno Putzeys from Purifi.

The problem is you can make class D inexpensively. So what do you think guys like Dan D'Agostino with his $50k amp think about that? Put some more gold on it Dan, that'll make it sound better!

ChrisS's picture

...I don't know why.

ChrisS's picture

...Why?

Ortofan's picture

... $1,100 Technics SL-100C turntable?

https://us.technics.com/products/direct-drive-turntable-sl-100c

https://trackingangle.com/equipment/technics-sl-100c-is-a-grand-bargain

mosfet50's picture

Here's the problem, there's some reviewer who thinks he or she can hear the difference between a $1k turntable and a $5K turntable, or $100k turntable. That's why people buy $100k turntables, they think or have been fooled into thinking it sounds better.

ChrisS's picture

...but the Coke in China tastes different.

Why?

mosfet50's picture

It can be measured scientifically.

"The basic ingredients and process used to make Coca‑Cola are the same in all countries, although people perceive taste in very different ways. It is possible for the same soft drink to vary slightly in taste due to other factors such as the temperature at which it is consumed, the foods with which it is consumed, or the conditions in which it is stored prior to consumption."
source: Coca-Cola

ChrisS's picture

...is not very exact.

And what if I don't like it?

mosfet50's picture

That doesn't change the fact that differences can be observed scientifically or amplifiers can't be designed to satisfy different audio tastes.

You're trying to add mystery to audio the same way you tried to add mystery to why Coke tastes different in different countries. Go back and look at your first statement.

ChrisS's picture

Don't like it, wrong colour, fits with the decor, just a bit too big but will do, on sale, etc....

DBT?

Nah.

mosfet50's picture

The DBT is science, what do you propose we use instead of science? Subjectivity?

"The earth is flat."
"What's the proof?"
"Because I think it is."

That's called subjectivity.

You're sick, you go to a doctor, he says you have high blood pressure, that's called science. You're sick because I think there are pixies on the moon is subjectivity.

It's useless.

ChrisS's picture

...dbt is not shopping.

So read tech journals, not Stereophile.

mosfet50's picture

Can I read Stereophile to see what new music is released? Sure.

Can I read tech journals AND Stereophile? Sure!

What's your point?

ChrisS's picture

...doing dbt's.

mosfet50's picture

Yes, they do, they shop built on informed decisions. DBT's are the tool that informs them.

How do you buy things? Subjectivity? We just went through the nonsense of that.

The end!

ChrisS's picture

...otherwise you have bias.

Blind.

Double.

ChrisS's picture

You don't shop much, do you?

ChrisS's picture

...much?

hollowman's picture

Because incel life is unrecoverable and leads to opioid self-medication ... and palliative care.

ChrisS's picture

Respects to T.S. Elliot

"Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion"

mosfet50's picture

If we don't use DBT's all that is left is subjectivity.

The world is flat because I think it is.

People thinking they can hear the difference between two resistors but fail miserably trying to do it in a DBT.

Magazine editors don't do DBT's because if they can't hear the difference, and by the way that has happened often, they lose advertisers. Did you ever read a bad review? You never will, they'll lose advertisers.

You think Dan D'Agostino is going to be happy if a reviewer can't hear the difference between his amp and a class D for a fraction of the price? He's scared to death of that and he knows it won't happen in popular audio magazines.

Engineers laugh at audio designs. What do you think would happen if Keysight sold an instrument with a vacuum tube rectifier and then told you to use it for 100 hours before it works right. That's rhetorical, they'd be out of business.

You can't launch that spacecraft to the moon for 100 hours because the transistors have to break in!

ChrisS's picture

Go back to Gr. 5.

They know how to do "science".

mosfet50's picture

You can't simply say you made something up, you have to disprove what I said.

Does Keysight tell customers they have to run their instruments for 100 hours before they work right? Never, I own lots of instruments and never saw that once. disprove it.

ChrisS's picture

...There, I said it again.

mosfet50's picture

"There are none more hopelessly enslaved that those who falsely believe they are free."

ChrisS's picture

Here goes...

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” -George Orwell

I'm going to take a 2nd shot...

"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read." -Groucho Marx

ChrisS's picture

...does DBT while shopping.

No one.

mosfet50's picture

I do them right at home.

Because reviewers have shown they can't do DBT's they have convinced buyers to listen to their opinions which is how most people buy equipment. They give away magazines because on every other page there's an ad, that's how they sell a magazine for $13 a month when the internet has devastated magazine sales.

Show me a negative review if you think I made it up.

ChrisS's picture

No one does dbt to shop.

ChrisS's picture

...do a dbt at home?

