Amp stands- Do they work?


I recently purchased a Pass Aleph 3 and loved it so much that I "had to buy" a pair of the Aleph 2 monoblocks. I have been A/B-ing them at my home for the last 3 weeks for most of my free time. The 2s have a lot more presence, but lack the for lack of better words "musical reality" the 3 has. Forgive me for the term, but if you've heard the 3, then you probably understand. Anyway, I have asked most of the guys at Pass Labs and they essentially tell me I am hearing things- that the 2s "have all the sonic characteristics of the 3, just more of it" I have eliminated all other variables except that the 3 is on the bottom of my rack (Salamander Archetype), and the 2's are on the carpet in front of my system. I am interested in anyone's input as to the impact a reasonable stand might have on the sonics of my amps. I currently am acting on this hypothesis and have put the 3 on the floor next to the 2's. If it is of any help the components are in order- my source is a Muse Model 5 transport, Illuminati D-60 digital, EAD 7000 MkIII D/A, Kimber KCAG, Muse Model 3 preamp, WBT 5151 -great cable!!!!!, Pass Amps, Nordost Red Dawn speaker cable, B&W 804s. Counterpoint PAC-5 conditioner, API Power Wedge 4A conditioner. Marigo RMX ref power cables. Amps are using stock power cables- Nelson Pass's recommendation. Thanks for listening and I look forward to any input.
tsquared
Here are some suggestions: Step 1 of the reproducible criteria would be to see how individual pulse tones throughout the freq spec and pink and white noise are affected by change in system from various positions in listening room. Low freq pulse tones below 60 hz at relatively loud to check for inference with vibrations. (Dunlevy states that accuracy can be easily measured and that a lot of this critical listening for extended periods does exactly what I say it does. Of course Dunlevy uses wave form analysis to do this rather than just relying on the human ear). Step 2: use a common set of reference software LP/CD/SACD etc to evaluate what you consider to be the dominate types of music you listen to and what elements of musicality you find the most desirable. It is important that you are made unaware of when the system change has been made (changes made while you are out of the room. You listen blind folded with lights out.) As important to all of this is get a hearing test and find out where you are at. I have long suggested that Stereophile post the hearing tests of its reviewers (e.g., if they are 20 db down in a critical areas of the freq spectrum they should state this. Think about how this could weigh you thoughts on some ones evaluation. Anyone can insist they are hearing or not hearing things but this would help put a quantitative light on the subject and likely help you take some critiques with a grain of salt. Hint: Check the age of the reviewers. This is not to say you can not get musical enjoyment with dimenished hearing but that your perspection will change as your hearing fades and fades away. We should know this information!!)
Thanks Nanderson. But, with respect, I find your criteria underwhelming. I suspect the reason why we differ here can be sourced to your view that software, speakers and room make the biggest difference. This leads me to the view that our perspectives on reproduced music are very different. To simplify what I mean (and therefore shorten this post) let's just consider the relative importance of speakers versus a power amp. The very common view appears to be that speakers make more of a difference than power amps. This is true if you believe that the distortions in a stereo are completely measured by measuring frequency response anomolies and that bigger anomolies are always worse than smaller anomolies. Amplifiers tend to measure ruler-flat, but no speaker ever does, therefore speakers make more of a difference? I disagree. Differences between speakers are always very obvious in the short term (such as in a double-blind test). Differences in power amps are much less obvious in the short term (hence why people get confused during double-blind tests). But I still do not agree that speakers make more difference. Why? Whether you are listening to live music or a stereo, the sound that reaches your ears includes distortions that your brain attempts to resolve in order to make coherent sense out of what it hears. What I and many others have found is that certain, seemingly small distortions, which the brain appears to resolve in the short term become irritating distractions from enjoying the music over the long term. Perhaps the nature of the distortion is such that the brain can resolve it with some effort, but over the long term the effort is fatiguing, and therefore not conducive to musical enjoyment. This can come down to small things like whether you use brass spikes or steel spikes under your amplifier stand. While these things can be insignificant in a brief demonstration, the relief when they are removed after prolonged listening can be enormous. A good example of this is the way many sigh with relief when they replace their solid state amp with a tubed one - yet in a brief listen or with measurements the solid state amp may be objectively more accurate. So, back to speakers versus amps. For me, the distortions that are important are the ones that detract most from long term musical enjoyment - since that is my goal in this endeavour. In the case of speakers, I find there are very few that cannot be made to sound musical by appropriate set-up, room treatment and partnering electronics. On the other hand, I cannot say the same about power amplifiers. It is almost impossible to make an unmusical power amplifier sound good. Hence, for me, both your steps are flawed. I can well imagine that these steps work for you. No doubt we all have different musical values and different distortions irritate us differently. Perhaps those distortions that are obvious at a short listen are the only ones that irritate you. Perhaps you very rarely listen to your stereo and so short term listening is relevant to your listening habits. Perhaps you have lousy hearing and the effects of bad electronics are lost on you (lucky you). Perhaps you have such good hearing that distortions that only reveal themselves slowly to me are immediately obvious to you. Any one of these explanations makes us both right. Who knows?
Redkiwi--- I enjoyed your well stated post (above) and agree heartily. It really is about the psychology of hearing, and of course an important element of this psychology is time.
Thanks so much Garfish. I have been a little ungracious in my replies to Nanderson, and hereby apologise (again). But years of hearing from the measurement clones trotting out the same or similar stuff has led to me getting worked up about this topic. I do not expect them to accept my opinions about how something sounds, but when someone asks for opinions on such a thing (as occurred here), you get these flat earthers insisting your opinion is deluded and demanding proof. It might even be tolerable if it wasn't so repetitive. Even if our opinions are deluded, at least there is some variety to them.
Redkiwi, I agree with your thoughts concerning the importance of speakers versus amps. And with Garfish's comments about the psychology of hearing. Although I have strong feelings about my personal choice in a speaker, your statement about the effect of a non musical amp are absolutely true in my experience. All of the variables in a complex system have to be addressed, and impossible to assess in a momentary blind comparison. In addition, Nanderson appears to have motives totally unrelated to enjoying music. Several of his postings contain comments that sound like the views of an investment broker. Perhaps with a eye toward the spending on music and equipment, when those dollars could be directed toward goals of financial freedom he speaks of. Would there be a commission involved?