Why does my amp sound better than my receiver?

[Geoffcin]

One's imagination might inflate the differences -- but there are real differences.

I just replace my venerable Phase Linear 400 because I thought I had a broken rectifier bridge; turns out it was only a ground loop largely fixed by fiddling the connections. However I tried out a NAD C270 before I knew that.

The thing is, I really did not expect the NAD to be better, but it was. At first listen I thought it sounded soft, maybe lacking in detail. In fact, I was only missing the '70 solid state "etch". On further listening, I discovered the NAD to be at least equally detail and more airy and transparent. (For all that, the Phase probably has the tighter bass).

Needless to say I kept the NAD. BTW, a huge bargain at Cdn$575, about US$430.

Glad to hear your Phase Linear is still topside.

I know it's hard to belive but it's true. While the old stuff is good, the new stuff can be better. After doing a bunch of A/B's with my vintage PS Audio 200c amp compared to my Musical Fidelity A3cr it's become pretty obvious that the Musical Fidelity is a "better" amp. More transparent, cleaner, right up until it runs out of gas, and that's really way too loud to be listening anyway.

[Sealed]

Glad to hear your Phase Linear is still topside.

I know it's hard to belive but it's true. While the old stuff is good, the new stuff can be better. After doing a bunch of A/B's with my vintage PS Audio 200c amp compared to my Musical Fidelity A3cr it's become pretty obvious that the Musical Fidelity is a "better" amp. More transparent, cleaner, right up until it runs out of gas, and that's really way too loud to be listening anyway.

I have the A3.2 preamp which sounds great stock. It sounds like something you'd get for around $5k. Fast, musical, etc.

I modded mine by sheilding the toroids and case, and just installed bypass caps on the power supply caps. This thing went from great sounding to wet-your-pants great! The sheer speed and openness it has now really pull you into the music.

[Geoffcin]

I have the A3.2 preamp which sounds great stock. It sounds like something you'd get for around $5k. Fast, musical, etc.

I modded mine by sheilding the toroids and case, and just installed bypass caps on the power supply caps. This thing went from great sounding to wet-your-pants great! The sheer speed and openness it has now really pull you into the music.

Nice deal!

I'ld like to say that I wanted to hear this but I DON'T! Actually, I know my preamp is probably the next thing to go, and of course having a Musical Fidelity amp thier preamp is on my short list. The one saving grace is that the PS Audio IV preamp has a passive setting, and my amps have so much gain that I rarely ever have to use anything but the passive setting.

[kode3]

You on the other hand have no idea what revealing is, or what high end is. You only speculate with no proof. You have spent too many years managing a 7-11, listening to JBL's and a reciever to have developed any sort of discerning hearing. I am convinced you are totally tone deaf and cannot tell the difference between Bose and Magnepan. It's long overdue time for you to STFU and quit telling people what they can't hear, just because your sorry deaf ass can't. You need to get the hell away from the PC and get a real system, 5000+ posts telling other people what they hear and don't is 4,999+ too many. Piss off, and quit projecting your own shortcomings, inexperiance, and deafness onto others.

People would laugh thier asses off at you if they knew what a sad joke of a stereo system you have!

I agree! it's about time someone said it. Thank you.

[E-Stat]

I agree! it's about time someone said it. Thank you.

C'mon guys, even though I don't defend his positions, I will support his right on a public board to speak his opinion. I think his particular "style" shall we say hardly gives creedence to the notions he parrots. Anyone who accepts his "non experience" approach would likely be content with the mid-fi world anyway.

rw

[kode3]

C'mon guys, even though I don't defend his positions, I will support his right on a public board to speak his opinion. I think his particular "style" shall we say hardly gives creedence to the notions he parrots. Anyone who accepts his "non experience" approach would likely be content with the mid-fi world anyway.

rw

True. But it does get old hearing the same things over and over again. But I do understand what your saying, and I respect it.

[mtrycraft]

I have about 14 years experiance listening to high end ranging from $3k setups to $200k.


And? That gives you immunity? Not all experience is equal, nor reliable. Joh Edwards has more experience, So does Sylvia Brown.




I am over the age and experiance level where placebos and silly ineffective changes color my perceptions.

LOL. That is the problem, your belief that you have immunity. TOO much. You cannot be taken seriously after this admission of fallability.




