Sampling of Audio Gear

[frahengeo]

Have a question(s) for you Audiophiles out there:

In reviews of hi-fi equipment, professional or personal, one often reads things like: "...it reproduced the sound accurately..." or "...there was a measure of smoothness..." blah, blah, blah.

The question is, unless the Producer, or the Artist of that music was there to give the “nod”, how can one claim that this AV gear is better than that one, or worse yet “mine is better than yours”? Maybe criticisms like "lack of bass response" or "narrow upper-midrange" is what the Artist really intended.

Recently, I was having a discussion with someone regarding Cassette tape vs. Minidisc in another site. During the discussion, he claimed that his tape machine would “outperform” any Minidisc player or CD player for that matter. Although I've never had the chance of listening to this particular model, I was skeptical to say the least. I've heard and owned a handful of cassette decks in my day, but I have never thought its sound better than that of CDs or minidisc. Even with Dolby S, cassette hiss always bothered me, and it never sounded full. Sure, minidisc is compressed, but still…
At one point, this person was so adamant that the only conclusion I could think of was that their ears simply preferred the cassette sound, but claiming “outperform” was difficult to accept.

Also, I’ve always liked the sound of vinyl. There is something to it and it sounds very different from the digital mediums, but is the “vinyl sound” how its suppose to be? Shouldn’t the comparisons be based on how well the equipment reproduces the original sound?

With that in mind, it seems that the only real comparison is with numbers or specifications. Even then, all equipment would need to be measured with the exact same test equipment to make it objective. So, all AV gear comparisons should only have Tables filled with data (e.g. Freq Resp., S/N ratio, etc.) and should leave listening tests out of the picture. In other words, show me the data!!

No offense here. Just want to read your thoughts on this.

[harley .guy07]

Have a question(s) for you Audiophiles out there:

In reviews of hi-fi equipment, professional or personal, one often reads things like: "...it reproduced the sound accurately..." or "...there was a measure of smoothness..." blah, blah, blah.

The question is, unless the Producer, or the Artist of that music was there to give the “nod”, how can one claim that this AV gear is better than that one, or worse yet “mine is better than yours”? Maybe criticisms like "lack of bass response" or "narrow upper-midrange" is what the Artist really intended.

Recently, I was having a discussion with someone regarding Cassette tape vs. Minidisc in another site. During the discussion, he claimed that his tape machine would “outperform” any Minidisc player or CD player for that matter. Although I've never had the chance of listening to this particular model, I was skeptical to say the least. I've heard and owned a handful of cassette decks in my day, but I have never thought its sound better than that of CDs or minidisc. Even with Dolby S, cassette hiss always bothered me, and it never sounded full. Sure, minidisc is compressed, but still…
At one point, this person was so adamant that the only conclusion I could think of was that their ears simply preferred the cassette sound, but claiming “outperform” was difficult to accept.

Also, I’ve always liked the sound of vinyl. There is something to it and it sounds very different from the digital mediums, but is the “vinyl sound” how its suppose to be? Shouldn’t the comparisons be based on how well the equipment reproduces the original sound?

With that in mind, it seems that the only real comparison is with numbers or specifications. Even then, all equipment would need to be measured with the exact same test equipment to make it objective. So, all AV gear comparisons should only have Tables filled with data (e.g. Freq Resp., S/N ratio, etc.) and should leave listening tests out of the picture. In other words, show me the data!!

No offense here. Just want to read your thoughts on this.

Well I can see your point when it comes to the cassette deck argument. In the Data department the cassette deck even the best quality models are still limited by the formats function itself. It is a magnetic media that has heads that read a reel of tape and the measurements even on the best of test equipment show that this format will not compete with the likes of CD's or the Minidisk. When the cassette was in its hay day I could get surprising results using the finest quality of tapes and some of the best made tape decks out there but I do know the limitations of this format and would know better than to make a claim that a cassette could compete with the likes of CD or Minidisks recorded with the same amount of effort. As to people comparing speakers and other gear being close to the origional performance that the artist intended that is a very good point. Unless you were sitting in the studio with the artist while the track was being cut you will not know what the original master souded like. Most people base there hearing off of what live performances they have been at sounded like and I know that those are not always "flat" themselves. Its usually is more of a opinion that a said persons gear is the most accurate in comparison to other gear. The data on speakers are taken from signal tests run on them in special anechoic chambers which allows the speakers to be checked for flat response. That helps but when these speakers are put in the home the response does change with factors like furniture,walls and the overall shape of the room itself. So the specs on equipment is useful to tell you how clean a component operates but there are so many variables when it comes to hooking up this equipment and hearing speakers in rooms that are not acoustically designed that its all more opinion based and unless you own the test equipment in your own home its all based on what you hear yourself.

[Luvin Da Blues]

[QUOTE=harley .guy07] ...... Unless you were sitting in the studio with the artist while the track was being cut you will not know what the original master souded like......... [QUOTE]

This was discussed in a previous thread. My comments in, that thread, mirrored yours exactly.

[Hyfi]

First of all, the CD format still does not equal the sound (forget about snap crackle pop or tape hiss) of an Album or a good Cassette recording of an album due to the square sound wave of digital. Yes some are better than others and the way in which some labels like Maple Shade and Chesky record CDs do sound stellar.

I have 20 year old cassette recordings of my old albums that have much more emotion and lifelike sound than the same CD. The analog sound wave lets you hear a cymbal crash from start to end, not just half of it and then a quick dropoff.

99% of the time the artist does not have much control over the engineer that super compresses the CD so it will play loud on the radio.

When reviewers talk about the sound, think about sitting next to someone playing an acoustic bass. You hear the notes resonate, you hear the artists breath, his fingers sliding up and down the neck. You can tell it is a hollow bodied upright bass. If you don't hear all the same from one pc of gear but do from another, you have your answer as to which pc of gear is truer to life and the tone and timber of an instrument sounds like it would if in the room.

Now play the same recording on a mass market receiver or HT system and tell me if it sounds the same as playing it thru equipment like you see in my signature.

[harley .guy07]

First of all, the CD format still does not equal the sound (forget about snap crackle pop or tape hiss) of an Album or a good Cassette recording of an album due to the square sound wave of digital. Yes some are better than others and the way in which some labels like Maple Shade and Chesky record CDs do sound stellar.

I have 20 year old cassette recordings of my old albums that have much more emotion and lifelike sound than the same CD. The analog sound wave lets you hear a cymbal crash from start to end, not just half of it and then a quick dropoff.

99% of the time the artist does not have much control over the engineer that super compresses the CD so it will play loud on the radio.

When reviewers talk about the sound, think about sitting next to someone playing an acoustic bass. You hear the notes resonate, you hear the artists breath, his fingers sliding up and down the neck. You can tell it is a hollow bodied upright bass. If you don't hear all the same from one pc of gear but do from another, you have your answer as to which pc of gear is truer to life and the tone and timber of an instrument sounds like it would if in the room.

