Is More watts better?

[pitbosskev]

Can someone give light on my question? I have a Harman Kardon avr-230 which I believe is rated at 50 or 55 watts in stereo. I am looking to buy a used Citation 22 power amp rated at 200 watts (I think). Will this make a significant differnce in sound and what kind of differences will it make? Is it worth the extra money? I have Paradigm monitor 9's as fronts.

Thanks.

[RGA]

No more watts is not better. More watts can be louder. If you have a 50 watt amplifier and all else being equal, an amp rated at 100 watts will be 3 decibals louder. 3db is barely audible.

To get twice as loud, to the ear, of a 50 watt amp you would need a 500 watt amp. And this would only happen if the speaker was capable of taking 500 watts. Most speakers can only take 50 - 200 watts.

In my experience low powered amps sound the best. The longest running amplifier in history is the Sugden A21a which is a Single Ended (SE) solid state amplifier rated at 25 watts per channel pure class A into 8 ohms -- and is not high current. It's one of the best sounding amplifiers for sane money going - which is why it's been selling since 1968.

I have yet to hear an amplifier above 100 watts that I would want to own.

[Smokey]

Is More watts better?

Short answer to that question is yes.

Alot of people associate more wattage with being louder which is not the case alt all. More
wattage usually mean better Dynamic Headroom and lower distortion. Loud momentary music passages (such as beating of drum) can reach as high as 200-300 watts. And if amp doesn’t have that much power in reserve (Dynamic Headroom), then result would be higher distortion (THD to be more specific) and lower quality sound.

So higher power is always welcome.

[kexodusc]

It really all depends...if your listening habbits are such that you would never take advantage of having 100 watts or more, then having 100 watts or more is useless to you.
I have not found that more powerful amps sound better than less powerful amps when both amps are used within their design limitations. As you get to the extreme limit of the smaller amp, it will start to distort and lose it's sound quality. Often, larger amps have higher quality components than other amps, so sometimes that gets confused with simply having "more watts".
I have found with 84 dB sensitive speakers or better, 60 watt amps are more than enough for me.
My speakers are 88 and 90 dB though, so I need even less power to hit very loud average levels.
RGA is very right, a lot of speakers and listeners really don't need more than a few watts to sound great. A lot of factors to consider.

[Florian]

Short answer to that question is yes.

Alot of people associate more wattage with being louder which is not the case alt all. More
wattage usually mean better Dynamic Headroom and lower distortion. Loud momentary music passages (such as beating of drum) can reach as high as 200-300 watts. And if amp doesn’t have that much power in reserve (Dynamic Headroom), then result would be higher distortion (THD to be more specific) and lower quality sound.

So higher power is always welcome.

I know of very little normal speakers can produce the whole dynamic range in the first place, but i would also add that you need control, lots of current, a purely stable amp and a high damping factor.

-Flo

PS: RGA, i can hear .5db differences and 3db is a lot. Espc. when a box sits in the corners and gets different room gain from the corners.

[RGA]

Short answer to that question is yes.

Alot of people associate more wattage with being louder which is not the case alt all. More
wattage usually mean better Dynamic Headroom and lower distortion. Loud momentary music passages (such as beating of drum) can reach as high as 200-300 watts. And if amp doesn’t have that much power in reserve (Dynamic Headroom), then result would be higher distortion (THD to be more specific) and lower quality sound.

So higher power is always welcome.

Sorry but this is incorrect - at least partially. What I left out is the function of the speaker. If you own 80db senstive speakers then I would agree that you would need very high wattage amplifiers to get them going. However, there is no need to buy such speakers since you can get easy to drive speakers.

High watt amps and separates also tend to generate noise not lessen it. This has always been an advantage of integrated amps over separates or pseudo hybrids like my amp. Drum beats do not hit 200-300 watts or a watt number. Most all "good" amps have significant reserves to reach loud peaks. The only advantage to high watt amps is volume capability. It takes 10 times the power to get a perceived doubling of the volume to the human ear. Thus a 100 watt amplifier will make a speaker that can handle 100 watts twice as loud as a 10 watt amp. On the other hand if you run a 100 watt amp on an 83db sensitive speaker and I run a 10 watt amp on a 95db senstive speaker (all else being equal) then my system will play louder than yours and have more headroom than yours.

High watt amps tend to require more aliasing or fixing of the signal in order for the amplifier to work properly - high power high damping factor = high negative feedback. It typically makes the graph look prettier but hardly does anything good for the sound. UHF technical advisor Paul Bergman wrote about damping factor in UHF's "The World of High Fidelity" and suggested that amps with damping factors above 40 are 'generally' best avoided. In the end it comes down to experience - I have heard more systems that have huge power power amplifiers such as Krell, YBA, Classe,Bryston etc monoblocks with speakers of not the greatest efficiency such as those from ML, HALES, Gershman Acoustics, Legacy, Wilson, PMC, etc. I have heard fewer systems of high efficiency and low powered Class A amplifiers. These carefully matched systems all have seemed to have more dynamic headroom (less compression) and some can play at significantly higher levels. It has been said that while this is true such speakers are often much bigger and offer less bass repsonse -- but that can be shown to be untrue!

The advantage of some of these speakers of course is that you the customer get far more choice -- you can use an 8 watt amp or an 80 watt amp or an 800 watt amp. And if volume level matters look for a speaker that is high efficient, and can handle a lot of watts. And such speakers also are more able to let you the customer hear the difference in sound quality of the amplifiers at good drive levels. a low watt amp will fizzle out on tough speakers but on easy to drive speakers you can compare a Krell and a SET and and neither will be running out of steam -- then you can hear what the actual amplifiers sound like.

By the way I had loads of fun with PMC and Bryston like set-ups as well - excellent build, powerful sound - but don't give up on the "polar opposite" kind of set-ups. A fellow in town here has gone to 98db sensitive speakers and 8 watt amps from having owned massive SS gear and gigantic speakers designed by Mark Levinson with subwoofers . His system will play more than loud enough for most people. The big Bryston PMC ultimately will play a bit louder but the sacrifice in subtleties and the introduction of fatigue is not a trade that I would make.

[Florian]

However, there is no need to buy such speakers since you can get easy to drive speakers.
So what do i do when efficent speakers like the AN's make me throw up and curl up in the corner? What you write is complete bogus! My friend has the AN's Conquest and the Kondo in for review and both generate tons of noise and hiss. Yes, they sound good but have no balls (except the Kondo..of course) and you cant drive any of the top speakers with them.

There are amps out there that easily compare and have tons of power to play with also, the Silver King, Sphinx PJ16, Acousticplan and Silvaweld OTL's.


then you can hear what the actual amplifiers sound like. Not if you have driver coloration, time delay erros, room coloration etc. Some amps need to be driven hot and the Krell KRS wont do **** on a 12Ohm impedance.

Like i said.....advertising bogus!

-Flo

[PAT.P]

So whats the answer guys?Most of my HT speakers are 91db to 94db In average room 2.83 V,1m. Im going to add a power amp to drive my fronts from pre-out of receiver.Im using A/Bspeakers at same time .The amp is 300 watts at 4ohms both channel driven.How loud do you think its going to be:ihih:

[Florian]

It will never be anywhere close to 300watts and we dont know the damping factor or the impedance responce of your speakers ;-)

Bottom line: Try it out and see if you like it, if you dont then junk it and buy a different one and if you like it.....well thats simple!

-Flo

[RGA]

So whats the answer guys?Most of my HT speakers are 91db to 94db In average room 2.83 V,1m. Im going to add a power amp to drive my fronts from pre-out of receiver.Im using A/Bspeakers at same time .The amp is 300 watts at 4ohms both channel driven.How loud do you think its going to be:ihih:

When i added a Bryston 120 watt power amp to my 95 db sensitive top of the line Wharfedales everything improved - tighter bass punchy sound cleaner and tighter and less sluggish. This was actually a 5 watt downgrade because I had the top of the line Pioneer Elite Receiver rated at 125 watts RMS and distortion figures that rivalled the Bryston.

It's not about the watts and it's not strictly about the sensitivity rating. Plenty of speakers at 93db sensitivity and are not the least bit friendly to low powered amps. SET amps like stable loads - nothing wrong with a 4 ohm load if it doesn't dip and rise too much. My speakers are rated as 6 ohms but never dip under 5. If I remember correctly the 2.83V, 1m spec needs to be subtracted by 3db to be the same as the 1 watt 1 meter spec (not 100% sure so check on that). Remember for every 3db gain you need twice the amplifier power.

Florian - I'd be curious as to the Serial numbers of both the Kondo and the Conquests. The Conquests and Kageki amplifiers as well as all of the other AN amps that I have heard and the one I own and everyone else I know who has ever heard any of them hear absolutely no noise with any of these amplifiers - there may be a faulty connection and your friend should definitely have a repair outlet fix the issue.

[Florian]

Florian - I'd be curious as to the Serial numbers of both the Kondo and the Conquests. The Conquests and Kageki amplifiers as well as all of the other AN amps that I have heard and the one I own and everyone else I know who has ever heard any of them hear absolutely no noise with any of these amplifiers - there may be a faulty connection and your friend should definitely have a repair outlet fix the issue.

No problem, the review will be published soon and all will be shown there. There are quite a view articles that compared the original Kondo to the new version from Peter where he added more feedback to get a quieter background and it took all the magic out. So far on CD's its below the expectiations but is a killer in the analog realm. All testes on Acoustats, Apogees and of course no wooden coffins to actually hear what the amp does ;-)

-Flo

[kexodusc]

It's not about the watts and it's not strictly about the sensitivity rating. Plenty of speakers at 93db sensitivity and are not the least bit friendly to low powered amps. SET amps like stable loads - nothing wrong with a 4 ohm load if it doesn't dip and rise too much. My speakers are rated as 6 ohms but never dip under 5. If I remember correctly the 2.83V, 1m spec needs to be subtracted by 3db to be the same as the 1 watt 1 meter spec (not 100% sure so check on that). Remember for every 3db gain you need twice the amplifier power.

Nah, the 2.83 V is just used because 2.83 V into 8 ohms is 1 watt. But almost all speakers that use the 2.83 V number for sensitivity will have lower "real" sensitivity if measured with 1 watt fed into them. You do subtract 3 dB if your speakers are 4 ohm, because that'd be the same as running 2 watts into 4 ohms (sort of).

Many efficiency/sensitivity numbers I've seen on speakers aren't done in anechoic conditions, and use room gain to jack that number up a a bit. That ticks me off. I see this with $300 or cheaper speakers that boast 90 or 91 dB efficiency. It's often a few dB's less. Not a big deal, but I think a stricter standard needs to be enforced.

[kexodusc]

PS: RGA, i can hear .5db differences and 3db is a lot. Espc. when a box sits in the corners and gets different room gain from the corners.

You are a freakin' cyborg Flo. :D
Most of us normal humans can only barely hear 1 dB changes with statistical significance. The average healthy ear doesn't even do much better with 3 dB differences.

Funny story - I can notice a +1 dB increase in my room with concentration when I increase the volume. In my last hearing test I could only accurately identify +3 dB increases that the technician controlled better than 90% of the time. 2 dB I was 50/50, and was honestly guessing. That 3 dB is the standard used for hearing. If you can do that, you have an average healthy ear.

I don't find +3 dB in my room to be much of a difference really, noticeable, but I think that's the minimum increment I would change volume by if someone asked me to turn it up or down.

[PAT.P]

It will never be anywhere close to 300watts and we dont know the damping factor or the impedance responce of your speakers ;-)

Bottom line: Try it out and see if you like it, if you dont then junk it and buy a different one and if you like it.....well thats simple!

-FloDamping factor>100 at 1khz,S/N ratio 100db.Nominal Impedance of speakers is 6 ohms.This amp detect auto from 2ohms( 480 w) both channel to 8ohms (205w)If I see it help I'll use it ,if I see it does'nt I'll try others.Lots of reading to do on spec on amps (gains,distortion,ect) its a new ball game.Thanks

[pitbosskev]

Thanks all for the help and info.:cornut:

[RGA]

No problem, the review will be published soon and all will be shown there. There are quite a view articles that compared the original Kondo to the new version from Peter where he added more feedback to get a quieter background and it took all the magic out. So far on CD's its below the expectiations but is a killer in the analog realm. All testes on Acoustats, Apogees and of course no wooden coffins to actually hear what the amp does ;-)

-Flo

Published where - which magazine? Peter has both Ongaku amps - Everyone so far that has heard both said the AN UK version is better. There is no negative feedback - Peter uses far better transformers which reduces background noise -- the prototype of the UK Ongaku was not quiet in the noise department as Martin Colloms noted in his recent review in Hi-Fi News -- nevertheless it was noted that it would be in the running for world's best amp -- and that version was not even fixed up. These amps and Kondo's were not designed for panels -- Kondo hated panels which is why he made "coffins" and showed with his "coffins" or other companies' "coffins."

