-
Why receivers are not as good as amplifiers
Receivers are sold only in America. The Japanese refer to them as "tuner/amps". Makers of receivers do not incorporate circuit design found in amplifiers. A huge torroidal transformer, transistor outputs, dual power supplies, are all features found in amplifiers and not found in receivers. Amplifiers can drive almost any speaker, regardless of impedance. Receivers must have discrete (transistor as opposed to an IC) outputs in order to drive box speakers which are not very efficient. ANY speaker will sound hugely better when driven by an amplifier. Any speaker will sound more hugely improved when driven by a 200w/ch amplfier. The air, depth and imaging will be amazing! P.
-
Hmm, ya know, I don't see a 200 watt/ch amplifier offering much more benefit to a speaker with 92 dB efficiency in a 14 X 16 room.
There are many situations where a receiver is good enough, and an amp won't necessarily be any better.
All the amps in the world aren't gonna make those little Bose cubes sound good.
-
Wow, this post has so many glaring global assumptions that it's hard to find a way to justify supporting it, even if has some elements of truth.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkmaven
Receivers are sold only in America. The Japanese refer to them as "tuner/amps". Makers of receivers do not incorporate circuit design found in amplifiers. A huge torroidal transformer, transistor outputs, dual power supplies, are all features found in amplifiers and not found in receivers. Amplifiers can drive almost any speaker, regardless of impedance. Receivers must have discrete (transistor as opposed to an IC) outputs in order to drive box speakers which are not very efficient. ANY speaker will sound hugely better when driven by an amplifier. Any speaker will sound more hugely improved when driven by a 200w/ch amplfier. The air, depth and imaging will be amazing! P.
Any speaker? Maybe not.
-
Come to my house and bring Donald Byrd and his band -- we'll do a side by side -- I bet I can convince you that you don't need more than ten watts.
-
Try driving my Scintilla's with 10 Watts :p
The Mid ribbon has 0.2ohm and they need at least a kilowatt to make them sing..... something tells me i need another Krell block.
-Flo
-
Need a bit more research...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkmaven
Receivers are sold only in America.
Not true. With the NAD line, there are some models that are not available in North America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkmaven
A huge torroidal transformer, transistor outputs, dual power supplies, are all features found in amplifiers and not found in receivers.
Well, not true again. All of which can be found with my T763.
http://www.nadelectronics.com/av_rec...3_frameset.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkmaven
Receivers must have discrete (transistor as opposed to an IC) outputs in order to drive box speakers which are not very efficient.
You meant amplifiers here, right? Anyway, there are quite a few efficient box speakers on the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkmaven
Any speaker will sound more hugely improved when driven by a 200w/ch amplfier. The air, depth and imaging will be amazing! P.
Except of course high efficiency designs for which there may be no benefit.
Look, don't get me wrong. Generally speaking, one can achieve higher performance with discrete components than with receivers. I'm one of those music enthusiasts who uses 450 watt tube monoblocks with my 2 channel system and has more invested in that system's cables than I do in my entire HT audio system. But your generalizations are misleading at best.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian
Try driving my Scintilla's with 10 Watts :p
The Mid ribbon has 0.2ohm and they need at least a kilowatt to make them sing..... something tells me i need another Krell block.
-Flo
Yes some speakers for some reason unknown to me require a lot of power -- but it is unecessary to play loud and it's unecessary to have deep bass. The problem I find with a lot of hard to drive speakers is not really the speaker -- but the fact that I would have to buy a high powered amp -- probably a SS amp and that will never happen again.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Yes some speakers for some reason unknown to me require a lot of power -- but it is unecessary to play loud and it's unecessary to have deep bass. The problem I find with a lot of hard to drive speakers is not really the speaker -- but the fact that I would have to buy a high powered amp -- probably a SS amp and that will never happen again.
I think that it is very necessary to have deep bass. Listen to the war of 1812 from the Deutsche Grammophon. Or listen to Madonna with a speaker that plays down to 22Hz...mamma mia its amazing. Bass is a foundation in classical music. Vacuumstate is working on a Tube AMP for the 1ohm Scintilla's and u can always use a Tube Preamp.
-Flo
-
You don't necessarily need alot of power for true deep bass. There's plenty of high efficiency designed 8" or 10" woofers used in speakers that sound excellent...
Come to think of it, most subwoofers are pretty efficient, some in the mid to high 90 dB's.
