Why receivers are not as good as amplifiers

[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.

[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.
All the amps in the world aren't gonna make those little Bose cubes sound good.

[Geoffcin]

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.

[shokhead]

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.

[RGA]

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.

[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

[E-Stat]

Receivers are sold only in America.
Not true. With the NAD line, there are some models that are not available in North America.


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_receivers/T763_frameset.htm



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.


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

[RGA]

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.

[Florian]

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

[kexodusc]

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.

[musicoverall]

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. :)

[hermanv]

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.

[RGA]

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.

[Woochifer]

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?

[RGA]

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.

[ruadmaa]

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.

[Feanor]

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.

[corwin99]

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 ;)

[topspeed]

Didn't anyone else notice the OP hasn't responded?

Why not start a post labeled "SS vs Tube" or "Ford vs. Chevy"?

Troll.

[Feanor]

...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).

[kexodusc]

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.

[RGA]

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.

[RGA]

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.

[ruadmaa]

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.

[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.

[RGA]

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!!!

[RGA]

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.

[psonic]

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.

[RGA]

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.

[corwin99]

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.

[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?

[musicoverall]

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.

[corwin99]

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.

[ruadmaa]

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.

[Florian]

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......

[corwin99]

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.

[Florian]

Thats true. But you are more than welcome to stop by if you ever are visiting germany-

Flo

[corwin99]

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.

[Florian]

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

[musicoverall]

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.

[E-Stat]

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.
That's r-e-a-l-l-y old news

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_data.htm



If you wish further edification you can email Mr. Clark at a2000rich@aol.com for complete details.
At last look, there were still lots of catches and restrictions.


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.
No doubt, the debate will continue. Here's a link to a recent debate between John Atkinson of Stereophile and Arnie Krueger of the pcabx.com website.

http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/

rw

[RGA]

Arny Kreueger the king opf the DBT support group ADMITTED differences do exist between just 5 power amps they selected off the shelf...and he's the guy who invented the freaking ABX comparator. It just does not hold to scrutiny in the fieldof psychology -- the top engineers agree differences do exist -- it is the people on forums not getting it and making assumptive conclusions that because people didn;t hear ti in a test it doesn;t exist in the real world -- that jump is wrong.

[RGA]

If all amps sound the same why is Pioneer not advertising that their receiver sounds as good as a $50k amp...reason they cannot prove this with a DBT, reason two the scientific community and Pioneer knows the limitations and they would get sued and LOSE.

[RGA]

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.


I suppose it's a matter of taste my reason for not buying the X1 was because I found it subdued and restrained in the treble - Though I still say it's one of the best $1500.00cdn speakers around because I would prefer a speaker to err this side than err on the bright side.

Just goes to show you that not everyone hears it the same way. The Maggies are great speakers for the money -- I may consider them as a second system for home theater that does justice to music -- but I'd want to listen longer because I wasn;t convinced by the ribbons totally -- never have really been thrilled with ribbons...but Maggie's 1.6 was better than I heard from others over the years including the SMG which to be frank stunk IMO.

[E-Stat]

...but I'd want to listen longer because I wasn;t convinced by the ribbons totally -- never have really been thrilled with ribbons...but Maggie's 1.6 was better than I heard from others over the years including the SMG which to be frank stunk IMO.
FYI, the 1.6s do not have the ribbon tweeters as found on the 3.6s and the 20.1s.

rw

[Florian]

In my humble opinion, if you cant tell the difference between amps than your speakers are not good enough to show the difference. I can change an interconnet and the Scintila will tell you. Also if you switch AMPs you hear a huge difference.

[ruadmaa]

In my humble opinion, if you cant tell the difference between amps than your speakers are not good enough to show the difference. I can change an interconnet and the Scintila will tell you. Also if you switch AMPs you hear a huge difference.


My speakers are excellent, thank you. Extensive listening tests were done by both Julian Hirsh of Hirsh/Houck Labs and also Ian G. Masters regarding the sound of amps. Neither of these professionals or the people doing the listening tests could detect any difference between the sound of numerous amps tested. I seriously doubt that your listening conditions could have been anywhere near as controlled nor do you have the expertise that these people had. After listening to numerous amps it was concluded, as I had stated, that no differences could be discerned. If you know more than these people more power to you.