Now play the same recording on a mass market receiver or HT system and tell me if it sounds the same as playing it thru equipment like you see in my signature.

I do agree that they do compress some CD's to the point that some of the original sounds are lost in transmission. I will say there are also some disks out there that the studio or the artist put the time in and made sure that this did not happen to that level. Every time you take a analog format or original cut and put it to digital you have some loss. It the master is in digital then the losses are in the digital to analog transmission. But the compact disk format as a whole has higher signal to noise levels and with the proper playback equipment such as a good quality CD deck and DAC the losses are at a minimum. the main reason the cassette died is also the same as the vhs video tape. Every time you play the tape there is tape head contact and wear. After numerous playbacks the quality will start to suffer from this.

I too have made recordings to cassette that amazed people to what can be done with cassettes even seeing the fact that this format losses its ability to have much information below around the 35 to 40 hz range and above 10 to 15 khz. I know people will debate this but from what I have seen this is true. I have even made audio only recordings on VHS tapes using the hifi sound tracking of the HiFI vcrs with awesome results. Most people don't realize how good vhs HiFi tracking can be for audio recording but I have done it.

Now vinyl does have a definite advantage over cd in the fact that the frequency range is just as good with good equipment. There is no fomat converting to degrade the signal. So I do see the advantage to vinyl. It does have a more natural response and with good enough playback equipment the difference in the smoothness and overall audio information that can be drawn is definitely apparent.

I will add that out of everyone in this forum that I have seen I have yet to see a person with a equipment list in their signature that still has a tape deck listed. I do see the draw to vinyl. But cassettes to me have more downsides than upsides and thats why my higher end Yamaha tape deck that I used to use is know in a closet stored away.

[Hyfi]

I do agree that they do compress some CD's to the point that some of the original sounds are lost in transmission. I will say there are also some disks out there that the studio or the artist put the time in and made sure that this did not happen to that level. Every time you take a analog format or original cut and put it to digital you have some loss. It the master is in digital then the losses are in the digital to analog transmission. But the compact disk format as a whole has higher signal to noise levels and with the proper playback equipment such as a good quality CD deck and DAC the losses are at a minimum. the main reason the cassette died is also the same as the vhs video tape. Every time you play the tape there is tape head contact and wear. After numerous playbacks the quality will start to suffer from this.

I too have made recordings to cassette that amazed people to what can be done with cassettes even seeing the fact that this format losses its ability to have much information below around the 35 to 40 hz range and above 10 to 15 khz. I know people will debate this but from what I have seen this is true. I have even made audio only recordings on VHS tapes using the hifi sound tracking of the HiFI vcrs with awesome results. Most people don't realize how good vhs HiFi tracking can be for audio recording but I have done it.

Now vinyl does have a definite advantage over cd in the fact that the frequency range is just as good with good equipment. There is no fomat converting to degrade the signal. So I do see the advantage to vinyl. It does have a more natural response and with good enough playback equipment the difference in the smoothness and overall audio information that can be drawn is definitely apparent.

I will add that out of everyone in this forum that I have seen I have yet to see a person with a equipment list in their signature that still has a tape deck listed. I do see the draw to vinyl. But cassettes to me have more downsides than upsides and thats why my higher end Yamaha tape deck that I used to use is know in a closet stored away.

I whittled some of my misc equipment from my sig but still have a real nice single side Onkyo Integra tape deck which I still use.

I also still have a Beta machine and I too used to make 4 hour mix tapes before cd compilations. The size of the sound band on the beta was better than the hifi vhs machines. It is not in use anymore due to a loading mechanism failure but still works fine.

[harley .guy07]

I whittled some of my misc equipment from my sig but still have a real nice single side Onkyo Integra tape deck which I still use.

I also still have a Beta machine and I too used to make 4 hour mix tapes before cd compilations. The size of the sound band on the beta was better than the hifi vhs machines. It is not in use anymore due to a loading mechanism failure but still works fine.

I did not use the beta just for the fact that I did not have one and the vcr I already had in my system. Beta was a superior format anyway but vhs won the popularity contest mainly because the vhs tape could record longer per tape and adult material companies chose it as the format they would use. The video and audio buffs really were pushing beta but Sony lost the format war on that one.

I do still get out my Yamaha from time to time to listen to some vintage cassettes that I have but it mostly stays stored.

[E-Stat]

how can one claim that this AV gear is better than that one, or worse yet “mine is better than yours”?
When the reference is to the sound of live, unamplified music and that reviewer has regular exposure to said.


Also, I’ve always liked the sound of vinyl. There is something to it and it sounds very different from the digital mediums, but is the “vinyl sound” how its suppose to be?
True, but analog distortion is fundamentally different from Redbook CD distortion. Actually, a better reference than vinyl is analog tape, but such is rare.


With that in mind, it seems that the only real comparison is with numbers or specifications. Even then, all equipment would need to be measured with the exact same test equipment to make it objective.
The problem with that approach is that it assumes that the numbers convey the ability of a component to sound like live music. Unfortunately, most specifications fail miserably in this regard and are worse than useless. Worse? Many people use metrics like THD that bear little resemblance to the way our senses interpret music. As for me, I view ultra low THD numbers as inherently bad - simply because it is so easy to achieve them by means of using tons of negative feedback which creates numerous problems in the time domain. Ever heard a Crown IC-150 preamp? It was the most horrible sounding component for decades, yet it measured quite well.

rw

[harley .guy07]

The problem with that approach is that it assumes that the numbers convey the ability of a component to sound like live music. Unfortunately, most specifications fail miserably in this regard and are worse than useless. Worse? Many people use metrics like THD that bear little resemblance to the way our senses interpret music. As for me, I view ultra low THD numbers as inherently bad - simply because it is so easy to achieve them by means of using tons of negative feedback which creates numerous problems in the time domain. Ever heard a Crown IC-150 preamp? It was the most horrible sounding component for decades, yet it measured quite well.

rw[/QUOTE]

When I worked selling higher end gear where I live it did seem like people hovered around the THD thing, and no matter what you tell them they still centered around it. I really think It has a lot to do with this measurement being the first thing that is printed after the power rating on any given amplifier. Even though this measurement does not tell of the components sound quality I think people that don't know any better assume that it does show the quality of a component because of they way they print it with the power rating. In a way I think companies do this simply because it is one measurement that is very easy to get a good rating on and they know allot of people who don't better will look closely at it.

[frahengeo]

When the reference is to the sound of live, unamplified music and that reviewer has regular exposure to said.

I've never been to a classical music concert, so I can't compare. However, I've been to plenty of rock concerts. Even the best rock concert I've been to couldn't compare to their studio album. With that, I'm assuming that classical and/or jazz concerts sound much like the studio recording...Is this correct?
Of all the equipment reviews I've read, I wonder how many of those Critics really know what each instrument should sound like?