[Smokey]

Sorry but this is incorrect - at least partially. What I left out is the function of the speaker. If you own 80db senstive speakers then I would agree that you would need very high wattage amplifiers to get them going.

I agree that speaker sensitivity does matter as to how much power needed, but it should not be the main factor. Today's high dynamic sources such as CD, DVD, DVD-A or HD audio require for the amp to have plenty of reserve power to accurately amplify the signal regardless of speaker used. And I don't believe 8 or 10 watt amp will cut it even if high sensitivity speakers are used.


High watt amps and separates also tend to generate noise not lessen it. This has always been an advantage of integrated amps over separates or pseudo hybrids like my amp.

How did you come to that conclusion?

High quality amps and separate tend to keep channels (and their power supply) separated to avoid interchannel noise and distortion. And they use better shielding and methods to keep RF/EMI noise from effecting the components. So IMO amps are better equipped to combat noise than hybrid/integrated amps :)

[theaudiohobby]

Published where - which magazine? Peter has both Ongaku amps - Everyone so far that has heard both said the AN UK version is better.

Hmmm...and who will these people be? The only person I am aware of so far to have said this publicly is Peter Qvortrup himself and what else do you expect him to say :)

[Resident Loser]

Can someone give light on my question? I have a Harman Kardon avr-230 which I believe is rated at 50 or 55 watts in stereo. I am looking to buy a used Citation 22 power amp rated at 200 watts (I think). Will this make a significant differnce in sound and what kind of differences will it make? Is it worth the extra money? I have Paradigm monitor 9's as fronts.

Thanks.

...I'd buy the Citation...I have a Citation 19 (100Wpc@ 8 Ohms/ 200wpc@ 4Ohms) purchased in the mid-80s (as I recall) and it has served me well over the years...wide bandwidth and high current output...According to the owners manual, a pdf. @ the HK site, the 22 is of a like breed, check it out here:

http://manuals.harman.com/HK/Owner%27s%20Manual/Citation22-24%20om.pdf

While specs aren't everything, they're a good objective place to start...

jimHJJ(...feel free to ignore all the subjective, anecdotal claptrap and background noise contained in this thread...)

[RGA]

I agree that speaker sensitivity does matter as to how much power needed, but it should not be the main factor. Today's high dynamic sources such as CD, DVD, DVD-A or HD audio require for the amp to have plenty of reserve power to accurately amplify the signal regardless of speaker used. And I don't believe 8 or 10 watt amp will cut it even if high sensitivity speakers are used.



How did you come to that conclusion?

High quality amps and separate tend to keep channels (and their power supply) separated to avoid interchannel noise and distortion. And they use better shielding and methods to keep RF/EMI noise from effecting the components. So IMO amps are better equipped to combat noise than hybrid/integrated amps :)

Cabling is kept shorter in integrated amplifiers - talking good integrated amplifiers not the ones most people hear -- You are welcom to come to my place and hear watt 10 watts is capable of doing with modestly sensitive speakers. Some people would like to argue my speakers are only 89,5 db sensitive rather than the the 93db in corner measurement -- so if we take the 89,5db rating that illustrates even more so what 10 watts is capable of doing.

[RGA]

Hmmm...and who will these people be? The only person I am aware of so far to have said this publicly is Peter Qvortrup himself and what else do you expect him to say :)

Well he also said you could go to his home and hear it for yourself - but you're far too much of a coward to try.

Not everyone posts on forums buddy and several people in Victoria and Nanaimo I have met as owners -- who have flown to England went to Peter's house and heard the systems. You see these are people with money who have heard the best systems in the world and owned them and have discussed with designers like Mark Levinson. When they spend this much money on an Audio Note system they want to hear the flagship and then determine how close they want to get to it. And when you drop close to half a million dollars a plane ticket to England is less than the tax on the interconnect cable.

You are welcome to come here and I shall introduce these people to you but I am not posting their names because I was requested not to - especially with the rampant home invasions on the rise.

[Florian]

Well of course you know that i think that Audio Note speakers are pure junk and you will never ever convince me or any of the other thousands ultra high end people different BUT RGA is right in one regards. 10 or 18 watts is more then enough! The VS 18 Watt DB300's (voted best amp on the planet 3 times) on the Apogees and you can get them in the 90db range with them. Of course you need a lot more to get the max SPL of a 118db but for most good speakers 18 watt is quite enough.

-Flo

[kexodusc]

Well of course you know that i think that Audio Note speakers are pure junk and you will never ever convince me or any of the other thousands ultra high end people different
-Flo

Hey Flo,

You aren't, by chance, a diplomat?

[Florian]

Hey Flo,

You aren't, by chance, a diplomat?

Hehe, nope but i have thought about it :)

[markw]

Well he also said you could go to his home and hear it for yourself - but you're far too much of a coward to try.

Not everyone posts on forums buddy and several people in Victoria and Nanaimo I have met as owners -- who have flown to England went to Peter's house and heard the systems. You see these are people with money who have heard the best systems in the world and owned them and have discussed with designers like Mark Levinson. When they spend this much money on an Audio Note system they want to hear the flagship and then determine how close they want to get to it. And when you drop close to half a million dollars a plane ticket to England is less than the tax on the interconnect cable.

You are welcome to come here and I shall introduce these people to you but I am not posting their names because I was requested not to - especially with the rampant home invasions on the rise.Lots of bluff and bravado but nothing of substance.

You assume that peole want to be bothered to take a trip to meet you and your friends because they don't post on these forums?

Half a million dollars for a plane ticket?

You're afraid that by mentioning your friends names their homes will be broken into? I guess only thieves read these forums, eh? ...or could it be that they don't want to be publicly assocated with you?

Thanks for my daily laugh.

[Florian]

Hey Mark, what did you expect?
Have you ever seen a measurement of RGA or of Audio Note or of BOSE? No friends to post? Thats too sad RGA!

Hey, i have tons of friends over and everyone is welcome, yes even Wooch and Kex :6: I can't believe it took you all so long to see it!

-Flo

[RGA]

Lots of bluff and bravado but nothing of substance.

You assume that people want to be bothered to take a trip to meet you and your friends because they don't post on these forums?

Half a million dollars for a plane ticket?

You're afraid that by mentioning your friends names their homes will be broken into? I guess only thieves read these forums, eh? ...or could it be that they don't want to be publicly associated with you?

Thanks for my daily laugh.

My daily laugh is to see people who can't read. I never used the word friend. I met some people at the dealer and the owner of the upper system went through my dealer to let me hear it. In both instances they requested to not post their addresses which if means that they're names are out of the question since one can look that up in the phone book and find their address.

"Half a million dollars for a plane ticket?"

Don't know what you're talking about. If one is spending a significant amount of dollars on stereo they should ensure they are getting the right set-up for their needs. AN has a different kind of structure to most companies with levels and this customer wanted to ensure the right synergistic match and also to hear the pinnacle the company has to offer -- having heard the pinnacles of many others and owning some of them. I see no reason to not spend what amounts to the "tax" on interconnect cables to fly to England and back - meet the owner see the plant and compare it to other set-ups. One fellow I met here is at the other end of the financial spectrum and he too travelled all the way there - and all he was doing was building a kit. I believe he took his friend a rather noted engineer with him. He is now working on a few kits with differing exotic materials.

"You assume that peole want to be bothered to take a trip to meet you and your friends because they don't post on these forums? "

This also makes no sense. The Audio Hobby implies that Peter Qvortrup is a liar. And that only Peter has heard the two Kondo amps and of course he would choose his own engineer's building of it. That is a false statement - people have -- he is welcome to come out here and I shall introduce him to the people who have heard it. Of course Peter has already asked ANYONE who wants to compare them to go to the plant. It is far easier for TAH to make a drive or a tube trip (England is a very small place) and hear it for himself rather than ask people in Canada about what they heard (to which he won't believe anyway). Not too many people own both Ongaku Amplifiers and can A/B them. Not too many people can request pretty much any recording and have the owner pull it out either. And not too many people can pull out of the closet various very noted competitor's speakers to A/B them. You want to hear a Quad or an Avante Guarde against his speaker with any classical piece from anyone pretty much ever or you want to hear Rage Against the Machine on Vinyl -- and you also want to copmpare the Quad or Acoustat versus his Speaker - want to hear the Acoustat with a Krell set-up verus the tubes etc then he has a significant amount of this stuff on hand.

Very few can pull that out in audition and let YOU hear it for yourself rather than the blab blab on internet forums and the whiney snivelly 2 year olds like Florian.

The only real education in audio is in the listening -- I can't make you do that and there may be very many real reasons not to -- doesn't matter to me and judging by Audio Note's huge demand versus not being able to meet it in supply it's not like they're going to lose any sleep over it. They lose sales no doubt by not being able to meet the demand in a timely manner.

The fellow here paid in advance for a turntable and he has been waiting more than one year and it's still not ready because various outsourced parts suppliers had difficulties causing AN to find someone else and when Audio Note is not about (anyone will do) then it slows the process. They are doing quite well for a little known company with some valves and plain jane boxes.

As opposed to many other companies who went belly up even with big impressive LOOKING products (See Apogee), others who went belly-up but got bought by a Chinese company for the name and went belly-up again and got bought again with accountants in charge instead of passionate music lovers (See Quad, Wharfedale, Mission, Kef). None of these yodles had anything worthwhile to sell for a lot of years. The ONLY reason the names are still around is because Buyers of these companies did not have to spend any money on building name brand recognition.

The best panel maker of the lot now is Soundlab (which in reviews have said it's better than any of the old panel makers like Apogee) which you can compare directly against Audio Note speakers if you wish at a dealer in the US (Audio Federation) who carries both lines. Do a google and locate their address. You can come to my dealer who sells Magnepan and compare that to Audio Note.

My opinion makes little difference -- It needs to be compared by the person doing the shopping. Magnepan and apparently Soundlab have a lot going for them if space is a non issue for you. None of these guys are going anywhere anytime soon, which means all of them are doing quite nicely selling to people.

The original post was about more watts being better -- and no that is not the case - it could be the case if you own low impedance speakers low sensitive speakers or speakers that have large impedance shifts -- if on the other hand you own competently built speakers then you don't need a lot of watts!

[PAT.P]

Another thread gone sour.Wont be to long when the "Top Guns" lock this one.Thank you guys:incazzato:

[Florian]

Very few can pull that out in audition and let YOU hear it for yourself rather than the blab blab on internet forums and the whiney snivelly 2 year olds like Florian.

At least this 2 year old can afford the same you seek, but chooses not too because its a joke. And this 2 year old *who doesnt wine, since he doesnt want your ****! has had TONS of people over to attest to his system incl. Prof. reviewers.


Muhahah....keep going!

[PAT.P]

Did some surf for the past days.Use a power amp that suppliies 2 to 4 times speakers continuous power rating per channel.This allows 3 to 6 db of headroom for peaks in the audio signal.Light dance music or voice ,amplifier power 1.6 times .For Metal or Grunge 2.5 times.EX for home stereo with 150 watts amp per channel and speakers with a 85 db SPL average (with 15 db peaks)to bring it to the 95 db SPL you would need 1500 watts.Did some calculation for my speakers at a distance of 5 meters ,92 db,6db amplifier headroom and want a 90 db SPL .I would only need 63 watts.

[theaudiohobby]

The original post was about more watts being better -- and no that is not the case - it could be the case if you own low impedance speakers low sensitive speakers or speakers that have large impedance shifts -- if on the other hand you own competently built speakers then you don't need a lot of watts

If all things are indeed equal then more watts is better than less watts, to bring it down to your level more Audio Note watts are better less Audio Note watts :ciappa: irrespective of speaker sensitivity, whether more watts are necessary is another matter entirely. By the way I did get to hear the Audio Note J-Spe, and other Audio Note gear not relevant to this discussion, and it sacrifices bass depth for higher sensitivity, a trade-off that is not unreasonable since Audio Note sells low power amplifiers. Going to Brighton to listen to Ongaku is certainly not on the cards for a variety of reasons.

[PAT.P]

Another thread gone sour.Wont be to long when the "Top Guns" lock this one.Thank you guys:incazzato:Did I tell you?How can we learn anything if it always turns like this?The More Watts in Steel Cage

[GMichael]

Did I tell you?How can we learn anything if it always turns like this?The More Watts in Steel Cage

Won't they ever learn?:idea:

[RGA]

If all things are indeed equal then more watts is better than less watts, to bring it down to your level more Audio Note watts are better less Audio Note watts :ciappa: irrespective of speaker sensitivity, whether more watts are necessary is another matter entirely. By the way I did get to hear the Audio Note J-Spe, and other Audio Note gear not relevant to this discussion, and it sacrifices bass depth for higher sensitivity, a trade-off that is not unreasonable since Audio Note sells low power amplifiers. Going to Brighton to listen to Ongaku is certainly not on the cards for a variety of reasons.

