It's better an amplifier that sound warm or one that sound cold?

And... can you make some examples of 'firms' (Nad, Technics, Cambridge, ecc.) that privilege a warm sound and others that privilege a cold one?

Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetsuro

And... can you make some examples of 'firms' (Nad, Technics, Cambridge, ecc.) that privilege a warm sound and others that privilege a cold one?

Thanks

---

In my experience my Cambridge Azur 640A and older Rotel RA970BX are on the warm side. Newer Rotel int. amps I have heard are leaner and bright to my ears.

Everyone hears differently and honestly, the speaker you use and room they are sitting in will have far more impact on sound quality than any front end component. I guess the question becomes, "What are you trying to achieve?" If you are trying to create the correct synergy, it would help to know a little more about your room, your speakers, listening preferences, etc. Our opinions really don't have much meaning without a bit more info. Besides, it would be far better for you to form your own opinions instead of going into any audition with preconceived notions about how something should sound.

I have just changed the amplifier on my system and I had just to get used to 'details' that I didn't found on the previous Technics. To me it was just a bit colder.
Anyway everyone of the family said that it's better... (blind test) probably they weren't used to the sound of the Technics.

Now, after an afternoon of listening I think that I changed another time my taste, I get used with the new cleaner, brighter sound. :D

Now I'm with Aeron A-2 plus Tannoy Fusion 2.

I must say anyhow that I have gained surely on channels separation and details but I feel a bit like loosing something of 'soundstage'.

Maybe it's about taste, but what's more near 'Hi-Fi'? Clean, cold and details or warm and better soundstage?

"Hi-Fi" is usually described as extremely detailed and very accurate. I don't know if I'd call it "cold" per se, but it's certainly not warm. Whether this is better or not is up to the listener. Personally, I rarely find "hi-fi" sounding gear to be very enjoyable, at least for extended periods of time. Give me "musical" over "hi-fi" any day of the week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by topspeed

"Hi-Fi" is usually described as extremely detailed and very accurate. I don't know if I'd call it "cold" per se, but it's certainly not warm. Whether this is better or not is up to the listener. Personally, I rarely find "hi-fi" sounding gear to be very enjoyable, at least for extended periods of time. Give me "musical" over "hi-fi" any day of the week.

---

I understand you well. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetsuro

And... can you make some examples of 'firms' (Nad, Technics, Cambridge, ecc.) that privilege a warm sound and others that privilege a cold one?

Thanks

---

I suggest you read the Masters article on the following link:


http://www.mastersonaudio.com/audio/20020901.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

I suggest you read the Masters article on the following link:


http://www.mastersonaudio.com/audio/20020901.htm

---

There have been many occassions when I though I heard a difference, but was prepared to admit it might have been my imaginiation. The was the case, for example, when swapping interconnect cables. I intrigues me the way golden ears will never to admit that they might have imagined a difference; further, insisting that patently tiny changes are "huge".

On the the other hand I'm not sure it's all just imagination either. Personally, what casts doubt on the imagination hypothesis is that I have often heard diffences when I did not expect them.

I don't find that article helpful at all... I mean, I have attached mine two amplifiers simulaneously and them DO sound DIFFERENT from each other, really different. One sounded warm and the other sounded cleaner, brighter but a bit colder.

So there are real differences between amplifiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetsuro

I don't find that article helpful at all... I mean, I have attached mine two amplifiers simulaneously and them DO sound DIFFERENT from each other, really different. One sounded warm and the other sounded cleaner, brighter but a bit colder.

So there are real differences between amplifiers.

---

Sorry, if the best audio people on the planet couldn't tell the difference, it is doubtful that you can.

I'm not going to argue with you, buy whatever you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

I suggest you read the Masters article on the following link:


http://www.mastersonaudio.com/audio/20020901.htm

---

Let's skip the usual subjectivist/objectivist argument . Let's just get to the facts. There have been published DBT's showing differences between solid state and tube amps. It's a proven fact that they sound different. None of the participants could tell the tube amp? Don't you find that odd? Does that tell you something about the participants in this test - or the test itself????

As usual with these kinds of "tests", not enough information is given about the ancillary equipment, the listening space, if the participants were listening to familiar music, etc etc. VERY questionable article and, as such, of little to no value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tetsuro

And... can you make some examples of 'firms' (Nad, Technics, Cambridge, ecc.) that privilege a warm sound and others that privilege a cold one?

Thanks

---

...but since most amps (at least the ones I can afford) are either on the warm or cool side, I guess I'm stuck! :) My preference is for warmer sounding amps. The trick is finding one that doesn't smooth out the details in the process.

