I disagree with Mark Z, lycan, and DS-21 on the specifics of intelligibility.
There is the simple, dumbed down version we're treated to here, and then there is the realm of time-based improvement.
Is it possible that as a filtering device, the human hearing mechanism is simply too crude, too diverse and too subjective as a measurement device, such that the five distinctly measurable criteria lycan uses to divide fact from fiction, are only the five most important parameters, ones that can be measured by media that "moves faster" in correlation?
no, it's not possible.
What you're missing is that the devices under discussion are
electrical. Their outputs are
electrical signals. And electrical theory is very well established, and
very comprehensive.
There's only a handful of parameters that can describe an electrical signal. These parameters have equivalent descriptions in the time domain, and frequency domain. There's simply no other "secret domain" that human hearing knows about *wink wink* but that somehow escapes the scrutiny of well-established electrical theory and analysis.
If the voltages presented to two loudspeakers are identical, according to all electrical measurement and theory, there's simply no way for the loudspeakers to sound "different" because of some mysterious, magical realm that only human hearing is privy to.
I'm not disagreeing with the principle of this supposition, because I am pretty sure Richard Clark did his turn on the catwalk without tripping, but more a consternation of reciprocal ideas gone awry, as I truly wish to remove the scientist from his lab.
Let's suppose that it were possible to create an amp identical to another, except for the ability to create power over time, something like "Dynamic Power on Demand" or non-negative feedback designs that let hysteresis or back emf commingle the signal, would these then fall under "noise, distortion, gain, freq response, etc."?
I'm of the belief that the human mind is subject to principles of detection that over time, will allow one amplifier to ultimately satisfy more than another, and it's because over time one becomes aware of things that might not be readily apparent. Things like listener fatigue, and highly reactive speaker loads, heat dissipation, radiant noise interference, the dreaded "sub-harmonic resonances"... what happens when you compare the circuit design itself, why would an amplifier designer gain precedence over another in this day and age if all the amps can be made to sound the same through simple adjustments?
I want to believe that you can math it out all the way but I reserve the right to drink the milk of bovines, irregardless...........
lol.
A laboratory IS the "real world" ... the only difference being that it's a world where variables are controlled, so that cause & effect can be determined.
Richard Clark's test can't be beaten, because it simply demonstrates the principles we're discussing. If two amplifiers deliver the same ELECTRICAL signal to a loudspeaker, there's simply NO WAY they can "sound" different. What constitutes "the same" as far as electrical signals are concerned? It's simple : gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion. There's no other "hidden realm" outside the scope of Fourier Analysis, Parseval's Theorem, etc. that *only* human hearing "knows about"
Is there another domain for describing electrical signals ... other than the time domain & frequency domain?
Voodoo priests and audiophiles don't understand this point : if the electrical signals presented to a loudspeaker are the same, then the speaker has no choice but to respond the same ... and human hearing is not uniquely "clued-into" some magical realm where this simple, logical conclusion is somehow false.
Want to prove this conclusion false? Fine ... set up two amplifiers that deliver the same electrical signal ... according to full time-domain analysis, according to full frequency-domain analysis ... and demonstrate an observable, statistically-significant difference. One should note, however, that it's been tried many, many times ...
Wait ... what about reactive loads? Already included ... they will, or will not, impact the
frequency response of the amplifier(s) in question. If a significant, measurable difference is observed, then a sonic difference will also be possible. If the amplifier's output impedance is low enough that the reactive load presents no significant difference in
frequency response, then the electrical signals presented to a loudspeaker will be the same. Can a sonic difference still be heard? Does the speaker "know" something OTHER than the voltage presented to it's terminals?
Wait ... what about heat dissipation? I'll give you two amps : the electrical outputs measure identically, but one is hotter then the other. How will the loudspeaker know the difference? Well, maybe the speaker's temperature is a bit higher cuz it's in close proximity to the warm amp ...
Wait ... what about weight? Two amps have identical electrical outputs, but one amplifier weighs more than the other. Maybe it's gravitational field impacts the speaker differently ...
Wait .. what about listener fatigue? Again, missing the point. Amplifiers are ELECTRICAL. They are measured in the TIME DOMAIN, and/or FREQUENCY DOMAIN. If two amplifiers deliver the same signal, measured over TIME ... how will human hearing "fatigue" over one of them, but not the other? That's where that pesky "laboratory" comes in handy, what with it's nifty ability to logically separate variables vis-a-vis cause & effect ...