True, but analog distortion is fundamentally different from Redbook CD distortion. Actually, a better reference than vinyl is analog tape, but such is rare.

Interesting...Similar to what the other guy was saying on the other site. By the way, he was speaking specifically about a Tandberg machine. If this is true, then either my recording and/or equipment or my hearing is bad. Do you know of any Links that offers more explanation on this? Preferably a technical article or something.


The problem with that approach is that it assumes that the numbers convey the ability of a component to sound like live music. Unfortunately, most specifications fail miserably in this regard and are worse than useless. Worse? Many people use metrics like THD that bear little resemblance to the way our senses interpret music. As for me, I view ultra low THD numbers as inherently bad - simply because it is so easy to achieve them by means of using tons of negative feedback which creates numerous problems in the time domain. Ever heard a Crown IC-150 preamp? It was the most horrible sounding component for decades, yet it measured quite well.

rw

I tend to agree with you on the THD spec. I'm sure at a high enough numbers, THD would be a factor. I was thinking more about frequency response. Its a specification that tells whether the AV gear provides a neutral/flat reproduction of the music and not add to it.
Crown? Never heard of it, but I'm assuming the measurements were taken using a standardized method?? Man, there has got to be a way to make this process objective instead of subjective like it seems.

To All,

Thank you for all the comments. I'm here to listen to people's opinion with an open mind, learn, and form my own opinion. Gives me lots to research on. Just gotta find research material that is seemingly unbiased.

[RGA]

The problem with the review industry that I am a part of now is that everyone has their own reference - their own reference system and their own belief system as to what a stereo system should be trying to reproduce.

My belief mirrors this article http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm on what we need to look for in the best audio reproduction systems. Comparing to live makes little sense to me. I believe one has to start with the piano - then the system that can reproduce the sound of a piano best is the starting point of the discussion - and the be perfectly blunt for me that excludes a whole pile of stereo systems - including breathtakingly pricey ones.

I think the article has a lot of pluses with few minutes except that it requires a lot of listening which means a lot of time and effort.

[harley .guy07]

The problem with the review industry that I am a part of now is that everyone has their own reference - their own reference system and their own belief system as to what a stereo system should be trying to reproduce.

My belief mirrors this article http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm on what we need to look for in the best audio reproduction systems. Comparing to live makes little sense to me. I believe one has to start with the piano - then the system that can reproduce the sound of a piano best is the starting point of the discussion - and the be perfectly blunt for me that excludes a whole pile of stereo systems - including breathtakingly pricey ones.

I think the article has a lot of pluses with few minutes except that it requires a lot of listening which means a lot of time and effort.

I read the article and I am very impressed with what was said. And if every one would read this they might look or more importantly listen to everything differently. I especially like when you said that there are some very high priced systems that would fail the contrast test miserably. I am a musician by hobby and love all sorts of music and my main interest by being into audio is to hear the different kinds of music that I love the way it is supposed to sound. Not some pre conceived notion about how it is supposed to sound. The fact that the article talks about different recordings being different in nature and sometimes the voices that we hear shouldn't always be that warm smooth sound that we think that they should be because possibly the singer does not sound that way. Thats the thing I love about audio being a passion for me is that know matter what you think you know about it every once in a while you get that good "I just learned something" feeling that can make you look at things from a different perspective for the good.

The reason why I liked when you talked about some very expensive audio systems failing to have the contrast as talked about in the article is that I think allot of audiopiles have that feeling that they have to spend a million bucks for a system to sound good or that the more expensive the component or speaker it is automatically going to be supperior. I myself have a fairly modest system if you look at my signature but I am proud of what I have and while it might not have the real accuracy or contrast as the article said as some. I do believe that if you can work with the stuff that you have and can afford you can get good results if you don't give up or get Bored with it.

I really think the boredom in itself sometimes drives people to change their components all the time. There is nothing wrong with upgrading and changing things I am not saying that but make sure you know the capabilities of what you already have first.

[Smokey]

As for me, I view ultra low THD numbers as inherently bad - simply because it is so easy to achieve them by means of using tons of negative feedback which creates numerous problems in the time domain.
I think there is more to low THD than just feedback. THD is more related to power, harmonic distortion and noise and it does cost more to keep those specifications in check. That is one reason cheap amplifiers have modarate to high THD.


Even though this measurement [THD] does not tell of the components sound quality I think people that don't know any better assume that it does show the quality of a component because of they way they print it with the power rating.-
If THD does not show the quality of component, then what does it show?

As you said THD is not tell all, but it is a good indication of amplifier signal handling (coloration) capability :)

[frahengeo]

I think there is more to low THD than just feedback. THD is more related to power, harmonic distortion and noise and it does cost more to keep those specifications in check. That is one reason cheap amplifiers have modarate to high THD.


If THD does not show the quality of component, then what does it show?

As you said THD is not tell all, but it is a good indication of amplifier signal handling (coloration) capability :)

THD also comes in several different flavors, making it hard to do comparison.

What are the key parameters for a:

A) Turntable

B) Cassette

C) CD Player

D) DVD/Blu Ray

E) Speakers

Is there anything to consider for a preamp used in:

A) 2-Channel

B) Home Theater

[RGA]

THD is practically worthless - some of the very best amps have some very high THD and some of the very worst amplifiers have vanishingly low THD. If everyone spent more time actually listening than reading bogus "this is important" measurements on forums and in magazines they'd be far better off.

I was a Bryston/PMC & B&W fan for a long time - and no one is going to argue with Bryston measurements In the real world a very high THD Single Ended tube amplifier with a mere 8 watts - produced deeper richer bass a 3 dimensional sound - far better transient attack, no noise, better decay and could pound. nothing about the measurements would have had me expecting any of that. The Bryston sounded muddier - making me want to turn it up to make things out clearly, the bass was garbage in comparison - lean brittle lightweight. Massive 120 watt rating and ridiculously low noise rating values - but please people - stop worrying about spec sheets.

Even Stereophile with all their measurements - when you look and read what the actual REVIEWER'S buy it is very very rarely the stuff that measures well and that accounts for virtually every review magazine in print or on the net. If the measurements actually related to what people heard then the reviewers would never touch a tube amplifier with a ten foot pole. And there is a disproportionate amount of reviewers who own tube amps relative to how many tube amps are sold versus solid state amps!!

[Smokey]

THD also comes in several different flavors, making it hard to do comparison.

I don’t follow you by saying that THD comes in different flavor. THD simply how faithful an amp is to the signal it is amplifying. The less THD, the more faithful amp is to the input signal.


THD is practically worthless - some of the very best amps have some very high THD and some of the very worst amplifiers have vanishingly low THD.

If an amp have high THD, then does it matter how does it sound?

Low THD is foundation to agood amp, and if that foundation is not there, nothing else matter. High THD mean more coloration and distortion which is bad even if it does sound good.