[Florian]

My speakers are excellent, thank you. Extensive listening tests were done by both Julian Hirsh of Hirsh/Houck Labs and also Ian G. Masters regarding the sound of amps. Neither of these professionals or the people doing the listening tests could detect any difference between the sound of numerous amps tested. I seriously doubt that your listening conditions could have been anywhere near as controlled nor do you have the expertise that these people had. After listening to numerous amps it was concluded, as I had stated, that no differences could be discerned. If you know more than these people more power to you. Well if you are so convinced why bother to get beaten on in a thread? Seems like you need other people to tell you whats right and what not. I have "big" friends in the industry too that will eat your friends....but thats like kindergarden. Have fun listening to what others tell you, i listen to the truth. AMPS do sound different, and if you would own a Scintilla or a speaker is similar performance you would hear it too.

To put more fuel in the fire...

" Hitachi 65S700 Yamaha RX-V1400 Speakerlab SL7's M&K 12" Sub Infinity Center Cambridge In Wall Surrounds JVC DV-SA75 DVD" <----with that system you wont hear the difference between Norah Jones and Joe Cocker.

[ruadmaa]

Well if you are so convinced why bother to get beaten on in a thread? Seems like you need other people to tell you whats right and what not. I have "big" friends in the industry too that will eat your friends....but thats like kindergarden. Have fun listening to what others tell you, i listen to the truth. AMPS do sound different, and if you would own a Scintilla or a speaker is similar performance you would hear it too.

To put more fuel in the fire...

" Hitachi 65S700 Yamaha RX-V1400 Speakerlab SL7's M&K 12" Sub Infinity Center Cambridge In Wall Surrounds JVC DV-SA75 DVD" <----with that system you wont hear the difference between Norah Jones and Joe Cocker.

Incidentally, I seriously doubt that you have ever heard a Speakerlab SL7 speaker. Interesting that you could cut down a speaker that you have never even listened to.

[musicoverall]

Incidentally, I seriously doubt that you have ever heard a Speakerlab SL7 speaker. Interesting that you could cut down a speaker that you have never even listened to.

One should not pass judgment on or against a component they haven't listened to. Furthermore, one should not make claims of sonic differences or lack thereof unless they've listened to all the components within the scope of their claim.

[Florian]

By looking at the design of that speaker (drivers, weight of drivers, box colorations etc...) and by knowing what the world thinks of the Apogee Scintilla and what i have heard i can guarantee you that when it comes to the level of perfection in sound reproduction your speaker is not even to be mentioned in the same phrase as the Scintilla. Furthermore i have not cut down your speaker but you have done so yourself by saying that you cant hear the difference in amplifiers. If you cant hear the sonic differences in amps, than your speaker is simply not good enough. If you think Scintilla, think along the lines of Infinity IRS BETA...just better.

-Flo

[Florian]

One should not pass judgment on or against a component they haven't listened to. Furthermore, one should not make claims of sonic differences or lack thereof unless they've listened to all the components within the scope of their claim. It is very simple. We did a AMP test 3 days ago.

The contestents:

1 pair of Vacuumstate 300B Monos
1 pair of Ampzilla 2000 Monos
1 Son of Ampzilla
1 Pathos Acoustics Classic One
1 Krell KSA-150

and several preamps. Listening was done on a pair of modest VMPS RM30's.

You can clearly pick out the different amplifiers by their sound characteristics. If you disagree, than your speakers are simply not good enough.

http://www.maggiefanclub.de/fun2.jpg

[shokhead]

So after all this bragging as thats just what it sounds like,you guys havent answered the question in thread 1. You guys make these threads boring,thanks.