But it is a bit of a tradeoff, the question being whether to invest more money into a building or buying highly efficient, 8 ohm nominal woofer, or buy a bigger amp. I suspect buying more power is often cheaper, or at least a better buy since a bigger and better amp can benefit the whole frequency spectrum and not just bass.
If you're a loyal tube fan and use tube amps exclusively, then efficiency is probably a bigger concern to you.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Yes some speakers for some reason unknown to me require a lot of power -- but it is unecessary to play loud and it's unecessary to have deep bass. The problem I find with a lot of hard to drive speakers is not really the speaker -- but the fact that I would have to buy a high powered amp -- probably a SS amp and that will never happen again.
I use the ASL Hurricanes with my planars - 200 wpc tube design. It's just enough power. :)
-
Receivers vs. Amplifiers
Since no one has gotten flamed for some pretty awsome generalizations I'll play too.
I think a good amp starts around $2,000 to $3,000 new, retail. I also think a good pre-amp is similarly priced. Now, throw in a decent tuner for $1,000 (and up) and reasonable DAC say another $1,000 We have arrived at $6,000 to $7,000.
Here's my problem, if you spend $6,000 for a receiver and are un-happy with some part of its' performance you are out of options, I can always replace one piece of my chain that I find not quite up to the rest of the chain but you need to throw out the baby with the bath water if you have a receiver that doesn't please.
So for me the issue is risk of investment. Also I worry that the very top priced receievers may be the same as a basic high volume model that sells for much less with some glitter smeared on to make it appear special.
Please standby while I don my flame suit.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian
I think that it is very necessary to have deep bass. Listen to the war of 1812 from the Deutsche Grammophon. Or listen to Madonna with a speaker that plays down to 22Hz...mamma mia its amazing. Bass is a foundation in classical music. Vacuumstate is working on a Tube AMP for the 1ohm Scintilla's and u can always use a Tube Preamp.
-Flo
I think it's necessary as well -- my speakers were measured to 20hz -3db by hifi chouice magazine - they will play loud and don;t require more than 10 watts. I am forced into taking a system approach and because SS has a grainy sound to my ear which is "amplified" in higher watt amps then I need a speaker that will not incoprporate that kind of amplificatiion. This is one reason that while I can recommend a lot of speakers that are low efficiency -- I could never actually buy one because I'd get stuck having to buy something like a Krell (which to my ear are not going to cut it).
I am not going to argue of this because it's simply a preference --- I've heard Bryston, Krell YBA, Sima Audio, Naim, Classe, Levinson, McIntiosh, MF and several other big SS companies over the years. I am now very very aware as to why so many people end up buying a TUBE preamp...they would be able to go the whole way if they chose more efficient easier to drive speakers in the first place.
Hermanv
I won't really argue your geenralization because a generalization does not mean that there are no exception...a generalization means IN GENERAL. It amuses me that people get on me for making generalalizations as well -- I once said that Receivers were glorified paper-weights...I still believe this is the case. That doesn;t mean they're valueless -- after making the comment I bought a Marantz 4300 reciever. They have their purpose --- for music listening it doesn't cut it but it does do a job for me at an attractive price.
I generalize that speakers using metal tweeters are annoying -- there are some exceptions but the majority I have heard I can't stomach for long.
A price range is dangerous though -- I have heard $50k amplification with $16k speakers that compared to my system --- well I'd be more than happy to pit em in any blind test. (though granted my system's amp is above the range you specified)
I can point to the Sugden A21a integrated amp which isabout $1700US which sounds like music pure and simple. I can't say that about a lot of componants even ones going for 10 times that price. Granted Sugden has been able to keep the cost of this amplifier down because it's the same one that's been selling since 1968 so there is not a pile of R&D expense and they don't waste money on looks displays and remotes -- and it's also very close to your price range.
YBA for instance is an example where they have the integre DT for around $3500.00 and the a Separates version of the YBA for $12k. Same sound...the difference is the integre with easy to drive speakers will play to a 110db -- the guy with the low impedence tough to drive speaker can't use the DT so he has to spend the extra $9500 for big impressive looking amps to play to that 110db.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkmaven
Receivers are sold only in America. The Japanese refer to them as "tuner/amps". Makers of receivers do not incorporate circuit design found in amplifiers. A huge torroidal transformer, transistor outputs, dual power supplies, are all features found in amplifiers and not found in receivers. Amplifiers can drive almost any speaker, regardless of impedance. Receivers must have discrete (transistor as opposed to an IC) outputs in order to drive box speakers which are not very efficient. ANY speaker will sound hugely better when driven by an amplifier. Any speaker will sound more hugely improved when driven by a 200w/ch amplfier. The air, depth and imaging will be amazing! P.