Actually I agree with you here. If all else is equal then more watts is better For instance my amp is 10 watts if another exactly the same sounding amplifier called the OTO 2 existed and it was 30 watts then as long as it sounded exactly the same and the price was not exorbuitantly more (a personal judgement call) then yes I agree with you. I'm not against more watts so long as more does not make it worse. With many amplifiers separates are indeed better - for instance I would take a Bryston 3bST with preamp over the B60 and I would also go separates with AN rather than buy the Meishu but these are more about sound quality reasons than power reasons. The OTO is not a true integrated amp -- it is one of their preamps and power amps stuck in one box -- or separates in a box.

Remember though that AN also does in home trials -- they will come to you. Even here they lend the stuff out to people for weeks at a time - don't know about over there.

[kexodusc]

The OTO is not a true integrated amp -- it is one of their preamps and power amps stuck in one box -- or separates in a box.

.

How is this different than any other pre-amp on the market? Most I've seen are exactly that.

[RGA]

How is this different than any other pre-amp on the market? Most I've seen are exactly that.

Integrated amps are not full size separate units in a box. The B60 is not a 3bST and their .5 preamp. No they have a smaller power supply share circuits. The OTO can be purchased as separates -- I believe the M1 preamp and the P1 power amp. The OTO is simply cheaper less noisy and does not require the external interconnect.

I am not going to get into the ins and outs because I don't buy amplifiers or anything else on the technology or the technobabble but on the sound. So all I can do is direct you to what AN claims -- and you can feel free to e-mail them or ignore it. With regards to the integrated amplifiers this is what Peter claims:

"Unlike the majority of integrated amplifiers, which are technically compromised in order to meet their price target, an Audio Note integrated amplifier is a full pre-power amplifier combination, complete with independent power supplies, in a single box. Therefore, rather than being a compromise, it is an advantage. Single box construction provides a shorter signal path and more ideal interstage matching giving obvious sonic benefits. The Meishu takes this principle several steps further and provides separate valve rectified choke smoothed power supplies for each amplification stage." (go to http://www.audionote.co.uk/ click products and then click level 3) [As an aside {nobody who does not have direct access to an all An system need read this bit} -- to this article Indeed, a nice test is to compare the Meishue or OTO with the AN speaker against say a Bryston B&W speaker. What you do is play the B&W set-up at 85decibals to a group of people blind with a given piece of music -- you will need a rat shack meter at the least for this. Then play the same cut on the AN system of around 80-82db and then ask the participants which one sounded louder. Avoid playing bass heavey music though as the B&W's wikll be disadvantaged and bass to the ear often sounds louder so try and avoid stuff under 50hz - anyway I only mention it because a relative of yours has the speakers and this should work -- this note is only in regards to the link I provided and the issue of volume related to resolution - that which is clearer seems louder or does not need to be turned up to be made out so the competing set-up needed to be played louder to seem as loud as the more resolute one.]

Audio Note technically does not make a true integrated amp in the usual way -- in that they said let's make an integrated amp which is usually filled with comprpomises (The B60 is worse than any of their separates for example) -- With AN they are separates in one box and many of them had or had separates like the M1 pre and P1 power amp. The other thing is that while the OTO is cosnsidered a level 2 product in their line - the M1 and P1 are considered level 1. So if indeed you agree that the OTO sounds better than the separates then that supports his argument of shorter signal path being better blah blah blah. The advantage of many separates is that of reducing noise -- but the AN amps are so physically large using such good parts even for an entry level amp that everything seems spaced far enough apart to not be a problem -- the OTO is nearly as large as my 300 disc changer.

Of course I have heard the M8 and Kageki power amps and they blow the OTO to dust. My view is you get what sounds best to you through the speakers you have. The M8 and Kegon costs well over 15 times the price of the OTO and actually have 2 less watts per channel.

[kexodusc]

Integrated amps are not full size separate units in a box. The B60 is not a 3bST and their .5 preamp. No they have a smaller power supply share circuits. The OTO can be purchased as separates -- I believe the M1 preamp and the P1 power amp. The OTO is simply cheaper less noisy and does not require the external interconnect.

I am not going to get into the ins and outs because I don't buy amplifiers or anything else on the technology or the technobabble but on the sound. So all I can do is direct you to what AN claims -- and you can feel free to e-mail them or ignore it. With regards to the integrated amplifiers this is what Peter claims:

The only beef I have with the comment is the implication Peter makes that all other integrated are always built with compromise to achieve a price target. When you really think about it, there isn't a product on Earth that isn't compromised in this fashion to some degree. But, that's a rather unfair comment to make. Instead of accusing companies of lining their products, why not approach it from the point of view of the consumer who doesn't want to fork out big bucks for 2 separate boxes where no audible advantages exist.

I can't speak for Bryston's integrateds, but smaller power supplies aside, a lot of integrateds aren't much different than their separate counterparts. A lot of cost is eliminated when you don't have to build 2 chassis, and buy a whole separate power supply (even small ones cost a good chunk of dough).

You can take apart an old NAD integrated (I haven't checked new models) and compare the guts to a smaller amp and pre-amp. You'd be hard pressed to find a difference in circuitry where it matters. Most of them are the same. The difference is their circuits are integrated, so there's no input/output stage on the two components in the traditional sense, just a direct feed. The power supply is generally the same size as the amplifiers, so I suppose it is disadvantaged by having to power a whole other piece of electronics, but pre-amps dont' consume much power at all and once activated don't fluctuate current demands much and won't make difference unless you overdrive the amp anyway. Arcam has been quite successful at employing this strategy. Especially with their newer a/v receivers, which are the best sounding a/v receivers I've ever heard.

Adcom even made a few integrateds for awhile, but gave up on this practice not because the product was compromised, but because their customers didn't like the marriage of both components requiring upgrading both at once. Perception drives this business more than substance, I think.

[theaudiohobby]

Integrated amps are not full size separate units in a box. The B60 is not a 3bST and their .5 preamp. No they have a smaller power supply share circuits. The OTO can be purchased as separates -- I believe the M1 preamp and the P1 power amp. The OTO is simply cheaper less noisy and does not require the external interconnect.

I am not going to get into the ins and outs because I don't buy amplifiers or anything else on the technology or the technobabble but on the sound. So all I can do is direct you to what AN claims -- and you can feel free to e-mail them or ignore it. With regards to the integrated amplifiers this is what Peter claims:

"Unlike the majority of integrated amplifiers, which are technically compromised in order to meet their price target, an Audio Note integrated amplifier is a full pre-power amplifier combination, complete with independent power supplies....

Then maybe you can explain this quote


The Meishu's pre-amplifier is only designed to be used with the P3 for bi-amplification it is NOT designed as a general purpose pre-amplifier.

The power amplifier section needs to be loaded with a speaker load otherwise it will, if left with signal in and no load, damage either the valves or the output transformers or both.

On the other hand, there are products on the market when the preamp sections can be used as a general purpose amplifier.

The point you are trying to make in the second part is rather unclear, the 800D will go louder and deeper than any current production Audio Note, the 800D spec is a freefield measurement, whereas the AN-E/Spe is an in-room corner loaded measurement. Secondly, the B&Ws (800D, 802D) covers about the same equivalent bandwidth with 3 drivers that the AN-E covers with a single driver, at 8 inchs, is the same size as a single 802D bass driver and smaller than any of the bass drivers of the 801D or 800D. In addition the B&Ws have a much stronger frame as well as larger internal volume. Given all these, it is a practical impossibility given optimal driving conditions that the AN-E can go deeper or sound clearer than the B&Ws, especially <100Hz. The B&Ws have the AN-E totally whipped in the resolution and bass depth department by design and they can play louder Note the B&W can be used reasonably close to a wall, you just need to know what you are doing.

[JohnMichael]

Did I tell you?How can we learn anything if it always turns like this?The More Watts in Steel Cage

I did not take time to read the thread until I noticed it was in the steel cage. I knew the dynamic duo of audio (Flo and RGA) must be at it again.

[RGA]

The only beef I have with the comment is the implication Peter makes that all other integrated are always built with compromise to achieve a price target. When you really think about it, there isn't a product on Earth that isn't compromised in this fashion to some degree. But, that's a rather unfair comment to make. Instead of accusing companies of lining their products, why not approach it from the point of view of the consumer who doesn't want to fork out big bucks for 2 separate boxes where no audible advantages exist.

Well Audio Note is considering costs for the average Joe which is why they save the consumer money by putting two separate componants in one box. This is different that designing and building a new 'inferior' product to lower the price to hit a target market. The difference is that the OTO got cheaper and also got better than the M1 and P1.

Don;t get me wrong I'm not saying there are not great integrated amplifiers -- there are MANY I like and of course all companies have budget products including AN. So Peter makes compromises. That is why I think he should re-write what he has said there. I understand what he means in that he didn't go and make a compromised integrated to meet the accountants' plan, but make a less pricey version of their separates. But the M1 and P1 are technically compromised or priced to less financially well off market which is what he accused other makers of doing. In other words he is listening to the M10 and Gaku-on not the P1 and M1 or OTO (these are targetted at a budget).



I can't speak for Bryston's integrateds, but smaller power supplies aside, a lot of integrateds aren't much different than their separate counterparts. A lot of cost is eliminated when you don't have to build 2 chassis, and buy a whole separate power supply (even small ones cost a good chunk of dough).

Well the difference is that the B60 isn't as good and it's targetted to people with less money and hopefully more efficient speakers. I'm far less interested in the technology than the result. I could care less if it's in one box or ten boxes. I prefer the Sugden A21a sound wise to a great many separates that are out there at more money. Sometimes separates are better. Both can be expensive or inexpensive -- At one time I was considering a tube preamp and two monoblocks for what would have been $497.00US from ASL. My point though was about watts -- going separates can actually provide less watts.



You can take apart an old NAD integrated (I haven't checked new models) and compare the guts to a smaller amp and pre-amp. You'd be hard pressed to find a difference in circuitry where it matters. Most of them are the same. The difference is their circuits are integrated, so there's no input/output stage on the two components in the traditional sense, just a direct feed. The power supply is generally the same size as the amplifiers, so I suppose it is disadvantaged by having to power a whole other piece of electronics, but pre-amps dont' consume much power at all and once activated don't fluctuate current demands much and won't make difference unless you overdrive the amp anyway. Arcam has been quite successful at employing this strategy. Especially with their newer a/v receivers, which are the best sounding a/v receivers I've ever heard.

Well I can't argue this but what one company does is not what all companies do. There are several OTO amps one is a push pull -- looking at it you can;t tell the difference -- but there is a world of difference when the cover is taken off. AN simply has bulk boxes to cover the inards. I had an arcam Delta 290 integrated which has an internal switch to make it a power amp - the power amp section is identical to the Delta 290P power amp. So yes many companies use the exact same power amp. Though the separates to me sounded better than the 290. Again it's largely going to be company and design dependant.



Adcom even made a few integrateds for awhile, but gave up on this practice not because the product was compromised, but because their customers didn't like the marriage of both components requiring upgrading both at once. Perception drives this business more than substance, I think.

I always liked Integrated if they had a preout. This way you could buy a good integrated on a budget and then later down the road buy a power amp and use the integrated's preamp. Then years later you could save up and trade the integrated in for the preamp. This is one of the best things about going with an integrated so I don;t buy Adcom's line - most others not in home theater seem to like integrated's.

That is one down side with some of AN's Integrated's in that they are matched for specific power amplifiers according to their level system approach and very likely the impedence matching.

Indeed, I'm not sure that the Ongaku even has outputs for separate add ons -- but then it was not really designed to meet a price point.

[RGA]

Then maybe you can explain this quote

On the other hand, there are products on the market when the preamp sections can be used as a general purpose amplifier.

Sure I can. The Meishu is an integrated amplifier of spearates designed specifically for one another and not designed to be a price point saver. After all the Meishu is more expensive than a number of their separates. I believe that is the point he was making but I grant you it's not a clear one -- maybe he should hire a marketing department after all!



The point you are trying to make in the second part is rather unclear, the 800D will go louder and deeper than any current production Audio Note, the 800D spec is a freefield measurement, whereas the AN-E/Spe is an in-room corner loaded measurement.

Well first the E is designed to be a corner loaded speaker so any measurement that is not an in room at roughly a normal listening distance is a rather pointless measurement to make. That is the problem -- one would need the 800D in the same room and measured the EXACT same way. Magazines and other outfits measure in a way that is not always condusive to the speaker in question which is why many of these reviewers have to make excuses for the results.



Secondly, the B&Ws (800D, 802D) covers about the same equivalent bandwidth with 3 drivers that the AN-E covers with a single driver, at 8 inchs, is the same size as a single 802D bass driver and smaller than any of the bass drivers of the 801D or 800D. In addition the B&Ws have a much stronger frame as well as larger internal volume. Given all these, it is a practical impossibility given optimal driving conditions that the AN-E can go deeper or sound clearer than the B&Ws, especially <100Hz. The B&Ws have the AN-E totally whipped in the resolution and bass depth department by design and they can play louder Note the B&W can be used reasonably close to a wall, you just need to know what you are doing.