[Florian]

Well i dont think its bragging, i dont own all of these. Mine are only the ones in my sig.
This thread is pointless because the question why receivers are not as good as amps is so simply it does not need an answere. Receivers are a compromise in construction and aimed towards the HIFI market with some exeptions like a 989 or a 5808 or a Lexicon.
Seperate pre and power amps generally are better designed, have more space and bring the ability to be exchanged (pre and power).

Of course the 5805 amp section will sound better than the 500$ CA seperates but comparing price to price the seperate combinations are better,

[corwin99]

I suppose it's a matter of taste my reason for not buying the X1 was because I found it subdued and restrained in the treble - Though I still say it's one of the best $1500.00cdn speakers around because I would prefer a speaker to err this side than err on the bright side.

Just goes to show you that not everyone hears it the same way. The Maggies are great speakers for the money -- I may consider them as a second system for home theater that does justice to music -- but I'd want to listen longer because I wasn;t convinced by the ribbons totally -- never have really been thrilled with ribbons...but Maggie's 1.6 was better than I heard from others over the years including the SMG which to be frank stunk IMO.

I agree that the X-1 does feel a bit restrained in the treble... it tends to lack a bit of the air that the Audio Note have... but I think that is also the reason I like it so much, especially over the long haul.. it is such an easy speaker to listen to in that it causes no listener fatigue. I also think Gershman raised their Canadian Prices recently as Canadian dealers seem to be asking $2000CAD for the X-1 now.

I've been listening to those AN/K Spe's a bit more the last couple nights and they are starting to tame down a bit.. now I'm not hearing that sibilance anymore. I was hearing it with a lot of female vocals. Amazing sense of air and transparency. Good call on these speakers... whole time i was reading all your posts about these things i was skeptical, but decided to buy a pair anyway.. they are good.

[corwin99]

So after all this bragging as thats just what it sounds like,you guys havent answered the question in thread 1. You guys make these threads boring,thanks.

If you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem. How about instead of whining that people make these threads boring, you contribute something to them? with over 600 posts under your belt i'm sure you can think of something. I should also add that there was no question in the original post.

[musicoverall]

It is very simple. We did a AMP test 3 days ago.

The contestents:

1 pair of Vacuumstate 300B Monos
1 pair of Ampzilla 2000 Monos
1 Son of Ampzilla
1 Pathos Acoustics Classic One
1 Krell KSA-150

and several preamps. Listening was done on a pair of modest VMPS RM30's.

You can clearly pick out the different amplifiers by their sound characteristics. If you disagree, than your speakers are simply not good enough.
]

My point was that no one can know if there are or are not sonic differences between any two pieces of gear until they listen - and the conclusion is valid only in their own system. Ruadmaa was taking you to task for commenting on a component you hadn't listened to and he turned around and did the same thing with regard to separates vs receivers i.e they all sound the same. His comment seemed a bit odd as a result.

Looks like you had quite a time with your test! Did you trip over any components? :)

Yes, I've had no problem picking out sonic differences between amps I've auditioned in my own system so I agree with you.

[Florian]

My point was that no one can know if there are or are not sonic differences between any two pieces of gear until they listen - and the conclusion is valid only in their own system. Ruadmaa was taking you to task for commenting on a component you hadn't listened to and he turned around and did the same thing with regard to separates vs receivers i.e they all sound the same. His comment seemed a bit odd as a result.

Looks like you had quite a time with your test! Did you trip over any components? :)

Yes, I've had no problem picking out sonic differences between amps I've auditioned in my own system so I agree with you.
Sounds good to me :-) Yes i tripped over the Krell because one of my pant legs got cought by the sharp fins! But the coolest part of the evening was with the Krell too. Once we plugged it in and turned the power on the whole room went dark so we had to go to the other room to get the power.

-Flo

[musicoverall]

Sounds good to me :-) Yes i tripped over the Krell because one of my pant legs got cought by the sharp fins! But the coolest part of the evening was with the Krell too. Once we plugged it in and turned the power on the whole room went dark so we had to go to the other room to get the power.