I thought that Britain was having an election today. I didn't know that they'd been subsumed into the American Empire! Otherwise, how do you explain those Yamaha receivers with the RDS tuners that are sold over there?
By definition, the only difference between a receiver and an integrated amplifier is the presence of a tuner in a receiver. And your "huge torroidal transformer, transistor outputs, dual power supplies" are found in products like the Yamaha RX-Z series RECEIVERS. Care to revise your statement, or shall we dismiss your entire post as troll bait?
-
Yes the top marantz has a toroidal transformer as well. I think the top receivers sound quite good in two channel. I've heard a few in the $4-$7k range. They're in league with some lower end Arcam, NAD, Rotel integrateds for $800 - $1k. Which is acceptable given all the other things that the receiver can do. If you can find external srround functionality and external power amps for the same price this is the way to go if for no other reason that in year 3 if the receiver blows you may as well throw the thing in the trash. In a separates system if a power amp goes the whole shooting match isn't lost. I've seen some receivers blow and they like to take the preamp and DSp boards with them when they go and out of warranty here I saw a $2.5k Denon that would run $3k to FIX!!!! 3 years old.
The top of the line SONY ES receiver was at my dealer for $250.00Cdn -- WOW that is depreciation...all the eggs are in one basket on these machines and when the technology is a few generations old they're basically worthless.
I think receivers have two general price points which I would consider -- dirt cheap do it all -- for $300.00Cdn the marantz is a good unit as are likely the competitiors. The marantz also has some room to grow with external power amp add-ons. It odes everything but nothing well.
Then there is that $1k-$1500.00 range where the sound is generlaly respectable but has tons of features and the surround is better than the cheapies. Beyond this I don't see it. But then I'm not their market group obviously which is why I rarely ever post on a Home theater board.
-
Receivers Have More Than Adequate Amplification
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkmaven
Receivers are sold only in America. The Japanese refer to them as "tuner/amps". Makers of receivers do not incorporate circuit design found in amplifiers. A huge torroidal transformer, transistor outputs, dual power supplies, are all features found in amplifiers and not found in receivers. Amplifiers can drive almost any speaker, regardless of impedance. Receivers must have discrete (transistor as opposed to an IC) outputs in order to drive box speakers which are not very efficient. ANY speaker will sound hugely better when driven by an amplifier. Any speaker will sound more hugely improved when driven by a 200w/ch amplfier. The air, depth and imaging will be amazing! P.
Most people with an average size room, reasonably efficient speakers and a good powered subwoofer have absolutely no need of additional amplification. A reasonably good receiver can drive audio to ear splitting levels without additional amplification since the subwoofer is taking most of the load off of the receiver. Additional amplification does not make your system sound better. Your 200 watt/channel amp will not drive speakers much louder than a 100 watt/channel amp. You would get more headroom but most people don't need it anyway. In short, in many cases additional amplification is simply a waste of money. A good receiver is all you need.
-
Not just power, but ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
Hmm, ya know, I don't see a 200 watt/ch amplifier offering much more benefit to a speaker with 92 dB efficiency in a 14 X 16 room.
There are many situations where a receiver is good enough, and an amp won't necessarily be any better. ...
In other respects too, your typical main-stream receivers, even the top of the line ones, aren't as good as it gets in amplification. (Not that it couldn't be done, only that it isn't being done; perhaps there's the odd exception like the Magnum Dynalab MD-208 stereo.)
On the other hand, your enty-level stand alone amp, (e.g. NAD, Rotel, Adcom), isn't as good as it gets either; in fact, not really much better than a good receiver. You have up the ante to the US$2000+ range to start to get real refinement plus power.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I think it's necessary as well -- my speakers were measured to 20hz -3db by hifi chouice magazine - they will play loud and don;t require more than 10 watts.
That's quite the feat.. i'm skeptical about those numbers myself though. I've heard the speakers and I'll be in Victoria this weekend so maybe i will hear them again.
Which leads me to this.. how bout bringing them over for a gear shootout sometime? :D I have already assembled a small group of "audiophiles" from Victoria, Duncan and Campbell River to come down to my place for day to hang out and talk gear and music. BBQ, beer, the whole nine :) I fully expect you to decline, but hey, never hurts to ask ;)
-
Didn't anyone else notice the OP hasn't responded?
Why not start a post labeled "SS vs Tube" or "Ford vs. Chevy"?
Troll.