No one is going to argue with Bryston measurements In the real world a very high THD Single Ended tube amplifier with a mere 8 watts - produced deeper richer bass a 3 dimensional sound - far better transient attack, no noise, better decay and could pound.

8 watts of power tell pretty much the whole story (high distortion). That amp might be all right for analog format like LP which have high noise and low dynamics, but not enough power and too much high distortion to reproduce high dynamic formats like CD/DVD/Blu-ray. Subjectively it might sound good, but objectively you are listening to a distorted sound.


If the measurements actually related to what people heard then the reviewers would never touch a tube amplifier with a ten foot pole.

Tubes are product of 40s and 50s era, and are inherently high noise and high distortion component no matter how you look at it. They also have tendency to shift in tolerance and performance due to heat and age.

The only advantage Tube have over solid state is that tubes can handle high voltage and high current transit better. But when it comes to low noise and low THD distortion, they fail miserably.

[hifitommy]

please realize that ANY transformation of energy is where differences can be most easily amplified. given identical specs, a cassette deck or any other recorder has a big chance of sounding different from one another.

ferinstance, my nakamichi 700 produced the very best recorded cassette sound of any that i have used overall. my tandberg tcd300 which was at one time considered to be state of the art reproduced depth, imaging, and dynamic range exquisitely. only wow and flutter spoiled its sound.

my sony 3head with dolby S had similarly low w&f to the nak and was even quieter due to the dS. on a preferential basis, the nak was tops, the sony more than acceptable, and the tandberg rejected due to the flutter even though the sound was wonderful otherwise.

let me expound on dolby S. there is absolutely NO noise on a dolby S encoded tape unless it resides in the original recording such as the original analog tape hiss which you want to be there if its on the master tape. the time out LP by dave brubeck is a good example of that. the specs demanded for licensure of dolby S by dolby labs is low enough to compete closely if not completely with the digital media. you would be hard pressed to identify flutter on a S equipped deck.

there are three bands of noise reduction on S and yet it is compatible with B, C, and non dolby settings. even the low frequency noise is prevented. had S been introduced without trying to gouge us by putting it only on very costly decks. AFTER it was too late, they put it on some affordable sonys.

MOST recordings are quite accurate and when reviewers of equipment make statements about performance, they are usually right if they are any good like robert harley or john atkinson. you can agonize over that and the fact that the reviewers arent using the same speakers the artist of producer or engineer did to master the recording. well, i hate to burst that balloon but some recordings are mastered on JBL 4310s (nearly the same as L100s) which are nowhere NEAR being flat.

mastering engineers like doug sax know how to compensate for those shortcomings and still come out at the end with a flat recording. those speakers are TOOLS of the trade. its preferable to use good, flat speakers for that task but its not an ideal world.

test equipment is only useful in the hands experienced in doing so. doing that at home has some value but dont look at it as gospel.

'lack of bass response" or "narrow upper-midrange" is what the Artist really intended.' the artist will RARELY want there to be those flaws. most will want the recording to sound like REAL music and that's what i expect from any recording. i just bought a dvd of the group WAR that is positively anemic in the lows and its so bad i cant bring myself to listen and watch it. its a waste of time. i have the original WAR LPs and they dont sound anything like that travesty.

" Shouldn’t the comparisons be based on how well the equipment reproduces the original sound?" EXACTLY! good vinyl reproduction comes closest to the live experience (other that the master tape). when good reviewers hear the recordings, they expect them to sound as close to the original sound as possible. that's the basis of 'the absolute sound' principle. hopefully the reviewer is equipped with a well installed array of very good stereo equipment.

"should leave listening tests out of the picture" absolutely NOT! listening is the final arbiter. numbers and spec s are only marks on paper that many times have nothing to do with reality. the best designers of course use measurements but finalize anything with listening.

[RGA]

Smokey

Sorry but I can't help you because if you are buying audio components for any other reason than how they sound then why not just shop at Sears? The stuff there will have THD lower than any human on the planet can possibly ever hear and no measurements of any mainstream gear is any better than a $99 Sanyo. CD players all measure below audible hearing, and all cables do as well.

All wine is made from grapes, and all hamburgers have beef in them so forget Gordon Ramsey and eat at Burger King!

The audio industry is far more about selling numbers, specs and bafflegab than it has any interest in selling high quality music playback. People are inundated with useless numbers - hey the wow and flutter on a CD player is better than on a Rega P3 so it must be better - except that the Wow and Flutter on new decent decks is lower than anyone can hear!

Hey this car deck has 52 watts while the other has only 50 - so it's worth the extra money to buy the 52? And it actually works!

There is nothing really better about Solid State or CD over vinyl and tubes when the best examples out there. Even the best solid state designers in blind conditions choose old beat up tube amplifiers. While it may be true that tubes have higher distortion - the distortion that they do have occurs at higher volume levels, and what is there is far more "natural" allowing the ear to filter it out before it gets to your brain. That's no doubt why it sounds more like real music instruments and why it tends not to sound incredibly fatiguing over a short period of time.

This two articles were written by one of the top Solid State designers in the entire industry and the founder of Monitor Audio and reviewer of over 700 amplifiers for every top magazine in the industry.

http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/tinyhistory1.html
http://www.stereophile.com/reference/70/

As taster

"A little anecdote might illustrate what was happening on a larger scale. At the time I glanced at the first promotional issue of Glass Audio, I was also working on an advanced 200 watt MOSFET amplifier with two friends from Tektronix. This amp represented the pinnacle of the high-end art: fully differential, all-cascode, all-Class-A, zero-TIM, 200V/microsecond, fully regulated, and 120 watts/channel. The same month, I went to the second Oregon Triode Society meeting, and one of the members brought a rusty old Dynaco Stereo 70 that first saw the light of day when Dwight D. Eisenhower was President. The sum total of his "tweaks" was to convert the EL34's to triode (cut and tape two wires), and replace two coupling caps. About 2 hours with a soldering iron. We're not talking aerospace engineering here.

The OTS guy turned it on, and we compared the Stereo 70 to everything in the dealer's showroom. It was plainly superior not only to any transistor amp in there, it wiped out the latest $3000 Audio Research all-tube confection that had received a glowing review in the latest Stereophile. Say hello to humble, and good-bye to price, power, and prestige. (That dealer did not invite the OTS back - gee, wonder why? Buncha troublemakers if you ask me.)

If you stay in audio long enough, that kind of experience can make you do some deep thinking about cherished assumptions. I set aside the transistor project, stopped laughing at the "tube nuts" and subscribed to Glass Audio (Vol. 1, Issue 0). Two years later, I reviewed the Herb Reichert Silver 300B and the Audio Note Ongaku for Positive Feedback (on the newly-designed Ariels).

As the speaker designer, I felt I knew my speakers inside and out. Or so I thought. The Ariels were transformed from a pleasant speaker to near-electrostatic realism and "you-are-there" quality. All from changing an amplifier! David Robinson later called this my "Road to Damascus" experience. That ended any idea that amps were pretty much all the same, or if they weren't, mainstream high-end gear was pretty close to perfect. I was surprised to discover that speakers were better than I thought, and that amps had a long long way to go."

My dealer carries some terrifically expensive and big name Solid State stuff - they've been working there and selling every big name great measuring SS amplifier - and every single one of them owns a tube amp. Why? Because they're the only darn things worth listening to over a long period of time. Higher distortion and less accurate - if that's the argument you want to stick to then that's fine - but what sounds more like real music instruments and singers - is pretty obvious to anyone with a decent set of ears. There are some exceptions but generally they also follow the single ended topology - Sugden for one - but they measure worse too.

[frahengeo]

[QUOTE=Smokey]I don’t follow you by saying that THD comes in different flavor. THD simply how faithful an amp is to the signal it is amplifying. The less THD, the more faithful amp is to the input signal.

Well, at least there are a few ways that I've observed:

1 kHz Freq, 1 Watt, x.xx THD

1 kHz Freq, @rated power, x.xx THD

Single channel driven 20~20,000 Hz, @rated power, x.xx THD (for multichannel)

All Channels Driven 20-20,000 Hz, @rated power, x.xx THD (for multichannel)

I imagine that if the amplifier were kept as a constant, then all these methods of measurements could potentially produce different THDs. Or I am way off on this?

[JoeE SP9]

I'm with RGA and hifitommy. After 41+ years in this hobby I've come to realize specs mean little if anything when it comes to how something actually sounds. The first gear I bought (1967) was tubes and I was happy. In the early 70's I jumped on the SS wagon and quickly realized my listening pleasure was gone. So I went back to tubes. When I got my BS EE in the middle 70's I thought all wires and cables sounded the same and the improvements in SS gear made it sound as good as tubes. NOT!!!
By the time I bought my first pair of Magnaplanars in 1976 I was using a Dyna PAS-3 and 2 MK-III's. A couple of years later I got an ARC SP-3. Since then I've had nothing but ARC tube or hybrid pre-amps and tube driven planars or ESL's. Acoustat has been my speaker of choice since around 1983.
I don't read spec sheets any more. I use my ears and the opinions of people who have ears I respect. Tubes (to my ears) sound more like music than most SS gear. This is not to say all SS gear sounds bad. SS amps that are heavily biased to work in class A for more than 2 or 3 watts or pure class A sound better than other SS amps. The problems with pure Class A SS amps are heat, current draw from the wall and expense. However, I believe they are worth all the drawbacks because they sound better.

In short it's not necessarily how much distortion, but what kind. Even order distortion which tubes produce can be several orders of magnitude higher than the odd order distortion of SS and still sound better.

[hifitommy]

at least a decade ago i heard wilson watt/puppys driven with jadis defy 7 amplification. they were the best i had ever heard to date. they measured relatively poorly but the sound was exemplary.

when solid state electronics came out, their MEASURED distortion was noticeably lower but the sound was noticeably worse. perhaps we need to measure the right things.

when cd came out, people ASSUMED it would be better. eventually when sacd and dvda came along, it was much closer to that. still the best vinyl playback sounds better than the best digital but the gap is miniscule now.

too bad sony didnt properly support it and use more intelligent marketing.

[frahengeo]

A thought and a few questions...

Our gear, both analog and digital, are all man-made. Designed, Verified, Manufactured, Quality Controlled using science and technology. If we don't know what to measure or are incapable of measuring this so-called "warm sound", then how can the Manufacturers know that they are shipping a good product. Testing every single released audio unit with the "golden ear" seems far fetched and not feasible.

There was a member that mentioned audio cut-off due to the square wave phenomenon; Can this be quantified?

Finally, for those of you that are experienced in Jazz and Classical; does the turntable properly replicate the "live" sound? If not, what platform does?

Again, my objective is to draw from those with more expertise than myself. Thanks for all the invaluable information.

[E-Stat]

I've never been to a classical music concert, so I can't compare.
Never? You're missing out on a lot.


However, I've been to plenty of rock concerts. Even the best rock concert I've been to couldn't compare to their studio album.
I listen to plenty of popular music, but most *live* venues sound positively horrible.


With that, I'm assuming that classical and/or jazz concerts sound much like the studio recording...Is this correct?
Only the best. The majority still rely too heavily upon the multi-tracking method that destroys natural depth.



Of all the equipment reviews I've read, I wonder how many of those Critics really know what each instrument should sound like?
Read those who make direct comparisons to live unamplified music.



If this is true, then either my recording and/or equipment or my hearing is bad. Do you know of any Links that offers more explanation on this?
It's not a simple question to answer or can any article do the same. It is all about experience and exposure.


I was thinking more about frequency response. Its a specification that tells whether the AV gear provides a neutral/flat reproduction of the music and not add to it.
Once again, the measurements are largely useless because they are done with each component separately. The combined result can be very different. Speakers cause many amplifiers to react differently because of their load characteristics. Some amps are able to drive difficult loads and change their character less.


Man, there has got to be a way to make this process objective instead of subjective like it seems.
After nearly forty years in the hobby, I sure haven't found a way.

rw

[E-Stat]

I think there is more to low THD than just feedback. THD is more related to power, harmonic distortion and noise and it does cost more to keep those specifications in check. That is one reason cheap amplifiers have modarate to high THD.
Sure there is more to it, but it is easy to improve the specsmanship using NFB at the direct cost of fidelity when the criteria is dynamic music, not test tones.


If THD does not show the quality of component, then what does it show?
It frequently shows utter ineptitude on the part of the engineer when they rely too heavily on the feedback crutch. When you have a design using NO feedback that measures low distortion, that is impressive.


As you said THD is not tell all, but it is a good indication of amplifier signal handling (coloration) capability :)
And my experience is that it offers zero correlation with the musical truth. To each his own.

rw

[frahengeo]

[QUOTE=E-Stat]Never? You're missing out on a lot.

So it seems. I will start with classical recordings for now and see if it peaks my interest. However, there is a fundamental flaw in this strategy since I will be using my "digital" equipment.


Once again, the measurements are largely useless because they are done with each component separately. The combined result can be very different. Speakers cause many amplifiers to react differently because of their load characteristics. Some amps are able to drive difficult loads and change their character less.

I'm not sure I'm following. Are you suggesting that switching a component being compared and keeping everything else the same does not offer an apples to apples comparison. That there is additional "synergy" between components that could potentially enhance/improve sound reproduction? Well, that leaves the Audiophile with an endless number of combination that will never be realized.

[JoeE SP9]

harley .guy07 (http://forums.audioreview.com/member.php?u=283864)

I guess you never noticed the two Nakamichi Cassette decks listed in my sig.

[JoeE SP9]

So it seems. I will start with classical recordings for now and see if it peaks my interest. However, there is a fundamental flaw in this strategy since I will be using my "digital" equipment.
The flaw is thinking that "digital equipment" is a flaw in strategy. Both digital and analog have their pluses and minuses.


Once again, the measurements are largely useless because they are done with each component separately. The combined result can be very different. Speakers cause many amplifiers to react differently because of their load characteristics. Some amps are able to drive difficult loads and change their character less.
A good example of this is Apogee ribbons or some electrostatics. Some amps just don't work well with the loads these speakers present.


I'm not sure I'm following. Are you suggesting that switching a component being compared and keeping everything else the same does not offer an apples to apples comparison. That there is additional "synergy" between components that could potentially enhance/improve sound reproduction? Well, that leaves the Audiophile with an endless number of combination that will never be realized.
Essentially that's correct. Some gear works better with specific gear. Synergy is the correct term for this effect. Yes, this does complicate thing. That's why after 41+ years with this "addiction" I'm still learning.

[frahengeo]

[QUOTE=JoeE SP9]The flaw is thinking that "digital equipment" is a flaw in strategy. Both digital and analog have their pluses and minuses.

I was being somewhat facetious in that statement since a good number of Audiophiles seem to feel that analog recordings are better representations of the "live" recording. If that's the case, then how will I ever truly appreciate classical music using my inferior digital equipment (facetious again).

[Feanor]

Never? You're missing out on a lot.


So it seems. I will start with classical recordings for now and see if it peaks my interest. However, there is a fundamental flaw in this strategy since I will be using my "digital" equipment.

...

See under my signature for my recommendations for a classical beginner. The listed recordings are not necessarily "the best" for a given piece or even necessarily superb sounding recordings, but they are all decent.

[JoeE SP9]

[quote=JoeE SP9]The flaw is thinking that "digital equipment" is a flaw in strategy. Both digital and analog have their pluses and minuses.

I was being somewhat facetious in that statement since a good number of Audiophiles seem to feel that analog recordings are better representations of the "live" recording. If that's the case, then how will I ever truly appreciate classical music using my inferior digital equipment (facetious again).
It has been my experience that recordings made with minimal miking and little if any studio sweetening sound better. Most studio recordings have been dubbed Eq'd and re-Eq'd to the point they sound very clean and clear but have no depth. Telarc recordings are done with minimal miking and little if any studio "sweetening". They tend to sound more realistic than others. Most classical recordings don't have a lot of studio "work" done to them. Of course there are some that sound great and some that don't.
Here's To Ben by Jacintha on Groove Note is an example of a CD that was recorded live to two track. It is a good example of how a recording should sound.

Your "digital gear" should sound quite good playing it. Now I'm being facetious!

[E-Stat]

I will start with classical recordings for now and see if it peaks my interest.
Don't get discouraged too quickly as there is quite a variation within that general type. I confess that I don't enjoy much of the standard Beethoven - Brahms - Haydn fare. Actually, there are numerous unamplified music venues. There is jazz, bluegrass, a lot of "new age" music is instrumental in nature. I get to listen to wifey play her baby grand - that certainly qualifies.


However, there is a fundamental flaw in this strategy since I will be using my "digital" equipment.
Not at all. There are quite a few exceptional recordings on the Telarc label. I had the good fortune to play a small part in one recorded in Atlanta.


I'm not sure I'm following. Are you suggesting that switching a component being compared and keeping everything else the same does not offer an apples to apples comparison.
Exactly. It is all about system synergy. What works well with one system may not do as well in others.


Well, that leaves the Audiophile with an endless number of combination that will never be realized.
One doesn't have to try every combination in order to find those that work well. But you can't mix 'n match just anything and expect an optimum result. I always begin with the speaker. Arguably, it makes the single most significant difference. Then find an amplifier that is well matched to driving it. I have three systems. The Polk monitors in the HT system are the least picky. A NAD AV receiver drives them just fine. The vintage double Advents, however, present a very low impedance load (2.3 ohms) and do have a roller coaster impedance curve, so not just any amp will do. I use an old Threshold Stasis amp originally used to drive very demanding electrostats. It damping factor and current capabilities are well matched. As for my current electrostats, they do present a challenging reactive load, but don't have the impedance swing of the Advents, Here powerful tube amps work very well with the inherently high impedance load.

rw

[E-Stat]

See under my signature for my recommendations for a classical beginner.
Yours is a wide collection, but it is missing a few of my favorites:

Copland - Billy the Kid
Copland - Third Symphony & Music for the Theatre
Ferde Grofe - Grand Canyon Suite
Howard Hanson - And His Orchestra (one of HP's favorites)
Carl Orff - Carmina Burana
Prokofiev - Lt. Kije Suite
Prokofiev - First and Second Piano Concertos (first heard on the Dayton-Wrights)
Satie - Three Gymnopedies
Borodin - Prince Igor
Holst - Wind Suites (The very first Telarc recording and incredible!)
Rachmaninoff - Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini
Various classical guitar pieces by Albeniz, Bach, Tarrega, et al played by Christopher Parkening

While I have a bunch of Bach, Brahms, Beethoven, etc. I find that I listen to them very infrequently. I prefer more lively late 19th or 20th century stuff.

Not to mention some very tasty contemporary music scores:

John Williams - Soundtrack from E.T. (The "Abandoned and Pursued" cut is quite powerful and emotional)
John Williams - Memoirs of a Geisha
John Williams - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
John Williams - The Empire Strikes Back
Nicholas Hooper - Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Nicholas Hooper - Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Hans Zimmer - The Thin Red Line (another HP favorite)


rw

[Smokey]

Thanks guys for good discussion. I try to summarize instead of individual responses.

After reading many of your long responses and links, I came away feeling that to some of you guys, sound quality came first before anything else. Even if specification are not up to par. And IMO that is a wrong approach.

I look at specifications such as Power, Dynamic Headroom, THD, frequency response and noise figures as foundation to a good amp. Just like building a house where one need a good foundation before anything else is considered. And if one don’t have a good foundation, I think you know what will happen to the house.

There are probably alot of “good sounding” amp that don’t measure up to mentioned specifications, but one have to ask themslef..”Does this amp color the sound or is it transparent?” And if an amp does not measure up to the specifications, then the answer would be that sound is colored.

And the worst culprit to color sound are Tubes because of distortion. Some might argue that Tubes [harmonic] distortion is pleasant to ear, but that is beside the point. The fact are that tubes color the sound and that is bad-even if sound is good.


When cd came out, people ASSUMED it would be better. eventually when sacd and dvda came along, it was much closer to that. still the best vinyl playback sounds better than the best digital but the gap is miniscule now.

I still can't believe some of you guys still saying that vinyl playback is better than digital systems. Vinyl are low dynamic and high noise fornat, and no matter how expensive the system is, one still can not do better than what the source is feeding the system.

For example, I had Frank Sinatra Capital Years on vinyl and bought the remaster version on CD. On the CD where new lyrics start, one could hear Sinatra taking a breath before start singing again. But on the vinyl, the same spot where he is breathing in, there is only noise. And still some audiophiles wonder why vinyl format died.

[Smokey]

Well, at least there are a few ways that I've observed:

1 kHz Freq, 1 Watt, x.xx THD

1 kHz Freq, @rated power, x.xx THD

Single channel driven 20~20,000 Hz, @rated power, x.xx THD (for multichannel)

All Channels Driven 20-20,000 Hz, @rated power, x.xx THD (for multichannel)

I imagine that if the amplifier were kept as a constant, then all these methods of measurements could potentially produce different THDs. Or I am way off on this?

If everything is kept constant and amplifier is good quality with plenty of power, then THD should stay constant and not to vary too much. If an amp is cheap or/and don't have enough power, then it will produce different THD...which is bad.

[E-Stat]

The fact are that tubes color the sound and that is bad-even if sound is good.
The *fact are* that you must have limited access to hearing the finest audio components (most of which are tubes). Ever heard the Audio Research 610Ts? The VTL Siegfrieds? The Joule Electra Rite of Passages? The Lamm Audio ML3s? The Manley Neo-Classic 500 Monoblocks? I suspect the answer is "no" to all of the above. Stick to counting numbers. The rest of us will use our ears instead. :)


I still can't believe some of you guys still saying that vinyl playback is better than digital systems. Vinyl are low dynamic and high noise fornat, and no matter how expensive the system is, one still can not do better than what the source is feeding the system.
There are tradeoffs to be sure. As for noise, your assumption is lacking a depth of understanding. Digital goes completely deaf at the lowest levels. While there is certainly a level of hiss present even in the best analog recordings, one can still resolve detail below that benign level of hiss.


And still some audiophiles wonder why vinyl format died.
I certainly don't. Most folks don't give a $hit about sound quality and convenience rules. Witness the success of the grossly mediocre MP3 format!

rw

[frahengeo]

I look at specifications such as Power, Dynamic Headroom, THD, frequency response and noise figures as foundation to a good amp.

Those specs, especially Dynamic Headroom, can be indicative of a good piece of hardware. However, there must be a way to standardize this test, such that the figures can't be tampered with.


There are probably alot of “good sounding” amp that don’t measure up to mentioned specifications, but one have to ask themslef..”Does this amp color the sound or is it transparent?” And if an amp does not measure up to the specifications, then the answer would be that sound is colored.

Speaking in terms of a flat frequency response, I agree. Is there another way to measure "coloration"?




I still can't believe some of you guys still saying that vinyl playback is better than digital systems. Vinyl are low dynamic and high noise fornat, and no matter how expensive the system is, one still can not do better than what the source is feeding the system.

You're kidding, right? We haven't reached an agreement since 1981. Analog guys can't convince the digital folks, and vice versa. Not gonna reach an agreement here.
Again, the discussion was something like: " How do you know whether an audio gear is reproducing the recording properly, since the listener/reviewer was not likely present during the recording session?"

[frahengeo]

If everything is kept constant and amplifier is good quality with plenty of power, then THD should stay constant and not to vary too much. If an amp is cheap or/and don't have enough power, then it will produce different THD...which is bad.

My point is that I don't always see these numbers reported in the same way. More than likely intentional on the manufacturers side to report more favorable numbers.

[Smokey]

The *fact are* that you must have limited access to hearing the finest audio components (most of which are tubes). Ever heard the Audio Research 610Ts? The VTL Siegfrieds? The Joule Electra Rite of Passages? The Lamm Audio ML3s? The Manley Neo-Classic 500 Monoblocks?

Damn E-Stat, those are some pricey tube amps :eek6:

But lets take a closer look at each one:

Audio Research 610Ts: 0.5% THD at rated full power.

The VTL Siegfrieds: 1.5% THD

The Joule Electra Rite of Passages: No mention of THD.

The Lamm Audio ML3s: 3% THD at rated full power

The Manley Neo-Classic 500 Monoblocks: 1.5% THD

As you can see how excessive some of THD are, and in case of Lamm Audio, totaly unacceptable. If one is looking at transparency in their amp, then any thing higher than 0.3% THD mean sound coloration and should look elsewhere.



There are tradeoffs to be sure. As for noise, your assumption is lacking a depth of understanding. Digital goes completely deaf at the lowest levels. While there is certainly a level of hiss present even in the best analog recordings, one can still resolve detail below that benign level of hiss.

Yes that is true, but you are not looking at the whole picture. Since vinyl have much lower dynamics (more compresed) than digital, the treshhold of lowest sound and loudest sound are different also. The low treshhold of digiat is much deeper than vinyl, so what you would hear below the hiss on vinyl is present on digital without the hiss (I hope I made sense there :D)


You're kidding, right? We haven't reached an agreement since 1981. Analog guys can't convince the digital folks, and vice versa. Not gonna reach an agreement here.

I think with high resolution audio like Blu-Ray, the argument is pretty much over :D

[E-Stat]

If one is looking at transparency in their amp, then any thing higher than 0.3% THD mean sound coloration and should look elsewhere.
Based upon exactly what?


Yes that is true, but you are not looking at the whole picture. Since vinyl have much lower dynamics (more compresed) than digital...
I'm talking about the real world, not theory. :)

rw

[Feanor]

My point is that I don't always see these numbers reported in the same way. More than likely intentional on the manufacturers side to report more favorable numbers.

I sort of agree. A raw THD number is sometimes quoted alone without any qualification. That's pretty meaningless. Not much better is THD quoted at 1kH, full power. In general I pay no attention to distortion figures when I'm considering an amplfier.

Hypothetically, but never seen in published specs, it would be useful to see harmonic distortion spectra at power intervals intervals, say 1 watt, 1/10 rate power, and rated power, and at frequency intervals, say 100 Hz, 1000 Hz, and 10 kHz. Here, low distortion generally and, especially, relatively low higher-order (5th and higher) distortion would be indicative of better sound.

Complementing the HD spectra would be:

Intermodular Distortion measures and power and frequency intervals,
Slewing rates (rise times) at intervals,
Damping factor at state impedance,
Noise.An amp with all good numbers across these measures would sound great there's little doubt.

[RGA]

SS amps are measured at full power where they measure best - they measure worse at low to medium volumes where 99% of people actually listen. SET measures their best at low power and their worst at high power - guess which makers chose the standard?

SET amplifiers are the most linear amplifying devices with no crossover distortion - all Push Pull designs and all class A/B designs suffer poor linearity. Why don't you see that measurement on the spec sheet - again look who picked the standard.