You're welcome to that opinion - I have been fortunate enough to hear them in the same room and B&W sure doesn't convince me or those of us there listening or selling it of this.

[theaudiohobby]

You're welcome to that opinion - I have been fortunate enough to hear them in the same room and B&W sure doesn't convince me or those of us there listening or selling it of this.

It is not opinion, it is a fact, bass depth is an objective reality and measurable in a lab. As I said in another thread it is a practical impossibilty for the AN- E is whatever guise to have more bass depth than either B&W800,801or the 802D, it simply a'int possible. As mentioned earlier AN J-Spe, I took a listen, has bass commensurate to its size and design, it sounds like a medium sized standmount that it is, corner loading notwithstanding and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the AN-E in whatever guise will be any different.

[RGA]

Man you should get your low frequency hearing checked - typical of a standmount that size LOL your're a dreamer.

[automaticmojo]

Sorry but this is incorrect - at least partially. What I left out is the function of the speaker. If you own 80db senstive speakers then I would agree that you would need very high wattage amplifiers to get them going. However, there is no need to buy such speakers since you can get easy to drive speakers.

High watt amps and separates also tend to generate noise not lessen it. This has always been an advantage of integrated amps over separates or pseudo hybrids like my amp. Drum beats do not hit 200-300 watts or a watt number. Most all "good" amps have significant reserves to reach loud peaks. The only advantage to high watt amps is volume capability. It takes 10 times the power to get a perceived doubling of the volume to the human ear. Thus a 100 watt amplifier will make a speaker that can handle 100 watts twice as loud as a 10 watt amp. On the other hand if you run a 100 watt amp on an 83db sensitive speaker and I run a 10 watt amp on a 95db senstive speaker (all else being equal) then my system will play louder than yours and have more headroom than yours.

High watt amps tend to require more aliasing or fixing of the signal in order for the amplifier to work properly - high power high damping factor = high negative feedback. It typically makes the graph look prettier but hardly does anything good for the sound. UHF technical advisor Paul Bergman wrote about damping factor in UHF's "The World of High Fidelity" and suggested that amps with damping factors above 40 are 'generally' best avoided. In the end it comes down to experience - I have heard more systems that have huge power power amplifiers such as Krell, YBA, Classe,Bryston etc monoblocks with speakers of not the greatest efficiency such as those from ML, HALES, Gershman Acoustics, Legacy, Wilson, PMC, etc. I have heard fewer systems of high efficiency and low powered Class A amplifiers. These carefully matched systems all have seemed to have more dynamic headroom (less compression) and some can play at significantly higher levels. It has been said that while this is true such speakers are often much bigger and offer less bass repsonse -- but that can be shown to be untrue!

The advantage of some of these speakers of course is that you the customer get far more choice -- you can use an 8 watt amp or an 80 watt amp or an 800 watt amp. And if volume level matters look for a speaker that is high efficient, and can handle a lot of watts. And such speakers also are more able to let you the customer hear the difference in sound quality of the amplifiers at good drive levels. a low watt amp will fizzle out on tough speakers but on easy to drive speakers you can compare a Krell and a SET and and neither will be running out of steam -- then you can hear what the actual amplifiers sound like.

By the way I had loads of fun with PMC and Bryston like set-ups as well - excellent build, powerful sound - but don't give up on the "polar opposite" kind of set-ups. A fellow in town here has gone to 98db sensitive speakers and 8 watt amps from having owned massive SS gear and gigantic speakers designed by Mark Levinson with subwoofers . His system will play more than loud enough for most people. The big Bryston PMC ultimately will play a bit louder but the sacrifice in subtleties and the introduction of fatigue is not a trade that I would make.
Perhaps, but there are plenty of designs, such as H/K PA-2400 and others that take the so called negatives of high power amps into account.
The same can be said for smaller power amps, or flea watt amps/Class A only, , they have their draw back, such as compressing the sound when they become overdriven.
I think your statement of never hearing a 100 watt amp you like-you probably haven't heard many-some of you guys are stuck on small amps-great-but don't knock high power amps, many of us are more than happy with a well designed one.

[Groundbeef]

Wow, your first post and you resurrect a thread from over 2 years ago. Impressive.

[bobsticks]

Did anyone figure out if more watts is better?

[JohnMichael]

Did anyone figure out if more watts is better?





Watts up bobsticks?

[Hyfi]

Did anyone figure out if more watts is better?

Yes and a pretty good explanation....
Wattage for Stereo and Home Theaters Explained (http://isaacvw1976.hubpages.com/hub/Wattage-for-Stereo-and-Home-Theaters-Explained)

[bobsticks]

Watts up bobsticks?

Clever! How do John? Good to see you about...


Yes and a pretty good explanation....
Wattage for Stereo and Home Theaters Explained

That was actually a good read...thanks. Far more coherent and reasoned than many of our bretheren can be at times. Something probably needs to be said about the room and system synergy as well, but then again, I have my own opinions and there's no reason to re-open old wounds.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Drum beats do not hit 200-300 watts or a watt number. Most all "good" amps have significant reserves to reach loud peaks. The only advantage to high watt amps is volume capability. It takes 10 times the power to get a perceived doubling of the volume to the human ear. Thus a 100 watt amplifier will make a speaker that can handle 100 watts twice as loud as a 10 watt amp. On the other hand if you run a 100 watt amp on an 83db sensitive speaker and I run a 10 watt amp on a 95db senstive speaker (all else being equal) then my system will play louder than yours and have more headroom than yours.

Well, our friend RGA got this one wrong, that is for sure. Smoke was right. Depending on how loud you are listening to the music, and bass drum whack can make a short term demand of 200-300 watts. That means his 100 watt amp even with a 95db sensitive speaker will compress when pushed to that volume.

Once you get below 80hz, these signals put huge demands on a amp. That is why powered subwoofers now come with mostly 500 watts and above plate amps to drive them.

I was watching the Fifth Element last night, and watched the needles on my amps hit 250 watts on several occasions. Most of the power usage was most certainly in the bass and deep bass.

All of my systems are what most folks would consider overpowered. Why do it do this? It is because a amp with plenty of headroom presents a more relaxed presentation, and when called to deliver a short power burst, it can do it without compression or overloading.

I am with Smoke on this one.

[bobsticks]

...I am with Smoke on this one.


Well, I mean really Terrence...do you actually have to demand full range sound? :D

[RGA]

Exhibit A

10 Watt amp 20hz to 20khz full output continuous at all frequencies

Exhibit B

Loudspeaker 100db Sensitive / ruler flat impedance of 8ohms (all frequencies)

1watt - 100 db
2w - 103db
4w - 106db
8 w - 109db
16w - 112db (at 20hz or 400hz or 1khz or 19khz - makes no difference) Impedance is the ONLY thing that influence power demand at a given frequency - not because it's 20hz. Or 400hz or whatever Hz.

And the simple way to check what I am saying is by considering different drivers sensitivities to get the achieved low frequencies. Smaller more rigid woofers tend to require more power (they are less sensitive) than larger lighter paper varieties which can move more air with less power.

That is the theory and it is a fact.

What is true in practice is the fact is bass drivers in loudspeakers are not flat impedance devices - so the nominal may be 8ohms but the bass frequencies may drop to 2 ohms - that requires 10 times the amplifier power. Most amps tube or SS have serious trouble truly doubling their output in such a manner - SET amps like Sugden actually halve their power - so the request for 10 times the power is a dual failure because the amp has 1/10 the power to meet the demand - so now we're talking a 100 times power deficiency to meet a bass demand if it is 2ohm. Yet that amp always wins the blind tests with experienced listeners and engineers from competing high powered manufacturers - so who knows.

Anyway - a normal scenario is as follows:

So the amp is humming along at 4 watts putting out 106 db (as in my example above) in level into the room and suddenly someone steps on the the low note of a pedal organ and the impedance is 2 ohms now the amplifier needs to deliver ten times the power - 40 watts and if the amp is only 10 watts then Houston we have a serious problem. The amp can't do it (well some amps often can since they have peak high power output capabilities over short duration) but it'll wheeze. This is when SETs and Tubes run into their "nice distortion" second harmonic behavior and get "fuzzy"

The speaker is demanding a substantial amount of power from the speaker to hit a given frequency - but ONLY because the impedance dropped at said frequency. Incidentally some designs are just as bad in the treble - the treble frequencies in some designs drop drastically in impedance as well and those frequencies cause low powered amps fits as well.

Also apart of the equation (and more important) is how fast the amplifier reacts to the changes in demand - one advantage of SET is their complete superiority in the time domain and they react fluidly in these situation - switching amps have to calclulate and lag behind - screws up all transient behavior - as does feedback which is 100% reactionary and is always catching up to the signal. So while some of them may be able to meet the demand better and provide a better sense of wollop their transient behavior is smeared and thus owners and reviewers like me ***** and complain that i have to keep turning the volume up because it doesn't sound very clear - something I always had to do with every SS amp I've owned and reviewed. It's also why owners of such systems love to play super loud and buy super powerful amps - they need ot play them super loud to make anything out and thus they in turn need super power amps (cause they have inefficient speakers

But if you can design a 20hz-80hz subwoofer with 100db sensitivity and flat 8 ohm impedance then a 10 watt amp (capable over full bandwidth) will deliver said 20hz-80hz at said 109db into the room. And that is a fact.

Of course no one bothers because they can spend $40 and put a class D 500 watt amplifier into a subwoofer and then they can use the most inefficient (ie; cheap) woofers they can and stuff into a MDF (ie; cheap) box. And they go boom-boom real good. So I'm not really complaining.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Exhibit A

10 Watt amp 20hz to 20khz full output continuous at all frequencies

Exhibit B

Loudspeaker 100db Sensitive / ruler flat impedance of 8ohms (all frequencies)

1watt - 100 db
2w - 103db
4w - 106db
8 w - 109db
16w - 112db (at 20hz or 400hz or 1khz or 19khz - makes no difference) Impedance is the ONLY thing that influence power demand at a given frequency - not because it's 20hz. Or 400hz or whatever Hz.

Richard, you start off with nonsense, and the rest of your post becomes nonsense.

The output of amplifier going to speakers is not symmetrical, it is asymmetrical. More power is always gong to the drivers that reproduce the lowest frequencies than are going to the mid and treble region. Even with powered speakers(of which I work with every day) has more beefier amps going to the bass driver, than going to the tweeter or midrange. The system in my signature is tri-amped, with the most powerful amp going to the bass driver.

So I want to see a speaker paired with a 16watt amp actually reproduce 112db at 20hz. No subwoofer can do it, and you don't even mention the size of the room. Do you really think a 16watt amp will be able to reproduce 112db in the room that my system in my signature sits in? I seriously doubt it.

[RGA]

Sir T

You ignore the theory - this is not difficult. You could IN THEORY design a speaker that is 110db sensitive and can output 20hz. You can then design an amplifier that puts out 10 watts at 20hz. Do the math.

No one does this because - A - the cost would be ridiculous and B the size of the subwoofer would likely be the size of a Hummer.

Big speakers almost always are easier to drive than small speakers - which is why the Joe Roberts of the world run massive speakers on small watts without sacrificing bass.

Size, efficiency, sensitivity.

Subwoofers are typically very small boxes putting out low bass at high levels - they sacrifice efficiency in order to achieve the results - but "IN THEORY" you could make the subwoofer 5 times larger with a much bigger woofer and have much more efficiency and sensitivity and then you could get the required bass with a lot less power to get them going.

As I noted - in practice subwoofers tend to have CRAPPY efficiency which is why they need massive power - but it still comes down to impedance at the frequency

The reason subs came to be popular was that receivers were lousy and could not output below 6 ohms - subs gave them fits.

Edit - Not just subs actually but any speaker that dropped the impedance would blow the receiver.

Another issue with bass - you mention volume at 112db most speakers do not have a response curve that is flat - typically bass frequencies of a speaker are 3-15db lower than their main band (midrange frequencies). Amps are not going to compensate for that. In my example speakers are rated usually at their 1khz band - so as an example

The AN E is 98db sensitive 6 ohm rated loudspeaker running a 30 watt Jinro SET amp (in corners with 18db gain from that position). Martin Colloms (chair of the AES, founder of Monitor Audio, Stereophile measurements go to guy, top of the class at Oxford Engineering measured them at 18hz -6db in room response). "at reasonable drive levels"

95db - 1watt
98db - 2w
101db - 4w
104db - 8 w
107 db -16w
110db - 32w

But the AN E's bass is still a full 6db lower than the main band. So there is no way - just looking at the math above that the speaker can produce 20hz at 108db - obviously (certainly not with that amp.