Move my speakers 1/16th of an inch and I can tell.


Anything you say. I guess then you place your hear in a wise when listeing so you don't move even a 1/16". LOL.


I do not speculate nor imagine what is real.

No, you speculate what you think you hear. It is your perception that is in question.

You only speculate with no proof.


No, I take posters as you to task to demonstrate what you claim. You have not, nor citaed any references to support your claims. You have no room to talk.


I am convinced you are totally tone deaf and cannot tell the difference between Bose and Magnepan.


That may be. That has no bearing on what you claim and can demonstrate under bias controlled listening .


It's long overdue time for you to STFU and quit telling people what they can't hear, just because your sorry deaf ass can't.

I see you are threatened by being taken to task for your claims?

You need to get the hell away from the PC and get a real system,


Why? You mean I cannot enjoy my boombox? How silly of you telling me what to enjoy.

Piss off, and quit projecting your own shortcomings, inexperiance, and deafness onto others.

Ah, you looked in the mirror then. sad case.



People would laugh thier asses off at you if they knew what a sad joke of a stereo system you have!

Good for them.

However, you still have yet to respond:
He has zero evidence for his speculations.

Evidence please.

[mtrycraft]

. But it does get old hearing the same things over and over again. .

Yes, that is what teachers say about teaching th esame class year in, year out.

[Sondek]

Mtrycrafts,
The burden of disproof is on you, not them. You do need to clam up about telling people what they can. and cannot hear.
You have *ZERO* means of disproving the claims anyone makes, you are not in their house, listening to their systems, nor do you have their ears.
You assume you have the same capabilities as everyone else, or a system commensurate with theirs to prove or disprove.
You make too many straw man arguments. You have yet to provide any data that disproves anyones claim at all.

IOW: prove they are wrong!

[hifitommy]

trying to align yourself with being our 'teacher' ? that explains the pseudo-professorial stance taken by you on nearly every subject, even those that you have NO expertise in.

you really have a much too high opinion of yourself.

[mtrycraft]

trying to align yourself with being our 'teacher' ? that explains the pseudo-professorial stance taken by you on nearly every subject, even those that you have NO expertise in.

you really have a much too high opinion of yourself.

No, not at all, just that things don't change in audio as you insist it should. After all, it is your hearing that is the limiting factor in all this. It is not evolving to the better, to be more sensitive but it does diminishes. So, why should new components be audibly better?

It is th emarket forces, marketeers, that have brain washed the consumers that the latest is the greates.

[mtrycraft]

Mtrycrafts,
The burden of disproof is on you, not them.


I am so glad you are not a scientis. You could not make a living at it. I don't need to disprove anything. The one making the claim is the one who has the burden. Rule no 1!!!

You do need to clam up about telling people what they can. and cannot hear.

I challenge their claims. Rather simple. They have the burden of proof, if you will. Do some basic research. Knowledge is power.


You have *ZERO* means of disproving the claims anyone makes, you are not in their house, listening to their systems, nor do you have their ears.

More reason why they have the burden of proof and cannot be relinquished to others to disprove their claims. Just too silly of a suggestion on your part.

You assume you have the same capabilities as everyone else, or a system commensurate with theirs to prove or disprove.

I don't need any capability or any system. They have the burden. Please try to comprehend this simple rule.


You make too many straw man arguments. You have yet to provide any data that disproves anyones claim at all.

IOW: prove they are wrong!


After you have researched the subject of scientific inquiry, please come back and let's discuss the issues, who has what burden.

But, I have posted many times a list of citations where others have tried to prove their claims and have failed, miserably. So far there is no evidence to support the audiophile claimants. No reason to believe all of a sudden we have a miracle 'golden ear' amongst us. They still have the burden of proof.

[E-Stat]

But, I have posted many times a list of citations where others have tried to prove their claims and have failed, miserably

Using either unknown or miserable components. It's MIMO - mediocrity in / mediocrity out.

rw

[hifitommy]

"No, not at all, just that things don't change in audio as you insist it should. After all, it is your hearing that is the limiting factor in all this. It is not evolving to the better, to be more sensitive but it does diminishes. So, why should new components be audibly better?