It's been awhile but the one NAD I owned was on the warm side and the Rotel was the reverse. I've heard tell that Cambridge tends to be warmer. Never heard one... although I do think they make a kickass little CDP - I think it's the 640C.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musicoverall

Let's skip the usual subjectivist/objectivist argument . Let's just get to the facts. There have been published DBT's showing differences between solid state and tube amps. It's a proven fact that they sound different. None of the participants could tell the tube amp? Don't you find that odd? Does that tell you something about the participants in this test - or the test itself????

As usual with these kinds of "tests", not enough information is given about the ancillary equipment, the listening space, if the participants were listening to familiar music, etc etc. VERY questionable article and, as such, of little to no value.

---

The article is quite clear and easy to understand. There is nothing questionable about it in the least. It is done by Ian Masters who is highly respected in the audio field. He had nothing to prove. Ian Masters was expecting to find differences between amplifiers/receivers, when he did not he simply stated the results of his tests.

The Cambridge Audio Azure CDP is what you refer to. A nice and affordable component ( by no means cheap sounding) with a relatively neutral performance. Haven't lived with any but listening to some Eva Cassidy and some Dream Theater and Symphony X on a demo Cambridge audio rig set up in store playing through some Sonus Faber towers showed what the series could do even without massive amplifier headroom they played loud and clear. Seemed to get a little muddy with the faster passages in the prog rock samples but the late Eva sounded great.

Amplifiers sound different when connected with different speakers. This fact has been established and known for years. It is not audio voodoo or snake oil.

Some amplifiers are far more tolerant of capacitive loads, others inductive loads. Some handle both well, and don't favor one over the other. The amplifiers will react differently to the crossovers in the speakers and can affect the damping factor of the crossovers. Speaker designers sometimes assume a certain amplifier topology (ie: brand) when designing the speaker, and adjust crossover values to match the amplifier's behavior.

Into a purely resistive load, all amps probably sound pretty much the same. Speakers are reactive though, and have different resitances at different frequencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feanor

There have been many occassions when I though I heard a difference, but was prepared to admit it might have been my imaginiation. The was the case, for example, when swapping interconnect cables. I intrigues me the way golden ears will never to admit that they might have imagined a difference; further, insisting that patently tiny changes are "huge".

On the the other hand I'm not sure it's all just imagination either. Personally, what casts doubt on the imagination hypothesis is that I have often heard diffences when I did not expect them.

---

Besides the Masters article I cited, Julian Hirsch also did similar tests back in the 70's with exactly the same results.

One of the more interesting debate settlers is the $10,000.00 challenge offered by Richard Clarke. You can find reference to this challenge if you do some Google searching. To make a long story short, Richard Clarke offers $10,000 to anyone who can tell the difference between amplifiers. Many golden ears have taken this "challenge" and to date all have failed. The gist of it is simply this: you take any amps/receivers you wish, listen as long as you wish, use any of your own music that you wish and take the extended listening tests after the amps have been carefully level matched and then simply be able to reliably tell the difference between amps. No one has ever walked away with the money. And no, I have no comments on this "challenge" I believe it is still open and I think I heard somewhere that the money has been increased if you win.

I might add that in the more than 45 years of listening to various amps/receiver amps I have never heard any that were functioning properly that sounded different to me.

I had a neighbor that used to come over to my place about 10 years ago and rave about how good my "Marantz" receiver sounded. When I was ready to sell it he immediately offered to buy. Guess what, after we took the Marantz over to his house it sounded lousy, exactly as his other receiver did. Why was simple to explain, his speakers were terrible and the Marantz simply did what it always did, amplified without any coloration. Amazing isn't it that after several years of raving about how great my Marantz was he didn't buy it.

Anything I say or even the most qualified audio people in the world say will not change the opinion of a closed minded person. The truly sad part though is that many young people will be placing thousands of dollars into better and bigger receivers and separate amplifiers to achieve better sound and be doing nothing more than wasteing their money. The biggest audio improvements come from getting quality speakers and correcting problems located in the listening environment.

In closing, if anyone thinks there is a difference simply buy the equipment that you think best.

I'm happy that these people have not heard differences, but I have heard GREAT differences between mine old Technics and mine new Aeron... so big that initially I had much difficulties to get habit with the new sound. In fact the second, as I said, is more detailed, bright and neutral, the Technics was warmer and a bit muffled.

Could be that Technics component are much cheaper but I haven't spoken of an equal 'setup', I have compared two very different brands and eventual technology.

Who are those that says Rotels are colder than Cambridges.. complete idiots? I don't think so.
You have cited people, but have you just tried to compare different equipment or are you just only quoting other people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

The article is quite clear and easy to understand. There is nothing questionable about it in the least. It is done by Ian Masters who is highly respected in the audio field. He had nothing to prove. Ian Masters was expecting to find differences between amplifiers/receivers, when he did not he simply stated the results of his tests.