That having been said the minimum impedance of the AN E is 3.6 ohms and the amplifier has a 4 ohm tap. Therefore the Jinro will put out it's rated output to 4 ohms. Ignoring the 27 or 30 watt rating and using 16 watts as the guide you WILL get plenty of level into its lower registers. But obviously you won't get the level that top of the line subwoofers put out. Indeed, the only way the AN E does it if they are put extremely hard into corners which nets them an 18db gain in bass. Otherwise their tuning frequency is 29hz and that's the best you can get (and it's still 3db lower than the main band).

But there is no reason someone could not simply design a HE subwoofer with a massive woofer that could belt it out with a 10 watt amp. The fact that no one has or does it because the thing would be too big and too expensive and unsalable.

It's still a function of the movement of air - big woofer pushes more air - lower frequencies. Small woofer has to move further to produce lower frequencies (hard to drive needs more power).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir T

You ignore the theory - this is not difficult. You could IN THEORY design a speaker that is 110db sensitive and can output 20hz. You can then design an amplifier that puts out 10 watts at 20hz. Do the math.

Math almost never plays out in the field using real equipment and real rooms as a reference.


No one does this because - A - the cost would be ridiculous and B the size of the subwoofer would likely be the size of a Hummer.

Hence why your example is very poor, there is no reference that supports it.


Big speakers almost always are easier to drive than small speakers - which is why the Joe Roberts of the world run massive speakers on small watts without sacrificing bass.

Size, efficiency, sensitivity.

Subwoofers are typically very small boxes putting out low bass at high levels - they sacrifice efficiency in order to achieve the results - but "IN THEORY" you could make the subwoofer 5 times larger with a much bigger woofer and have much more efficiency and sensitivity and then you could get the required bass with a lot less power to get them going.

Please show me a real world example of this so your theory has some actual support.


As I noted - in practice subwoofers tend to have CRAPPY efficiency which is why they need massive power - but it still comes down to impedance at the frequency

They have crappy efficiency because they handle frequencies that require a long throw high output driver to keep distortion down. Efficiency versus lower distortion and better transient response is the trade off. Everything has its trade off's.


The reason subs came to be popular was that receivers were lousy and could not output below 6 ohms - subs gave them fits.

Edit - Not just subs actually but any speaker that dropped the impedance would blow the receiver.

Another issue with bass - you mention volume at 112db most speakers do not have a response curve that is flat - typically bass frequencies of a speaker are 3-15db lower than their main band (midrange frequencies). Amps are not going to compensate for that. In my example speakers are rated usually at their 1khz band - so as an example

The AN E is 98db sensitive 6 ohm rated loudspeaker running a 30 watt Jinro SET amp (in corners with 18db gain from that position). Martin Colloms (chair of the AES, founder of Monitor Audio, Stereophile measurements go to guy, top of the class at Oxford Engineering measured them at 18hz -6db in room response). "at reasonable drive levels"

95db - 1watt
98db - 2w
101db - 4w
104db - 8 w
107 db -16w
110db - 32w

But the AN E's bass is still a full 6db lower than the main band. So there is no way - just looking at the math above that the speaker can produce 20hz at 108db - obviously (certainly not with that amp.


The lack of real detail in your responses show your are hedging just a bit. If we listened to sine waves, then you may have a point. However music sources are a cumulative media, which must take into consideration a amp that can handle a full bandwidth of signals in real time to be used as an example. There is no size of the room, and you made no specifics at just what exactly is a "reasonable" level. That is a individual floating target.


That having been said the minimum impedance of the AN E is 3.6 ohms and the amplifier has a 4 ohm tap. Therefore the Jinro will put out it's rated output to 4 ohms. Ignoring the 27 or 30 watt rating and using 16 watts as the guide you WILL get plenty of level into its lower registers. But obviously you won't get the level that top of the line subwoofers put out. Indeed, the only way the AN E does it if they are put extremely hard into corners which nets them an 18db gain in bass. Otherwise their tuning frequency is 29hz and that's the best you can get (and it's still 3db lower than the main band).

So you have effectively stated this speaker does not support your original assertions. Thanks!


But there is no reason someone could not simply design a HE subwoofer with a massive woofer that could belt it out with a 10 watt amp. The fact that no one has or does it because the thing would be too big and too expensive and unsalable.

It's still a function of the movement of air - big woofer pushes more air - lower frequencies. Small woofer has to move further to produce lower frequencies (hard to drive needs more power).

In all of these words you have posted, you have offered nothing to support them. Just theory, and no actual example.

That should tell you loads about your theory.

[RGA]

Well I am not sure exactly what you want.

Martin Colloms' in room response of the AN E from the corner position confirmed that they were 18hz -6db. At what level? Well most of the British press measure loudspeakers at their sensitivity level which for that model was 94db (which would mean 18hz at 88db) - since 6db down from 94db is 88db. That's pretty reasonable I would say. The speaker maker's claim is that it will go to 108db uncompressed. THDistortion incidentally never rises above 0.6% and they measured it as 0.2% in the bass.

But a better example of a speaker that will happily put out bass to 20hz with SET amps are those from Acapella - Fred Crowder runs Audio Note Kegon 20 watt amps on his Acapella Triolon Excalibur MKII speakers. scroll down Acapella speakers (http://www.audiolimits.com/html/acapella_speakers.html)

I never said that more watts would not play something louder - but to get it louder you need a DOUBLING of the watts for every 3db gain in level - whether that gain is at 20hz or 20khz.

And those gains will ONLY occur once the lower power amp is at it's limit. So when my Amp is pushed to maximum - then and only then will a more powerful amp make itself known as being more powerful. But depending on the speaker's sensitivity (which doesn't take that much) I can make people ears physically hurt on my 92db speakers and 10 watts amplifier with very good bass below 30hz thank you very much.

A big Sub would add bass and would add volume level - no argument from me. Unfortunately they always sound bad for music IME.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well I am not sure exactly what you want.

Martin Colloms' in room response of the AN E from the corner position confirmed that they were 18hz -6db. At what level? Well most of the British press measure loudspeakers at their sensitivity level which for that model was 94db (which would mean 18hz at 88db) - since 6db down from 94db is 88db. That's pretty reasonable I would say. The speaker maker's claim is that it will go to 108db uncompressed. THDistortion incidentally never rises above 0.6% and they measured it as 0.2% in the bass.

Once again, no level indicated which makes these stats useless. 18hz at 88db is decent but not great performance. Maybe my bar is a bit higher, but my mains can play to 110db at 20hz, and 102db at 15hz with less than 5% distortion.


But a better example of a speaker that will happily put out bass to 20hz with SET amps are those from Acapella - Fred Crowder runs Audio Note Kegon 20 watt amps on his Acapella Triolon Excalibur MKII speakers. scroll down Acapella speakers (http://www.audiolimits.com/html/acapella_speakers.html)

Only one of these speakers has output down to 20hz, and the one that does has absolutely no tolerance figures such as distortion, or what level it can actually play 20hz. This means it is useless as an example.


I never said that more watts would not play something louder - but to get it louder you need a DOUBLING of the watts for every 3db gain in level - whether that gain is at 20hz or 20khz.

Hence why more watts is better.


And those gains will ONLY occur once the lower power amp is at it's limit. So when my Amp is pushed to maximum - then and only then will a more powerful amp make itself known as being more powerful. But depending on the speaker's sensitivity (which doesn't take that much) I can make people ears physically hurt on my 92db speakers and 10 watts amplifier with very good bass below 30hz thank you very much.

We have had this discussion before, and you were proven wrong before. Bass below 30hz cannot hurt your ears. Bass that low is a pressure wave, not a acoustical wave. A pressure wave does not damage hearing, as it is only pressurizing the air. Once signals become an acoustical wave, then your ears are in danger. So no thank you very much, you are wrong when you say a speaker with a 92db sensitivity can hurt your ears with only ten watts. That is pure nonsense.


A big Sub would add bass and would add volume level - no argument from me. Unfortunately they always sound bad for music IME.

You don't need a big sub anymore to get big loud bass. The H-PAS system can achieve truly remarkable low distortion high level bass from a medium size cabinet. My H-PAS sub can produce 20hz at 121db with a 30x17x17 cabinet and a 500 watt amp with less than 5% distortion.

[RGA]

No you are 100% wrong there buddy.

Sit in my chair in my house and I will play the AN J with my 10 watt amp at full output and you are saying this will not damage your ears. Why are you talking about bass - read what I said - I didn't mention bass at 92db I mentioned the speaker (all frequencies) and that was the sensitivity rating not the in room sound. I'll be happy to crank it - The speaker easily puts out 105db into the room. Play 100hz - 3khz at 105db for 10 straight hours and tell me it's not bad for your ears.

The measurement I provided was where the magazine measures them. Audio Note claims the speaker puts out 108db before it starts to compress. Ie 108db before audible distortion.

Assuming that is a reasonable figure (my Wharfedales put out 119db in a not that much bigger cabinet or woofer) then if Audio Note's 108db is main band then 6db down then the speaker is capable of is 102db at 18hz in corners. Which is suddenly a lot more respectable I would say. If they are using the 108db before compression distortion in the bass then the main band will comfortably play to 114db (at 0.2% distortion in the bass is a lot better than 5%)

The problem is you don't seem to understand any concept related to speaker sensitivity/efficiency.

It is not JUST about the amplifier and I'm sorry if you don't understand what speaker sensitivity is all about.

To get two times the "perceived" volume level (to subjectively be deemed "twice as loud" you need a gain of 10decibels. It doesn't matter how you do it either through watts from the amplifier or sensitivity of the speaker.

If speaker A is 90db sensitive and 20hz - 20khz and speaker B is 80db at 20hz -20khz all else being equal speaker A is TWICE as loud as speaker B on the same 1 watt of power - twice as loud at 20hz and twice as loud at 1khz.

To do it via an amplifier if you have a 100watt amplifier you need 200 watts for a 3db gain (which is barely audible). A 400 watt amp is a 6db gain. An 800 watt amp gives you a 9db gain. A 1600 watt amp gives you a 12db gain over a 100watt amplifier. Irrespective of frequency.

If I run a 100db sensitive speaker with a 100 watt amp and Fred buys an 80db speaker and has a 1600 watt amplifier - my stereo, including all bass frequencies, will play a LOT louder than his by 8db. And that's assuming his speaker has a sticker on the back that says "Power handling 1600 watts" If the power handling is the usual 250 watts then my system will utterly destroy Fred's.

I love the folks in the my bass is better than your bass threads. May as well be talking to car audio people. I didn't buy Audio Note because of the bass - there are plenty of speakers with more bass - umm I didn't even buy the biggest bass model they make which should point out that bass is not my only consideration. I am not using it for home theater and I don't listen to organ music.

That said the AN J/Spe in blind level matched sessions in Hi-Fi Choice clobbered all other standmounts that magazine has tested (including PMC, Genewlec, ATC, and all the mainstream brands.) Clobbered them so much they pulled the speaker out of the test and put them in the test for full range floorstanding speakers instead. Incidentally they have no corners so that was without corner gain.

Then the AN J won the blind test and noted as having "prodigious bass" against the floorstanders. No it can't compete with really big speakers or big subwoofers. There are limits. But sound quality is the goal not just thump thump bass for Terminators exploding from laser fire. If I wanted that I would have bought ATC and Bryston. Listening to music on it I'd want to stick a fork in my eye.


A really cheap speaker that will do very good output at 30hz with 97db sensitivity in the bass is the CV 215 SoundStage! Equipment Review - Cerwin-Vega CLS-215 Loudpeakers (12/2007) (http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/cerwinvega_cls215.htm)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No you are 100% wrong there buddy.

Sit in my chair in my house and I will play the AN J with my 10 watt amp at full output and you are saying this will not damage your ears. Why are you talking about bass - read what I said - I didn't mention bass at 92db I mentioned the speaker (all frequencies) and that was the sensitivity rating not the in room sound. I'll be happy to crank it - The speaker easily puts out 105db into the room. Play 100hz - 3khz at 105db for 10 straight hours and tell me it's not bad for your ears.

Once again, you are using as a example something that NEVER happens in real life. Nobody listen's to anything at a constant level. The levels of any source change dynamically from moment to moment.

Secondly, you are talking about midbass to the critical band, and when I speak about loud bass's effect on their ears, I am talking about BASS frequencies, not midbass and up. You know, 20-80hz.

Thirdly just saying a speaker puts out 105db means absolutely nothing if you do not cover the bandwidth that volume covers. I would imagine your AN J cannot play 105db at anything below 40 or 50hz. Below that both your speakers and your amp would run out of gas.


The measurement I provided was where the magazine measures them. Audio Note claims the speaker puts out 108db before it starts to compress. Ie 108db before audible distortion.

108db from 100-20khz, 50-20khz, 20-20khz...what?