-
Yeah, except ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by hermanv
...I think a good amp starts around $2,000 to $3,000 new, retail. I also think a good pre-amp is similarly priced. Now, throw in a decent tuner for $1,000 (and up) and reasonable DAC say another $1,000 We have arrived at $6,000 to $7,000.
....
There are some great integrateds that can keep the cost down. I haven't heard many of them, but candidates would include Bel Canto eVo2i, Sim Audio i-3 & i-5, PS Audio GCC 100, and some models from Edge and Plinius .. oh yeah, and Bryston.
Of course, you do loose some flexibility with the integrated, (which is your point I suppose).
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
On the other hand, your enty-level stand alone amp, (e.g. NAD, Rotel, Adcom), isn't as good as it gets either; in fact, not really much better than a good receiver. You have up the ante to the US$2000+ range to start to get real refinement plus power.
Interesting point of view...it's been my experience over and over that the first $2000 will provide 95% or more of the performance and refinement. The rest you chip away at over time as your budget and system grow to squeeze that last bit of heaven out.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by corwin99
That's quite the feat.. i'm skeptical about those numbers myself though. I've heard the speakers and I'll be in Victoria this weekend so maybe i will hear them again.
Which leads me to this.. how bout bringing them over for a gear shootout sometime? :D I have already assembled a small group of "audiophiles" from Victoria, Duncan and Campbell River to come down to my place for day to hang out and talk gear and music. BBQ, beer, the whole nine :) I fully expect you to decline, but hey, never hurts to ask ;)
Well you need to play music with real bass content because it isn't going to have the kind of peaky bump at 80hz...it is elevated slightly across a very wide band. The speaker was measured by hi-fi choice.
it should be noted that Audio note rates the J at 25hz -6db which likely means it is around 29-32hz - 3db which is around where the port tuning is done.
In soundhounds lill room across from the home theater room I put on a Bass content Loreena Mckennit track prologue which attracted to attention -- this was run off the 8 watt per channel Meishu. At a reasopnable level there isn't a speaker they carry that can match it (with any of their SS amps).
Why not take a pair home get them in a corner -- you won't need a sub. They ran the E's J's(as center speakers) in a surround system -- No sub required.
Where do you live? I'm very busy for the next three weeks but aftetr this practicum and course is done I am not busy.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruadmaa
Most people with an average size room, reasonably efficient speakers and a good powered subwoofer have absolutely no need of additional amplification. A reasonably good receiver can drive audio to ear splitting levels without additional amplification since the subwoofer is taking most of the load off of the receiver. Additional amplification does not make your system sound better. Your 200 watt/channel amp will not drive speakers much louder than a 100 watt/channel amp. You would get more headroom but most people don't need it anyway. In short, in many cases additional amplification is simply a waste of money. A good receiver is all you need.
watts have zero to do with it though. I have 95db sensitive horn loaded ringdac fostex(or oem) horn tweeters 8ohms -- easy to drive. I had Pioneer Elite's all discrete 125 rms vanishingly low distortion top of the line receiver. Brought home a Bryston to try for a weekend. GAME OVER. Receivers suck; sold the receiver and have not looked back -- well until I picked up the Marantz 4300.
Bigger louder more is not better. it is frustrating to see most of the industry sell the same speaker with one more woofer and some more "I can't believe it's not wood wood" (only it isn't and it matters) for more and more money.
A receiver will drive most even very hard to drive speakers to ear splitting levels yes that is true -- they just tend to not to drive ANY speaker including dead easy to drive speakers well. "Loud" and "well" are not the same thing.
-
Sorry RGA You Lose
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
watts have zero to do with it though. I have 95db sensitive horn loaded ringdac fostex(or oem) horn tweeters 8ohms -- easy to drive. I had Pioneer Elite's all discrete 125 rms vanishingly low distortion top of the line receiver. Brought home a Bryston to try for a weekend. GAME OVER. Receivers suck donkey balls sold the receiver and have not looked back -- well until I picked up the Marantz 4300.
Bigger louder more is not better. it is frustrating to see most of the industry sell the same speaker with one more woofer and some more "I can't believe it's not wood wood" (only it isn't and it matters) for more and more money.
A receiver will drive most even very hard to drive speakers to ear splitting levels yes that is true -- they just tend to not to drive ANY speaker including dead easy to drive speakers well. "Loud" and "well" are not the same thing.