Do you live alone?

rschryer's picture

DBTs are not part of the audiophile culture. DBTs are a cock blocker to our enjoyment of the audio hobby. We're not engineers, we're music lovers.

That aside, if you come here, you should, at minimum, not demand things from us—not in our own backyard. It's rude, and narrow-minded. We don't owe you anything, and maybe your perspective is lacking in self-awareness. Your opinion is just that: your opinion.

Oh, and audiophiles do AB gear comparisons all the time. That's how we choose our gear. We just don't feel the need to do it blindfolded.

mosfet50's picture

DBT's are a scientific tool to differentiate components without bias, once we have chosen the components we enjoy the sound of there is no reason to constantly do DBT's. Am I stating the obvious here? Audio reviewers don't do DBT's for the same reason they don't give bad reviews, advertisers would stop sending equipment to review and stop advertising in their magazines. Look at your magazine, an ad on every other page. What would happen if a reviewer couldn't hear the difference between a $1k amp and $20k amp? Let me remind you that it was a reviewer who raved about a $3k amp driven by a $5 LM3886 chip! It was also a reviewer who thought he could hear the difference between different batteries powering a circuit, which is scientifically impossible - you can't hear DC.

If we can hear the difference between two components in an A/B comparison then we can hear them in a DBT - a priori.
The difference is that a DBT removes bias, intended or otherwise. (cognitive dissonance)

DBT's are not part of your audiophile culture. Maybe that's how audiophiles got stands to keep wires off the floor because they think they sound better
and vacuum tube rectifiers because they think they sound better than solid state which is scientifically impossible.

And, yes, I have designed instruments to allow me to DBT different amplifiers that I have designed right in my own home. It's called science and every audio amplifier uses the same formulas as every other instrument, the only difference is the function of the instrument. If you can't measure it you can't hear it. I have instruments that measure down to picoamps. There is no living creature that can hear differences that minute - none. Can you hear 250kHz, no creature can, can you hear the difference between 100kHz and 100,001 Hz? No, no creature can but we can easily measure it. We know how to make amplifiers to sound specific ways, electronic engineering is a very sophisticated science. Ask Nelson Pass about how to do that, he sat people in a room and asked them what sound they like then he designed amps to sound that way.

It's science and reason, what you do is up to you, it doesn't change how I design, listen or evaluate.

What's rude are the ad hominem attacks by some of the people here.

ChrisS's picture

Mosfet50, go back to Gr.4 to learn the "scientific method"...

"In fourth grade, students will continue to develop skills in posing questions and predicting outcomes, planning and conducting simple investigations, collecting and analyzing data, constructing explanations, and communicating information about the natural world."

Go to college to learn how to use DBT properly.

ChrisS's picture

...or shopping, mosfet50.

No one.

John Atkinson's picture
mosfet50 wrote:
Show me a negative review if you think I made it up.

A recent example of a review with negative findings: www.stereophile.com/content/infigo-method-3-monoblock-power-amplifier-measurements.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

mosfet50's picture

"No matter: I was seduced by the Method 3's warmth, beauty, range of color, and smoothness on top. Recordings that had previously sounded too bright and edgy in my listening room were now listenable, and those that were ideally recorded sounded smoother, with more color differentiation than ever. " JVS

You found a missing ground on the XLR but still buttered it over.

John Atkinson's picture
mosfet50 wrote:
Magazine editors don't do DBT's because if they can't hear the difference, and by the way that has happened often, they lose advertisers.

I have taken part in more than 100 blind tests in the past 50 years, both single-blind and double-blind. In those tests, I identified to a statistically significant degree: 2 amplifiers (one solid-state, one tubed); loudspeaker cables; interconnects (same interconnect but with the grounding shield connected at alternate ends); series capacitors (electrolytic and plastic film with same measured value); speakers with/without spikes; D/A processors; MQA vs hi-rez PCM; an 0.5dB difference in tweeter level; and many many loudspeakers.

mosfet50 wrote:
Did you ever read a bad review? You never will, they'll lose advertisers.

Losing advertisers never bothered me, because they will return. As I wrote in 2009 - see www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/communities/index.html - it was my predecessor as the editor of Hi-Fi News & Record Review magazine, the late John Crabbe, who defined for me the relationship between a magazine's editorial integrity and the advertisers who financially support it (readers, sadly, are never a significant source of income, given the high costs of distribution): "If you tell the truth about components you review, there will always be a small percentage of companies at any one time who are not advertising in your pages. But if you publish the truth, you will have a good magazine. And if you have a good magazine, you will have readers. And as long as you have readers, disgruntled advertisers will eventually return. But if you don't tell the truth, you won't have a good magazine. And if you don't have a good magazine, you won't have readers, at least not for long. And if you don't have readers, you won't have advertisers."