---

But when the test results are not supported by previously documented DBT's (tubes vs transistor amps), the test methodology becomes questionable... or the participants listening skills... or the participants were not familiar with the equipment... or the music was unfamiliar.

Although I'm sure Mr Masters documented what actually happened, there are too many unaccounted for variables for this test to be given much credence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

Besides the Masters article I cited, Julian Hirsch also did similar tests back in the 70's with exactly the same results.

One of the more interesting debate settlers is the $10,000.00 challenge offered by Richard Clarke. You can find reference to this challenge if you do some Google searching. To make a long story short, Richard Clarke offers $10,000 to anyone who can tell the difference between amplifiers. Many golden ears have taken this "challenge" and to date all have failed. The gist of it is simply this: you take any amps/receivers you wish, listen as long as you wish, use any of your own music that you wish and take the extended listening tests after the amps have been carefully level matched and then simply be able to reliably tell the difference between amps. No one has ever walked away with the money. And no, I have no comments on this "challenge" I believe it is still open and I think I heard somewhere that the money has been increased if you win.

I might add that in the more than 45 years of listening to various amps/receiver amps I have never heard any that were functioning properly that sounded different to me.

I had a neighbor that used to come over to my place about 10 years ago and rave about how good my "Marantz" receiver sounded. When I was ready to sell it he immediately offered to buy. Guess what, after we took the Marantz over to his house it sounded lousy, exactly as his other receiver did. Why was simple to explain, his speakers were terrible and the Marantz simply did what it always did, amplified without any coloration. Amazing isn't it that after several years of raving about how great my Marantz was he didn't buy it.

Anything I say or even the most qualified audio people in the world say will not change the opinion of a closed minded person. The truly sad part though is that many young people will be placing thousands of dollars into better and bigger receivers and separate amplifiers to achieve better sound and be doing nothing more than wasteing their money. The biggest audio improvements come from getting quality speakers and correcting problems located in the listening environment.

In closing, if anyone thinks there is a difference simply buy the equipment that you think best.

---

Your friend committed the same error that I find in most of the documentation of the tests that the extremist objectivists perform - he listened to it in an unfamiliar system and listening room. Granted, his coming to the conclusion that it was his amp instead of his speakers and room that were the much bigger problem was ill-conceived.

You are right about two things - the speakers and listening room issues should be taken care of first and the opinions of a closed minded person (i.e someone who insists their own beliefs should be universal) will likely never be changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musicoverall

But when the test results are not supported by previously documented DBT's (tubes vs transistor amps), the test methodology becomes questionable... or the participants listening skills... or the participants were not familiar with the equipment... or the music was unfamiliar.

Although I'm sure Mr Masters documented what actually happened, there are too many unaccounted for variables for this test to be given much credence.

---

If the differences in amplifier sound are anywhere near obvious anyone could hear them. As to unaccountable variables in Ian Masters tests, what exactly do you mean. Various amps/receivers were level matched then played on the same speakers. Any differences in audio quality should have been very, very easy to detect. If the variances are so subtle that not even the best trained people can tell the difference, does it really matter???? Put your money in good speakers and room acoustics.

You obviously disagree so I would suggest that you go and buy the biggest most expensive separates money can buy, if nothing else your array will be very impressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

...
I might add that in the more than 45 years of listening to various amps/receiver amps I have never heard any that were functioning properly that sounded different to me.
...
Anything I say or even the most qualified audio people in the world say will not change the opinion of a closed minded person.
...

---

This was a thread I started in another forum ...

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...nor&r=&session=

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

If the differences in amplifier sound are anywhere near obvious anyone could hear them. As to unaccountable variables in Ian Masters tests, what exactly do you mean. Various amps/receivers were level matched then played on the same speakers. Any differences in audio quality should have been very, very easy to detect. If the variances are so subtle that not even the best trained people can tell the difference, does it really matter???? Put your money in good speakers and room acoustics.

You obviously disagree so I would suggest that you go and buy the biggest most expensive separates money can buy, if nothing else your array will be very impressive.

---

So you're saying that any two amps, no matter how extreme the FR numbers, distortion specs and other measurements might be, sound identical when level matched? You believe that solid state and tubed amps sound alike, in spite of the documentation to the contrary - particularly documentation on the ABX website???? You're going to need something other than this Masters test to convince me the ABX folks are wrong. There is proof to debunk the results of this test - published proof. If you're attempting to render that proof inaccurate, please provide evidence.

As for unaccountable differences, I've stated them already. These tests tend to be conducted in some lab rather than the participants home listening environment using unfamiliar music and unfamiliar equipment. Might that not prove confusing? As I've said before, I could give someone an eye exam showing they couldn't tell the colors blue from green. All I'd have to do is make them use my eyeglasses.