-Flo

LOL! So it was a blind test after all? :)

[E-Stat]

So after all this bragging as thats just what it sounds like,you guys havent answered the question in thread 1.
While the thread has strayed, I think it was answered pretty fully on the first page.

rw

[Feanor]

My speakers are excellent, thank you. Extensive listening tests were done by both Julian Hirsh of Hirsh/Houck Labs and also Ian G. Masters regarding the sound of amps. Neither of these professionals or the people doing the listening tests could detect any difference between the sound of numerous amps tested.....
But I am convinced that I can hear differences. That was certainly the case when I compared my NAD C270 against Monarchy SP70 and Bel Canto eVo2i; (I bought the latter). And I didn't need Scintillas to do it either, just humble Magneplanar MMGs.

More recently I compared the Bel Canto against my Panasonic SA-XR25 receiver. The latter was highly tauted around here by some people but was distinctly inferior to the Bel.

And for the latter comparison case I used only my Paradigm MiniMonitors. ruadmaa, you Speakerlabs are up to the job if you will take the time to listen.

As for Julian Hirsch and Ian Masters, nobody doubts their credentials as engineers but a lot of people dismiss them as audiophiles. It's said of Hirsch that "he never heard a component he didn't like". Because a test is legitimately DBT doesn't mean that its definitive: in any case, while a DBT can prove the differences do exist, but it cannot prove that they don't exist.

[E-Stat]

But I am convinced that I can hear differences. So do I.


It's said of Hirsch that "he never heard a component he didn't like".
My favorite Julian story came from a JBL engineer who was giving a demonstration on JBL speakers. He was asked if Julian was on the take since he never said anything bad about anything. The engineer said "No, he's not on the take, he just can't hear."

rw

[Geoffcin]

Both my Musical Fidelity and PS Audio amps are highly rated amps, but with my system you can clearly hear a difference between them. To me, the maggies sound better with the PS Audio amp, while the Musical Fidelity sounded as good, if not better, on the Gallo Reference 3.

[kexodusc]

I don't know which engineers or scientist suggest that all amps sound the same with all types of speakers. There are well documented research papers that suggest for some speaker designs at least (in particular speakers that have drivers wired in series, are higher order crossovers with more parallel elements) that different amplifiers will produce different results. Amps that are more tolerant of either inductive or capacitive loads should be the most compatible with most speakers.

Truth is though, that many amps aren't equally tolerant, either deliberately by design or without consideration. Some amps are less tolerant of, for example, speakers networks that yield inductive loads. Speaker designers, engineers, physicist have known this for years, and because of this there are different "golden rule" moltipliers for L and C multiples (inductors and capacitors) in crossover networks that designers use to match the electro-acoustic properties of speaker systems to the amps they'll be used with.

There isn't a truth that one type of amp or crossover is better than another, but rather that the system synergies could be better under certain conditions.

In this situation I think that the engineers AND the audiophiles are right. The engineers are right to say that the sonic differences aren't attributable to the amplifiers themselves, and the audiophiles aren't crazy or selling snake-oil when they say that some amplifiers sound better to them than others through their speakers or certain combinations yield more pleasing results.

Want to make things even more complicated? It's very likely that the same high-end speaker model and amplifiers could sound different from one pairing to the next as even the slightest tolerance deviations (+/- 1% is very good, but adds up as the number elements increases) can cause slightly different results. What's this mean - nobody is right if they say speaker X sounds better with amplifier Y or speaker X sounds better than speaker Z, etc...

Since I don't see the inductive or capacitive characteristics of equipment readily disclosed in the specs, safe to say you should use your ears to determine what sounds best to you.
Depending on your gear, it is entirely possible that a $200 receiver could sound as good with your speakers at volumes you listen at as a $20,000 amplifier. If this is the case, I envy you.

[RGA]

I agree that the X-1 does feel a bit restrained in the treble... it tends to lack a bit of the air that the Audio Note have... but I think that is also the reason I like it so much, especially over the long haul.. it is such an easy speaker to listen to in that it causes no listener fatigue. I also think Gershman raised their Canadian Prices recently as Canadian dealers seem to be asking $2000CAD for the X-1 now.