Assuming that is a reasonable figure (my Wharfedales put out 119db in a not that much bigger cabinet or woofer) then if Audio Note's 108db is main band then 6db down then the speaker is capable of is 102db at 18hz in corners. Which is suddenly a lot more respectable I would say. If they are using the 108db before compression distortion in the bass then the main band will comfortably play to 114db (at 0.2% distortion in the bass is a lot better than 5%)

Sorry, but I don't believe this AT ALL. Please provide the measurements that support this.


The problem is you don't seem to understand any concept related to speaker sensitivity/efficiency.

It is not JUST about the amplifier and I'm sorry if you don't understand what speaker sensitivity is all about.

I understand it alright, but I also know that a speaker does not remain the same sensitivity at all frequencies.


To get two times the "perceived" volume level (to subjectively be deemed "twice as loud" you need a gain of 10decibels. It doesn't matter how you do it either through watts from the amplifier or sensitivity of the speaker.

If speaker A is 90db sensitive and 20hz - 20khz and speaker B is 80db at 20hz -20khz all else being equal speaker A is TWICE as loud as speaker B on the same 1 watt of power - twice as loud at 20hz and twice as loud at 1khz.

To do it via an amplifier if you have a 100watt amplifier you need 200 watts for a 3db gain (which is barely audible). A 400 watt amp is a 6db gain. An 800 watt amp gives you a 9db gain. A 1600 watt amp gives you a 12db gain over a 100watt amplifier. Irrespective of frequency.

If I run a 100db sensitive speaker with a 100 watt amp and Fred buys an 80db speaker and has a 1600 watt amplifier - my stereo, including all bass frequencies, will play a LOT louder than his by 8db. And that's assuming his speaker has a sticker on the back that says "Power handling 1600 watts" If the power handling is the usual 250 watts then my system will utterly destroy Fred's.

Once again you are wasting three hundred million words to outline something you cannot substantiate with facts. Another point you seemed to be missing is no amp/speaker combination has sensitivities that remain constant over their entire bandwidth, unless it states it does.


I love the folks in the my bass is better than your bass threads. May as well be talking to car audio people. I didn't buy Audio Note because of the bass - there are plenty of speakers with more bass - umm I didn't even buy the biggest bass model they make which should point out that bass is not my only consideration. I am not using it for home theater and I don't listen to organ music.

Then your example still fails, because there are people out there that use their system to listen to organ music, and for hometheater. Your little small bubble does not apply to the masses, and that is something you need to get straight in your head


That said the AN J/Spe in blind level matched sessions in Hi-Fi Choice clobbered all other standmounts that magazine has tested (including PMC, Genewlec, ATC, and all the mainstream brands.) Clobbered them so much they pulled the speaker out of the test and put them in the test for full range floorstanding speakers instead. Incidentally they have no corners so that was without corner gain.

That was with their reviewers ears, their room, and their front end. Results would be different in a different room, with a different set of ears, and different front end.


Then the AN J won the blind test and noted as having "prodigious bass" against the floorstanders. No it can't compete with really big speakers or big subwoofers. There are limits. But sound quality is the goal not just thump thump bass for Terminators exploding from laser fire. If I wanted that I would have bought ATC and Bryston. Listening to music on it I'd want to stick a fork in my eye.

I actually would prefer you chop your hands off, so we don't have to read anymore of your unsubstantiated nonsense over and over again. Have you even heard the Bryston 28B? Probably not. Have you ever heard the ATC SCM-300A? Probably not, so you claims on both brands are only based on single models, and not the whole line of speakers or amps. Limited exposure=limited actual experience.



A really cheap speaker that will do very good output at 30hz with 97db sensitivity in the bass is the CV 215 SoundStage! Equipment Review - Cerwin-Vega CLS-215 Loudpeakers (12/2007) (http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/cerwinvega_cls215.htm)

I have heard that speakers little brother and was impressed for the money.

[Mash]

OK- sensitivity is important, but whether a speaker is a point source (SPL drops with distance squared) or a planar source (SPL constant with distance) is also important. Maybe more so. See Olsens' Theoretical Accoustics, I forget the page numbers.

I learned this with my Magneplanar Tympani many years ago (c1985). I had several friends over and the Futtermnan-driven Maggies were not at all loud.... until I tried to talk to the man sitting next to me. My efforts totally failed. The Maggies totally dominated the room and they were not very loud. Years later I learned that they could effortlessy control a room 26' x 32' x 20' high.

[Florian]

I swapped my KRELL KRS 200 Monoblocks with 310 Watts (8ohm) <-- Personally measured for 60 Watt SET amps on a high inefficient full range ribbon speaker. Not only does it sound much better it also plays louder because it does not compress the crap out of the signal and feedback it to death :-)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I swapped my KRELL KRS 200 Monoblocks with 310 Watts (8ohm) <-- Personally measured for 60 Watt SET amps on a high inefficient full range ribbon speaker. Not only does it sound much better it also plays louder because it does not compress the crap out of the signal and feedback it to death :-)

So are you saying an amp like the Bryston 28B SST compresses the crap out of the signal and feedbacks it to death?

Florian, I don't think so.....

[3LB]

not if you live in L.A.

[RGA]

I no longer buy SS amps but I do review them and I do use them.

My last SS amp that I owned and liked was the Sugden A48b 70 ish watt SS. The interesting thing about this amp was that it had bass. I auditioned it directly against a musical Fidelity A 300 150 watt SS amp and a Bryston pre/prop combo using the Bryston 3BSST.

The Sugden had FAR deeper bass response. I don't know why this would be the case - Speakers were full range Paradigm Studio 100V2 multi-way speakers.

The other amps sounded "airy" and hi-fi but was utterly pathetic with real bass in the gut. I have had the 3BST in my home for a period of time and again thin and breezy but the bass sucked. UHF magazine reviewed a 3B and complained about the bass performance of the amplifier as well - they measured it and had three reviewers listen to it - all three disliked the bass performance of that amplifier.

The Sugden is simply a lot better. Why? I can't say - the only thing that cropped up in a review about said amplifier was that the reviewer noted that the amplifier was not "frequency limited" which implies that perhaps other amplifiers ARE limited and that may be in order to prop up the watt ratings. The Sugden will drive 4hz while other SS amps may limit at 40hz or only meet ratings at certain frequencies and may only output 1watt at 20hz while the Sugden is 70 at all frequencies.

But my OTO on my speakers has much deeper bass than a 3b or 4b and the OTO is only 10 watts. Feedback may account for a lot of things but something else must account for this. I have a Rotel power amp here as well and it has a damping factor of 500 and it too has lighter weight bass. Obviously this applies only to the amp operating at sane volume levels but it's certainly interesting that at low medium levels there would be such a difference in bass fullness.

I think all manufacturers need to post "pre-feedback" distortion numbers to give a true sense of what the amplifier actually outputs before the feedback corrects the graph but doesn't actually fix the problem..

[Florian]

So are you saying an amp like the Bryston 28B SST compresses the crap out of the signal and feedbacks it to death?

Florian, I don't think so.....

Hello SirT,

i only stated it for my KRELL KRS 200 Monoblocks. Feel free to try the Bryston. In my personal experience, amplifiers that use feedback do not sound as good to my ears as amplifiers which do not use feedback at all.

Cheers

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Hello SirT,

i only stated it for my KRELL KRS 200 Monoblocks. Feel free to try the Bryston. In my personal experience, amplifiers that use feedback do not sound as good to my ears as amplifiers which do not use feedback at all.

Cheers

I have auditioned the 28B-SST2, and purchased seven of them for my studio. It does not compress the signal or use feedback. One of the biggest thumbs up stereophile gave this amp is for its huge dynamic capabilities.

[Feanor]

The "Birther Controversy" comes to mind when see people frantically searching to justify their preferences. To wit, some people hate President Barack Obama, and some of them, like Donald Trump and Joe Arpaio, go to absurd lengths to attempt to prove that Obama is ineligible to be President.

Kudos to Arpaio for not being quitter. His first effort to prove that the published birth certificate was digital pastiche were debunked, but now he back on a different tack try to say that the certificate was modified after original completion, based on supposed recollections of a 95 year old former records clerk, (see HERE (http://news.yahoo.com/arpaio-obama-birth-record-definitely-fraudulent-010211250.html?_esi=1)).

[RGA]

Funny but I don't like tube buffers or adding tube preamps to SS because it makes the sound better - it might but just as often it might not.

Also I BOUGHT a Rotel RC 1082 SS preamp over several tube preamps including an acclaimed ARC.

You found a guy that supports your claim so automatically you put 100% FAITH into what he has to say because of your BIAS that you held because of what you buy. So that is the evidence you look for.

People go round around in circles - There are simple facts associated with this - what sounds better. A or B.

The term better I define as "more like the real thing" When I listen to a piano live 10 feet away - which system - System A or System B can make a piano sound like it sounded like live - and that applies to EVERY instrument including ALL vocals.

Does system A make ALL of those instruments and ALL of those voices sound like the sound like when you hear them in real life.

I could give a rat's ass which design does it better - SS, SET, Tubes, Digital, turntables, CD, computers.

What half wits on forums keep arguing is technology but the FACT is a turntable does it better than CD - not always - WHY? the recording. Even the half wits might acknowledge the fact that if a record was recorded by the best in the business and they recorded it better than they've recorded anything in their career and you play it back on a top shelf turntable versus a ****tily transferred CD played back on a medicore machine that gee the record sounds a million times better - then if you want it to sound good you need the damn LP. It's that simple.

And I've always said it goes the other way too. Fact is there are better CD - remastered and fixed while the LP has no such fix then the CD will be better.

For amplifiers - which sounds better or more like the "real thing": and (therefore) which is more accurate to "real life" now becomes a human interface issue.

The only way I can figure that anyone on any forum can be satisfied with results is to do what I have suggested for a long time.

An independent double blind level matched preference based listening sessions with professionally trained jazz and classical musicians/composers. I choose them mainly because they play and listen to actual music instruments where pop is often filtered and processed and not all of them actually play or listen to real instruments (or not many of them - bass guitar, drums, electric guitar, electronic keyboard is limited).

Now if these people can't tell if system A makes a piano sound more like a piano than system B - then I don't know who else can or will. If 30 people go in and listen for many hours and they 29-1 choose any sort of tube/SET based system over SS or ICE then what would you say? That the musicians don't know what instruments sound like? The very instrument they play every day since they were 5?

I am perfectly willing to accept that my ear could be gravitating to a more pleasing sound.

The only trouble I have with this notion is that it would not likely make ever kind of music, all instruments, all voices sound pleasing. It would have to present a distortion that is always present.

When I first heard the Meishu for example it was up against the 3B. The Meishu had deeper bass, clearer midrange and I could hear more of the hall it was recorded it - the treble was just as extended but less hash - in other words it was CLEARER and had less audible "noise" despite the fact that Bryston is known for low noise floor it sounded worse in the noise department - all albums used. The Meishu could be played at lower level in terms of measured SPL while the Bryston needed to be cranked to gain a level of clarity. Everyone in the room had the same experience.

So here is my proposal.

Room A has a Bryston 3B - SST2 which measures about as good as it gets and is a pro amp - used with a Harman International Approved 2 way box (Revel). And Bryston's CD players.

Room B - Audio Note level 2 with AN J speakers.

Bring in the musicians and see where the chips fall.


The stereo will be blacked out via black light - no one sees the stereo in the room.

Both rooms play a CD with 20 cuts. They play at the same time and both rooms play at the exact same volume level. Each listener gets a card and they drop the card in the box of the room they feel recreates instruments and voices correctly. It is worded this way as opposed to "which room do you like best" - it is worded "which room recreates instruments and voices correctly."

It doesn't really matter which system is in room A and B. I would try to isolate extreme technologies first to see which technology is generally preferred. I like the idea of using an AN system simply because it is a "compounding" system of obsolete tech.

So AN E in corners with an M9 and Gaku-Ons and Fifth Element DAC is a technology of wrongs in that it is SET and zero times oversampling DA converter. Money doesn't matter because it's blind. And the AN E has enough detractors as loudspeaker design that it is easily off the beaten path versus a Revel which is the best brand line that Harman International makes and has white papers out the wazoo.

I think most of the measurements folks should be satisfied by Revel speakers as being on of the pinnacle boxed loudspeaker designs.

Then for front end - SS high negative feedback that is deemed to be as good as SS gets. A Bryston Pre/Pro using the 28BSST2 - or some big top of the line Krell. And matched CD player.

To me you start with this as a test. Room A has the laughably bad system according to the measurements and room B has about as good as it gets. You have the right listeners - not deaf rocker musicians but highly tuned trained exceptional ears playing instruments exceptionally well requires them to "know" what it is supposed to sound like.

Then you run the session and let the chips fall. If it's a 50-50ish split you're no worse off than before.

If the AN system gets thumped which is what SHOULD happen then I am surprised but will concede that I clearly got duped by fuzzy sound. And the numerous classically trained musicians/reviewers composers who buy their systems also got duped.

