Some interesting reads

[blackraven]

Here's some interesting reads. http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

and http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue39/shmcd.htm

[Feanor]

Here's some interesting reads. http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

and http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue39/shmcd.htm

Of course, Aczel's article has been around for years. Notice he leaves himself some wriggle room in the discussion of several of the "lie" dicussions? Anyway it's Lie #9, CD treatments, that most closely bears on the SHM-CD question.

I think a lot of people ignorantly apply analog analogies to digit technology. The actual SHM-CD producers actually only insist that the new material and techiques produce a more physically perfect CD, (more perfectly shaped and positioned dots). They do no more than imply that SHM-CDs sound better -- they leave the actual claim to the likes of the P-S critics.

The thing is that A digital medium doesn't have to be physically perfect to produce perfect output: it only has to be good enough. Has any one measured the bit perfection with which a CD transport outputs standard vs. SHM CD signals? Has anyone measure the jitter differences between the two?? These two things can be measured; get back to me when the results are in. If SHM is more perfect at output, I'll believe it might sound better, otherwise I remain very skeptical.

[elapsed]

I've been debating on if I wanted to respond to these articles, but here goes.. all of my opinions here are based on my own ears, nothing more

1. The Cable Lie - no question I've heard differences between interconnects. My only reference are Naim DIN interconnects (which are included free with Naim equipment) vs the very expensive Naim Hi-Line. The difference was not subtle, though the law of diminishing returns most certainly kicked in.

2. The Vacuum-Tube Lie - I've only ever auditioned solid state, so I can't speak for myself. But I suspect that many who love tube find that this adds to the musical experience by not sounding so perfect and digital. There's nothing wrong with this at all, it comes down to one's taste.

3. The Antidigital Lie - I agree that much of CD vs vinyl comes down to mastering. However the author has not taken jitter into account. 11010110 does not equal 110--101-10. Digital audio is by no means bulletproof.

4. The Listening-Test Lie - I've never done a double-blind listening test so I can't speak to this, but I've auditioned over two dozen pre-amp, poweramp, cd player and speaker combinations over the past 3 years, many of which in the same listening room, and can attest to distinct differences between many of these pieces of equipment.

5. The Feedback Lie - no idea

6. The Burn-In Lie - I don't believe in equipment or cable burn-in, my system sounds great from the moment I plugged it in brand new.

7. The Biwiring Lie - I agree with the author, bi-amping can make sense with a passive crossover, though it's my experience that this makes even more sense with an active crossover. As for Bi-wiring, I agree this is voodoo.

8. The Power Conditioner Lie - Yes this is true with high current amps like Bryston or Naim. However then the author goes on to discuss high-priced line cords. There's no question in my mind that a power cable can make a difference in a system, especially on a source or poweramp. This has been discussed in detail already on these forums. Then the author goes on to use a horrible and pointless analogy.. "Does your car care about the hose you filled the tank with?"

9. The CD Treatment Lie - no idea

10. The Golden Ear Lie - I agree with the author.

cheers,
elapsed

[elapsed]

The thing is that A digital medium doesn't have to be physically perfect to produce perfect output: it only has to be good enough. Has any one measured the bit perfection with which a CD transport outputs standard vs. SHM CD signals? Has anyone measure the jitter differences between the two?? These two things can be measured; get back to me when the results are in. If SHM is more perfect at output, I'll believe it might sound better, otherwise I remain very skeptical.
I was recently reading an article on CD vs Blu-spec CD, the idea being to apply a blue laser instead of a conventional infra-red laser to cut a more precise CD master with more perfect pits.

http://www.ps3sacd.com/images/pit_red.jpg
Conventional CD pit

http://www.ps3sacd.com/images/pit_blue.jpg
Blu-spec CD pit

This technique leads to more accurate read-out of the (16-bit 44.1kHz PCM stereo) digital audio signal.

http://www.ps3sacd.com/images/beam_profile_red.jpg
Beam profile with a conventional CD

http://www.ps3sacd.com/images/beam_profile_blue.jpg
Beam profile with a Blu-spec CD

I haven't heard this for myself, but I would strongly suspect that this would result in less jitter. Regardless, I'm happy to see that mastering techniques are improving.

cheers,
elapsed

[RoadRunner6]

BR, you're stepping on a lot of toes just daring to post such sacreligious heresy! (I happen to agree with him and I had forgotten about The Audio Critic until I saw your new thread. Don't tell anyone I said that I agree with him :D)

I like his style and here is a partial quote from his review of the Benchmark DAC1 in 2005;


"..........The Sound

It should be obvious from the above discussion, at least to those familiar with The Audio Critic, that the Benchmark DAC1 has no sound of its own, transparently passing on to its output the quality of its input. Whatever sonic peculiarities may perchance be audible are due to the input signal, not the DAC1 circuit. Even if the circuit were a lot less perfect, that would still be the case. Absolute sonic transparency is a concept innocent audiophiles are uncomfortable with, believing that all audio components—CD players, preamplifiers, amplifiers, tuners, all of them—exhibit varying degrees of soundstaging, front-to-back depth, grain, air, etc. That it isn’t so, except in the case of loudspeakers, is a fact calmly accepted by professional engineers but not by the high-end pundits and high-end manufacturers, who would be out of business if the truth were to sink in universally.

I am by now a little tired of harping on this subject but was still amused by John Atkinson’s comments on the Benchmark DAC1 in the May 2004 issue of Stereophile. John made sure to tell his readers that the Mark Levinson No. 30.6, which cost $17,500 before it was discontinued, still sounds better than the Benchmark, despite the latter’s perfect measurements. In a December 2004 followup (“2004 Editor’s Choice,” namely the Benchmark!) he adds the Theta Generation VIII ($10,000) and the Wadia 27ix ($9959) to the of-course-sounds-better list. I wonder what quality the Mark Levinson, Theta, and Wadia engineers dial into their products—above and beyond flat frequency response, low distortion, low noise, and the other usual suspects—that mysteriously makes them sound better. Maybe I should stop wondering after 28 years as an audio journalist and 57 years as an audiophile.

---Peter Aczel.........."

(notice he refers to himself as an audiophile)

Good stuff BR.

RR6 :thumbsup:

[blackraven]

I made the post just for this discussion. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of this.

I will say that there is a lot of high end low end equipment out there that alters the sound to try and make it more pleasing to the ears. Certainly tubes with tube bloom does this. And the fact that people believe that expensive cables make a difference in sound shows that some alteration of the signal may be happening but the manufacturers are not making us privy to what that change is.

I'm interested in obtaining the SHM- sample CD to hear the difference myself. I own several XRCD24's and I have no doubt that they sound better that std CD's. Eastwind Imports has a sample SMH CD that I'm going to purchase for $15.

Certainly Blu-spec CD looks interesting and promising if anything ever comes of it.

[Ajani]

I think the problems with Audiophilia comes down to 2 things Audiophiles tend to do:

1) Be prejudiced - just post a thread about whether you should buy a 200 watt Rotel combo versus a 200 watt Krell integrated amp, and see how many forum members will immediately tell you that the Krell will smoke the Rotel... that there is NO comparison (despite the fact that 90% of them have never compared the two brands, much less the specific models you are interested in)...

2) Severe exaggeration - I have no doubt that there are sonic differences between possibly all items in audio, the question is how significant the differences are... what I think DBX testing proves is not that there are no differences, but that audiophiles are prone to rampant bouts of over exaggeration about sonic differences... Krell will totally obliterate Rotel - hence in a DBX, the difference should be obvious... so when those same audiophiles take the DBX and can't tell the difference, they freak out and blame everything under the sun...

IMO, with the exception of different brands of speakers, Audiophilia is about subtlety... So is John Atkinson correct that some overpriced Mark Levinson DAC sounds fractionally better than the Benchmark DAC1? Maybe, but unless I have money burning a hole in my pocket, I could care less....

To me the biggest lie in Audiophilia is that you have to spend lots of money to get great sound...

[Feanor]

At one point or another in my auditioning history I have, of course, heard differences among speaker and amps, but also as I believed ...
CDPs and DACs
Speaker cables
Interconnects
Vacuum tubes of various makes and vintages
Interconnects, analog at least
Fuses used in speakers

I'll admit that I've never even thought I heard difference among power cords . RFI/EMI filters, or vibration control devices, although these these are pretty dependent on the individual environment.

What I allow -- that so many other people do not -- is that the differences I supposed I heard might have been my imagination or my mood at the time of listening.

elapsed, contrary to you estimation of Aczel's comments, the "lie" I most disgree with is #10, that is, there are no golden ears -- I think some people do indeed hear better than others. (I'm no "golden ear" myself.)

[elapsed]

just post a thread about whether you should buy a 200 watt Rotel combo versus a 200 watt Krell integrated amp, and see how many forum members will immediately tell you that the Krell will smoke the Rotel... that there is NO comparison (despite the fact that 90% of them have never compared the two brands, much less the specific models you are interested in)...
Actually funny you made this comparison.. about two years ago I was in my final stages of auditioning systems, and had made a final choice of Paradigm Studio loudspeakers with a Rotel RSX-1057 receiver. I made the mistake of walking into another hifi store and auditioning Monitor Audio RS loudspeakers with a Rotel RA-1062 integrated, when my dealer then mentioned he had a used Krell KAV-400xi integrated on display. He swapped this in for the Rotel and I was absolutely floored, the difference was not subtle. Please excuse my level of exaggeration, but the Rotel sounded absolutely flat by contrast. I purchased the Krell on the spot. This was actually the second mistake I made that day, but that's a whole other story.

cheers,
elapsed

[blackraven]

To me the biggest lie in Audiophilia is that you have to spend lots of money to get great sound...


I could not have said it any better!

[IBSTORMIN]

My thoughts only from MY experience. I am no expert, actually just learning from alot of you.

1. Cable lie - Don't agree. This audio expert is saying the only difference is reliability? SSooo, we should all be using the skinny RCA cables that come from the factory????.....I think NOT. I hear differences (you spent too much on Monster) but have not spent alot of money on RCA cables as there are better ways. I have a DVD player that hooks to my pre/pro with a computer DB-25 cable. When I bought the two seperate components on E-bay I had no cord. I went to a computer store and bought one for $6. It sounded better than the Blue Jeans RCA cables I had been using that cost $30. Enough said...then I got to wondering, what if I got a better quality DB-25??? Found out the computer industry doesn't use these anymore and picked up three different no name cables at a Salvation Army store for $1 each. Took them home and in A-B-C-D testing it was really hard to tell. Settled on the shortest one as slightly clearer. Yesterday I was in a Goodwill store and found a Gold pin HP cable, wondered if it might make a difference for another $1, brought it home. Tighter, more controlled bass and the treble was more pronounced and cleaner!!! BIG difference when compared to RCA. I have the option of hooking my pre/pro amp with RCA's or balanced XLR cables. Balanced XLR raises the output by 4-6 dB and is cleaner sounding than the RCA cables. There I am comparing Canare XLR with Blue Jeans RCA. According to Blue Jeans Cables Website, capacitance and inductance issues tend to rob the highs out of the music and this seems to me to be where you get the soundstage/detail from.

2. Tube - no experience but my question to others is - when you say any component has a WARMER sound what does that mean exactly - less treble and more midrange or what?

3. The Antidigital Lie - When CD players first came out in the 80's I got into many arguments with Best Buy types who insisted ALL CD PLAYERS SOUND THE SAME - ALL YOU DO IS BUY THE FEATURES YOU WANT - ITS DIGITAL YOU KNOW. My ears did not tell me that. My current DVD player has a Apogee Digital Clock to help with jitter. I had always heard a DVD player cannot sound as good as a dedicated CD player. This DVD player sounds better on CD's than an Integra CDC-3.4 that I had found as the best CD player I had heard before, better than a Marantz and Denon I had compared it to. The Integra is now in my offfice instead of my listening room.

4. Listening test lie - I have never done an offficial test, just my own with no-one to impress but myself - and I CAN hear a difference. What I gather from the test results is not that they are useless, but that if they really looked at the ones that CAN repeatedly hear a difference, time after time, THEY should be the highly acclaimed experts in the field, NOT the one with the loudest voice/opinion. I think all the tests do is expose the 50% of the audio experts that no-one should listen to because they cannot hear a difference, but they don't give us those results because it would probably end some careers. After reading someones post about amplifiers not being different because all they do is amplify the sound I went down into my listening room and took my Integra M-588F (70lbs) out of my setup and substituted an inexpensive Kenwood 100 WPC (20lbs). I was surprised/amazed at how good the Kenwood sounded! But of course the DVD player and pre/pro were high end so the amp was the weak link. I put the 588 back in and WOW, now I understand what some of you are talking about when you refer to an open soundstage and almost 3D. My upgrades were gradual so I really hadn't noticed as much of a difference until now. The Kenwood sounded really good due to the quality of the signal it was receiving, but there was NO comparison between the amps in detail and soundstage.

5. feedback lie - no idea

6. burn in lie - haven't bought anything new in 30 years - couldn't tell ya!

7. Bi-wiring lie - no experience

8. power conditioner - no experience but have thought about trying. Replacing the power cord doesn't make sense to me because your wiring in the wall did not change size or output so how???.......dedicated outlet makes sense.

9. CD treatment sounds like voodoo

10. The Golden Ear Lie - don't agree. As I was disagreeing with most of the other opinions the "expert" had when I came to this one it pretty much answered my question about the abilities of the writer. HE can't tell a difference. From his article "Anyone without actual hearing impairment can hear what they hear, but only those with training and experience know what to make of it, how to interpret it." This is an audio expert??!! That's like saying everyone can sing the same, play a violin the same, if they just had enough training and experience. HAH!
When I was a kid my Dad had a radio in the shed that was constantly off station and I would tune it in when I walked into the shed. My Dad could not hear a difference, my Mom and I could and his radio was like nails on a chalkboard to both of us. We couldn't believe he couldn't hear it. Tin ear is what we decided. I grew up KNOWING people had different hearing abilities. My Wife can't hear a difference but both of our kids can. Heredity. Just 'cause you can't hear a difference doesn't mean others can't. This guy is reviewing equipment and admitted HE can't hear a difference. I was tested when I was young and have almost perfect pitch. I can also hear the direction of bass, which is fun in an audio store where they think this is impossible. Case in point, my son and I went into a store, probably 15-20 years ago when Bose started pushing their little satellites with a sub. The salesman made the mistake of saying you can't tell where the bass is coming from. I looked at my son and raised my eyebrows. I already knew it was in the left front of the room and already knew he had similar abilities. He twisted his head listening and said he heard it in the left front of the room. The salesman with a jubilant "HAH!!!, I told you there was no way you could tell", ran to the right front of the room to show us the bass module. To his surprise, somone had moved it to the left front! I have no reason's to intimidate anyone in this forum as is said in his bashing of "Golden Ears". Just stating fact. I have proven to many people that I can hear differences they cannot, I have no need to impress as my good hearing is a curse. I like having music going all the time. As I have upgraded my home system, I have quit listening to CD's in my car on FORD's "Audiophile Quality" system because they just don't sound good anymore. it's a Company car I can't upgrade. (SIGH) Not to mention I now have to go back and listen to every CD I own to hear the details I can now hear with the new DB-25 cable!! Geez!

Just the rantings of a looonatic! Thanks for reading. I'll go back to sleep now.

[blackraven]

IBSTORMIN, the warmer tube sound is something you have to hear for yourself. They best way that I can describe it is less digital sounding, less bright, smoother, slightly darker, possibly slightly overall more bassy sound. More like a good high quality Turntable sound but with better resolution and sound stage (although I have not heard TT's in the $2K and higher range with high end cartriges). High's can be rolled off a little depending upon the quality of the electronics. My Van Alstine Hybrid gear and even his all tube gear has more of an in between sound of solid state and tubes.

Even adding just one tube piece of equipment (like a DAC, preamp or amp) can have a nice effect on the sound.

[IBSTORMIN]

IBSTORMIN, the warmer tube sound is something you have to hear for yourself. They best way that I can describe it is less digital sounding, less bright, smoother, slightly darker, possibly slightly overall more bassy sound.

Thanks for your response. The higher the quality of equipment I get into it seems the highs present themselves more and get clearer while the bass gets tighter and you don't seem to notice it as much (less boomy). The first time I really noticed this I bought my latest pair of speakers. At first I didn't like them, the music didn't sound like I remembered it. It took a while of A-B switching and then listening to the new ones for awhile before trying the old again to realize that I just never heard it like it was supposed to sound. The new speakers sound so much more real, I can't listen to the old ones for a long time without getting weary and wanting to go back. Then I got to wondering if the sound should be "warmer" which is why I ask. My limited experience with warm sound is from when I was playing with three CD players, an Integra, Denon and Marantz hooked to an Integra P-304/M-504 combination with blue jeans RCA's. The reason I liked the Integra is you could hear more detail, the Marantz seemed to have less highs and sounded more mellow and the Denon was kind of in between. Quality seemed about the same, just a different sound. I had always heard the Marantz line described as "warmer" and was wondering if this is what is being referred to. But then you buy wires to get more detail, which I guess is highs, so I am confused. I really have just started to get into the higher end things, after a lifetime of wanting them, in the last year or so and am learning alot from this sight.

[Ajani]

Actually funny you made this comparison.. about two years ago I was in my final stages of auditioning systems, and had made a final choice of Paradigm Studio loudspeakers with a Rotel RSX-1057 receiver. I made the mistake of walking into another hifi store and auditioning Monitor Audio RS loudspeakers with a Rotel RA-1062 integrated, when my dealer then mentioned he had a used Krell KAV-400xi integrated on display. He swapped this in for the Rotel and I was absolutely floored, the difference was not subtle. Please excuse my level of exaggeration, but the Rotel sounded absolutely flat by contrast. I purchased the Krell on the spot. This was actually the second mistake I made that day, but that's a whole other story.

cheers,
elapsed

Hmmm... nothing wrong with you hearing a difference... my initial post is more about audiophiles claiming that the differences are huge, without even doing an audition...

Also, the Rotel RA-1062 is a 60 watt integrated being compared to a 200 watt Krell Integrated... the power difference alone could account for the Krell sounding much better...

So you liked a Krell/Monitor Audio combo? Interesting, that's not a combo I'd ever given any thought to....

[elapsed]

Hmmm... nothing wrong with you hearing a difference... my initial post is more about audiophiles claiming that the differences are huge, without even doing an audition...

Also, the Rotel RA-1062 is a 60 watt integrated being compared to a 200 watt Krell Integrated... the power difference alone could account for the Krell sounding much better...

So you liked a Krell/Monitor Audio combo? Interesting, that's not a combo I'd ever given any thought to....
Well see I made the purchase based only on the added resolution and detail I was hearing, not the musicality. The decision to buy was made in under a minute, on impulse (I can admit that the name brand had something to do with the purchase as well), and had nothing to do with the MA speakers. I then went on to purchase the speakers I now own without auditioning with the Krell, and the synergy was just awful. It was an expensive lesson! I then traded the Krell for a Naim integrated (the same one I originally auditioned my speakers with), and set myself on the right path again.

Which takes us to another point.. more detail does not equate more musicality. I've been saying this all along on the SACD vs CD and vinyl discussion. And on top of that, it's so much easier to build a system around synergy from the ground up, you stop worrying about the equipment so much and can just relax and enjoy the music, which is what it's about in the first place! I wish I'd known these things when I first started building my system.

cheers,
elapsed

[IBSTORMIN]

Even adding just one tube piece of equipment (like a DAC, preamp or amp) can have a nice effect on the sound.

Does someone make tube CD players? I would like to start there and see if I like the sound. If so, could you recommend a few I could look for used?

[pixelthis]

Does someone make tube CD players? I would like to start there and see if I like the sound. If so, could you recommend a few I could look for used?


They are called "hybrids" and about the only thing the tube does is introduce harmonic distortion.
If you replaced everything in a C.D player with tubes the resulting C.D player would
be the size of the USS RONALD REGAN.
Maybe bigger.
You will have to look them up yourself, I dont waste time on nonsense.
A "tube" C.D player is like having a Buick with a horse attached to the front.:1:

[02audionoob]

Does someone make tube CD players? I would like to start there and see if I like the sound. If so, could you recommend a few I could look for used?

You could have a look at Jolida...

http://www.jolida.com/catalogue/components.shtml

[IBSTORMIN]

They are called "hybrids" and about the only thing the tube does is introduce harmonic distortion.
If you replaced everything in a C.D player with tubes the resulting C.D player would
be the size of the USS RONALD REGAN.
Maybe bigger.
You will have to look them up yourself, I dont waste time on nonsense.
A "tube" C.D player is like having a Buick with a horse attached to the front.:1:

Pix, I was not asking you as I already know better. Do you know how to say anything without being caustic? You really need to either cut out the drugs.....or take more because they are not working.

[Ajani]

Does someone make tube CD players? I would like to start there and see if I like the sound. If so, could you recommend a few I could look for used?

I'd suggest trying something like this:

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?accstwek&1235326834&/Musical-Fidelity-X-10v3-Tube-B

It's a cheap way to get tube sound in your system and if you don't like it, you can sell it for the price you paid for it....

Pix is right in some sense... tube tech is old and outdated, but frankly, who cares? If you like the way they sound, then have fun... Nothing wrong with riding a horse instead of driving a car...

[02audionoob]

Old technology isn't necessarily outdated. Look at how old the combustion engine technology is. I don't suppose you see one of those around, anymore...oh, wait...maybe you do.

[IBSTORMIN]

I'd suggest trying something like this:

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?accstwek&1235326834&/Musical-Fidelity-X-10v3-Tube-B

It's a cheap way to get tube sound in your system and if you don't like it, you can sell it for the price you paid for it....

Pix is right in some sense... tube tech is old and outdated, but frankly, who cares? If you like the way they sound, then have fun... Nothing wrong with riding a horse instead of driving a car...

thanks for your reply Ajani. I asked what warm sound is. Blackraven described it and suggested I try and see if I liked the tube sound. i wasn't sure what to try and a really good CD player would appeal to me, and I thought it would not cost as much as a pre or amp. Bad idea I guess. Putting something in the line to change the sound just seems wrong to me when I have been trying to get the signal as clean as possible to my speakers. Am I wrong? Maybe trying a tube pre-amp would be a better idea? But then the tube pre would have to be the same quality as what I am used to, or better, or it is time wasted. Maybe staying with what I have, being happy with it, sitting and listening would be a good idea for awhile.

[blackraven]

Here's a few hybrid CD players-

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=VICDS1.1

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=VICDS6

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=SLT1000SE

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=SLCD3000

If your looking for a Tube sound consider a tube DAC like the Monarchy M24
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue25/monarchy_m24.htm

[blackraven]

IBSTORMIN, if your interested in the tube sound, consider a Van Alstine Tube preamp or DAC or even one of his hybrids. He has a 30 day return policy.

[RGA]

IBSTORMIN

First with regards to tubes it is important to really get at the heart of the vocabulary out there and see if it really matches with yours. One person's neutral is another person's etchy over analytical and bright. One person's warm is another person's neutral and another person's muddy or mushy. And depending on the rest of the system it's possible to get varying results.

I shoot for neutral and would prefer it to lean the darker side of the spectrum if it has to lean one direction - simply because a "warmer" system or "veiled" if you will will be more enjoyable to listen to for longer periods than one that perceptually screams at you - even if the owner feels it is more accurate or more neutral if it irritates the hell out of you and you leave it off then all you have is the satisfaction of believing your gear is technologically superb.

This is why Aczel and the types don't impress me. He's not exactly the most honest guy around to begin with and was drubbed out of the high end audio community for reviewing his own stuff and when he got caught he suddenly became a raging naysayer.

I digress. Tube amps and tube CD players should not be purchased to "warm" things up or to fix loudspeaker shortcummings or anything else. They like SS should be auditioned with complimentary gear and evaluated against a similarly priced competitor.

My tube amp is 10 watts and it simply won't be a good match with most loudspeakers - however when it is a match, look out!

My suggestion is to listen to a "good" High Efficient speaker with "good" SET amplification to hear what such a system can offer. I was a Bryston/Krell/Classe B&W type and I simply can't go back to that stuff. You'll find that the vast majority of SET/HE system owners all has high powered Solid State amps and big name speakers - they listened made the switch and you barely read that they ever go back.

What specifically to try - well I would point to Audio Note because 1) I own it and know it and 2) it should sufficiently give you an idea of what some of the best tube DACs and tube amplifiers are capable of producing.

This review is from a Bryston/PMC owner who had the top stuff from these guys. The better HE/Tube systems are not warm not analytical - they're "right" and it's hard to improve on that and very few companies get there. This fellow was in a similar boat as you http://www.audioasylum.com/reviews/Other/Audio-Note/Level-3-system/general/345133.html

If on the other hand you want Big power SS sounding tube amps but with less irritating grain because you have tough to drive speakers then the Grant Fidelity Rita would be a great option.

[elapsed]

This review is from a Bryston/PMC owner who had the top stuff from these guys. The better HE/Tube systems are not warm not analytical - they're "right" and it's hard to improve on that and very few companies get there. This fellow was in a similar boat as you http://www.audioasylum.com/reviews/Other/Audio-Note/Level-3-system/general/345133.html
Great post right there... highly worth the read, thanks RGA!

cheers,
elapsed

[Feanor]

Great post right there... highly worth the read, thanks RGA!

cheers,
elapsed

A beautifully written epistle for the Audio Note religion.

elapsed, rush out and sell your Fidelity Acoustics speakers and all that Naim solid state rubbish you've got.

[Ajani]

A beautifully written epistle for the Audio Note religion.

elapsed, rush out and sell your Fidelity Acoustics speakers and all that Naim solid state rubbish you've got.

LOL... yeah... that was more fanatical devotion than a useful review... but it did have some good points... at the end of the day, it's all about enjoying the sound not just technical measurements, PRAT, Detail, resolution, imaging, dynamic impact, whatever...

As I will say till I die... if you don't like the way it sounds, don't buy it!!!

[Ajani]

Well see I made the purchase based only on the added resolution and detail I was hearing, not the musicality. The decision to buy was made in under a minute, on impulse (I can admit that the name brand had something to do with the purchase as well), and had nothing to do with the MA speakers. I then went on to purchase the speakers I now own without auditioning with the Krell, and the synergy was just awful. It was an expensive lesson! I then traded the Krell for a Naim integrated (the same one I originally auditioned my speakers with), and set myself on the right path again.

Which takes us to another point.. more detail does not equate more musicality. I've been saying this all along on the SACD vs CD and vinyl discussion. And on top of that, it's so much easier to build a system around synergy from the ground up, you stop worrying about the equipment so much and can just relax and enjoy the music, which is what it's about in the first place! I wish I'd known these things when I first started building my system.

cheers,
elapsed

I think many of us have made similar mistakes.... My first budget 'audiophile' setup was bought with a short audition, based really on reviews.... I bought a NAD C352 Integrated, NAD C521bee CD Player and Mission V63 Towers... all of those products were the best value for my money (according to reviews)... I had that setup for 2 years, and while it was never fatiguing or irritating.... I just found it boring and uninvolving... not warm or sweet... later on, when I started trading out component for Rotels and Marantz and auditioned B&W, Revel, Monitor Audio and Musical Fidelity, I learned that for the same money I spent on my initial setup, I could have put together something I would have enjoyed far more....

[elapsed]

A beautifully written epistle for the Audio Note religion.

elapsed, rush out and sell your Fidelity Acoustics speakers and all that Naim solid state rubbish you've got.
Lol that's the funny thing about Naim, it's the only system that I have ever listened to that actually plays music, none of this hifi nonsense. I've yet to hear any other system that gets my toes tapping. Sounds very similar to the tube analogy ;)

cheers,
elapsed

[E-Stat]

Does someone make tube CD players? I would like to start there and see if I like the sound. If so, could you recommend a few I could look for used?
Such has been available for some time. I bought a used Manley Sigma Delta DAC from the mid 90s for the vintage system which uses a tube line stage and has gain controls. I use it to drive a Threshold amp directly dispensing with one active gain stage. It offers much better resolution than the *lower* distortion op amps built into the CD players I've used with it.

There is much discussion over "tube sound". Indeed, you can find many earlier examples (usually using poor passive components and weak power supplies) that have a distinct personality. Most modern tube gear does not. Listen to any number of current preamp designs like the VTL 6.5/7.5 or an Audio Research REF3 and tell me those are colored. I used to obsess over THD stats when I was a teenager back in the 70s. Then I heard an Audio Research SP-3a1 compared to the vastly *lower* distortion Crown IC-150. There was no comparison between those models when listening to music. I quickly learned that such simplistic analysis provides little useful information when dynamic music content is concerned. Distortion with tube line stages typically runs in the 0.1% range anyway.

rw

[RGA]

A beautifully written epistle for the Audio Note religion.

elapsed, rush out and sell your Fidelity Acoustics speakers and all that Naim solid state rubbish you've got.

I suppose it may look that way but an awful lot of audiophiles who own Audio Note are in their 60s and have owned a lot of other stuff. It's an end of the road company for most. From all the Naim and Musical Fidelity and Bryston that gets traded in for Audio Note at Soundhounds in Victoria at least to those people there was a reason and since it doesn't seem to ever go the other way around it may not be such bad advice you gave to Elapsed. While I always recommend an audition first - I have heard Naim, Bryston, MF over the last 2 decades. I'll stand by my preference.

And maybe it would be advisable for you to actually listen to a complete set-up for a few hours. I have heard most of the stuff that you own and I would be willing to bet you'd join the "religion" if you bothered to listen instead of taking ignorant uninformed pot shots on internet forums about stuff you've never heard.

That was my point from the review I posted. Here is a long time audiophile who has lived and breathed high power solid state professional speakers used in MANY recording studios all around the world. Not someone who posts all the time - rarely in fact. And then along comes something that makes him inspired. Fanaticism is the better word not religion - no one buys Audio Note because of words - in fact the words probably hinder them more than anything. Something makes you a fan because of the performance. One is a fan of Bonds because he hits better than anyone else, or a Ferrari because it's an elite automotive machine.

It's a shame you slam what you have not heard. Being a fan of gear may be unusual but since there is so little that is very good when it does come along you want to sing about it. Audio Note is one of the few that generates that passion and usually has people trading stuff and selling stuff to get it and very very rarely the other way around.

I'm not saying it's best because I've not heard everything - but for someone who wants to hear what SET amps are capable of, what the best Tube DACs are capable of, what elite turntables are capable of, what two way easy to drive loudspeakers are capable of, I will make the case that Audio Note falls in the "Elite" camp. Certainly one may prefer stuff from other companies or technologies - but I was responding to someone interested in trying tube gear. Audio Note makes tube gear - they're considered the top or at the very least the handful of top tube gear makers on the planet by every audio publication in print or not and by their competitors. That is worth auditioning and is a better representation of the best tubes than Jolida or the like in my view. Not because Jolida is bad but they don't make the elite stuff.

[Ajani]

I forgot to add that the part of the 'review' that I found to be really silly is where he talks about his $30K Bryston setup but deliberately doesn't mention how much the audio note gear he auditioned and bought costs.... From what I've seen online, Audio Note gear is not remotely cheap, so he may have spent even more on his new setup...

[RGA]

Ajani

That's a fair point - no one said he spent half the money or anything. The fact remains that better gear in fact does cost money even though many people who can't afford it like to insist that whatever they can personally afford is the best and that others who spend more are just nuts and not getting any value. It makes them feel better about themselves and their financial limitations but it's hardly the truth.

I work out a level three system being on par with his other gear. About $13k for the cd player combo and depending what else he chose for the front end $30k-$40k for the system would seem about right depending if he also purchased a vinyl rig and which preamp he chose.

Though it should be noted that the system that actually came to his house was considerably less money and that is what he evaluated. The fact that he may have spent more for himself is something else.

I personally feel (total subjective opinion) a level two system would have been enough to be more musically satisfying than Bryston PMC and that would run $9-$15k.

The prices have gone up a fair bit due to the dollar too so the new prices here http://www.amherstaudio.com/ are considerably higher than at the time of that review.

Bob was a reviewer for Positive feedback and a dealer and he liked AN so much that he dropped the reviewing and became a dealer for them.

Another person I have talked to and we seem to share the same hearing of things: To IBSTORMIN - The AN Tube DACs I feel is worth auditioning because you may feel the same way

"My journey to Audio Note's digital products, which is how I met the company, began, in its serious stage with a Krell MDT2 & SBP64X, zigged wildly to a Sonic Frontier SFT1 & SFT2-II, zagged partway back to a Naim CDX/XPS and then on to a CDS2, sampling a Meridian, a better Krell, a BAT, an Audio Aero, a Wadia, and an Accuphase along the way! The arrival at Audio Note was a delightful surprise that dramatically altered my expectations and increased my happiness. It is the first digital front end I have heard that does full justice to both new state of the art recordings and early 60's jazz. And perhaps more important, every AN digital front end I've heard so far outperforms comparable SACD players, comparing separate CD and SACD recordings. Yes, CD's on the AN rigs beat SACD's on the SACD players."

[Ajani]

Ajani

That's a fair point - no one said he spent half the money or anything.

I still feel he should have listed the price of the gear he auditioned and what he eventually bought, or left out the cost of the Bryston gear he previously owned...



The fact remains that better gear in fact does cost money even though many people who can't afford it like to insist that whatever they can personally afford is the best and that others who spend more are just nuts and not getting any value. It makes them feel better about themselves and their financial limitations but it's hardly the truth.

That's so true... too often we hear people claiming that any amount above what they spent is a waste of money...

On the other hand we also see what I consider to be totally untrue: the claim that anything below the ultra-expensive luxury gear, that some audiophiles own, is rubbish, low-fi, noise makers etc.. etc... Good sound can be had fairly cheaply, but you can always get better sound by spending lots more money...

How much you should spend on audio is really based on whether you think a particular upgrade is worth the money... I've found that I generally have to triple my budget for any component, to see substantial improvements in sound quality.... How much I'm willing to spend is then more a result of my available cash than anything else....

[elapsed]

On the other hand we also see what I consider to be totally untrue: the claim that anything below the ultra-expensive luxury gear, that some audiophiles own, is rubbish, low-fi, noise makers etc.. etc... Good sound can be had fairly cheaply, but you can always get better sound by spending lots more money...
I beg to differ, I've heard several systems in dedicated auditioning rooms, ranging from $50,000 to $250,000 that I think are outclassed by my (modest in comparison) system. And all too often, that money could be much better allocated towards a better room. From my experience the law of diminishing returns for a stereo system kicks in around $5,000, anything better and you'll need to double your budget.


How much you should spend on audio is really based on whether you think a particular upgrade is worth the money... I've found that I generally have to triple my budget for any component, to see substantially improvements in sound quality.... How much I'm willing to spend is then more a result of my available cash than anything else....
I'll agree with you there that I can get substantial gains by tripling my budget for any component, but quite honestly I can't see myself ever upgrading my components again, I've extremely content with my present system. I couldn't imagine spending $11,000 on a CD player to get an improvement over my current system. The only fun I may have in the future is small tweaks (interconnects, power cables, turntable platter, etc), or upgrading my speakers.

cheers,
elapsed

[Ajani]

I beg to differ, I've heard several systems in dedicated auditioning rooms, ranging from $50,000 to $250,000 that I think are outclassed by my (modest in comparison) system. And all too often, that money could be much better allocated towards a better room. From my experience the law of diminishing returns for a stereo system kicks in around $5,000, anything better and you'll need to double your budget.

Actually, I think we're still making the same point (for the most part)... when I talk about spending more money... I don't mean just tossing around cash... Buying a $15K amp from a brand you don't like (sonically) is probably going to give you a far less satisfying sound than a $2K amp from a brand you really like... What I was referring to was spending money on brands you really like... so in your case, upgrading from your current Naims to maybe the $30K Naim stuff... I'm sure it'll sound better, but is the extra money worth it to you?

$5K is a reasonable point to talk about diminishing returns... but I've moved away from believing that there is a specific point at which price to performance lessens... For $2K I could put together a satisfying Tower, Integrated and CD Combo, for $5K I could put together a better one, for $15K even better... + You need to keep in mind that all this depends on the size of the room I plan to use the setup in and my required volume levels... with a smaller space and lower volume requirements I can get away with Towers that are not truly full range or even bookshelves and more modest amplification... while if I have a very large room, then I'd likely need to spend a lot more for larger speakers and powerful amplification...


I'll agree with you there that I can get substantial gains by tripling my budget for any component, but quite honestly I can't see myself ever upgrading my components again, I've extremely content with my present system. I couldn't imagine spending $11,000 on a CD player to get an improvement over my current system. The only fun I may have in the future is small tweaks (interconnects, power cables, turntable platter, etc), or upgrading my speakers.

cheers,
elapsed

I hear you on that... I can't imagine spending more than what your setup costs (MSRP).... well not unless I win the lottery, in which case $20K speakers might seem like a reasonable use of money....

[elapsed]

I hear you on that... I can't imagine spending more than what your setup costs (MSRP).... well not unless I win the lottery, in which case $20K speakers might seem like a reasonable use of money....
Well now winning the lottery is a whole other story.. in that case I'd run out and purchase Sonus Faber Stradivari Homage loudspeakers, with a new Naim 282/250 system and a fully loaded Linn LP12. Now that would be the last system I'd ever own! But honestly my current system makes me smile just as much as I would spending 6x as much on this upgrade, plus it feels great having saved for 3 years to build it.

cheers,
elapsed

[RGA]

The money issue aside and individual perceived value aside in general more expensive systems sound better than less expensive systems. Of course I agree that if you don't really care for the sound of a particular amp line and a particular speaker then their $50k set-up you may like less than a $5k set-up from someone else. That happens for everyone.

Ajani the poster did not list the price for the good reason's he mentioned - owning a 20k GBP rig which back then was $45k Cad that he built up before he was married and then dropping large coin with the wife possibly reading is not a big deal since level 3 Audio Note is pretty easy to look up. The stuff that arrive at his house was pretty inexpensive and about 1/4 the money of his then current gear.

Diminishing return is something few companies get around. I have found that for every upgrade in the AN world at least the upgrade has been rather substantial. A level three is miles better than level two which is in another league completely from level 1 or level zero.

But these upgrades are wholesale system changes or mostly. That is why I am more of a system approach kind of person. You could add a $20k amp to your system and not hear much of a difference merely because many other factors in the chain are not good enough to resolve the improvement in the new amp.

Even within AN lines they don't recommend going too far with particular components because the improvement won't be resolved by lower level gear. Having heard it they're correct - so if they can't do it within their own line - I don't see how most anyone else using mixed and matched set-ups can possibly get there. what with completely different design beliefs goals, technological skills and miss matches abound.

Some components have higher degrees of change than others too it should be pointed out. More expensive turntable rigs yield a far far higher level of improvement to most cd players or SS amplifiers. The difference in sound from a 3b to 14b is less sonic and more about power and with efficient speakers the sonic differences may be negligible despite spending a lot more money. YBA's Integre DT was not bettered sonically by their $10k separates but they could drive inefficient speakers.

Tube amps are a little more deceptive because of the variety of designs. The SORO is $2k more than the OTO and they sound very different - some like the SORO much better in which case the laws of diminishing returns is blown to the weeds. But many also prefer the darker silkier OTO in which case spending more for them doesn't get them more and in fact to them gets them less.

I am of the view that I would rather spend $15k on something that is truly great rather than spending $3k on something that may very well be 80% of the 15k system but that really doesn't do it for me. People always talk of high stereo prices but will be fine with spending $40k on a car where a $15k would have been just as good at doing what cars were meant to do - point a to point b. The $15k is likely to do it better in fact if the Lemon Aid is correct (and they usually are).

$20k on a speaker that could provide 30 years of entertainment value ain't such a bad thing.

[elapsed]

Here you go.. an author whom I respect who loves both solid-state (Naim of course) and tube: http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl51.html

More articles by The Vinyl Anachronist here, all great reads: http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinylanachronist.html

cheers,
elapsed

[IBSTORMIN]

Another person I have talked to and we seem to share the same hearing of things: To IBSTORMIN - The AN Tube DACs I feel is worth auditioning because you may feel the same way

RGA, does this mean you are also cursed with a "Golden Ear"?

Norm

[RGA]

I am more of a value for the dollar kind of guy. And I get the irony since I very much like Audio Note and they're one of those silly makers of cost no object nearly million dollar 2 channel stereo companies if you went whole hog.

I can be perfectly happy listening to my iPod and $40 AKG 26p headphones. The whole audiophile epidemic is just that - it's boys with toys (and some girls sprinkled into the mix).

I recently reviewed Grant Fidelity which is up my ally - excellent sound for a great price. I am more about high musical satisfaction and less anal audiophile terminology.

I suppose though the more you hear the less able you can go back. Most folks start with SS and some kind of hard to drive speakers - the ones who eventually go to SET and HE speakers rarely if ever go back. Most people are unfortunate and have no dealers carrying such systems which is a shame. Perhaps tubes scare them (and there are some good reasons for that) and HE speakers tend to be considerably uglier and more expensive to do well. But luckily affordable Tubes from the likes of Grant Fidelity and ASL are out there.

[IBSTORMIN]

I'd suggest trying something like this:

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?accstwek&1235326834&/Musical-Fidelity-X-10v3-Tube-B

It's a cheap way to get tube sound in your system and if you don't like it, you can sell it for the price you paid for it....

Ajani suggested this and RGA was just praising Grant Fidelity. I do not have much money right now to spend on upgrades and not sure what I want. I see Grant Fidelity has a store on E-bay and has a special on what looks to be similar, their B-283 Tube Processor regularly $219 for $150.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140269644695&_trksid=p3907.m32&_trkparms=tab%3DWatching

Which would you suggest I try - Musical or Grant?

[Feanor]

Here you go.. an author whom I respect who loves both solid-state (Naim of course) and tube: http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl51.html

More articles by The Vinyl Anachronist here, all great reads: http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinylanachronist.html

cheers,
elapsed

Who is this Mark Phillips guy anyway?

I sampled his articles ... I was going to say "same old vinyl gospel", but then noticed they were some years ago, so maybe it wasn't so old back then.

[E-Stat]

Ajani suggested this and RGA was just praising Grant Fidelity. I do not have much money right now to spend on upgrades and not sure what I want. I see Grant Fidelity has a store on E-bay and has a special on what looks to be similar, their B-283 Tube Processor regularly $219 for $150.
Don't get me wrong. I use tubes in the required gain stages in both my music systems. Triodes running class A are excellent output devices. On the other hand, I cannot imagine how any additional and otherwise superfluous stage can *fix* the sins of that which precedes it. A perfect gain stage can only render the circuit unchanged. Any *correction* itself would necessarily be added distortion. My suggestion would be to improve the quality of the building blocks, not add band aids.

rw

[Feanor]

Don't get me wrong. I use tubes in the required gain stages in both my music systems. Triodes running class A are excellent output devices. On the other hand, I cannot imagine how any additional and otherwise superfluous stage can *fix* the sins of that which precedes it. A perfect gain stage can only render the circuit unchanged. Any *correction* itself would necessarily be added distortion. My suggestion would be to improve the quality of the building blocks, not add band aids.

rw

'Stat, you answered the question. The tube 'buffers" do what tubes do in general: they add low-order harmonic distortion to the signal. This type of distortion has been proven to sound pleasant. It adds the things tubes are praised for: warmth, body, harmonic richness, depth, an "organic" quality -- or the semblance of these things. Also, where relevant, tubes' low order distortion masks the unpleasant, high order distortion present in s/s amps that use a lot of negative feedback. I strongly suspect they this distortion works to mask certain nasty digital effects such as jitter.

Thus a significant portion of the tube advantage can be obtained inserting a simple tube circuit basically any where in the signal path, even if that tube circuit is just unity gain buffer. I have explained all this before but people don't listen. (Let me remind everyone that I'm a tube user myself.)

[RGA]

That is unfortunately over simplified because everyone on another forum using the GF device and who has also heard good Tubes will tell you the GF device is not even remotely as good. But it certainly may very well be a good cheap way to "improve" the sound of SS. So rather than knock all Tube designs for being euphonic and masking the "true accurate path" of SS why not attack SS by saying that it's so damn unlistenable that a $200 Tube stage can make SS sound remotely tolerable.

I have had Bryston, Arcam and numerous SS amps in my home. There is not a single aspect of sound reproduction that my tube amp does not win in with the exception of noise floor and power in numbers and even there you'd need measuring equipment to tell. It is clearer in the treble has deeper richer bass, transient attack is faster, clearer, more open and decay is 3 dimensional. See the post of the Brystom PMC owner.

Unfortunately not all tube amps are created equal and the differences are far higher than SS. Some tube amps sound veiled and hissy and mushy. Some are not and it sounds like you have heard none of the "some are not" spectrum.

Why SET? (well besides the fact that they sound far better for a fraction of the price?

"Once, having established that all audio signals can be expressed as a change in amplitude over some period of time, or DeltaA/DeltaT, the function of all sound system equipment can be easily defined. For instance, an amplifier performs simple multiplication resulting in an output signal which can be expressed as G(DeltaA/DeltaT) or GDeltaA/DeltaT, where G is the gain of the amplifier and DeltaA/DeltaT is the input signal. From this representation it can be seen that all changes in amplitude must be magnified by the same factor (i.e. the Gain of the amplifier) and the time base (DeltaT) must remain unchanged, independent of all other considerations. This leads to the discovery of the only two families of real distortions that can and do exist in audio systems.

Such amplitude distortion can assume two forms, harmonic and non-harmonic. Harmonic distortion (the most commonly and easily measured anomaly in audio components) is generally caused by non-linearities in the electrical characteristics of the amplification devices. Such distortion is "harmonic", as the number of zero crossings in the error wave form in an integral multiple of the number of zero crossings in the fundamental. Additionally, the value of the distortion signal will always be zero at the zero crossing point of the fundamental. A small amount of this type of distortion is inaudible as it does not drastically alter the shape of the waveform and does not affect the zero crossing point.

Non-harmonic amplitude distortions are generally caused by network anomalies. Such phenomena as slew rate limiting, clipping, and transient distortions result in non-harmonic distortion components which not only alter the shape of the signal waveform, but can change the zero crossing point, as these elements may have some real value, when the input signal is at zero.

This leads to the second major family of distortion; time base distortion. Time base distortion occurs when the DeltaT term of the signal equation is altered. The zero crossing point displacement described above is a form of time base distortion. Modulation of pulse width, or a change in the delay time between signal "events" also constitute time base distortions. These distortions are the most audible as our auditory system can more easily detect duration and delay than amplitude.

[Good SE Tube amplifiers] do not make use of any kind of feedback. As a result, they were neither designed for vanishingly small harmonic or low intermodulation distortions, but instead for minimal non-harmonic and time base anomalies.

[Good SE Tube amplifiers] are all using directly heated power triodes in their output stages, and miniature double triodes in their high-gain and driver stages. Their function were defined before their circuitry was conceived, as constant multiplication of amplitude over a totally non-varying time base, with a view to maintaining power output into a varying load.

During the development of these amplifiers using direct heated power triodes, most accepted amplifier design practices had to be ignored, as investigations into their implementation showed circuits with variability of gain with amplitude, time and signal duration, as well as variability of time delay with amplitude, signal duration and signal delay. What has resulted are amplifier circuits which operate optimally and non-varyingly for all signal and load conditions. Where compromises have been necessary between maximally linear amplitude response, and optimum time base performance, the design parameters have always been adjusted to favour the latter. With the superior linearity and load characteristics of the directly heated power triode, whose circuit configurations naturally lend themselves to the defined functions.

The design practices most obviously eschewed in the development of [Good SE Tube amplifiers] (using direct heated power triodes) is the use of negative or local feedback. Negative feedback, quite simply, is the application of an inverted portion of an amplifier's output signal to its input terminals. This "extra" signal is subtracted from the input and serves to reduce the effective amplifier gain (as the input signal is then smaller). In addition, steady state distortion is thought to be reduced as the out-of-phase distortion components contained in the feedback signal cancels out some of the errors created by the amplifier circuitry.

This scheme presents two very obvious problems. Firstly, all amplifiers introduce some delay to passing a signal from its input, to its output and then back to its input. During this delay period, a feedback amplifier is operating at its natural (referred to as "open-loop") gain. It is not until this initial delay period is over, that the circuit begins to exhibit its intended operating ("closed loop") gain characteristics. There must be, by the very definition of a feedback system, some change in the gain factor G, during the transition from open to closed loop operation. This gain modulation would probably not be audible by itself, as the propagation delays of most good amplifiers are quite small, except that the increased gain of the amplifier during the initialization period results in a decreased maximum input capability before overload. Simply put, an amplifier which utilizes 20 dB of feedback (a relatively modest amount by modern standards) and requires an input of two volts to clip during closed loop operation, would overload with only two tenths of a volt input during the forward delay period. Once the amplifier is overdriven, it may take many times its delay period to become fully restored to normal operation. The distortion created by this condition has been commonly referred to as Transient Intermodulation Distortion (TIM), Dynamic Intermodulation Distortion (DIM), and Slew Induced Distortion (SID).

In addition to this obvious form of feedback induced distortion, there exists another more subtle effect of signal regeneration. Because all amplifiers have some forward propagation delay, the fed back portion of the output signal will always lag behind the input. There is therefore a constant introduction of "out of date" information into the amplifier. Under transient conditions (which is what music is; transients), this results in the presentation of an error correction signal intended to reduce the distortion of an input signal which has already passed through the amplifier and is either already out of the circuit or well on the way out of the circuit. The signal present at the input by the time the feedback has arrived may bear no relation to the previous signal and thus will not be properly acted upon by the regenerated information. The current input signal is then distorted once, through the subtraction of an erroneous feedback waveform, and again by the amplifier. Additionally, the error signal present in feedback is passed through the amplifier and again fed back, with all of the newly created distortions, to make yet another trip through the circuit, until it is allowed to decay through successive attenuation. Thus, a distortion signal which originally may have lasted only a few microseconds, can pass through the amplifier enough times for its effective duration to have exceeded the threshold of human audibility. The mechanism originally designed to reduce audible distortion, actually, under transient conditions, serves to regenerate, emphasize and, in fact, create distortion.

Because Good SE Tube amplifiers operate totally without signal feedback, such distortion regeneration does not take place. The circuits have been designed for maximum linearity without corrective mechanisms, and thus responds as easily to transient signals as it does to steady state waveforms. The amplifiers make no attempt to reverse the path of time in order to correct their own errors. Those distortions created by these circuits (which are almost entirely harmonic in nature) are allowed to pass only onto the loudspeaker, and not back to the input.

Despite the absence of feedback, the forward propogation delay of all our amplifiers has received much attention. All our output transformers have been designed using this criterion, obviously with a keen eye on cost. It is obvious that if this delay is not absolutely invariant, for all conditions, the DeltaT component of the input signal will not be accurately preserved. Thus, those factors which determine delay have been carefully observed and stabilized. In addition, the operation of all amplification stages at nearly constant power, independent of signal conditions, i.e. Class A operation at every stage, greatly contributes to the symmetry and linearity of our circuits.

It is, however, not enough for an amplifier to operate linearly by itself. In order to minimize audible distortions, the device must be able to operate as well into a real loudspeaker as it does into a laboratory resistive load.

In order to adequately control the cone excursions of the loudspeaker and to optimize power transfer, the effective output impedance of the amplifier should be as far below the impedance of the load as possible. The ratio of these two impedances is referred to a damping factor, usually referenced to an eight ohm speaker. Thus, a damping factor of eighty reflects an amplifier output impedance of one tenth of one ohm. The design of the output transformer is extremely critical, and taps on the output are normally provided to match the load impedance best possible.

A problem in the normal expression of damping factor is that its measurement is performed using steady state signals. This results in a factor relying quite heavily on the action of an amplifier's feedback. The damping ability of an amplifier under transient conditions, before the feedback mechanism has been able to reach, is only accurately expressed as the steady state damping factor divided by the feedback factor. Thus, an amplifier with twenty decibels of feedback and specified damping factor of one hundred, has a damping value of only ten under transient conditions. This not only reduces the amplifier's ability to control the cone movement, but allows voltages created in the speaker voice coil to mix with the output signal and enter the amplifier's feedback system. In this condition, distortions created by the speaker's motion are not only unattenuated, but are emphasized through feedback regeneration."

[Good SE Tube] no-feedback amplifier's damping ability remains constant at all signal conditions.

[Feanor]

Thanks, RGA, that quote brought together the things I've heard about SET designs.

At risk of over simplification, tubes make excellent voltage amplification devices and are will suited to applications such as preamplfiers and analog stages of, say, CD players. As main amplifiers, SET designs very limited in total power output of 30-40 watts being the maximum; or "purer" designs to perhaps 10-12 watts as alluded to in the quoted article -- I'm not sure of the particulars. Most people are not willing to live with that limitation as it is too restrictive of the type of loudspeaker that can be used. (A SET device might make a great headphone amp, I guess).

High power tube amplifiers exist but these designs start to loose the advantages described in the quote. Nevertheless these designs can be very fine, (such as E-Stats VTL amps), but they certainly don't have the advantage of low cost that you mentioned.

Meanwhile solid state amps can be designed with minimal feedback or even none at all. I gather designs that use zero feedback in the output stages are fairly common, (for example the Monarchy amp that I'm using).

[E-Stat]

Also, where relevant, tubes' low order distortion masks the unpleasant, high order distortion present in s/s amps that use a lot of negative feedback... I have explained all this before but people don't listen. (Let me remind everyone that I'm a tube user myself.)
So how does the "good" distortion mask the bad distortion? Especially given the fact that the magnitudes of distortion for line stages are typically in the 0.01-0.03% range if not lower. Unless of course this buffer design, unlike any line stage, has added deliberately high levels of distortion to achieve this effect. The theory would also suggest that this masking effect would hide the *real" distortion profile of sources upstream of the tubes. A Toshiba 3950 still sounds harder and less dimensional than a GamuT CD-1 through those VTL amps. I hear significant differences in apparent hardness of various CDs through the Manley Sigma Delta DAC / linestage.

If you recall, I have an Audio Research preamp, but use it solely for vinyl. Since the GamuT has sufficient drive to power the amps directly and bypass the unit altogether, I can truly compare what it does to the signal. What I find is that is that the preamp shrinks the image width (likely due to the volume/balance control as its measured separation is relatively poor) and reduces resolution as I find every gain stage does to an extent. The theory would suggest that things would be better, not worse, with the unit in the path.

It adds the things tubes are praised for: warmth, body, harmonic richness, depth, an "organic" quality

Or choice "B", preserves such qualities when they are present in the recording. I have numerous examples of CDs and vinyl alike in my collection that do NOT exhibit those desirable traits when run through either music system containing tube components. The Best of the Hollies, for example, has always sounded thin, flat, one-dimensional and a bit hard regardless of the system on which I play it. I listen to it solely for sentimental reasons as it brings back pleasant memories from my childhood. Unfortunately, this is just one example of the "bad-stuff-sounds-worse-on-good-gear" phenomenon. I forgot exactly what piece it was, but something I brought to Sea Cliff once sounded almost unlistenable with its sins laid bare on the spectacular all tube system there.

I don't find that any really good tube gear can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

rw

[Ajani]

At risk of over simplification, tubes make excellent voltage amplification devices and are will suited to applications such as preamplfiers and analog stages of, say, CD players. As main amplifiers, SET designs very limited in total power output of 30-40 watts being the maximum; or "purer" designs to perhaps 10-12 watts as alluded to in the quoted article -- I'm not sure of the particulars. Most people are not willing to live with that limitation as it is too restrictive of the type of loudspeaker that can be used. (A SET device might make a great headphone amp, I guess).

Yep... probably one of the most convenient places to put tubes is in a Preamp or analog stage of a CD Player... that's what Musical Fidelity does... that way they get some of the benefits of tubes, but the power etc.. of solid state...

One day I hope to listen to a low powered SET and a pair of HE Speakers.... I suspect that kind of system might be to my liking...

[Feanor]

So how does the "good" distortion mask the bad distortion? Especially given the fact that the magnitudes of distortion for line stages are typically in the 0.01-0.03% range if not lower. Unless of course this buffer design, unlike any line stage, has added deliberately high levels of distortion to achieve this effect. The theory would also suggest that this masking effect would hide the *real" distortion profile of sources upstream of the tubes. ...
But I think this masking does occur. People do report the "warmth, body, harmonic richness, depth, an 'organic' quality" resulting from the insertion of a simple, unity gain tube buffers. And I can reported based on my use of a tube preamp versus the passive preamp I used before.


...
I don't find that any really good tube gear can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.
...
Of course I agree with this.

[RGA]

There's no question that I prefer the SS amps from Sugden and Pass because of their pure class A and Single Ended no feedback approaches - I liked Sugden before I knew zilch about the technology so my ear led me to the conclusions not the technobabble. And no doubt there will be endless streams of counter argument to the technobabble anyway. Still IMO even the SS designs here really don't compete with good SE Tube amps IMO.

Power is the issue but that is being blown out of proportion as well. The room as well as the efficiency rating need to be looked at - big room LE speakers then yes the SETs are going to run into trouble but I said a million times - there just is no good reason for a speaker to be low efficient. My 10 watt tube amp can drive the Quads electrostatic very easily and loudly (well as far as Quads go anyway). Since I have not heard a cheaper panel from anyone else that is even remotely as good then I think SET and Panels are covered.

Then if you leave panels you're into box designs and here you have speakers like the AN E and J for medium rooms - 5 watts is more than enough to play deep bass at ear pain levels. For a larger room you have even more sensitive speakers like the Tannoy Westminster which can play even louder at even harder hitting levels with the same 5 watts. Most normal listening sessions do not require amps to go above a few watts. And anyone out there who claims otherwise simply has not done their homework by actually LISTENING to such systems.

The only reason to trade efficiency was for bass but that is simply not the case and enough speakers have illustrated that that is a fallacy. Keeping costs down is more likely the reason based on my listenng experience.

I get complaints from neighbors with my set-up, my keyboard bounces, the paintings shake. No I can't crack plaster but I didn't have my system up more than half way. And Feaner the AN J while easy to drive is not a pinnacle of efficiency. 89.5-93db depending on corners and while they don't dip much under 4 ohms this plays more than loud enough for any sane audiophile with a 10 watt amp (4.2 watts before distortion arises).

95db is loud and prolonged listening will damage your long term hearing. SETS are easily capable of that with resonably efficient speakers.

10 watts with reasonably efficient speakers is more power than you'll ever need. Rather than blaming the amp - I look at the speakers. Offer me better sound than the AN J or AN E or Westminster or Kensington or the 2905 etc and then show me why I need a 250 watt amp.

[Ajani]

There's no question that I prefer the SS amps from Sugden and Pass because of their pure class A and Single Ended no feedback approaches - I liked Sugden before I knew zilch about the technology so my ear led me to the conclusions not the technobabble. And no doubt there will be endless streams of counter argument to the technobabble anyway. Still IMO even the SS designs here really don't compete with good SE Tube amps IMO.

Power is the issue but that is being blown out of proportion as well. The room as well as the efficiency rating need to be looked at - big room LE speakers then yes the SETs are going to run into trouble but I said a million times - there just is no good reason for a speaker to be low efficient. My 10 watt tube amp can drive the Quads electrostatic very easily and loudly (well as far as Quads go anyway). Since I have not heard a cheaper panel from anyone else that is even remotely as good then I think SET and Panels are covered.

Then if you leave panels you're into box designs and here you have speakers like the AN E and J for medium rooms - 5 watts is more than enough to play deep bass at ear pain levels. For a larger room you have even more sensitive speakers like the Tannoy Westminster which can play even louder at even harder hitting levels with the same 5 watts. Most normal listening sessions do not require amps to go above a few watts. And anyone out there who claims otherwise simply has not done their homework by actually LISTENING to such systems.

The only reason to trade efficiency was for bass but that is simply not the case and enough speakers have illustrated that that is a fallacy. Keeping costs down is more likely the reason based on my listenng experience.

I get complaints from neighbors with my set-up, my keyboard bounces, the paintings shake. No I can't crack plaster but I didn't have my system up more than half way. And Feaner the AN J while easy to drive is not a pinnacle of efficiency. 89.5-93db depending on corners and while they don't dip much under 4 ohms this plays more than loud enough for any sane audiophile with a 10 watt amp (4.2 watts before distortion arises).

95db is loud and prolonged listening will damage your long term hearing. SETS are easily capable of that with resonably efficient speakers.

10 watts with reasonably efficient speakers is more power than you'll ever need. Rather than blaming the amp - I look at the speakers. Offer me better sound than the AN J or AN E or Westminster or Kensington or the 2905 etc and then show me why I need a 250 watt amp.

Good Post!

When I upgraded my first budget 'audiophile' setup from a 85 watt NAD Integrated amp to a 200 watt Rotel Pre/Power Combo, the difference in bass was not subtle (in fact that week was the first time I ever received a noise complaint from my neighbors)... I was pretty happy with the jump in power (and brand) and was set to look along the path of high power amps... Until I heard a 50 watt Musical Fidelity Integrated (with tubes in the preamp section) on speakers of the same 89db sensitivity and realized that raw power is not everything.... That experience alone makes me willing to consider low powered tube/Class A amplification... (kind of ironic since Musical Fidelity's big claim to fame in recent years has been mega watt amplification... yet they've convinced me of the benefit of lower powered amps).... Since my listening room is 15.6 x 11 ft (with high ceilings though, about 15 feet) I'm sure I could make do with a low powered amp...

[E-Stat]

But I think this masking does occur. People do report the "warmth, body, harmonic richness, depth, an 'organic' quality" resulting from the insertion of a simple, unity gain tube buffers.
Maybe they truly needed an impedance buffer! Here's one case where the addition of a tube buffer stage was superfluous: Musical Fidelity DAC (http://www.stereophile.com/digitalprocessors/208mfx/index.html) Another unit tested added some gain and admittedly helps some CDPs with weak op amp output stages: X-10D (http://www.stereophile.com/tubepreamps/873/index.html).


And I can reported based on my use of a tube preamp versus the passive preamp I used before.
"Warmth" can always be achieved via altered frequency response. Perhaps your SF is like older C-J units having a slightly chocolate flavor to their tonal balance. The MKII version of my preamp sounds leaner, but the output devices are unchanged.

rw

[Ajani]

Maybe they truly needed an impedance buffer! Here's one case where the addition of a tube buffer stage was superfluous: Musical Fidelity DAC (http://www.stereophile.com/digitalprocessors/208mfx/index.html) Another unit tested added some gain and admittedly helps some CDPs with weak op amp output stages: X-10D (http://www.stereophile.com/tubepreamps/873/index.html).


"Warmth" can always be achieved via altered frequency response. Perhaps your SF is like older C-J units having a slightly chocolate flavor to their tonal balance. The MKII version of my preamp sounds leaner, but the output devices are unchanged.

rw

I think this line in your second link best sums up the use of tube buffers:


With both these units, it will be very hard to predict whether or not they will work an improvement on the sound of any specific system.
.................................................. ..............
But more than usual, you should try to audition these units in your own system before you make a purchase decision.

But in fairness to the buffers, that quote is true of all audio products... Will a Passive Pre sound better than an Active? Will no Pre sound better than either Passive or Active? Will a Turntable sound better than a CD player? Will Tube sound better than Solid State? At the end of the day, you just have to try it for yourself to see if it works for you...

[Feanor]

...
"Warmth" can always be achieved via altered frequency response. Perhaps your SF is like older C-J units having a slightly chocolate flavor to their tonal balance. The MKII version of my preamp sounds leaner, but the output devices are unchanged.

rw

In fact the Sonic Frontiers are somewhat (in)famous for a solid state-like sound and are not archtypically tubey. Using the standard Sovtek tubes my SF sound remarkably like the Adcom GFP 750 I'd been using in passive mode.

I wanted a bit more of the tube sound but got a measure of it only after some tube rolling. My best result was with Amperex white label 'PQ' tubes.

[E-Stat]

Will no Pre sound better than either Passive or Active? Will a Turntable sound better than a CD player? Will Tube sound better than Solid State? At the end of the day, you just have to try it for yourself to see if it works for you...
I certainly agree about system matching considerations. Passive arrangements are highly sensitive to specific gain and impedance matching issues. Similarly, tube power amplifiers are not a good match for all speakers. Where my VTLs are wonderful with the stats, they are not so much with the Advents where a "lesser" Threshold sounds better.

I do not, however, believe that all tube gear make music better by "masking distortion". My experience suggests it has to do with the nature of their distortion spectra which is shared by a few SS designs as well.

rw

[Feanor]

...
Power is the issue but that is being blown out of proportion as well. The room as well as the efficiency rating need to be looked at - big room LE speakers then yes the SETs are going to run into trouble but I said a million times - there just is no good reason for a speaker to be low efficient.
...

I have heard of people driving Magneplanar MG 1.6's like mine quite happily with 35 watt tube amps such as the PrimaLuna ProLogue Four (http://www.primaluna-usa.com/prologue4.htm) or Five. Given I tend to listen a fairly low volumes, something like that might might well work for me. On the other hand there are certainly more people who insist that these Maggies sound better the more power you give them. I wouldn't know who is right without trying both in my own environment.

Meanwhile I'm quite content with my 120 wpc Monarchy SM-70 Pro's run as balanced monoblocks. I paid less from them than what a PrimaLuna ProLogue Four would have cost me.

I think nightflier mentioned that he like the MG 1.6s better with a Spectral amp than the Monarchys. Frankly this isn't hard to believe: the least expensive Spectrals are twice the MSRP of the Monarchys and almost four times the going price. I would covet a Spectral DMA-100S (http://www.spectralaudio.com/), or say a Pass Labs X150.5 (http://passlabs.com/pdf/product%20lit/x.5-xa.5-amps.pdf), or Ayre V-5xe (http://www.ayre.com/products_detail.cfm?productid=8) far more than any tube amp even in their $5000 range.

[Ajani]

I have heard of people driving Magneplanar MG 1.6's like mine quite happily with 35 watt tube amps such as the PrimaLuna ProLogue Four (http://www.primaluna-usa.com/prologue4.htm) or Five. Given I tend to listen a fairly low volumes, something like that might might well work for me. On the other hand there are certainly more people who insist that these Maggies sound better the more power you give them. I wouldn't know who is right without trying both in my own environment.

I suspect they're both right..... In my experience, you can either upgrade your amp to a more powerful one or upgrade to a higher quality one (of the same or even lower power) to improve the sound of your setup... my guess, is that many people just choose one path without giving much thought to (much less, really testing) the other path...

[bobsticks]

Y'know this thread has evolved into a pretty good read in it's own right. Thanks gentleman. Unfortunately my general lack of experience with tubes in a home audio scenario, or at least within the confines of a reproduction system in my home precludes me from adding much.

Five years from now I'll resurrect this thread and discuss the "CD Treatment Lie".

[RGA]

Feaner

Most speakers I've tried sound better with SE amplifiers regardless of power. Unfortunately the designs of the LE speakers tend not to be able to play loud enough to satisfy so then they're forced into high power and generally poor sounding alternatives. No matter how great the LE speaker may have actually been it is reduced to mid-fi IMO when one is forced to use seriously worse sounding amps. A speaker can't fix what it was given.

Still there are amps that sound great don't cost much and offer tremendous build construction and excellent ridiculous power - more than enough to drive any Magnepan which is not as hard to drive as some think. While I'm not a fan of Magnepan's sound the Grant Fidelity Rita would easily drive the 1.6 to levels and grip that I doubt can be bettered. With 450 watts capable power from a very powerful tube compliment in class A it will be tough to better where SS balls but without the grain and still sound better than digital amps I've tried. http://grantfidelity.com/site/RITA-880-Reference-Integrated-Tube-Amplifier

[Feanor]

... While I'm not a fan of Magnepan's sound the Grant Fidelity Rita would easily drive the 1.6 to levels and grip that I doubt can be bettered. With 450 watts capable power from a very powerful tube compliment in class A it will be tough to better where SS balls but without the grain and still sound better than digital amps I've tried. http://grantfidelity.com/site/RITA-880-Reference-Integrated-Tube-Amplifier

It's certainly a gorgeous looking piece of equipment, (see below). But if I wanted to try tubes I think I'd look at a pair of AES SixPacs (http://www.audioelectronicsupply.com/cgi-bin/audioelectronicsupply.com/view_services.cgi?request=detail&dept_id=4&aisle_id=41&prod_num=SIX_PACS) although they aren't single-ended -- a favorite of the amplfier-obsessed Abe Collins over at AA.
...

[Ajani]

Feaner

Most speakers I've tried sound better with SE amplifiers regardless of power. Unfortunately the designs of the LE speakers tend not to be able to play loud enough to satisfy so then they're forced into high power and generally poor sounding alternatives. No matter how great the LE speaker may have actually been it is reduced to mid-fi IMO when one is forced to use seriously worse sounding amps. A speaker can't fix what it was given.

Still there are amps that sound great don't cost much and offer tremendous build construction and excellent ridiculous power - more than enough to drive any Magnepan which is not as hard to drive as some think. While I'm not a fan of Magnepan's sound the Grant Fidelity Rita would easily drive the 1.6 to levels and grip that I doubt can be bettered. With 450 watts capable power from a very powerful tube compliment in class A it will be tough to better where SS balls but without the grain and still sound better than digital amps I've tried. http://grantfidelity.com/site/RITA-880-Reference-Integrated-Tube-Amplifier

RGA, any thoughts on Grant's entry level Integrated, the A-348?

http://grantfidelity.com/site/A-348+EL34+Tube+Amplifier

The price and looks are certainly appealing (shame it doesn't have the headphone output of the A-534)....

[nightflier]

I think nightflier mentioned that he like the MG 1.6s better with a Spectral amp than the Monarchys. Frankly this isn't hard to believe: the least expensive Spectrals are twice the MSRP of the Monarchys and almost four times the going price. I would covet a Spectral DMA-100S (http://www.spectralaudio.com/), or say a Pass Labs X150.5 (http://passlabs.com/pdf/product%20lit/x.5-xa.5-amps.pdf), or Ayre V-5xe (http://www.ayre.com/products_detail.cfm?productid=8) far more than any tube amp even in their $5000 range.

Actually they aren't that bad on the used market. I purchased mine for $800 with some scratches here & there. I also purchased a PS Audio GCA-250 for a great price too, so there's some deals to be had. Both amps are extremely well suited to low impedance loads and were a good match for the MMGs, with the PS Audio being definitely warmer and less analytical. The Spectron is like a laser with oodles of power to spare and, IMO, a better match. Interestingly, John Ulrich (colorful character, BTW) recommends using Spectron amps with Analysis Audio speakers (these are uber-expensive foreign planars) that he feels are a better match than the Maggies.

Personally, if I had $20K to blow on speakers, I'd be on the opposite end of the spectrum and have a pair of Avantgarde horns mated to flea-watt SETs. I've really only heard Apogees, Maggies, Martin Logans, InnerSound, and Final Sound speakers, mostly the lower-priced stuff (the Maggie MMGs I had in my home for a good audition period). In each case, I was still not bowled over by the planar-wow factor that everybody raves about. Maybe because it wasn't any of the top-of-the-line gear or maybe it was the whole dipolar-radiation thing, but I just couldn't get them to perform as good as box speakers. For my ears, I have heard much improvement when switching to tubes (from solid state) and using low-power / sensitive gear. That's ironic because almost everything I currently own is high-power and very non-green, very much out of character for me.

PS, when buying used, there is always risk, and in my case I had to send the Spectron back to them twice for service. Fortunately, they are within driving distance, so that wasn't too much of a bother, but I thought I would mention that anyhow. The amp internals are extremely complicated and not the kind any old tech can work on. Of course, it's always worth it to get a chance to talk to John - he seems to be a treasure-trove of information, even if it is very opinionated. Good times....

[blackraven]

MMG's can't be compared to the more expensive models of Magnepan's.

[RGA]

Nightflier

No need to feel bad about not liking panels but I would advise you to try true 100% electrostats on not the ribbons or ML Hybrids. I was in a similar boat but the Quad 989 and 2905 changed my mind. Not for rock or harder hitting music but they're very good and IMO a huge cut above ribbon panels which to my ear has a sonic presence that doesn't go away. Many Maggie fans actually prefer the 1.6 quasi ribbon over the 3.6 and 20.1 in the treble. I can't say I agree or disagree but they make a credible case. The Quads are simply much better in every way - but they cost $14,000 so....

I prefer the HE SET over the Quads simply because the music I listen to the Quads simply can't reproduce well enough. I would suggest if you like real loud vibrant powerful - as an alternate to the Avantegarde - the trusty old Tannoy Westminster which is a Dual Concentric but very easy to drive. If I had a large room where the AN E could not fill I would probably lean to the Westminster. (It's even uglier unfortunately). But 8-20 watts of AN would be positively ridiculous power driving the Westminsters or Acoustic Duos.

[Feanor]

Actually they aren't that bad on the used market. I purchased mine for $800 with some scratches here & there. I also purchased a PS Audio GCA-250 for a great price too, so there's some deals to be had. Both amps are extremely well suited to low impedance loads and were a good match for the MMGs, with the PS Audio being definitely warmer and less analytical. The Spectron is like a laser with oodles of power to spare and, IMO, a better match. Interestingly, John Ulrich (colorful character, BTW) recommends using Spectron amps with Analysis Audio speakers (these are uber-expensive foreign planars) that he feels are a better match than the Maggies.

Personally, if I had $20K to blow on speakers, I'd be on the opposite end of the spectrum and have a pair of Avantgarde horns mated to flea-watt SETs. I've really only heard Apogees, Maggies, Martin Logans, InnerSound, and Final Sound speakers, mostly the lower-priced stuff (the Maggie MMGs I had in my home for a good audition period). In each case, I was still not bowled over by the planar-wow factor that everybody raves about. Maybe because it wasn't any of the top-of-the-line gear or maybe it was the whole dipolar-radiation thing, but I just couldn't get them to perform as good as box speakers. For my ears, I have heard much improvement when switching to tubes (from solid state) and using low-power / sensitive gear. That's ironic because almost everything I currently own is high-power and very non-green, very much out of character for me.

PS, when buying used, there is always risk, and in my case I had to send the Spectron back to them twice for service. Fortunately, they are within driving distance, so that wasn't too much of a bother, but I thought I would mention that anyhow. The amp internals are extremely complicated and not the kind any old tech can work on. Of course, it's always worth it to get a chance to talk to John - he seems to be a treasure-trove of information, even if it is very opinionated. Good times....

I think I was, or maybe we both were, confused about Spectral (http://www.spectralaudio.com/) versus Spectron (http://www.spectronav.com/) amplifiers. Both highly regarded but quite different high-end amps. I'd be delighted to hear either together with my Maggies.

[IBSTORMIN]

I suspect they're both right..... In my experience, you can either upgrade your amp to a more powerful one or upgrade to a higher quality one (of the same or even lower power) to improve the sound of your setup... my guess, is that many people just choose one path without giving much thought to (much less, really testing) the other path...

In my limited experience on one of those paths, I have found as I moved up Onkyo's Integra line from the M-5060RS to the M-504 to the M-508 and finally the M-588F not only do you get more power but a cleaner/higher quality sound. Why is this?

[Feanor]

In my limited experience on one of those paths, I have found as I moved up Onkyo's Integra line from the M-5060RS to the M-504 to the M-508 and finally the M-588F not only do you get more power but a cleaner/higher quality sound. Why is this?

Please don't infer from what Ajani said that higher power is associated with lower quality in general -- ain't so. Ajani was speaking of the specific instance of a SET amp verus a relatively modest solid state amp. (And let's not forget the that choice is a matter of preference any way.)

I have always noticed that within product range of from a given manufacturer, going up the line almost always improves both features, power, and sound quality.

[Ajani]

Please don't infer from what Ajani said that higher power is associated with lower quality in general -- ain't so. Ajani was speaking of the specific instance of a SET amp verus a relatively modest solid state amp. (And let's not forget the that choice is a matter of preference any way.)

I have always noticed that within product range of from a given manufacturer, going up the line almost always improves both features, power, and sound quality.


All things equal, increasing power should improve the sound of an amp... what I was saying is that there are other ways to improve sound, such as using higher quality components in the amp...

Let's take a look at 2 possible scenarios:

1) You have a relatively low powered amp trying to drive inefficient speakers in a large room... and you find yourself forced to listen at volumes much lower than your desired listening level, to avoiding clipping...

2) You have an amp (maybe a low powered one) with more than enough power to drive your speakers to acceptable listening levels...

Suddenly you get a bonus at work and a real bad case of upgradeitis... in scenario 1, you might see the best results by upgrading to a more powerful amp... while in scenario 2, you might have better results by going to an amp with higher quality components and the same or even slightly lower power...

Amp selection is really about personal preference and making sure that your amp has enough power to meet your speaker/room/volume requirements...

[Ajani]

In my limited experience on one of those paths, I have found as I moved up Onkyo's Integra line from the M-5060RS to the M-504 to the M-508 and finally the M-588F not only do you get more power but a cleaner/higher quality sound. Why is this?

I think Feanor answered your question pretty well... I'll also add that as you move up a manufacturer's line, they usually put better components in addition to more power.... and as I said, all things equal, more power will usually improve sound... It's just a question of balancing whether you will see the greatest sonic benefit from adding more power or using higher quality components... If you have an unlimited budget, then no such compromise is necessary...

[RGA]

In my limited experience on one of those paths, I have found as I moved up Onkyo's Integra line from the M-5060RS to the M-504 to the M-508 and finally the M-588F not only do you get more power but a cleaner/higher quality sound. Why is this?

Power has nothing to do with sound quality - it may very well be the case that the Receiver's high models required a better transformer in order to meet the higher watt rating. In which case it was not the higher power in itself but an improved transformer, or better shielding or lowered noise floors.

There is zero audible difference going from a Bryston 3b power amp to a 14B power amp - the reason for the needed extra power is for ineficient loudspeakers.

Power is not a direct function of loudness - a system of HE with a 3 watt amp will play louder, with more hard hittng impact than a LE with an amplifier capable of 250 watts. Watts is NOT volume. LE speakers however, if you insist on using such speakers, usually need a lot more "oomph" to begin to sound decent. Thus if you buy the 250 watt beastie it's probably very likely going to sound better at good volume levels than the 25 watt model the company sells. That however misleads the consumer into associating more power with better sound when it's more about one amp simply not up to the task and the more powerful amp "is" up to the task.

Some will put the blame on the amp some wll put the blame on the speaker. In a sense it makes sense - if you buy a powerful Krell amp then it will drive pretty much every loudspeaker. If you buy my amp you have to cross off 95% of loudspeakers from your shopping list. One amp is designed to run every speaker and one amp is designed to drive a select few loudspeakers. My take is that over the last 20 years the speakers worth listening to are the speakers that really only need 5-25watts. The speakers that need a Krell probably don't sound that great. And the Krell on the easy to drive speakers no longer have the advantage of power and on sound quality - well they're no great shakes.

[Ajani]

Power has nothing to do with sound quality

&


Thus if you buy the 250 watt beastie it's probably very likely going to sound better at good volume levels than the 25 watt model the company sells.

=

Why it is is difficult to get too technical in explaining the relationship between power and sound quality.... lol

Seriously though, I agree with what you're saying:


That however misleads the consumer into associating more power with better sound when it's more about one amp simply not up to the task and the more powerful amp "is" up to the task.

Yep... I was a tad lazy in my earlier explanations & I probably should have added that: If the low powered amp is fully up to the task of driving a particular pair of speakers, then you shouldn't hear any difference by adding more power....


Some will put the blame on the amp some wll put the blame on the speaker. In a sense it makes sense - if you buy a powerful Krell amp then it will drive pretty much every loudspeaker. If you buy my amp you have to cross off 95% of loudspeakers from your shopping list. One amp is designed to run every speaker and one amp is designed to drive a select few loudspeakers. My take is that over the last 20 years the speakers worth listening to are the speakers that really only need 5-25watts. The speakers that need a Krell probably don't sound that great. And the Krell on the easy to drive speakers no longer have the advantage of power and on sound quality - well they're no great shakes.

This is where good old fashion auditioning comes into play.... I've seen (read) many articles from reviewers who agree with you and just as many who wouldn't wipe their @$$es with a SET/HE combo....

It's a shame that more brands don't make HE speakers, so that those of us who are new to SET/HE would have an easier chance of getting to audition that kind of setup...

A high powered Krell or Musical Fidelity is a safe bet for most of us... buying a 3 - 10 watt SET is seriously risky, especially if all you've ever auditioned are LE speakers...

[IBSTORMIN]

Yep... I was a tad lazy in my earlier explanations & I probably should have added that: If the low powered amp is fully up to the task of driving a particular pair of speakers, then you shouldn't hear any difference by adding more power....

OK Ajani, there are a few quotes I could have used, just happened to pick yours. From my experience, I'll have to disagree with you from what I hear in my Integra amps. From what you are saying, maybe it is not so in all lines? The amps in Integras line from the 80's might not be the quality you are referring to but are all rated at less than .003 THD. If rated at the same THD, when using the same speakers with the meters showing output at 10 watts which is well below capacity on both amps, why does the M-508 (200 watts) sound cleaner with more detail than the M-504 (165 watts)? Both use the exact same chasis/same layout just everything is bigger in the M-508. Is it transformer/capacitor size?

[Ajani]

OK Ajani, there are a few quotes I could have used, just happened to pick yours. From my experience, I'll have to disagree with you from what I hear in my Integra amps. From what you are saying, maybe it is not so in all lines? The amps in Integras line from the 80's might not be the quality you are referring to but are all rated at less than .003 THD. If rated at the same THD, when using the same speakers with the meters showing output at 10 watts which is well below capacity on both amps, why does the M-508 (200 watts) sound cleaner with more detail than the M-504 (165 watts)? Both use the exact same chasis/same layout just everything is bigger in the M-508. Is it transformer/capacitor size?

I'm not familiar with the Integra amps (though I tried to do some brief research on Google).... If both amps are using only 10 watts and they still sound different, then my first guess would be that they don't have exactly the same (or same quality) internal components... i.e. The M-508 is probably more than just an M-504 with an extra 35 watts of power.... Another possibility (considering the age of the amps) is simply that one or both are no longer working at their best (so they could have sounded the same back in the 80s, but have deteriorated enough to sound different)...

Keep in mind that having the same chassis, layout and THD does not guarantee that all the internal components are the same...

[Feanor]

OK Ajani, there are a few quotes I could have used, just happened to pick yours. From my experience, I'll have to disagree with you from what I hear in my Integra amps. From what you are saying, maybe it is not so in all lines? The amps in Integras line from the 80's might not be the quality you are referring to but are all rated at less than .003 THD. If rated at the same THD, when using the same speakers with the meters showing output at 10 watts which is well below capacity on both amps, why does the M-508 (200 watts) sound cleaner with more detail than the M-504 (165 watts)? Both use the exact same chasis/same layout just everything is bigger in the M-508. Is it transformer/capacitor size?

I've been observing component manufacturers', (mostly Japanese), for 35+ years. Their standard approach has been to build a product range of receivers, (amps, or whatever), at various price points.

At each higher price point they typically upgrade several things, that is not just features and power, but also design sophistication and component quality/capacity -- thus it isn't at all surprising the sound quality improves as you go up the product range.

[RGA]

Several years ago I auditioned some sort of tube amp with meters (I forget the brand) but it was running at 12 watts in the peaks and hovering at 1-5 watts at very loud levels on Monitor Audio loudspeakers.

IBSTORMIN

"why does the M-508 (200 watts) sound cleaner with more detail than the M-504 (165 watts)?"

Depends at what volume. If this is happening at medium volumes where both amps are operating without huffing and puffing you have answered your own question and watts is not the reason why it sounds better but some other reason, better quality parts.

People refuse to acknowledge that parts quality is important but they are. Better wiring, better capacitors, a better transformer shield, better power supply, better volume pot. If all things are equal the watts don't matter.

Consider this: a 3db gain(which is barely audible and only audible at the highest end of the volume spectrum) in spl requires a doubling of the amp power. In other words a 100 watt amp will give you a 3db gain over a 50 watt amp (with the same speakers). That's all - That's all that watt rating does.

I had a Pioneer receiver around $400 and a top of the line Pioneer Elite Receiver. The Latter if you read the spec sheet would make the engineers at Bryston proud. 125Watts RMS continuous 20hz-20,000Khz .00025%THD all discrete amplifier with copper underbelly and the sexy rosewood side panels. Brought home a Bryston hooked it up and it was so shocking an improvement that the Pioneer despite better specs and more watts was up for sale shortly thereafter. The Pioneer Elite though was a lot better than the cheapie receiver I had replace it with. And I was using Wharfedale Vanguard horn Ring Dac speakers which were 95db sensitive and didn't dip much under 10 ohms - they don't get much easier to drive. In theory both receivers and the Bryston had impeccable distortion numbers and all three had more than enough power - the first receiver was rated at 100 watts.

My OTO at a mere 10 watts not even half way up will make you leave the room in pain from the volume level. The fact is we just don't use that many watts - even on modest 87-90db speakers. Where "some" low power amps have difficulty is in the varying impedance of speakers - amps with better power supplies are better able to handle these things.

Your Integra example is similar to the Pioneer and Marantz and Denon models I've tried. And so it should be - you buy a higher model it bloody well should sound better and just in case it doesn't they give you more features (usually useless ones) a better remote control, and of course a big sticker advertising a higher watt rating. After all the target market for receivers is typically big box chains where consumers really don't know much. Higher numbers is always better they think so one sticker says 400 watts and the other says 80 so guess which one they will buy?

Sadly some of these same people get into higher end audio but they still bring that mentality with them and equate size and watt numbers with quality of sound when really the very best case scenario they'll get a gain in volume levels at levels that are damaging to the hearing anyway. If it's all about volume buy boom car.

[IBSTORMIN]

Another possibility (considering the age of the amps) is simply that one or both are no longer working at their best (so they could have sounded the same back in the 80s, but have deteriorated enough to sound different)...

By the way, the Integra I am referring to is Onkyo Integra.

I have three, well....two now because I just sold one, M-504's and they all sound the same. Dual mono 50 lb chasis with low distortion. I was going to ask what design these are but if no-one has heard of them, Oh Well. The M-504 sold for $870 in the 80's and sells for $500 used on E-bay now. The 508 was $1200, is more rare and the last one went for $985. I'd like to talk to someone who has compared these to what you guys are talking about so I know if I am wasting my time lusting over other equipment of if I should go ahead and lust.

I guess, after reading what Feanor said, it isn't just about power, the bigger amps can sound better. Going up in power in some lines DOES upgrade the sound. Might be what those Maggie people have experienced when they say it takes alot of power to make them sound their best. It is not just a more powerful amp but a better built one.

[IBSTORMIN]

Depends at what volume. If this is happening at medium volumes where both amps are operating without huffing and puffing you have answered your own question and watts is not the reason why it sounds better but some other reason, better quality parts.

That's why I spoke of them both showing 10 watts output when I compared the sound.


Consider this: a 3db gain(which is barely audible and only audible at the highest end of the volume spectrum) in spl requires a doubling of the amp power. In other words a 100 watt amp will give you a 3db gain over a 50 watt amp (with the same speakers). That's all - That's all that watt rating does.

I get a 4db gain just by using a balanced XLR connection instead of RCA with my M-588F.


I had a Pioneer receiver around $400 and a top of the line Pioneer Elite Receiver. The Latter if you read the spec sheet would make the engineers at Bryston proud. 125Watts RMS continuous 20hz-20,000Khz .00025%THD all discrete amplifier with copper underbelly and the sexy rosewood side panels. Brought home a Bryston hooked it up and it was so shocking an improvement that the Pioneer despite better specs and more watts was up for sale shortly thereafter. The Pioneer Elite though was a lot better than the cheapie receiver I had replace it with. And I was using Wharfedale Vanguard horn Ring Dac speakers which were 95db sensitive and didn't dip much under 10 ohms - they don't get much easier to drive. In theory both receivers and the Bryston had impeccable distortion numbers and all three had more than enough power - the first receiver was rated at 100 watts.
My OTO at a mere 10 watts not even half way up will make you leave the room in pain from the volume level. The fact is we just don't use that many watts - even on modest 87-90db speakers. Where "some" low power amps have difficulty is in the varying impedance of speakers - amps with better power supplies are better able to handle these things.

Is part of the difference high current designs?

[RGA]

High current is a marketing term - some of the best sounding amps are not high current - in fact I'd go one further and say if it says High Current then it's best avoided because it's marketing and if they need to do that on their box then they're afraid of just letting you listen with your own ears.

You and others are making a good point if you stay "within" the line. Generally when you move up any amplifier line (Solid State anyway) the sound quality will improve - again if the quality of sound improves then it will be clearer at louder levels but it's not the watt number doing that for reasons I've already stated.

And of course it does not explain it when you go across company lines like a Sugden A21a which is arguably the best sounding Solid State amplifier under $5,000 with a mere 25 watts and "halves" that at 4ohms (ie; not high current).

Maybe this article will help clear it up a bit http://www.1388.com/articles/sugden/index.html

[IBSTORMIN]

High current is a marketing term - some of the best sounding amps are not high current - in fact I'd go one further and say if it says High Current then it's best avoided because it's marketing and if they need to do that on their box then they're afraid of just letting you listen with your own ears.

I always thought HIGH CURRENT is the reason Onkyo, H/K, Marantz, Denon and the like have more power than a Sony, Pioneer, Kenwood and the like with the same wattage rating. Somthing about them running at 30-40 amps instead of only around 10 so a 100 watt high current amp can achieve more volume than a 100 watt low current amp. I think I read it in H/K literature. And you are right, not the best sounding amps but mid-fi instead of budget.

[IBSTORMIN]

I get a 4db gain just by using a balanced XLR connection instead of RCA with my M-588F.

YES, I am quoting myself and NO, I'm not going crazy. Been that way a long time now.

This just made me think that it's not totally about power but design. If I can change the way the signal flows from my pre-amp to my power amp and get a 4db gain with balanced cables, the amps you are describing have changed the flow INSIDE the amp to get more volume with less power. YES???

[nightflier]

Power has nothing to do with sound quality - it may very well be the case that the Receiver's high models required a better transformer in order to meet the higher watt rating. In which case it was not the higher power in itself but an improved transformer, or better shielding or lowered noise floors.

There are a number of dissenting opinions on this. One such opinion is from John Ulrich at Spectron. I don't remember the exact article he published on this, but if I remember right, he made a very good case about sound quality being very much a function of an amp's power output.

In my personal experience, especially with the MMGs (& yes I know that's Magnepan's lowest model), I got noticeably better sound with my Spectron and PS Audio amps than with lower-powered amps. The PS Audio (GCA-250) was actually less impressive. I also had a pair of PSA Classic 250 monos on hand, but the Spectron still sounded more controlled and precise on dynamic swings. Is that because of the Spectron's extra power? Perhaps. Or was it because it is (was) a more expensive amp? Perhaps. Or was it because digital switching is a better technology? Perhaps.

I'm also not discounting the current-output argument, which I think I agree with. And higher up the model/price ladder, the current output (whether advertised of not), makes an audible difference in dynamics, particularly when listening to orchestral music with sudden and wide dynamic changes (Mahler, Khachaturian, Hovhaness, etc.). The Spectron amp in particularly is adept at handling this, but I am still wondering if it is because the amp has better power storage capacity or more efficient and faster power output capacity. I'm no engineer so I can't answer those questions, but from reading Spectron's website, it's because the technology is simply better. Of course, that's their own propaganda.

Consequently, Ulrich's article suggested that especially when handling inefficient speaker loads, it becomes technically very complicated to design an amp using tube or solid state amplification that can keep up. His argument is that the only solution to driving large electrostats and similarly power-hungry speakers is digital switching. While I don't have the experience with enough gear to agree or disagree, the logic behind that does make sense. Even Bryston's big guns must (1) draw a tremendous amount of power, (2) be able to store that internally, and (3) be capable of delivering that power very fast and efficiently. This has to be both expensive and complicated, but also will produce tremendous heat. What if more power is needed? Double up on these, I suppose, but at some point diminishing returns demand different technology.

Again, I have very limited experience with inefficient speakers and high-powered amps, but I can say, without reservation that my 500W Spectron amp has yet to be matched, and I've tried a ton of others. Given that this amp was once an expensive amp as well, I have to imagine that it was very well designed as well. A new Spectron amp should be worth the expense, theoretically. For example, their Premiere 7 can output 500W into seven isolated channels, that's 3500 watts! Into 2 ohms it can deliver 1100 into 7, or 7700 total watts. Pretty soon, you're talking about real power, LOL. So is that worth $8K? Well, are the alternatives less expensive? And if so, can they do this with the same specs while staying cool as a cucumber? One things I can say is that PS Audio (I've auditioned many of their amps) doesn't seem to do that, and they are the largest seller of digital switching amps, I believe. Don't get me wrong, they are good, but just not as good sounding to my ears.

[Feanor]

YES, I am quoting myself and NO, I'm not going crazy. Been that way a long time now.

This just made me think that it's not totally about power but design. If I can change the way the signal flows from my pre-amp to my power amp and get a 4db gain with balanced cables, the amps you are describing have changed the flow INSIDE the amp to get more volume with less power. YES???

In fact if you feed a fully balanced amp a balanced signal you will get 6 dB extra gain vs. a single-end input. However gain should not be confused with power. The amp will not be able to deliver any more power than before, the limitation being the power supply.

[RGA]

Nightflier

Well without seeing the article I can't say but in 20 years the best amps IME have been low powered Single Ended designs and for the same money in virtually every instance sound better than high powered SS units at 2, 5, 10,times their price. I am talking my subjective listening experience and articles from manufaturers magazines and audio engineers are about that contradict the findings of other magazines audio engineers etc. UHF magazine for example wrote a book and in their amp section recommended AGAINST owning amplifiers with a damping factor above 40 sighting poor sound regardless of technology.

Power is power regardless of technology. An amplifier's job is to make a small signal it gets into a louder version without loss. You could creat a 500Watt SET amplifier if you wished iof cost, size, and heat were not an issue - and you would get the same volume level of a 500 watt SS amp.

If Spectron was correct then all higher watt SS amps would sound better than 1.5 watt SETs and since the vast majority of all 1.5 Watt SET owners sold high watt SS amps then clearly that is not the case. And the Vast majority of people who own high watt SS amps have yet to hear good Low power SETs. Most people have never even heard a tube amp. And being a Push Pull tube amp does not really sound the same as an SE.

For example my amp comes in a more powerful PP design but the SE design is the one that has won the day - it simply sounds a lot better.

Again I won't disagree with any of the omments about driving LE speakers - it makes sense that more powerful amplifiers would sound better with those speakers. I just see no need for LE apeakers since the only thing they do is lessen your choice of amplifier and they bring no advantages to the table whatsoever.

[IBSTORMIN]

In fact if you feed a fully balanced amp a balanced signal you will get 6 dB extra gain vs. a single-end input. However gain should not be confused with power. The amp will not be able to deliver any more power than before, the limitation being the power supply.

If you get more volume with the same power, you don't need more power. RGA said it takes twice as much power to get a 3db gain. So are you saying a 50 watt balanced configuration pre-amp/amp with a 6db gain will give the Speaker Volume of a 200 watt single end input?
50 watts x 2 = 100 watts for a 3db gain, 100 watts x 2 = 200 watts for another 3db gain.

[blackraven]

There are some speakers that benefit from a high current design. Magnepans are one of them. High current and high power do make them sound better. Try turning the volume up and see how fast the Magnepans shut down an underpowered amp.

[Feanor]

If you get more volume with the same power, you don't need more power. RGA said it takes twice as much power to get a 3db gain. So are you saying a 50 watt balanced configuration pre-amp/amp with a 6db gain will give the Speaker Volume of a 200 watt single end input?
50 watts x 2 = 100 watts for a 3db gain, 100 watts x 2 = 200 watts for another 3db gain.

'Stormin, sorry, it that's exactly what I'm not saying. 6 dB extra gain is like cranking you volume control from 12 o'clock to 2 PM, but it doesn't increase the overall power the amp can deliver -- that will still be limited to 100 wpc or whatever the specification. Power is limited by current the power supply can deliver and how much of that output section can handle, not by the gain, (i.e. input voltage), applied. Downstream, speakers don't know about gain: they only know about the power they're getting.

[emaidel]

There are some speakers that benefit from a high current design. Magnepans are one of them. High current and high power do make them sound better. Try turning the volume up and see how fast the Magnepans shut down an underpowered amp.

I have to agree completely. It wasn't until I used a high-current design amp with my Dahlquist DQ-10's that they opened up and sounded as good as they do. The first was the short-lived dbx mega-amp, the BX-1, whose design was, according to dbx engineers, purposely high current. While the amp was troublesome, and eventually died, the DQ-10's never sounded better.

My current amp is the high current Adcom GFA-5800 which works splendidly with the DQ-10's, and even better than the dbx BX-1. It'll be a sad day in my household when the 5800 passes on.

[nightflier]

My current amp is the high current Adcom GFA-5800 which works splendidly with the DQ-10's, and even better than the dbx BX-1. It'll be a sad day in my household when the 5800 passes on.

No argument here. Having owned a number of Adcom amps, I can say unequivocally that it really takes an act of god to humble or hurt them. Best bang-for-the-buck on the used market, too.

By the way, here is the article I was referring to. It was actually not written by Ulrich, but by Simon Thacher, when he was still at Spectron:

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/manufacture/0708/index.html

[RGA]

If you get more volume with the same power, you don't need more power. RGA said it takes twice as much power to get a 3db gain. So are you saying a 50 watt balanced configuration pre-amp/amp with a 6db gain will give the Speaker Volume of a 200 watt single end input?
50 watts x 2 = 100 watts for a 3db gain, 100 watts x 2 = 200 watts for another 3db gain.


I think you're mixing up preamp gain and what I said about increased volume.

Let's break it down. Say you have a 50 watt amp and your friend has a 100 watt amp. And you are both using the same 90db senstivie speaker.

1Watt = 90db (90db is considered loud and most people listen to their stereo at 65-75db so most of the time neither of you is even using 1 watt of your amps power. (that is why they sell 1.5 watt amps because even on these speakers you won't be pushing the amp).

But let's say your speaker has impedence dip and you do like to play loud and you sit further back needing more volume to pass over a larger distance. SPL is lower the further you are from the seakers after all.

2watt - 93dB
4watt - 95db
8watt - 98db
16watt - 101db
32watt - 104db
64watt - 107db (now the first amp is beyond it's limit so with those speakers you are likely going to get around 105db SPL maximim)
128watts 110db (your friend's 100 watt amp is beyond limit so you might get 108-109db max)

Now lets say your other friend spends bazllions of dollars and brings his 300 watt krell
254watts - 113db
508watts - 116db (Friend might get to 115db which his big tough amp) But UMM how many speakers do you know of can even handle 500 watts - whatever the speaker is rated for is it. Most speakers can handle 250 watts or less (usually a lot less) so in fact while the amp is willing the speaker is not. So you're likely going to get a mere 112db which is still louder than any sane person could want.
1016watts - 119db

105db is deafening and will seem like rock concert level in your home. If the speakers have good bass output your windows will rattle. The 100 watt amp guy gives you and extra 3db of SPL which is barely if at noticed. The 300 watt guy will be noticed but:

Let's say RGA brings his 10 watt and a set of 110db sensitve Horns
1 watt - 110db - already louder than either the 50 watt and 100 watt guy's stereo.
2 watt - 113db - louder in all likelyhood to the vast majority of LE speakers
4watt - 116db - (a hair louder than the 300 watt stereo owner's theoretical number if you could find speakers that could handle 300 watts) with the typical 90db speakers - unlikely
8 watt - 119db - Wins.
16watts - 122db So my amp with those speakers will pound the snot out of the 300 watt "typical" 90 db speaker owner.

But again all of this is fun with numbers - 80db is pretty darn loud - 90db is LOUD.

Where High Current comes in is when the speaker dips to 4ohms from 8ohms the speaker essentially requires double the watts to achieve the frequency (usually bass or upper treble) so if in the example above my 8 watt amp is playing at a whopping 119dbspl and the speaker halves the impedence at 30hz the speaker will ask for 16watts but my amp is only 8 so audible distortion will begin because the amp is pushed beyond limits. Tube amps however have a far nicer way of distorting and low powered amps like SETs are far less likely to cause speaker damage because they can't feed more distorted power than they have to the tweeter or woofer voice coils. SS amps running in distortion and you'll need new speakers and possibly a new amp.

All of the above is at a distance of one meter wth even load behaviour to make it simpler. At distance and varying loud the numbers change depending on the designs of the loudspeakers.

My speakers are 93db sensitive but don't dip under 5ohms. I have a 4ohm tap so this is a dead easy speaker for my amp to work with and no worry over impedance drops.
1 watt - 93db
2watt - 96db
4watt - 99db
8watt - 101db
16watt - 104db (My tube amp is rated at 10 watts but the speaker amp combo for whatever reason only the makers know achieve this SPL)
32 watts - 108db (which is max for the speaker before it compresses)
64watts - 111db
128watts - 114db (The speaker is only capable of handling 80 watts so in theory 112db is it)

dB guide

Source of sound

Krakatoa explosion at 100 miles (160 km) in air = 180 dB

Simple open-ended thermoacoustic device [6] = 176 dB

M1 Garand being fired at 1 m = 168 dB

Jet engine at 30 m = 150 dB

Rifle being fired at 1 m = 140 dB

Threshold of pain = 130 dB
Hearing damage (due to short-term exposure) approx. 120 dB

Jet at 100 m = 110 – 140 dB

Jack hammer at 1 m = 100 dB
Hearing damage (due to long-term exposure) approx. 85 dB

Major road at 10 m = 80 – 90 dB

Passenger car at 10 m = 60 – 80 dB
TV (set at home level) at 1 m = approx. 60 dB
Normal talking at 1 m = 40 – 60 dB
Very calm room = 20 – 30 dB
Leaves rustling, calm breathing = 10 dB

Auditory threshold at 1 kHz =0 dB

[IBSTORMIN]

'Stormin, sorry, it that's exactly what I'm not saying. 6 dB extra gain is like cranking you volume control from 12 o'clock to 2 PM, but it doesn't increase the overall power the amp can deliver -- that will still be limited to 100 wpc or whatever the specification. Power is limited by current the power supply can deliver and how much of that output section can handle, not by the gain, (i.e. input voltage), applied. Downstream, speakers don't know about gain: they only know about the power they're getting.

OK. I switch cables and get a 6db louder output from my speakers as if I turned up the volume without turning up the volume = I don't have to buy a more powerful amp to achive the sound level I can now get. Is my correlation of 4 times the power EQUIVALENT what you are not agreeing with?

[Ajani]

OK. I switch cables and get a 6db louder output from my speakers as if I turned up the volume without turning up the volume = I don't have to buy a more powerful amp to achive the sound level I can now get. Is my correlation of 4 times the power EQUIVALENT what you are not agreeing with?

Gain is different from Power.... Essentially the 6 DB gain just means that the volume is set to say 11 rather than 9 with the balanced connections, but the maximum volume on either RCA or Balanced is still 24.... so you haven't achieved 4 times the power (you have the same power but have basically just pressed the volume up button on the remote).... The only way gain would increase power is if the RCA outputs are unable to provide sufficient gain to drive the amp to it's maximum power output.... in that unlikely scenario, RCA would never let you reach the maximum volume of 24 (so maybe 22), while RCA would let you hit the max 24....

[Feanor]

OK. I switch cables and get a 6db louder output from my speakers as if I turned up the volume without turning up the volume = I don't have to buy a more powerful amp to achive the sound level I can now get. Is my correlation of 4 times the power EQUIVALENT what you are not agreeing with?

To be sure, if you provide 6dB more gain, you amp will try to deliver 4x the power. No disagreement here. I am (or was) concerned that you were misunderstanding; as RGA said ...


I think you're mixing up preamp gain and what I said about increased volume.

With the extra 6dB your amp will attempt put out 4x the power, but if that is beyond its capability, it will clip. Extra gain does not increase the maximum power your amp is capable of outputing.

Do we agree now?

[IBSTORMIN]

Do we agree now?

I was slightly confused but showed myself with your guys help, where my thinking went wrong. My amp has big meters on the front that show output. I thought when I switched from RCA to XLR that the wattage stayed the same and the same wattage was making my speakers louder by 6db. Maybe too low on the scale to see. I set it to peak at 1 watt and when I switched over to XLR it was peaking at between 3-4 watts. My 4 times as much theory seems right but I realize with it's using more power it will run outa steam. It IS a 200 watt amp so I'd deafen myself first. I stand corrected (actually I'm sitting down so I sit corrected). Thanks for your help! You guys are educating me in things I have wanted to know for a long time. I apreciate it!

Norm

[IBSTORMIN]

I think you're mixing up preamp gain and what I said about increased volume.

Let's break it down. Say you have a 50 watt amp and your friend has a 100 watt amp. And you are both using the same 90db senstivie speaker.

1Watt = 90db (90db is considered loud and most people listen to their stereo at 65-75db so most of the time neither of you is even using 1 watt of your amps power. (that is why they sell 1.5 watt amps because even on these speakers you won't be pushing the amp).

But let's say your speaker has impedence dip and you do like to play loud and you sit further back needing more volume to pass over a larger distance. SPL is lower the further you are from the seakers after all.

2watt - 93dB
4watt - 95db
8watt - 98db
16watt - 101db
32watt - 104db
64watt - 107db (now the first amp is beyond it's limit so with those speakers you are likely going to get around 105db SPL maximim)
128watts 110db (your friend's 100 watt amp is beyond limit so you might get 108-109db max)

For scrolling purposes in the forum, I did not copy the whole post.

RGA - KEEP IT UP! I like the education. Thanks. So you start with what your speaker is rated spl @ 1 Watt. My speaker owners manual says:
Sensitivity: 96dB @ 2.83 V and 1 m(anechoic conditions). What exactly does that mean?

[IBSTORMIN]

There are two of the Musical Fidelity X-10v3 on E-bay right now and I was going to buy one. Last night I sat down just to listen for the first time in a long time. I just bought some new XLR cables from Blue Jeans with Belden wire instead of the Canares I had been using. Something has been wrong and I did not get the totally relaxed feeling I used to get while listening as I have a stressful job, other things besides my job so I'm just too busy. Music is my therapy and last night, for the first time in a long time I got totally relaxed and REALLY ENJOYED my music. It sounded WONDERFUL. It might just be that I have been too busy and have not had a chance to do that for awhile but, I decided I am happy with what I have and am not going to buy the buffer. I think it will take away the clearer highs I was enjoying last night that the new cables gave me. The $55 fix! Thanks again for your help.

[Feanor]

... Something has been wrong and I did not get the totally relaxed feeling I used to get while listening as I have a stressful job, other things besides my job so I'm just too busy. Music is my therapy and last night, for the first time in a long time I got totally relaxed and REALLY ENJOYED my music. It sounded WONDERFUL. It might just be that I have been too busy and have not had a chance to do that for awhile
...

I find my mode has significant impact on how good the music sounds (in addition to how much I enjoy it). If I'm stressed and tired it never sounds as good. It makes me question how accurate my appraisals are at any given time.

How big a factor in sound quality is personal mode with other AR members??

[blackraven]

One comment I'd like to make about power concerning Magnepan speakers. I ran my 1.6's with my Adcom AVR which puts out 260wpc of high current power at 4ohms. It was plenty to drive my Maggies reasonably loud. But when I switched to my Parasound which is 400wpc at 4 ohms the Maggies had a fuller sound at all but the lowest listening levels. I used to drive the 1.6's with a 120wpc high current amp and jumping up to the Adcom and then the Parasound, I noticed a difference in the depth of the music with each jump in power. In addition, I have put my 2 previous amps in shutdown protection mode and I have yet to have that happen with my Parasound.

[IBSTORMIN]

One comment I'd like to make about power concerning Magnepan speakers. I ran my 1.6's with my Adcom AVR which puts out 260wpc of high current power at 4ohms. It was plenty to drive my Maggies reasonably loud. But when I switched to my Parasound which is 400wpc at 4 ohms the Maggies had a fuller sound at all but the lowest listening levels. I used to drive the 1.6's with a 120wpc high current amp and jumping up to the Adcom and then the Parasound, I noticed a difference in the depth of the music with each jump in power. In addition, I have put my 2 previous amps in shutdown protection mode and I have yet to have that happen with my Parasound.

Just makes me ask again....is it power or quality on the bigger amps? I notice the same difference on my Infinity speakers so it isn't just a Maggie thing. I hear Maggies are all about clarity on mids & highs, which also seems to come alive in my speakers as I upgrade, it is probably just more apparent in Maggies. Just makes me ask - Is there a point where the Maggies seem too bright, no warmth?

[E-Stat]

Just makes me ask again....is it power or quality on the bigger amps?
Both. I assure you there are audible differences between a $500 Crown pro amp and a $40k VTL amp with similar power ratings. While my electrostats are even more demanding than Magneplanars, I value quality over quantity.


Just makes me ask - Is there a point where the Maggies seem too bright, no warmth?
Only when the source sounds that way. The 20.1s were my second choice behind the speakers I ended up with.

rw

[blackraven]

I agree with quality over quantity as well but you have to feed a demanding speaker the proper amount power as well as quality power.
10 wpc of a high quality tube amp is not going to play my 1.6's at the volume that I like to listen with certain music types. The volume level will be lacking as well as transients and dynamics.

[Ajani]

I agree with quality over quantity as well but you have to feed a demanding speaker the proper amount power as well as quality power.
10 wpc of a high quality tube amp is not going to play my 1.6's at the volume that I like to listen with certain music types. The volume level will be lacking as well as transients and dynamics.

Well said BR!!!

IMO, the best approach is to pick the Speakers you like first, then find the best quality amp with sufficient power to drive it (that fits your budget).... So in my case, since I like Monitor Audio & Revel Speakers... I know I can use an amp with 50 watts or less (considering that the speakers are 89-91db sensitivity and my room size is only 15ftx11ft).... If I was using a pair of 1.6's, I'd be looking at something greater than 100 watts....

[RGA]

For scrolling purposes in the forum, I did not copy the whole post.

RGA - KEEP IT UP! I like the education. Thanks. So you start with what your speaker is rated spl @ 1 Watt. My speaker owners manual says:
Sensitivity: 96dB @ 2.83 V and 1 m(anechoic conditions). What exactly does that mean?

It likely means that my 10 watt amp will blow you into next week. In room your figures would be higher - your speaker is more sensitve than mine such that 5 watts would get your there. Of course this assumes that your speaker does not have serious impedence swings.

But what people seem to forget is that the vast majority of good tube amps have a 4 ohm tap making them quite agreeable to 2ohm loads.

1 watt will get you 96db SPL at a listening distance of 1 meter. Generally 2-4 watts will produce the SPL at 2 meters.

Feaner I agree I think. But from my examples it should be clear that Volume capability is more of a function of speaker sensitivy which is why plenty of systems with 5 watts will lay louder than systems with 300-1000 watt amplifiers.

Watts is not volume and that was my main point. The theory of the first watt is true - get it right and worry about watts later. 5 good watts is better than 1000 lousy ones. (refers to quality not the literal)

[IBSTORMIN]

It likely means that my 10 watt amp will blow you into next week. In room your figures would be higher - your speaker is more sensitve than mine such that 5 watts would get your there. Of course this assumes that your speaker does not have serious impedence swings.

Ssssooo....is that why my wife complains that I am shaking the house and I tell her I can't be, I'm only puttting out 20 amps and have 180 to go.......??? She won't come downstairs because she says it sounds just fine from the first floor. LOL

I don't think the 6 ohm Infinity Prelude P-FR speakers would have impedence swings?

This brings up the next question. Sounds like I have upgraded because of sound quality and I didn't really need a 200 watt amp. I already kinda knew that but wanted the better sound, stayed in the same line and just kept going up. I like the sound I have but......
If I were to spend say $2-3,000 on used matching stereo pre-amp & amp, I probably only need 20-50 watts just to give me power to spare for my rocking moments, what would you recommend?
If I was spending the same money, would I be better off with pre/cables/amp or an Integrated?
What Lines and specific models should I look at?

I guess I need to mention, my 200 watt amp is fully balanced dual mono design, weighs 70 lbs and sold for $2400 back in 1987. I want something that sounds better with lower watts.

[blackraven]

I like having extra power on hand. You never know when the upgrade bug will bite you. Having more power will give you more speaker options if you decide to upgrade to a more demanding speaker.

I think that you will find that if you buy a used power amp for $2-3K that most will be 100+ wpc.

If you want to buy a new power amp, consider the Van Alstine line of Solid State and Tube amps. He has a nice 90wpc integrated as well which sounds awesome. He even has 3 channel amps if you want to do a 3.1 set up for HT used. His solid state amps have a tube like sound. His pre amps are excellent as well with great transperency, resolution and a huge sound stage.
www.avahifi.com

Also consider Parasound Halo, Bryston, Conrad Johnson to name a few.

[IBSTORMIN]

I find my mode has significant impact on how good the music sounds (in addition to how much I enjoy it). If I'm stressed and tired it never sounds as good. It makes me question how accurate my appraisals are at any given time.

How big a factor in sound quality is personal mode with other AR members??

Mood has a great influence on how good the music sounds.
How good the music sounds has a great influence on mood.
Sometimes you just don't have enough time for the music to cure the mood.
That's why we keep trying to improve how good the music sounds.