I've been listening to those AN/K Spe's a bit more the last couple nights and they are starting to tame down a bit.. now I'm not hearing that sibilance anymore. I was hearing it with a lot of female vocals. Amazing sense of air and transparency. Good call on these speakers... whole time i was reading all your posts about these things i was skeptical, but decided to buy a pair anyway.. they are good.

Well mate all I can say is you have some good taste because very few people would take a gamble on speakers like Gershman or for that matter Audio Note. I heard Gershman before Audio Note and have been recommending them for years. The AN K needs a lot of experimenting to get bang on...toe in, or not, dead straight ahed works in some rooms better, distance apart, how close to the wall. With the J in the corner it is not just a matter of bass but also on the control of the midrange and treble.

I am not a huge break in believer because I think it's largely a matter of getting used to somethig that is presenting the material differently. My first criteria of any loudspeaker is can I listen to it fairly loud which is loud ALL-DAY. If one cannot then return it. I recommend highly those speakers that fall into this camp...I can forgive weaknesses because all speakers have them -- all day listening is an attribute of speakers like AN Gershman, Reference 3a MM De Capo (original version), among a few others.

The AN's will settle down -- they don;t like inexpensive SS gear at all. In fact if you have several hours at Soundhounds -- get them to hiook up the VEYR GOOD Rotel RA-1 or 2 to the AN K/SPe and the AN E/L -- You'll find the Rotel does better with the E/L and makes the K a bit strident. But when you switch out the Rotel with the Meishu the K is still just as extended but without any hint of grain...the E/L for whatever reason (copper as opposed to silver) is easier going on lesser gear.

I personally think Soundhounds should carry the cheaper K/LX because it is less likely people are going to have truly great amps running the K's. If the K/LX is like the E/LX then it would be far friendlier to inexpensive or SS amplifiers in general.

I have done the time listening to the J/L vs J/Spe and several E models after each other and the treble response is improved dramatically IF the amplifier is SE. So LX is better with SS and Spe and above needs SE to be IMO well matched.

Though I enjoyed the Sugden I had with both -- but few SS sound like Sugden.

I'd kinda like to see Soundhounds pick up Gershman -- what the hell they seem to have tried everything else.

[RGA]

E-stat

Wow what are the tweeters in the 1.6 then? I was merely looking through the black cloth and it appeared to be a ribbon? Is it some sort of hybrid?

I'll have to try the 3.6. Soundhounds said that if Maggie sells then they will bring in the 3.6 and the 20.1 or whatever the flagship is. I would like that because I would like to hear what a NEWER full range large panel can do -- the big ML's were nice but not quite up to my tastes. But the 1.6 is half the price of the ML Aerius and The maggie I think is superior in every regard.

I would seriously look at these for my second system for home theater. Though I'd have to buy a blinking subwoofer or two.

[Florian]

The 1.6 has a quasi ribbon, it is not a full ribbon. The same driver can be found (only larger) in the midrange section of the 20 and 20.1
The 3.6R is the second flagship and the 20.1 is the biggest.

-T

[corwin99]

Well mate all I can say is you have some good taste because very few people would take a gamble on speakers like Gershman or for that matter Audio Note. I heard Gershman before Audio Note and have been recommending them for years. The AN K needs a lot of experimenting to get bang on...toe in, or not, dead straight ahed works in some rooms better, distance apart, how close to the wall. With the J in the corner it is not just a matter of bass but also on the control of the midrange and treble.

I am not a huge break in believer because I think it's largely a matter of getting used to somethig that is presenting the material differently. My first criteria of any loudspeaker is can I listen to it fairly loud which is loud ALL-DAY. If one cannot then return it. I recommend highly those speakers that fall into this camp...I can forgive weaknesses because all speakers have them -- all day listening is an attribute of speakers like AN Gershman, Reference 3a MM De Capo (original version), among a few others.


I agree.. I need speakers that I can listen to loud for extended periods. You will be sad to hear that the All-day listening attribute of the Ref 3a MM De Capo's seems to be slightly diminished... but still sound very good in other respects.