But the REAL problem is that we don't know what the variables were in the Masters test. Masters doesn't say and therefore doesn't say how he accounted for them which makes me say that we can't take them at face value. What we DO know is that no one could tell the tubed monoblocks from the cheapo solid state. That makes this test less than believable. If all they tested were one solid state against another, you'd have some viable evidence. But if they can't tell tubes from solid state, I have to question either something about the test methodology or the participants. I'm very surprised that a hardcore objectivist such as you seem to be would simply accept it, particularly when it flies in the face of current knowledge concerning tubes vs transistors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musicoverall

So you're saying that any two amps, no matter how extreme the FR numbers, distortion specs and other measurements might be, sound identical when level matched? You believe that solid state and tubed amps sound alike, in spite of the documentation to the contrary - particularly documentation on the ABX website???? You're going to need something other than this Masters test to convince me the ABX folks are wrong. There is proof to debunk the results of this test - published proof. If you're attempting to render that proof inaccurate, please provide evidence.

As for unaccountable differences, I've stated them already. These tests tend to be conducted in some lab rather than the participants home listening environment using unfamiliar music and unfamiliar equipment. Might that not prove confusing? As I've said before, I could give someone an eye exam showing they couldn't tell the colors blue from green. All I'd have to do is make them use my eyeglasses.

But the REAL problem is that we don't know what the variables were in the Masters test. Masters doesn't say and therefore doesn't say how he accounted for them which makes me say that we can't take them at face value. What we DO know is that no one could tell the tubed monoblocks from the cheapo solid state. That makes this test less than believable. If all they tested were one solid state against another, you'd have some viable evidence. But if they can't tell tubes from solid state, I have to question either something about the test methodology or the participants. I'm very surprised that a hardcore objectivist such as you seem to be would simply accept it, particularly when it flies in the face of current knowledge concerning tubes vs transistors.

---

I grew up in the vacuum tube days, and no, tubes are nothing special. Quite frankly, in my opinion, tubes are nothing but trouble and I have no desire to return to the tube amp days.

If both Ian Masters and Julian Hirsch could not tell the difference between amplifiers which included tube amps that is good enough for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruadmaa

I grew up in the vacuum tube days, and no, tubes are nothing special. Quite frankly, in my opinion, tubes are nothing but trouble and I have no desire to return to the tube amp days.

If both Ian Masters and Julian Hirsch could not tell the difference between amplifiers which included tube amps that is good enough for me.

---

...it isn't good enough for me. That they cannot tell the difference between tube amps and solid state amps makes me wonder if they can tell the difference between speakers.

You see, the problem that subjectivists have with blind tests (well, one of the problems!) is that they claim the tests mask the subtle differences they are testing to find. In other words, the tests aren't sensitive enough, which is why mostly null results occur. So when known differences exist between components and those differences aren't picked up by blind tests, something is amiss. Either the so-called "known" differences don't really exist or the tests are suspect...or the participants have one of the problems I mentioned above. Since known differences exist between tube and SS amps (even the most staunch objectivist I've ever encountered will concede THAT one!), the Masters tests shed no light on the situation of amp differences. The only thing they show is that something went awry with the test. If known differences exist between tube and solid state amps and the trials produced only the null, it makes one wonder if there really were differences between two or more of the SS amps compared with one another and the participants simply missed them due to the problems with blind testing or whatever. We just don't know and because we don't know, your conclusion that all amps sound alike is not supported by the Masters tests. I do, however, accept that all amps sound alike to you personally. That is your experience and is inarguable, as is your preference for solid state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by musicoverall

...it isn't good enough for me. That they cannot tell the difference between tube amps and solid state amps makes me wonder if they can tell the difference between speakers.

You see, the problem that subjectivists have with blind tests (well, one of the problems!) is that they claim the tests mask the subtle differences they are testing to find. In other words, the tests aren't sensitive enough, which is why mostly null results occur. So when known differences exist between components and those differences aren't picked up by blind tests, something is amiss. Either the so-called "known" differences don't really exist or the tests are suspect...or the participants have one of the problems I mentioned above. Since known differences exist between tube and SS amps (even the most staunch objectivist I've ever encountered will concede THAT one!), the Masters tests shed no light on the situation of amp differences. The only thing they show is that something went awry with the test. If known differences exist between tube and solid state amps and the trials produced only the null, it makes one wonder if there really were differences between two or more of the SS amps compared with one another and the participants simply missed them due to the problems with blind testing or whatever. We just don't know and because we don't know, your conclusion that all amps sound alike is not supported by the Masters tests. I do, however, accept that all amps sound alike to you personally. That is your experience and is inarguable, as is your preference for solid state.

---

You may wish to follow this link to a pdf file that is pretty self explanatory: http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf