Why does my amp sound better than my receiver?

[kexodusc]

Last night I performed a modest experiment in my living room. I have an Yamaha RX-V795a home theater receiver rated at 85 watts/channel powering my Paradigm Reference Studio 40's.
I moved my Rotel RB-981 (rated 130 w/channel) upstairs and gave it a go on the same system, running off my Yammie's pre-outs in 2-channel stereo.

The Rotel sounded SIGNIFICANTLY better at all volumes than my Yammie. And not just the warm sound compared to my Yammie's brightness (which I actually enjoy), but better soundstage, everything just sounded cleaner, and bigger. I'm probably not using the right words here, but even my fiancee had no problem telling the difference. After about an hour and a half or so I couldn't find one song that didn't sound better running off the Rotel.

Why is it that my Rotel burned my Yammie? We used 16 guage speaker wire from the same roll, the same speakers etc. I didn't take advantage of the extra power the Rotel offers and even had my SPL meter to make sure the volumes were the same. Are A/V receivers just too busy inside to turn out as clean and full of a sound as an amplifier?
Are power amps just an all around better idea for stereo playback? I've always thought speakers had more of an impact on sound, am I wrong here?
Is my Yammie that bad, or my Rotel that good?
I'd love a technical explanation that would explain to me why exactly my separate amplifier outperformed my receiver.
Sorry for ranting, appreciate any comments.

[topspeed]

Last night I performed a modest experiment in my living room. I have an Yamaha RX-V795a home theater receiver rated at 85 watts/channel powering my Paradigm Reference Studio 40's.
I moved my Rotel RB-981 (rated 130 w/channel) upstairs and gave it a go on the same system, running off my Yammie's pre-outs in 2-channel stereo.

The Rotel sounded SIGNIFICANTLY better at all volumes than my Yammie. And not just the warm sound compared to my Yammie's brightness (which I actually enjoy), but better soundstage, everything just sounded cleaner, and bigger. I'm probably not using the right words here, but even my fiancee had no problem telling the difference. After about an hour and a half or so I couldn't find one song that didn't sound better running off the Rotel.

Why is it that my Rotel burned my Yammie? We used 16 guage speaker wire from the same roll, the same speakers etc. I didn't take advantage of the extra power the Rotel offers and even had my SPL meter to make sure the volumes were the same. Are A/V receivers just too busy inside to turn out as clean and full of a sound as an amplifier?
Are power amps just an all around better idea for stereo playback? I've always thought speakers had more of an impact on sound, am I wrong here?
Is my Yammie that bad, or my Rotel that good?
I'd love a technical explanation that would explain to me why exactly my separate amplifier outperformed my receiver.
Sorry for ranting, appreciate any comments.

Yes, absolutely, yes and no, no and yes. How's that for technical?

Your Rotel is better because it is specifically designed to do one thing, increase the gain to your speakers. Receiver's have to be built to a standard which satisfies a business plan, not audio ideals. This means in order to stuff a single chassis full of all the crap the consumers seem to want (i.e. DPL, DPL2, DTS, DTS Neo6, 20 different "stadium" dsp effects, YPAO, etc.) they are going to have to cut corners somewhere just to make it feasible for Joe Public. Enter the amplifier section. Most every receiver has woefully inadequate power supplies and transformers, two things that are somewhat important for amplification wouldn't you think? Cheap caps hinder transient response and attack, too. It could also be simply poor design topography or that the Yamaha designer's ideals are different from yours. This is not a slam on Yammie either because at least they design and manufacture most of their own stuff, supposedly even their own boards, and are one the most respected companies in the world.

Whether speakers or what's in front of them have a bigger impact is a debate unto itself. However, imo you'll hear a bigger variance in sound between speakers than you will front end components. Having very revealing speakers is a double edged sword because while they convey more details within the music, they also convey all of the glories or shortcomings of the source material and equipment.

Both Rotel and Yamaha are very good products so I wouldn't necessarily say one is better than the other. It appears however that Rotel is better in building amps that suit your taste and needs.

Just out of curiousity, what exactly does your tagline stand for?

[kexodusc]

Just out of curiousity, what exactly does your tagline stand for?

That is one of the greatest secrets of the universe, and to reveal it would end the aura of mystique that surrounds me. Actually it's just the word "exodus" (not the biblical writing, but rather one of my favorite classical scores, very hard to play on cello) with my initials "K" and "C" on either end. Ya gotta admit, it almost looks like a cool word, I like the shorter form "kex" people refer to me as.

Thanks so much for the explanation. I bought the Rotel second hand because an old buddy said it was a super awesome deal compared to an older Harman Kardon stereo receiver.

Yes I believe the Rotel has a better power supply and transformers. I'm not sure I understand the impact. Am I correct in assuming that somehow, my receiver is working harder to output the audio signal, while my amplifier can do it with relative ease?

[topspeed]

Yes I believe the Rotel has a better power supply and transformers. I'm not sure I understand the impact. Am I correct in assuming that somehow, my receiver is working harder to output the audio signal, while my amplifier can do it with relative ease?

I can guarantee you that the Rotel's power suppy and transformer kills the Yammie's. (BTW, cheers on such a stellar purchase price :)) More power and the ability to deliver power means the Rotel isn't working nearly as hard and has more "headroom" or power in reserve for transients and whatnot. Because the amp isn't stressed, what you are hearing possibly has less distortion than the Yamaha which is working harder. The simple answer is amps sound different. For the drawn out, technical answer, ask Skeptic or another engineer on the board.

BTW, the reason I asked was to see if you were connected to USC (kexodUSC) somehow. Guess where I went?

Fight On!

[markw]

Most any power amp will wipe the floor with most any receiver. Power amps are designed with one thing in mind.. power (duh)!

The transformer in the power amp probably weighs as much as the entire receiver does. More iron means more available power to the speakers. Toroids are a different animal.

Likewise, all that available power is devoted full time to two power amps only. No sharing bewteen a tuner, processor and 5 (or 6) power amps.

The best of both worlds, economically speaking, is to have a receiver of moderate power but full features driving separate power amps. Sounds like you're on the right track.

P.S... Guess what? This post promoted me to a senior member. Does this entitle me to any discounts?

[E-Stat]

The Rotel sounded SIGNIFICANTLY better at all volumes than my Yammie. And not just the warm sound compared to my Yammie's brightness (which I actually enjoy), but better soundstage, everything just sounded cleaner, and bigger.
Welcome to the world that most here say doesn't exist. There is more to come.

rw

[bturk667]

Because it is better at its job. Know if you really want to hear what your speakers can do, demo a good linestage with the Rotel. *CAUTION* THE SONIC IMPROVEMENTS MAYBE HARDER TO BELIEVE! None the less they will be there! "Audio Nirvana" is at your fingertips, just do it!

[mtrycraft]

Welcome to the world that most here say doesn't exist. There is more to come.

rw

Yes, ones imagination is limitless, indeed.

[mtrycraft]

Last night I performed a modest experiment in my living room. I have an Yamaha RX-V795a home theater receiver rated at 85 watts/channel powering my Paradigm Reference Studio 40's.
I moved my Rotel RB-981 (rated 130 w/channel) upstairs and gave it a go on the same system, running off my Yammie's pre-outs in 2-channel stereo.

The Rotel sounded SIGNIFICANTLY better at all volumes than my Yammie. And not just the warm sound compared to my Yammie's brightness (which I actually enjoy), but better soundstage, everything just sounded cleaner, and bigger. I'm probably not using the right words here, but even my fiancee had no problem telling the difference. After about an hour and a half or so I couldn't find one song that didn't sound better running off the Rotel.

Why is it that my Rotel burned my Yammie? We used 16 guage speaker wire from the same roll, the same speakers etc. I didn't take advantage of the extra power the Rotel offers and even had my SPL meter to make sure the volumes were the same. Are A/V receivers just too busy inside to turn out as clean and full of a sound as an amplifier?
Are power amps just an all around better idea for stereo playback? I've always thought speakers had more of an impact on sound, am I wrong here?
Is my Yammie that bad, or my Rotel that good?
I'd love a technical explanation that would explain to me why exactly my separate amplifier outperformed my receiver.
Sorry for ranting, appreciate any comments.

Tell you what. I bet you didn't compare them properly to come to any meaningful conclusion about amp sound. I bet it wasn't level matched and bias controlled, right?

As long as you didn't exceed the amps design specs, no need for them to sound different, most of them. There have been many such comparisons over the past 20+ years with 1000s of trials, under level matched, bias controlled conditions with that conclusion. Why would those two amps be different?

And, that 45watts of difference is only about 2dB more power, not a hell of a lot. It doesn't mean that the Rotel may not drive a more difficult speaker load better, just not an exciting difference.

[kexodusc]

Tell you what. I bet you didn't compare them properly to come to any meaningful conclusion about amp sound. I bet it wasn't level matched and bias controlled, right?

I don't even know what the hell "bias control" means. Quite frankly, I didn't care at the time. Maybe that contributed to my results? :)


As long as you didn't exceed the amps design specs, no need for them to sound different, most of them. There have been many such comparisons over the past 20+ years with 1000s of trials, under level matched, bias controlled conditions with that conclusion. Why would those two amps be different?

I've come to this same conclusion when comparing my older marantz to my yamaha at most volumes...but even then there was some sort of treble-ish tone difference. I had just assumed that was the "brightness" people associate with Yamaha's.


And, that 45watts of difference is only about 2dB more power, not a hell of a lot. It doesn't mean that the Rotel may not drive a more difficult speaker load better, just not an exciting difference.

Yes, and at that level its too freakin loud for my tastes anyway. I had my trusty old SPL meter out, to get as close to the same volumes as I possibly could. It's an analog meter, not a high priced unit, but it seems to work relatively well.

I'm not trying to start an argument along the lines of exotic cables making a big difference. I don't believe they do. I don't believe my old $800 dollar Phillips CD player sounds any better than my new $200 Yamaha CD player. I can guarantee you there was a "significant" difference between the Rotel and the Yamaha. Not to suggest it was 10 times better or something foolish. I would say it was maybe 1.08 times better. It seemed, I don't know, cleaner, more natural. Someone has suggested to me this may be due to the various tonal characteristics of both units, and not an issue of "too much activity" inside the receiver vs. the dedicated amp. I can accept that. I posted this thread because I don't understand why if I used, say 30 watts through 2 channels on 2 separate units with similar specs why one would sound different at all. Now I'm not sure I'd understand the answer if you told me anywyay. :)


As long as you didn't exceed the amps design specs, no need for them to sound different, most of them. There have been many such comparisons over the past 20+ years with 1000s of trials, under level matched, bias controlled conditions with that conclusion.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. That 40 watts should sound like 40 watts regardless of what unit it's in? (provided of course the frequency response, distortion, etc. of the various units are the similar) That's what I expected to find when I pulled my Rotel upstairs. It wasn't.

[skeptic]

Most any power amp will wipe the floor with most any receiver. Power amps are designed with one thing in mind.. power (duh)!

The transformer in the power amp probably weighs as much as the entire receiver does. More iron means more available power to the speakers. Toroids are a different animal.

Likewise, all that available power is devoted full time to two power amps only. No sharing bewteen a tuner, processor and 5 (or 6) power amps.

The best of both worlds, economically speaking, is to have a receiver of moderate power but full features driving separate power amps. Sounds like you're on the right track.

P.S... Guess what? This post promoted me to a senior member. Does this entitle me to any discounts?

You have obviously never seen or heard receivers like Marantz 2385, 2500, and 2600. These receivers produced around 20 to 25 years ago were rated to produce 185, 250, and 300 wpc into 8 ohms respectively. They weighed about sixty pounds. The 2600 may have been the greatest stereo receiver ever commercially produced. It could deliver 400 wpc into a 4 ohm load across the audio band with both channels driven.

http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/2600.html

They easily outperformed most separate power amplifiers of the day and they could probably still do the same today. The preamp and tuner stages of a solid state receiver require very little power and generate very little heat so in well designed receiver, there doesn't have to be any compromise. Most companies build their power amplifiers today on separate chasis as a marketing strategy, not for technical reasons. In the long ago past, the need to place two huge output transformers along with many hot vacuum tubes on an acceptably sized chasis made high end receivers impractical. With miniaturization and solid state electronics, that is no longer true.

[Sealed]

The Rotel sounds better because it has better components, shielding, engineering, and sound than the Yamaha. Power is partially relevent, but all amps do not sound the same. Some sound better than others.

You heard exactly what you heard. No need of a/b/x or NASA lab analysis, the rotel did simply sound better.

Life and sound is more than just a few inconclusive SPL or resistive measurements. It's not a placebo to hear a difference, anyone who says so is wrong, or deaf.

[markw]

You have obviously never seen or heard receivers like Marantz 2385, 2500, and 2600. These receivers produced around 20 to 25 years ago were rated to produce 185, 250, and 300 wpc into 8 ohms respectively. They weighed about sixty pounds. The 2600 may have been the greatest stereo receiver ever commercially produced. It could deliver 400 wpc into a 4 ohm load across the audio band with both channels driven.

http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/2600.html

They easily outperformed most separate power amplifiers of the day and they could probably still do the same today. The preamp and tuner stages of a solid state receiver require very little power and generate very little heat so in well designed receiver, there doesn't have to be any compromise. Most companies build their power amplifiers today on separate chasis as a marketing strategy, not for technical reasons. In the long ago past, the need to place two huge output transformers along with many hot vacuum tubes on an acceptably sized chasis made high end receivers impractical. With miniaturization and solid state electronics, that is no longer true.

We're talking about today, not 20 - 30 years ago. Now, if we wanna reminisce about the by gone days, that's all well and good but let's keep this discussion in persepctive, shall we?

And, FWIW, for stereo music, my 2270 still whups more modern moderately priced, similarly rated receivers big time.

[topspeed]

And, FWIW, for stereo music, my 2270 still whups more modern moderately priced, similarly rated receivers big time.

My 2230 hooked up to my new VR1's is just terrific. Even at "only" 30 watts and 90dB speakers, I'm never past 50% on the volume (which is pretty freakin' loud in a 16' x 17' bedroom) and it is just so smooth and unfatiguing without even a hint of strain from that 30 sumthin' year old bird. What a great receiver! Now if I can just get the volume potentometer to not need cleaning every couple of years, I'd be set. This last time I had to have the damn thing rebuilt and that wasn't cheap!

[kexodusc]

The Rotel sounds better because it has better components, shielding, engineering, and sound than the Yamaha. Power is partially relevent, but all amps do not sound the same. Some sound better than others.

You heard exactly what you heard. No need of a/b/x or NASA lab analysis, the rotel did simply sound better.

Life and sound is more than just a few inconclusive SPL or resistive measurements. It's not a placebo to hear a difference, anyone who says so is wrong, or deaf.

Thanks for the constructive reply. I figured it had to be a combination of factors. Given their retail prices and capabilities, I have to give the receiver a far better value. Since I bought both used, it's pretty close.

[JSE]

You have obviously never seen or heard receivers like Marantz 2385, 2500, and 2600. These receivers produced around 20 to 25 years ago were rated to produce 185, 250, and 300 wpc into 8 ohms respectively. They weighed about sixty pounds. The 2600 may have been the greatest stereo receiver ever commercially produced. It could deliver 400 wpc into a 4 ohm load across the audio band with both channels driven.

http://www.classic-audio.com/marantz/2600.html

They easily outperformed most separate power amplifiers of the day and they could probably still do the same today. The preamp and tuner stages of a solid state receiver require very little power and generate very little heat so in well designed receiver, there doesn't have to be any compromise. Most companies build their power amplifiers today on separate chasis as a marketing strategy, not for technical reasons. In the long ago past, the need to place two huge output transformers along with many hot vacuum tubes on an acceptably sized chasis made high end receivers impractical. With miniaturization and solid state electronics, that is no longer true.


I have my father's Marantz 4400 receiver with the SQA-2B decoder. Good ol' quad sound. It's a beast. Worked perfect until about 1 1/2 years ago. Sucker won't turn on. I have been meaning to get it into the shop. I will probably sell it at a later date.

JSE

[skeptic]

It may be something as simple as replacing the power switch. Have you checked the fuses.

The recievers I mentioned were awesome even by today's standards. They provided a virtually distortion free source of power greater than anyone is likely to ever need in a home. Spec for spec or by sound alone, most separates I've seen and heard will not measure up to them. It is probably true that nobody cares to build receivers even remotely approaching this level of quality today. It's a matter of marketing, customer acceptance, and perception. Nobody would believe that $2000 worth of receiver could outperform $5000 worth of separates. I think the bigger units, the 2500 and 2600 would even give the Crown DC 300 a run for its money in terms of available power although of course it is not DC coupled.

[hifitommy]

Yes, ones imagination is limitless, indeed.<!-- / message --><!-- sig --> __________________
mtrycrafts

you poor soul, you just cant hear. please do yourself a favor and actually get an audio system. generic crap wont do, REAL audio equipment, components. just borrow some from a friend or store and substitute it for your receiver and rca cdp.

its entirely possible that youre tone deaf and cant do anything except intellectualize on differences that you cant perceive.

[E-Stat]

It may be something as simple as replacing the power switch. Have you checked the fuses.
That was the case with a "no power" problem with my vintage Pioneer tuner. The complex little push-push again spring loaded mechanism died. It was an easy problem to fix.

rw

[skeptic]

These switches have a way of failing over time due to constant arcing. I've seen more than one of these fail and I am not in the service business like Woodman.

[E-Stat]

These switches have a way of failing over time due to constant arcing. I've seen more than one of these fail and I am not in the service business like Woodman.
I greatly prefer the far higher quality rocker switch used on my vintage Threshold amp. It should last another twenty odd years without failing.

rw

[Feanor]

Yes, ones imagination is limitless, indeed.
One's imagination might inflate the differences -- but there are real differences.

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

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

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

[mtrycraft]

Thanks for the constructive reply. I figured it had to be a combination of factors. Given their retail prices and capabilities, I have to give the receiver a far better value. Since I bought both used, it's pretty close.


He is just plain wrong. He has zero evidence for his speculations. Nousaine conducted, DBT of course, a listeing test some years back, 1995 or 1998, Steve Zipser and friends. An old Yam integrated amp with the amp section and a very expensive, $15k Pass Alphen something. Three people couldn't tell them apart.
If the Yam is bright, the FR would show this. It isn't bright.

[mtrycraft]

The Rotel sounds better because it has better components, shielding, engineering, and sound than the Yamaha.

Unsubstantiated claim, great.


You heard exactly what you heard. No need of a/b/x or NASA lab analysis, the rotel did simply sound better.


No. He perceived something. What he heard is yet to be determined, if anything.

Life and sound is more than just a few inconclusive SPL or resistive measurements. It's not a placebo to hear a difference, anyone who says so is wrong, or deaf.

How would you know it wasn't placebo? You have zero idea as you don't account for. So, you have unreliable results.

[Sealed]

He is just plain wrong. He has zero evidence for his speculations. .

I have about 14 years experiance listening to high end ranging from $3k setups to $200k. I have well trained hearing, much like a piano tuner. I have had my reference setup since 1986 which I will gladly a/b anything in it or against it to note changes. I am over the age and experiance level where placebos and silly ineffective changes color my perceptions. If you change any component in my system and I could tell you. Move my speakers 1/16th of an inch and I can tell. I do not speculate nor imagine what is real.

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

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

[Geoffcin]

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

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

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

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

Glad to hear your Phase Linear is still topside.

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

[Sealed]

Glad to hear your Phase Linear is still topside.

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

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

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

[Geoffcin]

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

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

Nice deal!

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

[kode3]

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

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

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

[E-Stat]

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

rw

[kode3]

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

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

[mtrycraft]

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


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




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

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




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


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


I do not speculate nor imagine what is real.

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

You only speculate with no proof.


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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



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

Good for them.

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

Evidence please.

[mtrycraft]

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


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

[Sondek]

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

IOW: prove they are wrong!

[hifitommy]

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

you really have a much too high opinion of yourself.

[mtrycraft]

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

you really have a much too high opinion of yourself.

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

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

[mtrycraft]

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

IOW: prove they are wrong!


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

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

[E-Stat]

But, I have posted many times a list of citations where others have tried to prove their claims and have failed, miserably
Using either unknown or miserable components. It's MIMO - mediocrity in / mediocrity out.

rw

[hifitommy]

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

It is th emarket forces, marketeers, that have brain washed the consumers that the latest is the greates.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
__________________
mtrycrafts "

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

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

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

[mtrycraft]

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

It is th emarket forces, marketeers, that have brain washed the consumers that the latest is the greates.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
__________________
mtrycrafts "

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

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

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

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

[hifitommy]

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

[poneal]

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

[mtrycraft]

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

rw


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

You need to read those before you make unsubstantiated claims.

Where are your citations?

[mtrycraft]

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


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

[hifitommy]

poneal

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

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

i imagine that i have a pretty nice sounding system:

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

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

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

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

[hifitommy]

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

[E-Stat]

You need to read those before you make unsubstantiated claims.

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

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=17924&postcount=22

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=18240&postcount=29

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=19153&postcount=67

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

(montereyamnesia3)

rw

[mtrycraft]

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

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=17924&postcount=22

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=18240&postcount=29

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=19153&postcount=67

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

(montereyamnesia3)

rw


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

[E-Stat]

You are worse off than I thought. You need some professional help.
You never did answer my question from the third post reference. Remember? So which of your two conflicting statements do you want to stick with? What a quandry !

mtry contemplating the response:

If I stick with my first statement...

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

or if I go with the second...

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

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

(montereyamnesia4)

rw

[Geoffcin]

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


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


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

[mtrycraft]

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


The square wave is anything but simple.


Who ever stated there is nothing measurable difference between cables? I bet with the right instruments, you can measure a 1" length difference in a cable. So, what are you trying to say or imply?

[hifitommy]

that you think that measurement should be done with a tape meaure!

[mtrycraft]

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

mtry contemplating the response:

If I stick with my first statement...

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

or if I go with the second...

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

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

(montereyamnesia4)

rw


You keep shifting and mixing your questions so much who knows, not even you know what you want to ask.

What components would be acceptable to you? Any? Why not list all that would satisfy your irrelevant question.
What you should be doing instead is supplying the proof for differences which you don't have nor will ever hope to have. That is your burden, regardless what equipment list I have or don't have.

Better, yet, you should acquire all those citations yourself and find out.

[Sondek]

The whole concept of "Proof" is totally unprovable and irrelevant to the enjoyment of music or reality.

Listener: makes declaration that he hears ____________ or a difference in ____________ and ____________

Mtrycrafts quotes 4 websites or popular topics ____________ said in an abx/dbt no one heard the difference between a ______________ and ______________ or ___________ makes no difference.

1. There is no way the listener can actually prove what he heard, unless other people are there and hear it also. The only thing you can do is point out dubious methods. (IE using Bose 301's as a reference monitor) Other than that, the individual most likely did, or didn't hear what was claimed. There is no reason to tell someone they can't hear a difference, or must hear a difference.

2. There is no way *any* abx/dbt can be cited, as the listener was not there. So a few measurements, or a test done with other people is not valid to argue that the listener was not correct.

3. Spending over 5,000 posts attempting to decry quality cables, cd players and amps is absurd. Telling everyone else they are biased, and you are not (or don't have a burr/ajenda) is absurd.

FWIW: no matter what MTRYCRAFTS says:

All cd players do NOT sound the same
All amps do not sound the same
All cables do not sound the same
There is such a thing as midfi (recievers) and hifi (separates) and they do sound different. The separates perform better.

Human hearing can percieved variances that a simple resistive measurement cannot. There is much more to sound than simple frequency response, or amplitude.

There is no proof on this planet that can tell me otherwise. Mtrycrafts can make another 5,000 posts, just to argue with this, and it makes no difference to me at all. He can tell me anything he wants, anything any test cites, and that won't make any difference. I know what I can and cannot hear.

I urge all of you to listen for yourself as to what makes music, and what doesn't. cutting mtrycrafts and his posts out of your life will only serve to enrich your experiance.

"You can change perceptions, but reality won't budge" Rush/show, don't tell/ presto

[Sealed]

The whole concept of "Proof" is totally unprovable and irrelevant to the enjoyment of music or reality.

Listener: makes declaration that he hears ____________ or a difference in ____________ and ____________

Mtrycrafts quotes 4 websites or popular topics ____________ said in an abx/dbt no one heard the difference between a ______________ and ______________ or ___________ makes no difference.

1. There is no way the listener can actually prove what he heard, unless other people are there and hear it also. The only thing you can do is point out dubious methods. (IE using Bose 301's as a reference monitor) Other than that, the individual most likely did, or didn't hear what was claimed. There is no reason to tell someone they can't hear a difference, or must hear a difference.

2. There is no way *any* abx/dbt can be cited, as the listener was not there. So a few measurements, or a test done with other people is not valid to argue that the listener was not correct.

3. Spending over 5,000 posts attempting to decry quality cables, cd players and amps is absurd. Telling everyone else they are biased, and you are not (or don't have a burr/ajenda) is absurd.

FWIW: no matter what MTRYCRAFTS says:

All cd players do NOT sound the same
All amps do not sound the same
All cables do not sound the same
There is such a thing as midfi (recievers) and hifi (separates) and they do sound different. The separates perform better.

Human hearing can percieved variances that a simple resistive measurement cannot. There is much more to sound than simple frequency response, or amplitude.

There is no proof on this planet that can tell me otherwise. Mtrycrafts can make another 5,000 posts, just to argue with this, and it makes no difference to me at all. He can tell me anything he wants, anything any test cites, and that won't make any difference. I know what I can and cannot hear.

I urge all of you to listen for yourself as to what makes music, and what doesn't. cutting mtrycrafts and his posts out of your life will only serve to enrich your experiance.

"You can change perceptions, but reality won't budge" Rush/show, don't tell/ presto


AMEN! I could not have said it better. Listening to music, not test gear.

[E-Stat]

You keep shifting and mixing your questions so much who knows, not even you know what you want to ask.
I haven't shifted an inch. Your references have always been either ridiculously incomplete or been based on mediocre mid-fi components.


What components would be acceptable to you?
If the question is whether or not audible differences can be heard with the state-of-the-art equipment, then start by elimininating all receivers and bookshelf speakers. Comparing one size zip to another size zip and declaring that the results are conclusive for ALL cables of ALL designs is absurd. There are innumerable components better than cheapo BB fare. Say like the ones in the Tag McLaren reference.



Better, yet, you should acquire all those citations yourself and find out.
So the answer to my question is "A" - there are no serious citations.

Detente - you have no proof (nor experience with anything worth proof) and I have no proof you'd accept. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less what labcoats think. DBTs will likely never be done with cables for commercial purposes (or any other component for that matter) for reasons I've stated before. Your advice to the masses needs a big fat qualified asterisk given the performance limitations of your citations..

rw

[mtrycraft]

Of course you shifted a mile. Just review the treads. You confused issues with every post, didn't stay on topic. Selective memory?
Remember the 'get a doifferent expert?'
You cannot make a list, nothing will satisfy you. You have no proof, period, regardless what I will or will not accept. You have anecdotes and testimonials no better than infomertials have.

I guess Greenhill must have had a superior setup to show cable differences, right?
You cannot even demonstrate that you need a system you claim you need to hear differences. You speculate on that too with nothing to support it with. Speculating that you do, insisting that you do is worthless, isn't it?
How can you be taken seriously about anything? You don't have anything of value. But, you are happy with what you have as I am.

[mtrycraft]

that you think that measurement should be done with a tape meaure!


You certainly don't do it with your ears.

[E-Stat]

Of course you shifted a mile. Just review the treads.
When did tires come into play?


You confused issues with every post, didn't stay on topic. Selective memory? Remember the 'get a doifferent expert?'
It will likely come as a surprise to you that those were your words! I was questioning your flip flop comments between these two posts:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=24602&postcount=39

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=24868&postcount=50

First you tell Rikki that he needs a new expert because he is breaking in his cables according to one expert - then you ask where you ever said such a thing. Have you had someone check out your short term amnesia problem?



You cannot make a list, nothing will satisfy you.
I already did.


I guess Greenhill must have had a superior setup to show cable differences, right?
If this is your reference:

A 6-page article by Laurence Greenhill titled "Speaker Cables: Can You Hear the Difference?" was published in Stereo Review magazine on August 1983. It compared Monster cable, 16-gauge wire and 24-gauge wire. The price at that time for a pair of 30-foot lengths of monster cables was $55.00. The cost for 16 gauge heavy lamp cord was $.30/foot or $18.00 and the 24 gauge "speaker wire" was $.03/foot or $1.80

"...So what do our fifty hours of testing, scoring and listening to speaker cables amount to? Only that 16-gauge lamp cord and Monster cable are indistinguishable from each other with music and seem to be superior to the 24 gauge wire commonly sold or given away as 'speaker cable.' Remember, however, that it was a measurable characteristic--higher resistance per foot--that made 24 gauge sound different from the other cables. If the cable runs were only 6 instead of 30 feet, the overall cable resistances would have been lower and our tests would probably have found no audible differences between the three cables. This project was unable to validate the sonic benefits claimed for exotic speaker cables over common 16-gauge zip cord. We can only conclude, therefore, that there is little advantage besides pride of ownership in using these thick, expensive wires"

Then it all depends upon what he is trying to prove. More than likely, he was trying to determine what Joe Stereo would hear with his $300 Pioneer receiver and bookshelf speakers using 1983 wire technology. As to determining the performance envelope of audio cables (especially in terms of what is available today) , his test is an utter joke.

A. Using 30 feet of zip will mask a ton of fine details
B. He is only comparing one kind of zip with another. 1983 Monster is 12 gauge zip.
C. Although he doesn't state what equipment he uses (no surprise), I highly doubt that his 1983 receiver is anything representative of the state-of-the-art.
D. His test is valid for only that which he tests. It has nothing to do with numerous cables today that are quite different and better than zip.


How can you be taken seriously about anything?
That is for others to judge. Unlike you who has zip in the way of audio experience (pun intended), I do have considerable experience with some state-of-the-art gear. Unlike you, I'm sure that most audiophiles would very much like to spend a weekend with Harry Pearson to hear his spectacular system and talk with him about music and audio. I leave for Seacliff Friday night.

rw

[maxg]

Casually perusing this thread it seems to me we have another round of "I hear a difference between 2 amps" / "Oh no you dont" / "Oh yes he does" etc. etc. etc.

From what I understand of Mtry's position 2 solid state amps driving benign loads and within their limits (at normal listening levels etc.) have never been proved to sound different.

This may or may not be true, but is it applicable to the case in point?

Does anyone happen to know, for example, what the impedance characteristics of the speakers in question are? If these speakers have dramatic falls in impedance (or even rises in impedance) then the load on the amp will not necessarily be benign and the scientific evidence, therefore, inapplicable.

I too, used to have a Yamaha receiver some years ago. I attempted to drive a new pair of Klipsch Heresies with them and couldnt get any bass out of the things at all. At the time I got hold of a Rotel 1080 2 channel power amp and using the Yamaha as a pre - obtained a very different result with masses of bass. Of course the sound was still hard enough to drive nails into the walls!!

As it happens I came across a chart of impedance levels for the Heresy. It seems that at higher frequencies the impedance climbs all the way to 37 ohms (nominal 8 remember) and I am guessing that had something to do with the failure of the Yamaha to drive them.

As a reverse case I once tried to drive a pair of Quad 989 speakers with an Accuphase E211 integrated amplifier rated at 90 wpc. At very moderate volumes the amp simply shut down, whilst a lower power (45 wpc) tube amp played on at much higher volumes. Again we guessed that impedance was the issue. It seems that Quads drop down to around 2 ohms at points in the spectrum and that was just too low for the Accuphase.

YMMV and all over caveats

[mtrycraft]

From what I understand of Mtry's position 2 solid state amps driving benign loads and within their limits (at normal listening levels etc.) have never been proved to sound different.

Not quite right. I didn't say benign load. If th eload is too much for the amp, it will be out of design limits at times or all the time. That is to be tested too.


If these speakers have dramatic falls in impedance (or even rises in impedance) then the load on the amp will not necessarily be benign and the scientific evidence, therefore, inapplicable.

A rising load can only be compensated for by an increase in driving voltage which is usually not the case. Depending on how low the impedance gets will dictate if the limits will be exceeded or not, at times.


As a reverse case I once tried to drive a pair of Quad 989 speakers with an Accuphase E211 integrated amplifier rated at 90 wpc. At very moderate volumes the amp simply shut down, whilst a lower power (45 wpc) tube amp played on at much higher volumes.

And probably distorting like crazy.

Again we guessed that impedance was the issue. It seems that Quads drop down to around 2 ohms at points in the spectrum and that was just too low for the Accuphase.

Or much lower I suspect. But, depending on how broad the spectrum is where this is so low.
Never said all amps will drive all the loads equally, did I?

[mtrycraft]

Boy, you ar eso far off the target that you are in another world, not in audio land. Mythology land?

Of cores a person can demonstrate what he can hear or not hear regardless what others can demonstrate or not. How silly can you be? The rest of your post goes down hill from there. No need to respond to a silly poster.

[mtrycraft]

AMEN! I could not have said it better. Listening to music, not test gear.


Too bad. You should expand your horizon more. Might lear a few things.

[maxg]

From what I understand of Mtry's position 2 solid state amps driving benign loads and within their limits (at normal listening levels etc.) have never been proved to sound different.

Not quite right. I didn't say benign load. If th eload is too much for the amp, it will be out of design limits at times or all the time. That is to be tested too.


If these speakers have dramatic falls in impedance (or even rises in impedance) then the load on the amp will not necessarily be benign and the scientific evidence, therefore, inapplicable.

A rising load can only be compensated for by an increase in driving voltage which is usually not the case. Depending on how low the impedance gets will dictate if the limits will be exceeded or not, at times.


As a reverse case I once tried to drive a pair of Quad 989 speakers with an Accuphase E211 integrated amplifier rated at 90 wpc. At very moderate volumes the amp simply shut down, whilst a lower power (45 wpc) tube amp played on at much higher volumes.

And probably distorting like crazy.

Again we guessed that impedance was the issue. It seems that Quads drop down to around 2 ohms at points in the spectrum and that was just too low for the Accuphase.

Or much lower I suspect. But, depending on how broad the spectrum is where this is so low.
Never said all amps will drive all the loads equally, did I?

It seems that the person in question may well have experienced a real difference between the 2 amps - merely by listening. We need to see the impedance loads of the speakers to go any further with the specific example (assuming no other factors are at play).

Also that rising voltage requirement as the impedance rises could well explain why many amps with larger power supplies perform better with a variety of speakers than those with smaller power supplies. This ties in nicely with my (totally untested and non-scientific) experience.

As for the distortion from the KT88's - it wasnt to bad to these ears, but not as good as the sound when we tried the same speakers with the Accuphase E407 - with 170 wpc on tap and a farily massive power supply unit on tap.

[mtrycraft]

It seems that the person in question may well have experienced a real difference between the 2 amps - merely by listening. We need to see the impedance loads of the speakers to go any further with the specific example (assuming no other factors are at play).

Also that rising voltage requirement as the impedance rises could well explain why many amps with larger power supplies perform better with a variety of speakers than those with smaller power supplies. This ties in nicely with my (totally untested and non-scientific) experience.

As for the distortion from the KT88's - it wasnt to bad to these ears, but not as good as the sound when we tried the same speakers with the Accuphase E407 - with 170 wpc on tap and a farily massive power supply unit on tap.


Larger power supplies are able to deliver more current with the same voltage. That is what you see on specs into smaller loads and power doubling or almost so when halfing resistance. Amps usually have limited voltage capability.

Another aspect to consider is indeed the sighted comparison and how well levels were matched and was is close at 1kHz and 10kHz? If not, that will make audible differences for sure.