You know what's funny, when I bought the AN/K Spe's, i almost bought them to prove to myself that they couldn't be as good as they are, especially with their ugly cabinets and what not. I've actually grown to like the cabinet. In my recollection.. my favourite speaker i've ever heard is still likely the Gershman Avant Garde. The Carbon Fiber Audax midrange in that unit sounds so good.


The AN's will settle down -- they don;t like inexpensive SS gear at all. In fact if you have several hours at Soundhounds -- get them to hiook up the VEYR GOOD Rotel RA-1 or 2 to the AN K/SPe and the AN E/L -- You'll find the Rotel does better with the E/L and makes the K a bit strident. But when you switch out the Rotel with the Meishu the K is still just as extended but without any hint of grain...the E/L for whatever reason (copper as opposed to silver) is easier going on lesser gear.

I personally think Soundhounds should carry the cheaper K/LX because it is less likely people are going to have truly great amps running the K's. If the K/LX is like the E/LX then it would be far friendlier to inexpensive or SS amplifiers in general.

I have done the time listening to the J/L vs J/Spe and several E models after each other and the treble response is improved dramatically IF the amplifier is SE. So LX is better with SS and Spe and above needs SE to be IMO well matched.

Though I enjoyed the Sugden I had with both -- but few SS sound like Sugden.

I'd kinda like to see Soundhounds pick up Gershman -- what the hell they seem to have tried everything else.

When i return from China (i'm leaving tomorrow) I will hook my K/Spe's to the Odyssey's to see how well they work together.. since i have two complete systems side by side it will be easy.. and good for my shootout. You really should come... We're going to have a Blue Note Piccolo Turntable, Ellis 1801 Speakers, Jolida 100B CD player, SimAudio 4070se, Musical Fidelity Amp of some sort, all my gear, hopefully a Roksan Radius 5 TT, and maybe more... all this along with my own gear of course... some of which isn't listed in my sig.

I was actually thinking about buying a pair of the J/L instead, with the Vinyl Veneer and all copper... since it was the first one i listened to.. not sure if they were using the Meishu, but it was a very large silver integrated and Cd player.. both audio note. The K/Spe actually sounded BETTER than the J/L to my ears in that room. Considering they were both the same price and the J/L was like twice the size i was a bit tempted to get the J/L anyway.. but can't fit that next to my gershmans. So far the K/Spe's are liking my Radii KT-88's... they're nice little 15W monoblocks. I should actually stick my Sonic Impact modded amp in there too.

You really should consider coming down to our shindig.. likely will be a saturday.. mid-late June... all day.. BBQ/Beer and all that.

[Feanor]

I don't know which engineers or scientist suggest that all amps sound the same with all types of speakers. There are well documented research papers that suggest for some speaker designs at least (in particular speakers that have drivers wired in series, are higher order crossovers with more parallel elements) that different amplifiers will produce different results. Amps that are more tolerant of either inductive or capacitive loads should be the most compatible with most speakers.....
I'm skeptically that the differences in amp sound are entirely explained in terms of inductive/capacitive differences between speakers. For example the NAD and Bel Canto I mentioned above each had consistent characteristics whether they were driving the aforementioned Paradigm MiniMonitors or Magneplanars. I.e. ...

NAD: warm, less well defined bass, less definition in general, slightly grainy highs.
BEL CANTO: lean, well defined bass; smooth, extended highs, outstanding definition across the spectrum.

[acronym]

You guys make these threads boring,thanks.

I wouldn't say boring. Reading these pages just reinforced the fact that upgrading my amplifier really isn't going to give me that "missing" sound that the ad agencies are want me to believe.

[RGA]

I agree.. I need speakers that I can listen to loud for extended periods. You will be sad to hear that the All-day listening attribute of the Ref 3a MM De Capo's seems to be slightly diminished... but still sound very good in other respects.

You know what's funny, when I bought the AN/K Spe's, i almost bought them to prove to myself that they couldn't be as good as they are, especially with their ugly cabinets and what not. I've actually grown to like the cabinet. In my recollection.. my favourite speaker i've ever heard is still likely the Gershman Avant Garde. The Carbon Fiber Audax midrange in that unit sounds so good.