Amen to that thought, John.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

mosfet50's picture

That's two DBT's a year and where are the links to those tests? Under what conditions and independent source were those tests conducted? After your comment on the "bad" review I want to read all the info, not just your opinion of how you did. And how many DBT's did you fail miserably on?

How many pieces of equipment have you reviewed over those 50 years?

But let's cut to the chase.

Regardless whether one's eyes are opened or closed science has established that the hearing itself doesn't change:

"As in the main experiment, our results provide evidence for the absence of any difference in perceptual sensitivity and criterion for open versus closed eyes."

Source: National Institute of Health

If you can hear it with your eyes open, you can hear it with your eyes closed. The difference is that with closed eyes we don't have the luxury of knowing which piece of equipment is which.
The result of that unknowing is doubt, you don't do DBT's because you doubt your ability to differentiate between products.

DBT's are science, without science all that remains is subjectivity - opinion. The world is flat because I think it is!

Stereophile doesn't do DBT's because manufacturers wouldn't send equipment in to be reviewed and they wouldn't advertise. They understand that if their product sounded no better than a product at a fraction of the price, they would lose a lot of sales.

It's electronic engineering, it's far more difficult to design a cell phone in the GHz range than any audio equipment. Reviewers and manufacturers want to create mystery around audio designs where there's none - voodoo.

That quote wasn't your statement, it was the statement of John Crabbe in 1976, it has nothing to do with you or your relationship to your advertisers.

The bottom line, audio has become voodoo, with all kinds of nonsense - tube rectifiers, preconditions, $25k cables, toroidal transformers, etc., etc.

I put the blame for a good part of that on audio reviewers who ran out of superlatives in 1976. Dan D'Agostino with an ad in Sterophile saying his amp is "better than perfection". No Dan, that's why it's called perfection, it's not possible to have anything greater than perfection! Geeze, you can't make this stuff up, simply amazing.

stereostereo's picture

Curious as to why anyone who does not believe that a $5,000 turntable does sound better than a $1000. reads or interfaces with this magazine?

mosfet50's picture

Prove you can hear the difference in a DBT, I'm still waiting for a magazine audio reviewer to do that.

(actually I'm not, it won't ever happen)

What's it got to do with interfacing with a magazine?

ChrisS's picture

Gr. 5's know how to do "science".

Actually, I believe young people are learning about scientific inquiry in Gr.4!

ChrisS's picture

...are real, mosfet50.

Maybe you are really mosfet49!

We'll never know...

supamark's picture

Double blind test of the Tandberg 3009a mono amplifier (which used MOSFETs lol). Reviewer was Larry Greenhill, aka LG because he did a lot of reviews for Stereophile as well at the late, lamented Audio Magazine. The results were inclusive overall. 38 years ago.

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio/80s/Audio-1986-01.pdf

That was easy, maybe learn to google.

Mark Phillips,
Contributor, Soundstage! Network.

PS - they have nearly all the old issues of Audio there, from 1947 until it shut down in 2000. It was unlike any other magazine covering consumer sound.

mosfet50's picture

"He made 16 identification attempts over a 11/2 - hour listening session, using a Bryston 413. (dual -mono)
amplifier for comparison. The results were 12 correct out of 16 trials, a statistically significant score"

"During this second attempt, he achieved only seven correct identifications out of 16 trials..."

How do we know the conditions were the same? Because he said so? Do we get to examine the conditions? There had to be a reason if he could do the test one time and not the next. What was the reason, did he change something he didn't realize -who proofed his testing? One person, two tests and DBT's are worthless? Because he failed the second DBT isn't the fault of the DBT. The methodology was flawed.

Would his subjective perceptions be any better? No, one day he might love the amp the next day, after a fight with his wife, he might hate it. This is the problem with subjectivity.

ChrisS's picture

...that DBT is not appropriate for audio reviewing.

Too many unknown variables...you said so yourself, mosfet50.

There is nothing about another listener's testing conditions that applies to my own experience of using any component in my own stereo system in my own room listening to my own music.

supamark's picture

I showed you that you were 100% wrong, they were doing it at least 38 years ago. I don't think you understand this whole "point making" thing.

mosfet50's picture

Are you serious? That was one guy once 38 years ago! Who's doing it today? Site me any major magazine doing DBT's routinely today? Why aren't they, that's the question? They don't work? No, they do work, it's called science, what reviewers do is called anecdotal. The world is flat because I think it is!

They're not doing it because if they can't hear the difference in equipment at markedly different prices, and many, many times they can't, then what happens?