If the AN system wins by a landslide then the industry needs to go back to a drawing board on some things and admit Peter and Andy and Kondo were right.

[Florian]

Hi Feanor,


Zero feedback proponents such as RGA, Morricab and now, sadly, Florian, latch onto these the notion because they like the sound but aren't satisfied to acknowledge that it's a matter of preference.

i would really like you to take the highligted passage back. In all cases i stated that i and my friends prefer these types of designs over others. I have not read any audio papers nor do i read magazines. And certainly there is no propaganda from my side. I have been fortunate to be able to purchase both extremes of each side of technology. Sharing my personal listening experience is all i do.

Happy listening

[Florian]

Hi RGA,

we should also add the late Mr. Allen Wreight from Vacuumstate Electronics, Ken Stevents from CAT and also the folks from NAT Audio and many others. It is not like we have a huge amount of high feedback solid state companies agains a few no feedback and single ended designs. The selection is huge!

[Feanor]

Hi Feanor,
i would really like you to take the highligted passage back. In all cases i stated that i and my friends prefer these types of designs over others. I have not read any audio papers nor do i read magazines. And certainly there is no propaganda from my side. I have been fortunate to be able to purchase both extremes of each side of technology. Sharing my personal listening experience is all i do.

Happy listening
Florian, I respect that you acknowledge that preference determines your choices. In hi-fi nobody can argue with preference. And you have indeed been "lucky" (or whatever word applies), to hear the very best.

But there has been plenty of propaganda from "your side" -- by which I mean people like Morricab. Brad has made very intelligent efforts to correlate his preferences with amplifier design parameters and testing measurements. See his findings HERE (http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/amp/messages/17/175926.html). I have congratulated him on his efforts. However he and others who agree have gone further than preference to insist that their preference is actually the real accuracy, invoking the theories of Daniel Cheever, HERE (http://twain.unl.edu/school/audio_old/doc/cheever_thesis.pdf), and Boyt & Sussmann, HERE (http://www.its.caltech.edu/~musiclab/feedback-paper-acrobat.pdf), to justify their preferences. Again, Rod Elliott addresses these theories in his discussion of distortion,
HERE (http://sound.westhost.com/articles/distortion+fb.htm), that I alluded to earlier.

[Feanor]

...

So here is my proposal.

Room A has a Bryston 3B - SST2 which measures about as good as it gets and is a pro amp - used with a Harman International Approved 2 way box (Revel). And Bryston's CD players.

Room B - Audio Note level 2 with AN J speakers.

Bring in the musicians and see where the chips fall.

The stereo will be blacked out via black light - no one sees the stereo in the room.

Both rooms play a CD with 20 cuts. They play at the same time and both rooms play at the exact same volume level. Each listener gets a card and they drop the card in the box of the room they feel recreates instruments and voices correctly. It is worded this way as opposed to "which room do you like best" - it is worded "which room recreates instruments and voices correctly.".
Bring it on. I'd be happy to participate or observe.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the musicians selected that AN room, but then it is still a matter of preference, not accuracy.

Reference to "live sound" is dubious, relying as it does on people's recollection of many live performances in different venues. Such recollections are naturally tend to be romanticized -- a combination of poor memory and good imagination.

A better test (of amplifiers) would be to play good recordings through a good amplifier (doesn't matter what kind) to good speakers, say high-quality studio monitors. Then pull the original amp and replace with the test amps. All this under blind conditions. The winner would be the test amp that delivers the sound most like the original amp. {EDIT} Sorry, the original amp must stay in the circuit somehow, otherwise the test amp that sounds most like the original will be the one that sounds most like the original. Dah! :idea: But the principle remains that the valid test of accuracy is the amp that modifies the signal the least. {/EDIT}

[Florian]

How would you now if the "original" amp would be accurate and capable to be true to the original source? RGAs suggestion is very good indeed in my opinion. What sounds like live music? Get a bunch of musicians in a room and play them the systems.

By the way, thanks for your informative post. Personally i trust in my friends PHD as a Scientist to observe and analyze. I just listen :-)

[Feanor]

How would you now if the "original" amp would be accurate and capable to be true to the original source? RGAs suggestion is very good indeed in my opinion. What sounds like live music? Get a bunch of musicians in a room and play them the systems.

By the way, thanks for your informative post. Personally i trust in my friends PHD as a Scientist to observe and analyze. I just listen :-)
See my correction to my proposed test. (As revised) it isn't all that critical that the "original" amp be a great; the real test is how much or little the test amps modify the sound from the original.

Live sound is usally great but not always, depending on the venue, your seat in it, the performance, etc. Our recollection of live is at best sort of average of what we have heard, more likely it is an idealized version of this "average".

I have read Morricab's post over a number of years and I have respect for them because of his experience and well-considered observations. But his Phd doesn't ensure he is free from bias. I remain suspicious that amps that have more distortion are less accurate -- you can't just wish away distortion because it sounds pretty. That's seeing the world through rose-colored glasses, or as the French would say, La vie en rose.

[Florian]

Well, it depends if the measurements basis is actually in relevance to accurate sound.

[RGA]

Feanor

The problem is you need a test that would get detractors of blind tests on board. After all the accuracy guys on Tea Harman/Floyd Toole where they test ONE speaker not a pair of speakers in blind tests with the SAME amplifiers get discarded by many people - E-Stat - Me and anyone with an ounce of science background and can see marketing science a mile off.

That's the problem - if we are under the impression that amplifiers sound different and certain speakers perform better with certain amplifier types then you have to start the test as agreeable "Systems"

It is not difficult to get two identical rooms (say hotel rooms) with identical furnishing and room dimensions. And it only takes 20 seconds for someone to walk from one room to the next - or across the hall.


The problem I have with most of the notions of accuracy is that after auditioning so many system over 20 years I know what many view as "accurate."

After sleeping it on it I don't really take issue with their stance - They believe that an ATC SCM 150 is about as accurate as boxes get - well it's in my top 5. I get what it is they're after. I also get why the owners here place tube amps in front of them - I get why Dynaudio brings Tube amps to audio shows.

So the issue comes down to two scenarios - system A is technically accurate but unlistenable long term and system B is less accurate but far more enjoyable - as you note - even the musicians and critics may choose the AN system over the ATC system.

So I guess my question is what's your problem with that? A reviewer's job is to note the difference but as a consumer I know which one I want to sit back in my chair sipping a tea and enjoying Vivaldi. Perhaps I hear less with the lesser system but if it is 20 times more enjoyable then it will be turned on more.

Take the mastering engineer of Chesky records - they use one set of equipment to record music and make wonderful recordings - then in his off hours he listens to Audio Note and not only that conducted their show in New York some years back. ATC I like for listening to amplifiers because it could tell me a lot about them in a relatively short audition. But they're not easy to listen to in the same way a Quad 2905, AN E, Harbeth is easy to listen to. Is the ATC more accurate? Does it matter?

Amplifiers as before - if the amp makes you listen more than amp B which is technically more accurate then again does it matter?

People leave SS for tubes and SET - and most of the time they never go back. SS is technically more accurate - but it's musically worse. And there is no way to objectify that or measure it.

Oh sure people come out with the it has more second harmonic distortion but again - so what? I am an "ends" guy not a "means" guy. I don't care what trick you're pulling to do it if the result is that you get what sounds more "natural" and more "real" even if what sounds more "natural" and more "real" is in fact less accurate.

I don't think anyone who argues the merits of tubes over SS can make technical arguments that will convince.

I started on the path of PMC and Bryston - I was looking to buy the 3BST or 4B and PMC pro monitor standmounts. So I get the people who believe that this is accuracy - I did - that's why I was preparing to buy. Indeed, if I didn't get laid off I probably would have bought the combo a month or two later.

I suppose I come across as somewhat defensive about SET and Tubes defending the bad measuring higher distortion devices as being accurate. It's certainly not more accurate according to the measurements.

The issue tube/set guys probably have is that we can't separate that something that sounds far more like real life music reproduction could possibly be less accurate.

That's the major disconnect. If it is close ok but in direct comparison at Soundhounds it wasn't close - remember I was there looking at Bryston/B&W/Reference 3a type stuff and never heard a SET or monkey coffin ANs (which will actually fit a monkey).

So when one sounds like a piano and singer is in the room and the other in the same room sounds like a complete pile of **** - then accurate or not low THD and noise floor or not - and with excellent recordings from Chesky Opus 3, RR then it's not an issue of the system making bad recordings sound pleasing - it was making excellent recordings sound excellent and the Bryston based systems making them unlistenable.

I have pretty much perfect hearing for my age - so it is difficult to separate the technical argument from what I hear. System A sounds more accurate - I hear much more of the recording and the hall, it sounds cleaner and less distorted and has considerably better deeper bass response. System B is technically more accurate but is muddy - I have to turn it up to make out what is going on - the hall is missing, there is more "air" which doesn't occur in any live unamplified event - what is that shooshy sound then - it's not there in real life but it's considered "good" in the audio community.

Then after 1/2 hour (at best) I want to shut it off and do something else - then on audio forums I can tell everyone I am smart and buy accurate stereo systems and the other fools are duped by distortion and buy based on "mere" preference.

I think Art Dudley has it right - he doesn't really give a damn as to the why's. We know which sounds "better"

I have a Rotel power amp that is far more technically accurate than my OTO. Not even close. But it sounds worse. And that too is not even close. So whatever voodoo is in the OTO it is voodoo that makes every single recording sound much more like actual instruments - while the Rotel is sitting here collecting dust. I am contemplating selling it or using it as a power amp for home theater once I get the voltage changed - but musically it's a paper weight - and the sad thing is it's as good as (if not better) than comparable Brystons for much less money - also used in recording studios.

[Feanor]

RGA, I won't argue anybody's preference -- you don't have to convince me that you prefer your OTL.

I prefer the most accurate amp because I believe that the very best recordings sound best played through more accurate amps. Lousy recordings can definitely sound better filtered by amps of lessor accuracy but prettier character. I discovered that when I tried the Monarchy SM-70 Pros which aren't class A's, aren't zero feedback, but are high bias with only local feedback only in the driver section, (an opamp).

The Monarchys sounded better on 70% of recordings vs. the Bel Canto eVo2i they replaced. But they were the less good recordings. When I moved to the Class D Audio amp, the Monarchys still sounded better on about 30% of recordings, but they were the worst recordings.

Recording practice leaves a lot to be desired. Few or no recording engineers will take the time or spend the money to make really capture the sound of a fine concert hall. Most use many microphones close to the instruments and "fix it in the mix". Sir Terrence as assured us that it excellent results can be achieved with close microphoning and I believe him that they can because I have many excellent recordings made that way. Unfortunately there are many, many recordings, (old and new; CD and LP), that have a raunchy quality of sound that you will never hear from a good seat in a good concert hall.

However I personally am not disposed to compensate the shortcomings of recording by adding pleasant sounding distortion.

[Florian]

Hi Bill,

and you found all of that out with a Magnepan 1.6 and a Subwoofer with normal room acoustics, no room correction, time and phase issue with the subwoofer. On top of that a resolution limited dipole with different drivers for each frequency range?

I intend no offense, they are good speakers and i had them myself. Even had two pairs of 3.6s and ice amps (PS Audio HCA2). But to come to the conclusion that you prefer an "accurate" amp based on a measurement method we believe to be in contradiction to "accurate" sound reproduction is quite off the norm if you come to that conclusion with your current system and room.

Best regards

[Feanor]

Hi Bill,

and you found all of that out with a Magnepan 1.6 and a Subwoofer with normal room acoustics, no room correction, time and phase issue with the subwoofer. On top of that a resolution limited dipole with different drivers for each frequency range?

I intend no offense, they are good speakers and i had them myself. Even had two pairs of 3.6s and ice amps (PS Audio HCA2). But to come to the conclusion that you prefer an "accurate" amp based on a measurement method we believe to be in contradiction to "accurate" sound reproduction is quite off the norm if you come to that conclusion with your current system and room.

Best regards
Thanks for your comments, Florian. I knew you had Maggies, (Lord Magnepan :D), at one time. I'm always open to suggestions from you and morricab, though I'll also use my own judgement.

I'm constrained in ways that you aren't, viz. I have an extremely limited budget for equipment and I have space limitations (since the available room is a family living room). There isn't much I can do to perfect speaker of subwoofer placement. I would be nice to have like a TacT or Lyngdorf device for room correction but this is unaffordable for me. (In my HT system I do use the Onkyo's Audyssey 3EQ which is fairly effective.)

In case of my stereo system, I use Parts Express' OmniMic system to measure listening response. I use AIXcoustic Creation's Electri-Q equalizer component for the Foobar2000 player; this is quite effective for correcting (at least) the response at the listening position.

I'm not aware of any technical review of my Class D Audio amp. The amp uses International Rectifier's IRS2092 chip; I have looked at their reference amplifier design for the chip and Class D Audio's implementation. Of interest is their test results (thought obviously not independently verified).