Sorry RGA you lose. On double blind tests no one to date has been able to tell the difference between amplifiers. And that means comparing a receiver amp to any separate amp you care to mention. Many say they can but when put to the test they all lose. When it comes to amplifiers/receivers, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. If you feel you can tell the difference, go and take the $10,000 challenge that is offered to anyone by Mr. Clark. Many have tried, all have failed. As long as a receiver or amplifier is not driven into clipping it will sound so similar that for all practical purposes there are no differences. Please don't argue with me, as I have stated, no one to date has been able to take a double blind test and tell the difference between amps.
-
When I first auditioned some Paradigm Monitor 7's, I brought in my own cd's and listened to them powered by an Anthem (can't remember which model) amplifier. I then auditioned the 7's with a Denon 1803 receiver. To my ears, I could not tell the difference. I mean we cranked up both the Anthem and the 1803 and every single cd that I brought in sounded identical. Loudness and SQ to me sounded the same. Maybe my experiece was a little squed since the Paradigm Monitor 7's are 93db efficient and very easy to drive. But I took my test a little further, I brought in my Technics receiver at the time, model sa-dx 1050, and compared it side by side against the Denon 1803 with the 7's. Now, there was a big difference in SQ, especially when pushed hard. The Technics receiver just sucked when compared to the 1803 and the 1803 sounded the same against the Anthem amp. I ended up buying the Denon 1804 because with the 7's, more watts meant nothing in loudness or SQ. Efficient speakers meant more money in my pocket rather then invested in amplification. But don't get me wrong, regardless of my speakers, if I had money to burn, I would buy a big seperate amp whether I needed it or not, and then I would brag about it every day. I guess I would then have turned into an audio snob of some sort.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruadmaa
Sorry RGA you lose. On double blind tests no one to date has been able to tell the difference between amplifiers. And that means comparing a receiver amp to any separate amp you care to mention. Many say they can but when put to the test they all lose. When it comes to amplifiers/receivers, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. If you feel you can tell the difference, go and take the $10,000 challenge that is offered to anyone by Mr. Clark. Many have tried, all have failed. As long as a receiver or amplifier is not driven into clipping it will sound so similar that for all practical purposes there are no differences. Please don't argue with me, as I have stated, no one to date has been able to take a double blind test and tell the difference between amps.
Actually I don't disagree with you about most results in these tests...haven taken psychology which is who should be conducting such tests i have written papers on them and conducted blind experiments -- I am well aware of the bastardized versions being propogated by the Audio Industry and the AES. I am not surprised by the reliabiltiy(in terms of getting the same results over and over). Though Martin Colloms has done DBT's for the AES where people could hear different capacitors in the amplifiers let alone different amplifiers. One can take a receiver and set everything to 2 channel flat -- listen then push the direct button -- you will hear a difference and the ONLY thing that has been done has been to remove two of hundreds of switches from the chain.
People in DBT's can;t hear lots of things they can hear when not in such wrongheaded tests -- no one can tell the difference between a recorded audio tape versus CD either. People can;t tell the difference between a record and live music which was done in the 1930s. Until you understand the psychology of why the tests don't work beyond the testing environment then it's just another engineering argument where people don;t get the science behind the tool. I'd offer a million dollars if I had it to anyone that can tell the difference between my two cd players in a blind test to statistical significance.
Trouble is and something you may not be aware of that most of the tests you read about are in the order (and it's invented with no reason behind it) a 10-16 trial set-up.
To achieve statistical significance so that you PASS the test and are confirmed as hearing a difference you need 9/10 to meet the .05 level of significance. What you don;t get told is that A) small trials are very difficult to succeed in with perception testing which is why Psychologists use in the order of hundreds. now if we did it PROPERLY in audio then did you know that if you scored just 6/10 ten times in a row with an extra mistake and got 59/100 you would ALSO meet the .05 level of significance which would ALSO mean that you could tell the difference and not likely be due to chance.
They never tell you it because they don't know it and they are too lazy and stupid to pick up the proper textbooks. So yes if you get 6/10 in their test you are a falure who can't tell the difference -- but gee if you score 59/100 then in fact you are deemed credible by science. In fact this is more credible because MORE trials reduces error and more trials is more reliable.
Part two is that the very definition of the DBT will state that you can never ever prove that unit A sounds the same as unit B.
You would be amazed at all the things that humans can do in tests and or can;t do in tests that simply do not happen or do happen in the real world. The DBT is a tool -- it is not at fault either and it is very very valuable in a number of applications - but it's used badly most of the time -- and it's not credible as you would like to think.