When i return from China (i'm leaving tomorrow) I will hook my K/Spe's to the Odyssey's to see how well they work together.. since i have two complete systems side by side it will be easy.. and good for my shootout. You really should come... We're going to have a Blue Note Piccolo Turntable, Ellis 1801 Speakers, Jolida 100B CD player, SimAudio 4070se, Musical Fidelity Amp of some sort, all my gear, hopefully a Roksan Radius 5 TT, and maybe more... all this along with my own gear of course... some of which isn't listed in my sig.

I was actually thinking about buying a pair of the J/L instead, with the Vinyl Veneer and all copper... since it was the first one i listened to.. not sure if they were using the Meishu, but it was a very large silver integrated and Cd player.. both audio note. The K/Spe actually sounded BETTER than the J/L to my ears in that room. Considering they were both the same price and the J/L was like twice the size i was a bit tempted to get the J/L anyway.. but can't fit that next to my gershmans. So far the K/Spe's are liking my Radii KT-88's... they're nice little 15W monoblocks. I should actually stick my Sonic Impact modded amp in there too.

You really should consider coming down to our shindig.. likely will be a saturday.. mid-late June... all day.. BBQ/Beer and all that.

I don't mind coming but I can't bring my speakers -- I am also car-less.

The K/spe could be argued as being better than the J/L -- I know Bob Neil who reviews for Positive Feedback likes the K for certain things. The J/L is in a chipboard box copper wiring and is about 5-10 years old...it depends what you're going to match up with the stuff...the J has 25hz on the K and a much larger sounding front to back presence -- but the K/Spe is more refined than any L model for the range that it covers. The J will also play considerably louder with less power. They don;t sound the same after all because we'retalking a port versus a sealed cabinet.

I had the K for six months but the added bass extends the envelope of the overall presence and image so much that I would probably due without some resolution and get the J/L over the K/Spe if they were around the same money if it were a main speaker. The J/Spe did take time oddly for the bass to seem right and the whole sound to really feel at ease.

I spent the most time with the X1 and the GAP(which is a fine speaker as well).

[corwin99]

I don't mind coming but I can't bring my speakers -- I am also car-less.

The K/spe could be argued as being better than the J/L -- I know Bob Neil who reviews for Positive Feedback likes the K for certain things. The J/L is in a chipboard box copper wiring and is about 5-10 years old...it depends what you're going to match up with the stuff...the J has 25hz on the K and a much larger sounding front to back presence -- but the K/Spe is more refined than any L model for the range that it covers. The J will also play considerably louder with less power. They don;t sound the same after all because we'retalking a port versus a sealed cabinet.

I had the K for six months but the added bass extends the envelope of the overall presence and image so much that I would probably due without some resolution and get the J/L over the K/Spe if they were around the same money if it were a main speaker. The J/Spe did take time oddly for the bass to seem right and the whole sound to really feel at ease.

I spent the most time with the X1 and the GAP(which is a fine speaker as well).

Was just joking about the speakers ;) I wouldn't be able to corner place them to do them justice anyway.. both my component racks are in the corners of my listening room. But yeah.. will be lots of fun with the guys over for the day... i'll let you know when it is.

The K/Spe and the J/L that i heard at soundhounds definately sounded different, and i think it did have to do with the port on the J/L... it didn't seem placed properly, definately less coherent than the K/Spe. I think that's what struck me about the K/Spe.. it's just so damn coherent.. everything seems "together". Just wish the low end was a bit more. I'm considering hooking the cable from the SW-1's onto the K/spe's to see if that sounds good.. heh.. i dont think so tho since there is a difference in sensitivity. The SW-1's would cross them over at 90hz... 3rd order.

I hope i can snag some gear or accessories out in Shanghai.

BTW- I can pick you up for the get-together... its no problem. Where abouts in Nanamo do you live?