You think if I make an expensive amp I'm going to take the chance it will be upstaged by a cheap amp? Not on your life! You think I'm going to advertise in that magazine? That's rhetorical - never!

Disprove the statement I just made.

Can you do it, can you hear differences in a DBT? Go into an audio dealer sit down, close your eyes and tell dealer to switch between amps without telling you which one is playing.

You're fighting science with subjectivity - you can't win. Greenfield did it 38 years ago, do we have any way of validating his methodology, his set up? Were there people proofing his testing procedures. Did anyone question why there was a disparity? Not that I can see.

In order for audio sales to work today there has to be mystery, otherwise you can't sell people ridiculously expensive equipment, preconditioners, cables, tube rectifiers, etc. DBT's take the mystery out of audio, they bring it back down to earth, we all benefit from that, the manufacturers and reviewers get checked, right now it's the wild west.

ChrisS's picture

...don't we?

The total copy where dbt's are performed by Larry Greenhill and David Clark and reported in the articles in Audio magazine are pretty well "statistically insignificant."

And the resulting effects of those dbt's on audio reviewing...?

Yep, statistically zero.

Mosfet49, you are a "perfect" conspiracist! You can be a whole committee just on your own!

rschryer's picture

If I prefer driving a Mustang Cobra to a Porsche 911, am I wrong?

mosfet50's picture

Apples to Oranges.

We do blind tests all the time:

"I Did a Blind Taste Test of 8 Aldi Products Versus Name Brands — Here’s How It Went"

"At last! I could taste a difference! One hummus had a distinctively better texture. We were told that one brand was Cedar’s Organic Original Hummus ($3.99) and the other was Aldi’s SimplyNature Organic Hummus ($2.29). I liked one so much better, so I figured it was the Cedar’s brand. But I was wrong! The Aldi version was definitely the better one."

source: The Kitchn.com

Audio listeners who don't do them are afraid - it's based in doubt.

"As in the main experiment, our results provide evidence for the absence of any difference in perceptual sensitivity and criterion for open versus closed eyes."
source: National Institute of Health

rschryer's picture

.. is that you're more cerebral, and we're more sensual.

Why do you like DBTs so much when they depend on human perception?

mosfet50's picture

Listening to music is human perception, the sense of hearing. Just like the taste test I posted DBT's allow us to make, as much as possible, unbiased choices.

If we don't use DBT's what do you propose we replace them with? I've already showed that there are no differences to hearing perception with open and closed eyes. Remember our goal is compare two products with the least bias, DBT's remove personal bias and subjectivity feeds it.

We're not trying to determine which product sounds best, that's a relative term. We're determining which product we personally like the sound of most. I'm not taking personal preferences out of audio equipment selection, I'm refining it. I still love audio on several levels and there's still subjectivity right down to the music I listen to on a particular night.

You may love the looks of one amp and despise the looks of another that sounds equally enjoyable to you or even better and take home the one you like the looks of, I'm not refuting that choice.

ChrisS's picture

Answering all your own questions, mosfet26!

No one has been paralyzed by the vast lack of DBT's when shopping for McIntosh amps, Ford trucks or medium size Tampons!

(Ok, maybe you have...)

Trevor_Bartram's picture

I was given a 70s Leak amplifier, that looked uncannily like the 230, by a friend returning to the UK about 15 years ago. It went to the Sally Army during a recent equipment clear out. Now I wish I'd retro fitted it with modern electronics, though I suspect NOS switch gear would be the difficult to find. Retro dreams.....

Talos2000's picture

Many, many years ago, my system comprised a Linn Sondek, Naim 32/250 and AAD Solstice speakers. It sounded wonderful. Then the Naim 250 failed, and back to Naim it went for an estimate of repairs. Naim proposed a total rebuild to the latest specs, and the price seemed beyond reason, so I balked. What to do? For bizarre reasons, my friend lent me his old Leak Stereo 30 Plus. I removed the preamp boards and connected the Naim 32 directly to the inputs on the power amp boards. This was intended to tide me over while I figured out what to do next. That wasn't how it worked out. Not only could the Leak handle the Solstice's difficult load with ease, it made me forget all about the Naim 250. I used it for two solid years until the owner decided he needed it back, and never once in that time did I miss the Naim. So I know Leak .... and I'm so happy to read that the new Leak - whose styling is almost identical, btw - offers so many of the attributes I found so appealing in the old one.

mosfet50's picture

If you see commenting on here, ignore me because I will be completely ignoring you from this post and infinitely afterwards.

ChrisS's picture

...ridicule you and others for your lack of understanding of scientific methodology.

ChrisS's picture

...then I will have nothing further to say.

X