Also the magazine hi-Fi Choice has a listening panel review componants in a level matched blind auditioning environment which is closer to normal listneing environments(the closer it is the more Valid any test is -- and validity is a word you won't get from DBT syupporters because if they understood this bit they would not be arguing it ad nauseum.
You can read their blind level matched reviews of receivers, cables, speakers cd players. Sorry they are distinguishable.
here is the link to hifi choice of a review of an amplifier in blind listening panels http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=913
here is another http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=1883
What is really interesting is that they have had in the past the president and chief designers sit in in the blind sessions and they don;t always choose their onw stuff as best!!!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by cam
When I first auditioned some Paradigm Monitor 7's, I brought in my own cd's and listened to them powered by an Anthem (can't remember which model) amplifier. I then auditioned the 7's with a Denon 1803 receiver. To my ears, I could not tell the difference. I mean we cranked up both the Anthem and the 1803 and every single cd that I brought in sounded identical. Loudness and SQ to me sounded the same. Maybe my experiece was a little squed since the Paradigm Monitor 7's are 93db efficient and very easy to drive. But I took my test a little further, I brought in my Technics receiver at the time, model sa-dx 1050, and compared it side by side against the Denon 1803 with the 7's. Now, there was a big difference in SQ, especially when pushed hard. The Technics receiver just sucked when compared to the 1803 and the 1803 sounded the same against the Anthem amp. I ended up buying the Denon 1804 because with the 7's, more watts meant nothing in loudness or SQ. Efficient speakers meant more money in my pocket rather then invested in amplification. But don't get me wrong, regardless of my speakers, if I had money to burn, I would buy a big seperate amp whether I needed it or not, and then I would brag about it every day. I guess I would then have turned into an audio snob of some sort.
all you learned was that not every expensive amplifier is better than cheaper ones. Anthem is overpriced and isn't all that great IMO.
Take a Bryston home connect it to any Denon.
Also some differences are not very large and requires a lot of listening. Speakers make the largest noticeable difference -- but the biggest differences are not always the most important differences.
-
To the original question "why receivers are not as good as amplifiers?" - to put in a nutshell, because they are not designed for the purpose of high quality 2ch stereo. Rather, the common receiver design seems to be geared toward maximum # of gadgets and output channels and sound modes.
As for your DBTs, throw them in the trash. I don't know what speakers you listen to, but my Dynes easily show a difference in amps. What gear and music are you listening to and do you have experience with? Do you listen to live music? Give some expamples of amplifiers and receivers which sounded the same, not just this blanket statement DBT BS. Yes, that's right, BS - that is exactly what DBTs are. If you cannot distinguish amps in a proper setup, it is likely a hearing issue. BTW, I don't know what fool could not tell live jazz from a recording. I listened to live jazz last weekend...I have yet to hear a speaker that can duplicate that. Maybe sitting 100 rows back one could be fooled.
Recently I have had 3 amps of same power rating (100w) driving my Dynes - Jolida JD1501RC, NAD C370 and Rotel RB-980. They all have a different sound. I pick the Jolida every time, followed by the Rotel, then NAD. I also did the 50wpc NAD 320BEE vs. my Audio Refinement Complete integrated. The Complete sounds more detailed, less harsh and more natural without sounding one bit more powerful or loud. Watts does not = sound quality. RGA is surely right about that. My little NAD 304 (35w/ch) crushed my H/K 80w/ch receiver in every possible way a few years ago. It also played louder without getting harsh or distorted, with 91db 8ohm speakers. Why would it play louder? Cleaner power, not more power.
BTW, if you want a cheap amplifier to play music look into a Sonic Impact 10w/ch digital amp - about $35. You need a reasonably efficient speaker, but it can play music quite well, suprising in fact. Read the online reviews, many by audiophiles who have systems littered with $10000 components. So it's not that audiophiles demand something expensive - but something that sounds good.
-
Psonic
The other thing to note about how silly the issue is is that it is very easy to deliberately alter the sound -- it is the manufaturers best interest to do so. I have no doubt that a LOT of stuff sounds pretty much the same and in a test pressure environment that people are less accurate about being able to tell the difference...but basic logic indicates that there are differences -- it is in the makers best interest to make their stuff sound unlike other stuff. The fact that in 1980 they took a Tanberg amp and a reciever and people could not tell the difference does not mean they can't today with different amplifiers.
Take a Rega Planet and a Sony anything...do a dbt with headphones level matched -- I did.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Why not take a pair home get them in a corner -- you won't need a sub. They ran the E's J's(as center speakers) in a surround system -- No sub required.