[kexodusc]

I'm skeptically that the differences in amp sound are entirely explained in terms of inductive/capacitive differences between speakers. For example the NAD and Bel Canto I mentioned above each had consistent characteristics whether they were driving the aforementioned Paradigm MiniMonitors or Magneplanars. I.e. ...

NAD: warm, less well defined bass, less definition in general, slightly grainy highs.
BEL CANTO: lean, well defined bass; smooth, extended highs, outstanding definition across the spectrum.


Oh, I didn't imply all differences were fully explained only by the inductive or capacitive properties of speaker networks. Naturally I would think there'd have to be inductive/capacitive difference in the amplifier as well that would cause the difficulties I mentioned earlier. I just wanted to say they do exist and engineers know this. Because of this evidence, it baffles me that some nay-sayers who claim to be engineers can make claims that all amps sound the same with every speaker etc. It's clear they don't, and that system synergy is important.

Though it's also very likely that some speakers might be indifferent to amplifiers and vice-versa.

I also think some designers build in "response curves" if you will into the amps, though I'll admit to never really researching if this is true or not.

[Woochifer]

Oh, I didn't imply all differences were fully explained only by the inductive or capacitive properties of speaker networks. Naturally I would think there'd have to be inductive/capacitive difference in the amplifier as well that would cause the difficulties I mentioned earlier. I just wanted to say they do exist and engineers know this. Because of this evidence, it baffles me that some nay-sayers who claim to be engineers can make claims that all amps sound the same with every speaker etc. It's clear they don't, and that system synergy is important.

Though it's also very likely that some speakers might be indifferent to amplifiers and vice-versa.

I also think some designers build in "response curves" if you will into the amps, though I'll admit to never really researching if this is true or not.

Kex -

As usual, you're a bedrock of rationality in a sea of extremism -- on this thread at least, it looks like the subjectivist kool-aid is on the menu.

Your point about "response curves" is very true with a lot of vintage equipment, particularly with the "zero states" on receivers and preamps. It was pretty well known that vintage Yamaha receivers with all of the tone controls and settings at zero or flat still had a slight rise in the treble. I believe that with Marantz receivers, it tended to reside more in the midrange. With the huge number of switches and controls that you saw with a lot of vintage receivers and preamps, it shouldn't be surprising that the analog signal would get altered along the way, even with everything at a zero/flat state.

I think manufacturers moved away from this type of thinking in the 80s when preamps and receivers started incorporating fewer switches and controls, and started going more towards the minimalist edict that took hold in the two-channel community. With newer AV receivers, it's completely different because most of the signal processing now occurs in the digital domain, where audible differences are not nearly as pronounced as before when the signal had to pass through a bevy of analog switches and controls before it went to the amp section.

[kexodusc]

Wooch, that confirms my suspicions then.
I've had the priviledge a few years back of spending a few weeks with my uncle's Bryston gear hooked up to my system. Even on my modest old Wharfedale Emeralds I could notice a different, dare I say better sound than my old Marantz pro-logic receiver or NAD 3020 integrated.

While I do praise the benefits of quality amplification and can appreciate tonal differences, I don't think recievers all suck donkey balls and are incapable of delivering good sound.

[RGA]

Corwin

I'm near the ferry.

Audio Note speakers are time and phase aligned as well as timed to a master curver - no one in the industry does this...you will see some that stagger their drivers in a sloped fashion where the tweeter is further back etc. Somewhere on AA they went more in depth as to the design

On time and phase alignment
"We go one better than simple time/phase alignment, we individually adjust and match the woofer's behaviour to the tweeter at the points where they both reproduce the same frequency, this is far far more important and sophisticated than the primitive practice of sloping the baffle a bit to "compensate" for the tweeters earlier and shorter response time."

"I don't understand why you would measure a speaker at 180 degrees and I have not measured or seen measurements on the NHT you mention, but I can tell you that I would have no real problem putting the 90 degree off axis response of any of our speakers up against any other forward radiating speaker, we would come out well there."

A thread from peter Qvortrup is at ://www.audioasylum.com/audio/speakers/messages/192627.html