For your interest, here is are the spectra the provide for stereo and bridged operation. As you can see, in stereo operation, it throws wide range of harmonics but none higher than -70 dB. The bridged spectrum is astonishing, (if it can be believed), having essentially zero HD. Anybody interested can see the ref design and test results HERE (http://www.irf.com/technical-info/refdesigns/iraudamp7s.pdf).

http://clients.teksavvy.com/~wdbailey/IRS2092_RefDesign_spectra.jpg

[Florian]

Off Topic, or ON Topic depending on the way you view the thread history:

I just bought another Set of NAT SE2's and NAT SE1's. So i got 6 of them now on the Grand. :-)

[Florian]

Hi Bill,

i really leave it up to Brad to decide if that chart is good or meaningful :-) I have no idea and it really doesn't show how it sounds. "Lord_Magnepan" brings back some fine memories. Maggie's always have a special place in my heart... they are so easy and forgiving and so cheap on maintenance. I wish i were a Lord with a castle..... surely it would be of benefit to my speakers.

Happy listening

[RGA]

Feanor

Well we're going to agree to disagree - I own elite recordings and they sound miles better too - it's not a fix for poor recordings or rock/pop. And since you refuse to audition anything good - then there is no point to the discussion.

[Feanor]

Feanor

Well we're going to agree to disagree - I own elite recordings and they sound miles better too - it's not a fix for poor recordings or rock/pop. And since you refuse to audition anything good - then there is no point to the discussion.
"Refuse" isn't the right word. I'd like to try a nice tube amp but my cash resources are very limited at present.

Every now & then I have a look around. Recently I was attracted to the Decware Zen Tori (http://www.decware.com/newsite/TORII.htm)i, 25 watts of quasi-SET power that would be reasonably adequate for my Maggies. But it's too expensive.

http://www.decware.com/newsite/images/00522.jpg

[Florian]

Hi Bill, whats your budget?

[Feanor]

Hi Bill, whats your budget?
Sadly, Flo, under US$800, new or used, plus tax & shipping.

Preferably that would be a SET amp with enough power to drive my MG 1.6QR's to a modest level. I know it's I'm asking a lot. I might consider bi-amping the Maggies, with the tube amp on top.

[RGA]

My point doesn't take budget into account. Cheap amps have compromises regardless of the technology/topology.

Unlike some i am not a bang the Tube drum. Plenty of SS I prefer to plenty of tubes at the budget end.

My speakers are easily driven by 3-5 watts in a small room. I purchased a tube amp but not a SET - I like SET better but not at the budget end of the spectrum.

Magnepan has never sounded better to me than with the Soro. But it's $5k.

[Feanor]

My point doesn't take budget into account. Cheap amps have compromises regardless of the technology/topology.

Unlike some i am not a bang the Tube drum. Plenty of SS I prefer to plenty of tubes at the budget end.

My speakers are easily driven by 3-5 watts in a small room. I purchased a tube amp but not a SET - I like SET better but not at the budget end of the spectrum.

Magnepan has never sounded better to me than with the Soro. But it's $5k.
I've heard only a couple of tube amps and those weren't in my system; also, they were relatively cheap amps. The combination of those amps with the systems they were in, was quite unimpressive.

My current amp is very good, and amazingly so for the money. I would be willing to try a half-decent tube amp, however I'm skeptical that I'd prefer it and I'm definitely not going in to hock on the mere chance that I might.

[Smokey]

Cheap amps have compromises regardless of the technology/topology.

Same thing can be said of low power amps :)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Recording practice leaves a lot to be desired. Few or no recording engineers will take the time or spend the money to make really capture the sound of a fine concert hall. Most use many microphones close to the instruments and "fix it in the mix". Sir Terrence as assured us that it excellent results can be achieved with close microphoning and I believe him that they can because I have many excellent recordings made that way. Unfortunately there are many, many recordings, (old and new; CD and LP), that have a raunchy quality of sound that you will never hear from a good seat in a good concert hall.

Feanor,
The mentality "fix it in the mix" has not existed at least among live recording engineers for over a decade. The studio is a different story since it is already a manufactured environment.

In saying that, for various reasons whether equipment or musician based we have to go back to the studio and edit in or out something. This is why I always put out more microphones than I really need when I record live. I had an instance where I had to "fix it in the mix" because a clarinet player squeaked at the beginning of his solo. I had a spotlight microphone to capture it because the orchestra was quite large, and there were other instruments playing at the same time. Since this was a live performance, we could not stop and do it over. When I returned to my studio to tweak the mix(some light balancing of certain passages to flush them out) I could not shut that microphone off as we mixed live to 5.1 on the spot. So I took the solo off a practice run(which was flawless), edited out the squeak, and replaced it with the flawless take from that practice run. The Clarinet player was shocked because he knew he squeaked, but heard nothing but a flawless solo. I don't really like to do this kind of thing, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do to get things right.

When you are messing around with dwindling recording budgets like we are now days, you have to always have some sort of back up just in case something goes wrong. Since I mostly do live recordings, there is often no oportunity to re-record anything in case a mistake has happened.

So you understand, every recording engineer I know goes into a project wanting to capture the best sound he or she can. However, as some stage the project is out of our hands, and into the marketing departments. It is there were the most damaging decision in regard to the audio are made. The loudness war was created by the marketing departments in studios, not by the mastering engineer themselves. The record company has the last word on ANY recordings made on their label. The only way to end this whole loudness thing was to just not do any project where the marketing department has the last word. I refuse to do any mastering that required uber amounts of compression on a recording already recorded too hot. A lot of mastering engineers have done the same thing.

[Feanor]

Feanor,
The mentality "fix it in the mix" has not existed at least among live recording engineers for over a decade. The studio is a different story since it is already a manufactured environment.
....
Well, I'll take your word for that, Sir T.

Since I'm almost entirely a classical listener, problems with extreme compression aren't the usual problem.

"Harsh" sound however is all too common, even typical for classical music problems. Skreechy violins and other strings is the biggest aggravation. Next I'd say is too much brightness or imbalance towards the high end of the spectrum. Thirdly -- and exaggerating the first two issues -- too many records have very close-up perspective, performer rather than concert goer. To be sure, perspective is partially personal preference.

If I loved tubes and vinyl, I guess I'd blame s/s and CD for these problems. However what I see is that some recordings sound great: violins timbres are captured but the sound isn't gratuitously skreechy, therefore I tend to blame the recordings, not the play-back equipment.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, I'll take your word for that, Sir T.

Since I'm almost entirely a classical listener, problems with extreme compression aren't the usual problem.

"Harsh" sound however is all too common, even typical for classical music problems. Skreechy violins and other strings is the biggest aggravation. Next I'd say is too much brightness or imbalance towards the high end of the spectrum. Thirdly -- and exaggerating the first two issues -- too many records have very close-up perspective, performer rather than concert goer. To be sure, perspective is partially personal preference.

If I loved tubes and vinyl, I guess I'd blame s/s and CD for these problems. However what I see is that some recordings sound great: violins timbres are captured but the sound isn't gratuitously skreechy, therefore I tend to blame the recordings, not the play-back equipment.

Feanor,
In my opinion Redbook CD is not very friendly to acoustic music. Also there is occasionally a poor choice of microphones picks for recording. The problem with RBCD is two fold. If you try and record with a "audience" perspective, instruments in the rear of the orchestra lose their precision. It becomes much more difficult to balance the orchestra, and you have to use some equalization to sharpen up that imprecise sound, hence the hardness that can crop up. I would have to say 16/44.1khz is not enough resolution to do acoustical music in a large venue. It is much better for rock, gospel, and other genre's were you can go direct to the mixing board, eschewing any use of a microphones for recording.

Just as an example; critically listen to the SACD of Jack Renner's 1812 Overture. Then listen to the CD layer of that same recording. If you listen carefully, you will find that the overall presentation of the CD is quite a bit more diffused than the SACD. This is the problem with Renner's microphone technique and the RBCD format.

In saying all of this, there are sometimes just poor recordings made, and that is a fact.

[E-Stat]

Just as an example; critically listen to the SACD of Jack Renner's 1812 Overture. Then listen to the CD layer of that same recording. If you listen carefully, you will find that the overall presentation of the CD is quite a bit more diffused than the SACD. This is the problem with Renner's microphone technique and the RBCD format.
You're comparing apples and oranges. That is true when a MC recording is remixed later for stereo as is the case here. Let's listen to Robert Woods describe the differences in the liner notes for that recording.

"Over the years, our usual microphone setup for an orchestra has consisted of three or four space omnidirectional microphones across the front of the orchestra. The surround recording, however, requires a different approach: directional microphones for the front channels, outside and mid-hall microphones to help wrap the orchestra in a gentle arc in front of the listener, plus ambience pickup microphones that are arranged to mid and rear channels. I employed the Neumann binaural head microphone as a critical part of the surround pickup."

This "multi-channel from the start" recording was thus recorded quite differently than they would have done for a stereo recording.

That reality doesn't retract from the multi-channel result - it only renders comparisons to the derived stereo remix invalid to draw any conclusions.

[Feanor]

Feanor,
In my opinion Redbook CD is not very friendly to acoustic music. Also there is occasionally a poor choice of microphones picks for recording. The problem with RBCD is two fold. If you try and record with a "audience" perspective, instruments in the rear of the orchestra lose their precision. It becomes much more difficult to balance the orchestra, and you have to use some equalization to sharpen up that imprecise sound, hence the hardness that can crop up. I would have to say 16/44.1khz is not enough resolution to do acoustical music in a large venue. It is much better for rock, gospel, and other genre's were you can go direct to the mixing board, eschewing any use of a microphones for recording.

Just as an example; critically listen to the SACD of Jack Renner's 1812 Overture. Then listen to the CD layer of that same recording. If you listen carefully, you will find that the overall presentation of the CD is quite a bit more diffused than the SACD. This is the problem with Renner's microphone technique and the RBCD format.

In saying all of this, there are sometimes just poor recordings made, and that is a fact.
All this said, there are still some very good RBCD recordings.

An example I was listening to a couple of days ago is the Tokyo String Quartet's version of Beethoven's Early Quartets: very good instrument timbres, good ambience, and good perspective.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51P063B4CTL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Their version of the Middle Quartets has the same very good quality. From what I've heard, no doubt a Hi-rez version would be even better, but still the point remains that RBCD can sound good and doesn't necessarily sound suffer from harshness or "digititis" as vinyl lovers declare.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

All this said, there are still some very good RBCD recordings.

An example I was listening to a couple of days ago is the Tokyo String Quartet's version of Beethoven's Early Quartets: very good instrument timbres, good ambience, and good perspective.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51P063B4CTL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

Their version of the Middle Quartets has the same very good quality. From what I've heard, no doubt a Hi-rez version would be even better, but still the point remains that RBCD can sound good and doesn't necessarily sound suffer from harshness or "digititis" as vinyl lovers declare.

I agree with ya. Do you see the size of that group? Small ensemble that does not necessarily challenge a recording system or format. I can create a GREAT RBCD with a group that small.

[Feanor]

I agree with ya. Do you see the size of that group? Small ensemble that does not necessarily challenge a recording system or format. I can create a GREAT RBCD with a group that small.
I'm confident you could!! :yesnod:

But I give you personal credit. What I'd really like to know why so many string quartet recordings sound like crap. :frown5:

Not necessarily the worst example but pretty bad is this recording of Beethoven's Op. 130 quartet and Op. 133, Grosse Fuge by The Lindsays. (I have the hybrid SACD version; unfortunately my SACD player is capable of extracting any more resolution than my DAC is from the CD layer.) The problems here are screechy violins and a 'way too close perspective. If I were a performer I might like to sit among musicians but I prefer a 4th row seat for chamber music.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51L0la0U-ZL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

I must say, though, that my current DAC and amp are the most transparent I've owned and this recording sounds less bad than it did on some previous equipment. This is a matter of less grunge, not the caramel coating applied by some tube equipment.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm confident you could!! :yesnod:

But I give you personal credit. What I'd really like to know why so many string quartet recordings sound like crap. :frown5:

Not necessarily the worst example but pretty bad is this recording of Beethoven's Op. 130 quartet and Op. 133, Grosse Fuge by The Lindsays. (I have the hybrid SACD version; unfortunately my SACD player is capable of extracting any more resolution than my DAC is from the CD layer.) The problems here are screechy violins and a 'way too close perspective. If I were a performer I might like to sit among musicians but I prefer a 4th row seat for chamber music.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51L0la0U-ZL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

I must say, though, that my current DAC and amp are the most transparent I've owned and this recording sounds less bad than it did on some previous equipment. This is a matter of less grunge, not the caramel coating applied by some tube equipment.

I am willing to bet is just plain poor microphone position combined poor microphone choice. It could also be low quality converters in the signal chain.