Where do you live? I'm very busy for the next three weeks but aftetr this practicum and course is done I am not busy.
I went to soundhounds this weekend and heard the AN J's... but not the Spe's... but they had a few pairs of AN/K Spe's left.. i heard them there... for about 5 minutes, and realized that they are VERY good speakers, and bought a pair just for the hell of it for my secondary system. Replaced a pair of Klipsch RB-% MKII's. They're breaking in right now... a bit of sibilance right now though. We'll see. The guy i dealt with was Paul.. he said he's your guy too. The AN J's that were there definately did not have the low end of my Gershmans, but the soundstaging is phenomenal.. they disappear so well.
At any rate, I live up in the North End.. up in the Dover area by Eagle Ridge/Eagle Point. Would love to have you over for the shootout/gettogether we are having.
-
No the J will not produce subwoofer bass to subwoofer levels...and the Gershman X-1Sub combo is basically a directly made subwoofer attachment which is formidable -- better IMO than similar looking speakers and more expensive speakers from Wilson (namely the Sophia).
Soundhounds' narrow auditioning room needs to get rid of the wall mount because they can't get the speakers back into the corners which is where the bass comes from.
You should not get treble sibilence from the K -- that is one trait which should not result from any AN speaker -- especially not if the last speaker was any kind of Klipsch :D
I can;t recall if I had treble brightness right off the bat or not - but then I ran a smooth integrated in the Sugden A48B in a well damped room. I did hear some treble thinness with the Rotel Soundhounds was using but that was only because we compared directly against the Meishu and 3.1 cd player which makes most cd players look real bad real fast.
Yeah but did you compare the K against the B&W 705?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruadmaa
On double blind tests no one to date has been able to tell the difference between amplifiers. And that means comparing a receiver amp to any separate amp you care to mention. Many say they can but when put to the test they all lose. When it comes to amplifiers/receivers, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. If you feel you can tell the difference, go and take the $10,000 challenge that is offered to anyone by Mr. Clark.
How do you know that "no one to date has been able to tell" differences in amps with DBT's? Are you aware of and become familiar with each and every DBT that's been done?
See RGA's response regarding the reliability with DBT's with respect to audio.
Mr. Clark... is that the car stereo dude who will pay someone $10K if they fly out to HIS place, listen to HIS system and substitute amps, and then must score 10 out of 10? I'll tell you what; I'll pay you $10K if you fly out to my place and can discern two subtly different shades of the color blue from a color chart. The kicker is that you must use MY eyeglasses. You must score 10 corrects out of 10. Good luck.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
No the J will not produce subwoofer bass to subwoofer levels...and the Gershman X-1Sub combo is basically a directly made subwoofer attachment which is formidable -- better IMO than similar looking speakers and more expensive speakers from Wilson (namely the Sophia).
Soundhounds' narrow auditioning room needs to get rid of the wall mount because they can't get the speakers back into the corners which is where the bass comes from.
You should not get treble sibilence from the K -- that is one trait which should not result from any AN speaker -- especially not if the last speaker was any kind of Klipsch :D
I can;t recall if I had treble brightness right off the bat or not - but then I ran a smooth integrated in the Sugden A48B in a well damped room. I did hear some treble thinness with the Rotel Soundhounds was using but that was only because we compared directly against the Meishu and 3.1 cd player which makes most cd players look real bad real fast.
Yeah but did you compare the K against the B&W 705?
The Gershman's did not beat the Audio Note's in the soundstaging and off-axis performance department, but for overall enjoyment they came out ahead.. seemed less brittle... my personal opinon on the AN K/Spe's so far is that they definately have some sibilance (I noticed this with the speakers at Sound Hounds too which were driven by 2 very expensive looking silver Audio Note components... integrated and a CD player).. but I also thought the narrow room might have had something to do with it... or perhaps the recording. At any rate, they still sound superb. I am driving them with a pair of Radii KT-88 Monoblocks that are very smooth sounding, so i really don't think it was them.. I even let them warm up for a good hour too.
Actually the Klipsch RB-5 MKII is really nice and non-fatiguing speaker. It reproduces a bit of a hump in the midrange from what I can tell.. perhaps horn coloration or something from the tractix horn.. reminds me a bit of listening to Tannoy's with the dual concentric tweeter/woofer... great for Jazz. If you make it out to our shindig i'll display :) Email me at ddood at dood.ca so I can add you to the mailing list of the people that are coming to decide on a date and which components everyone is bringing. You can tell me if you think the K's are sibilant or not then too ;)
I didn't even bother with the B&K's... they did get a HUGE pair of those new 700 series B&K's with the diamond tweeter... something like $15,000 a pair... less than what i thought they might be, but they were out front with the Maggies... looked nice.. sounded nice but i didn't really sit down and listen. The only B&K's i remember liking were an older pair of those Robot looking ones.. the matrix series i think... don't remember which one or generation.