It is th emarket forces, marketeers, that have brain washed the consumers that the latest is the greates.
__________________
mtrycrafts "

i cant see where i have made such an insistence please quote this.

you have no idea what my hearing is like, and yourself have exhibited a lack of said ability.

not all new components sound better as we found out when transistors came out and redbook CD was introduced. Sacd otoh is the digital they should have given us the FIRST time. it was them (the marketeers you refer to) rushing to make money that wanted that change

[mtrycraft]

"No, not at all, just that things don't change in audio as you insist it should. After all, it is your hearing that is the limiting factor in all this. It is not evolving to the better, to be more sensitive but it does diminishes. So, why should new components be audibly better?

It is th emarket forces, marketeers, that have brain washed the consumers that the latest is the greates.
__________________
mtrycrafts "

i cant see where i have made such an insistence please quote this.

you have no idea what my hearing is like, and yourself have exhibited a lack of said ability.

not all new components sound better as we found out when transistors came out and redbook CD was introduced. Sacd otoh is the digital they should have given us the FIRST time. it was them (the marketeers you refer to) rushing to make money that wanted that change

I know your hearing is not unique, or it would be well known to audio. So, why would your ability be any better than those who could only get null results? It isn't any better. How is audio immune from the BS factor? How can you separate it from reality? You have a difficult time from what I have been reading from you.
Oh, I don't have to exhibit any hearing ability at all to participate and challenge silly claims.

[hifitommy]

nor am i the only one to hear the superiority of some CDPs over others, sacd over rbcd, and some wires over others.

[poneal]

Its all in your imigination. You wanted it to sound better thus it sounds better :-).

[mtrycraft]

Using either unknown or miserable components. It's MIMO - mediocrity in / mediocrity out.

rw

Yes, you are allowed an opinion. As you know, some are better than others. We know where your stands.

You need to read those before you make unsubstantiated claims.

Where are your citations?

[mtrycraft]

nor am i the only one to hear the superiority of some CDPs over others, sacd over rbcd, and some wires over others.

Hearing? Or just perceiveing something that has not been established to be a fact that you or them have indeed heard. They are not the same.

[hifitommy]

poneal

i dont have one of those. imAgination maybe. anyway, youre welcome to stay in mid to lo fi if you like, i dont prefer to do so. if YOU cant hear the difference, you shouldnt spend the money needed to go high end.

btw, i RARELY spend money on equipment and usually it is used. my sacdp cost the lofty sum of $169 delivered. as a stand alone rbcdp, it is the best ive had in the house.

i imagine that i have a pretty nice sounding system:

http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/588.html

also, i didnt hear what i wanted. i heard what i heard. i WANTED cd to sound better than vinyl and it didnt. i HOPED sacd would sound better than rbcd, it does.

i didnt know what to expect when i obtained my arc preamp, what i heard FLOORED me. no typically referred to 'tube warmth', nor rolled off top.

if you never hear these things, youll be financially richer for it and so will circuit city. if you do, youll be musically richer for it.

[hifitommy]

i can appreciate why you dont understand hearing. you arent capable nor have equipment worth listening to.

[E-Stat]

You need to read those before you make unsubstantiated claims.

Those? Which are those? Here are your daily memory pills:

Null Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis

We're STILL waiting for those to be disclosed. First they exist. Then they don't. Then again they're supposed to exist.

(montereyamnesia3)

rw

[mtrycraft]

Those? Which are those? Here are your daily memory pills:

Null Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis

We're STILL waiting for those to be disclosed. First they exist. Then they don't. Then again they're supposed to exist.

(montereyamnesia3)

rw

You are worse off than I thought. You need some professional help.

[E-Stat]

You are worse off than I thought. You need some professional help.

You never did answer my question from the third post reference. Remember? So which of your two conflicting statements do you want to stick with? What a quandry !

mtry contemplating the response:

If I stick with my first statement...

A. There are no citations of ANY tests with equipment better than mid-fi, then he has a valid point. I don't like that.

or if I go with the second...

B. There actually are tests run with hi end gear, then he's gonna ask again for me to produce them. I don't like that either.

I've got it. I'll just dodge the questions again because I don't like answering them anyway. That always worked before !

(montereyamnesia4)

rw

[Geoffcin]

Here's Some interesting science from Cardas on cable performance.


http://cardas.com/insights/index.html


Seems that you can measure cable performance with something as simple as a square wave. So much for nothing measurable between different cables.