"One of them was able to identify a "buzzing" sound which was more pronounced in the tube amplifier. He was able to detect this difference 100% of the time."

Tubes Versus Transistors in Electric Guitar Amplifiers

Interesting paper, these were all guitar players too, so they all had some training going in. Probably like most things, harder to detect in a blind trial that you might think. The typos in that paper on the other hand were not so hard to detect.

_________________

Hm. Well for starters, typos aside, it's not a well written-up experiment, so it is impossible to assess the worth of the results.

For example, we need to see the results clearly and extensively tabulated. There's no way to gauge what they mean from the woolly descriptions given.

And there is very poor description of the methodology. It is supposed to be a double-blind experiment. We are told that the participants could adjust the tone controls but not volume levels - how was this done without them being able to see control panels which would have revealed which amp was which? Do-able, but we need to be told how it was achieved for it to be credible.

True double-blind tests are conducted by people who are not involved in designing them. We are told the "administrator" left the room at the same time as the participant, but we are not told who the administrator was, or for that matter what s/he actually did in the experiment. We're told nothing about the environment in which the experiment took place, how things were laid out, what the participants were told, who they were, what their experience was, whether they were paid, who the experimenters were, where this all happened - and so on and so on.

In other words we need a far, far better write-up to draw any meaningful conclusions from the results. The experiment may or may not be a well-designed one: we are not in a position to judge.

Unfortunately, as it stands it is merely a candidate for a Ben Goldacre Bad Science award. (Here, if you don't know: www.badscience.net . I heartily recommend Goldacre's book on how these things should and should not be done, and why most such “experiments” produce results that are not worth the paper they’re written on.)

Cheers - C

_________________

I vote for Ceri to perform a double blind test to finally answer the age old question of maple vs rosewood necks.

While he's at it, tubes vs solid state, digital vs analog, Fender vs Marshall, Fender vs Gibson, Fender vs Squire, stock pups vs lace/fralins etc., tone wood vs cinder block, Clapton vs Beck, and finally rock vs roll.

Tomorrow would be fine.

Thanks, I eagerly awake the results.

Far as that one's concerned, it would be quite easy to design a test, and sooner or later I'd like to take a crack at it. Of course, it couldn't be me who then performed the test, or it wouldn't be a double-blind.



Yesterday would be better still. 60 years of real-time testing via the experimental method of song lyrics has conclusively shown that rock wins. I'm glad to be able to present this result to the world.

Cheers - C

_________________

ah, but what you have to remember Ceri, is that a rolling stone gathers no moss. Whereas a rock... er... could end up somewhat covered in lichen should it ever be lose its sense of fun and become a tad too emotional.

erm. yup indeedy.

Mental note, think before you start writing next time Olly. *slaps forehead and walks away*

_________________
`I prefer not to listen to music that I can't rip off or improve on` - Ian Dury

Can't say that I disagree with any point you make. Despite the problems with the "study" I still find it interesting - just not to be taken too seriously.

Cheers back,

_________________
In my opinion Leo Fender had essentially perfected the guitar amplifier by 1964.

Wait a minute.....before testing ends can we include...vintage vs. new,and relic'd vs. non relic'd!?...oh,oh!!...and strings,13s vs. 9s and how heavy or not the sounds are!

Pete Townshend wrote Long Live Rock. Whereas Noel Gallagher said Roll With It.

If that ain't scientific proof that rock beats roll I'm a Dutchman.

Proost - C

_________________

What I find most interesting about these kinds of comparisons is.. What's the purpose? In the end who are these people trying to please? If it's the average person or listener who knows nothing about guitar equipment, then I would say it's all a huge waste of energy.

For instance.. I've played a lot of shows using both my Roland JC50 and Fender Hot Rod Deville on many different occasions. You know how many average people in the crowd noticed? I sure as Hell don't. Nobody has ever come up to me and said, "is that a different amp? It sounds so much better than the other one you used that last time I saw you guys play."

Instead, I get more people who just say, "I like your band, you guys sound great."

We, the musicians, are the tone chasers. The crowd just wants to be entertained. If I even tried to explain the differences between the two amps to an average person, I would just get a blank stare.

_________________

Exactly.

_________________
No no and no

I'm no Dutchman either, but I do know one, he grows flowers for a living.

Yes, while rock has stood the test of time, I do enjoy a good roll from time to time.

Bingo! Jah Soldier goes to the head of the class.

A good amp is a good amp and POS is a POS whether it's Solid State or Tubes.

blind leading the blind,,, twice....RIGHT?

Did I pass?

L.A.

right on! when i go out to hear a band, i pay attention to the gear too. my wife knows nothing about it. if its a band i see on a regular basis, i'll strike up a conversation if i see something different, or notice a different sound. again, the mrs. has no idea what i am talking about.

can't tell you how mant times i have gone up to the guitar player and struck up a conversation. i like finding out what they are doing too