-
The Amp Challenge
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
How do you know that "no one to date has been able to tell" differences in amps with DBT's? Are you aware of and become familiar with each and every DBT that's been done?
See RGA's response regarding the reliability with DBT's with respect to audio.
Mr. Clark... is that the car stereo dude who will pay someone $10K if they fly out to HIS place, listen to HIS system and substitute amps, and then must score 10 out of 10? I'll tell you what; I'll pay you $10K if you fly out to my place and can discern two subtly different shades of the color blue from a color chart. The kicker is that you must use MY eyeglasses. You must score 10 corrects out of 10. Good luck.
If anyone had been able to reliably tell the difference between the sound of amps on blind testing it would be all over these forums with the winner bragging his a-s-s off.
RGA is blowing lots of smoke when he says that double blind testing is faulted, it isn't.
Incidentally, Mr Clark "the dude as you call him" offers an honest test. You can bring you own speakers if you like and compare any amplifiers you wish. Compare a Technics to a Lexicon if you think they are that different. If you wish further edification you can email Mr. Clark at a2000rich@aol.com for complete details. I am not about to do all your legwork for you since I don't believe that there is any vast difference in the sound of amplifiers and know for certain that I couldn't tell the difference even in a sighted test.
And yes, if there were that much of a difference between the sound of amps you should be able to tell 100% of the time double blind or otherwise.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by corwin99
That's quite the feat.. i'm skeptical about those numbers myself though. I've heard the speakers and I'll be in Victoria this weekend so maybe i will hear them again.
Which leads me to this.. how bout bringing them over for a gear shootout sometime? :D I have already assembled a small group of "audiophiles" from Victoria, Duncan and Campbell River to come down to my place for day to hang out and talk gear and music. BBQ, beer, the whole nine :) I fully expect you to decline, but hey, never hurts to ask ;)
I would put in my Graz rebuild Scintilla, but at 231lbs a piece and a biatch to drive it wont happen. But then again, i dont need a shootout :D......
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian
I would put in my Graz rebuild Scintilla, but at 231lbs a piece and a biatch to drive it wont happen. But then again, i dont need a shootout :D......
Florian, would LOVE to hear the VMPS (or the Scintillas!) but the drive (and consequent swim) would likely be too much for you and the speakers.
-
Thats true. But you are more than welcome to stop by if you ever are visiting germany-
Flo
-
Thanks for the invite, Flo. You are also welcome to drop by here if you're ever on the Canadian west coast! I remember reading about your problems trying to stay in the US on AC.. and I am glad to see that you managed to get those VMPS speakers back out to Germany with you.
-
Thanks, i think that most people online know my life story :p
I am very glad i took the VMPS, i sold one 2 days ago after only a 30 minute listening session on MalValve electronics.
-Flo
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruadmaa
If anyone had been able to reliably tell the difference between the sound of amps on blind testing it would be all over these forums with the winner bragging his a-s-s off.
RGA is blowing lots of smoke when he says that double blind testing is faulted, it isn't.
Incidentally, Mr Clark "the dude as you call him" offers an honest test. You can bring you own speakers if you like and compare any amplifiers you wish. Compare a Technics to a Lexicon if you think they are that different. If you wish further edification you can email Mr. Clark at a2000rich@aol.com for complete details. I am not about to do all your legwork for you since I don't believe that there is any vast difference in the sound of amplifiers and know for certain that I couldn't tell the difference even in a sighted test.
And yes, if there were that much of a difference between the sound of amps you should be able to tell 100% of the time double blind or otherwise.
Why brag about passing a faulty test? Nothing to brag about! And unless I can also bring my listening room and the rest of my ancillary equipment, Mr Clark's test is designed to produce a null result. No "legwork" necessary - the guy is blowing the usual ABX smoke. I'd take the Possibility of a false positive with sighted testing over the Absolute false negative with DBT any day. Finally, there is very little in this world that deal with sensory perceptions that is 100%.
If you can't tell the difference, then you can't. I have no problem with that and obviously you don't, either. But don't presume to know what the rest of us can and can't hear.
|