Most tube amps still have lower distortion than most speakers - so it's irrelevant and only occurs when pushed HARD. If one has efficient speakers then the amp will never need to be pushed hard. I would far rather own an amplifier that distorts at high levels than one that distorts at low levels. SET amplifiers sound more transparent, clear, open than any SS amp I have ever auditioned - and it's not particularly close.

Instead of reading the BS - why not listen to the actual amplifiers. Event he top SS designers in a blind test believed that a tube amp was more "realistic" and there is so much ad copy from SS saying things like "valve like sound or tube like realism" or CD player makers trying to say their cd player is more "like vinyl" which in both cases admits to the superiority of the other technology.

Vinyl has downside - on cheaps players they aren't great and vinyl wears, needles wear, and some vinyl is badly printed to start with.

I have Frank Sinatra on LP and several CD's - The LP version easily beats the CD. But then I'm not using a Sears turntable.

A quote I enjoy because I find it to be true.

all transistor amplifiers sound poor for the simple reason that transistors are inferior amplifying devices. The word “semiconductor” really means what it says and it says it all, “half”-conductor, sonically this could be translated to mean half the signal! Which is really what it sounds like. Pure and simple, transistors are highly un-linear and need a lot of correction (feedback of some sort) to have a bandwidth wide enough to be able to reproduce any music signals, they are not natural voltage amplifiers. Likewise both the pentode or tetrode requires corrective feedback to lower the load sensitivity and improve bandwidth, they are less un-linear than transistors being high impedance devices that require matching from an output transformer. Thus they sound better when used well, especially when used single-ended or in pseudo triode mode by connecting the grids together.../...we, at least understand that the test equipment is easily fooled by technical trickery such as feedback or over sampling.

[E-Stat]

SS amps are measured at full power where they measure best - they measure worse at low to medium volumes where 99% of people actually listen...Most tube amps still have lower distortion than most speakers - so it's irrelevant and only occurs when pushed HARD.
That's a tad bit over generalized IMHO. I do agree that small signal performance is crucial. My very first "serious" amplifier was an AR Integrated. It performed exactly as you say - great at full tilt, but resolution went out the window at low levels. I have also experienced that with some tube AB amps as well. The 70s Conrad-Johnson MV-75A also fit that mold. OTOH, there are a number of SS amps that do not exhibit that behavior. My Threshold Stasis is actually two amps sharing the same input and output. One is a low power class A amp that is good for the first 4 watts / channel or so where the cascode AB current amp begins to take over. Fortunately, I rarely need more than that much power in the garage driving double Advents. Naturally, I have a DAC with a tube output stage driving it directly. :)


Pure and simple, transistors are highly un-linear and need a lot of correction (feedback of some sort) to have a bandwidth wide enough to be able to reproduce any music signals, they are not natural voltage amplifiers.
Here again, you really need to be careful about such sweeping commentary. The Pass First Watt F3 is a notable exception. Feedback is absent because it is a <i>single stage</i> single ended class A design. Read this. (http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/firstwatt4/f3.html)

rw

[frahengeo]

Instead of reading the BS - why not listen to the actual amplifiers.

One should be able to narrow down their search by reading Reviews and Specs, then go listen to a handful that had favorable specs/reviews/features that met one's needs. There are far too many models available to do listening tests on all. So far, some say numbers mean something, some say it means nothing.

Again, if this sound is not measurable, then how do the manufacturers ensure quality. How do they verify that serial number xxx1 performs the same as serial number xxx2, xxx3, etc. in a particular fleet?

Out of curiosity, how did you select your gear? How were you sure that what you chose was the best option for your price range? Did you simply go to the local hifi shop, auditioned what they carried, picked your favorite, and never looked back?

[Luvin Da Blues]

Out of curiosity, how did you select your gear? How were you sure that what you chose was the best option for your price range? Did you simply go to the local hifi shop, auditioned what they carried, picked your favorite, and never looked back?

Hang out here long enough and you'll realize that Audio Note IS the only gear worth owning. :frown2:

[E-Stat]

One should be able to narrow down their search by reading Reviews and Specs, then go listen to a handful that had favorable specs/reviews/features that met one's needs.
Once again, the specs really don't provide any useful information because sometimes *better* numbers result in worse audible performance. Read this (http://passlabs.com/pdf/articles/distortion_and_feedback.pdf) article by Nelson Pass on the pitfalls of measurements and high use of negative feedback.

Another challenge begins with the speaker. You really need to start here because some speakers have special requirements that simplistic specs don't begin to address. There is absolutely nothing found in standard measurements that addresses my need for an amplifier that can drive the reactive load of an electrostatic speaker. Zilch. Or that really quantifies the ability for an amp to drive the 2.3 ohm load of the double Advents in my garage system. For that, you really need to have an understanding of the amplifier's design and - quite frankly - the result of field experience. I found out about Threshold amps through a speaker rep because they were specifically designed to handle electrostats. One of the company founders had Dayton-Wrights himself and the 800A was tasked to be able to drive their notoriously nasty load.

rw

[frahengeo]

Hang out here long enough and you'll realize that Audio Note IS the only gear worth owning. :frown2:

How? Using the ol' Jedi Mind Trick?:crazy:

So where is your Audio Note gear?

[RGA]

[QUOTE=E-Stat]
Here again, you really need to be careful about such sweeping commentary. The Pass First Watt F3 is a notable exception. Feedback is absent because it is a <i>single stage</i> single ended class A design. Read this. (http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/firstwatt4/f3.html)


You are correct that there are some exceptions - I know of exactly two Pass Labs and Sugden and it's interesting that these are also my two favorite Solid State manufacturers and only the non feedback class A zero feedback designs. But one or two exceptions my generalization is more than fair.

[Luvin Da Blues]

How? Using the ol' Jedi Mind Trick?:crazy:

So where is your Audio Note gear?

You should do a search for all of RGA posts, he's our local Audio Note (one note?) fan boy.

[frahengeo]

You should do a search for all of RGA posts, he's our local Audio Note (one note?) fan boy.

Yeah. I'll take your word on that one. I did search this particular brand. Silver this and silver that...appeared expensive.

[RGA]

One should be able to narrow down their search by reading Reviews and Specs, then go listen to a handful that had favorable specs/reviews/features that met one's needs. There are far too many models available to do listening tests on all. So far, some say numbers mean something, some say it means nothing.

Again, if this sound is not measurable, then how do the manufacturers ensure quality. How do they verify that serial number xxx1 performs the same as serial number xxx2, xxx3, etc. in a particular fleet?

Out of curiosity, how did you select your gear? How were you sure that what you chose was the best option for your price range? Did you simply go to the local hifi shop, auditioned what they carried, picked your favorite, and never looked back?

Of course measurements and specs mean SOMETHING - but it is important to know which specs will give you an indicator of being effective and downright not working. The manufacturer needs consistency so that a given woofer measures sufficiently with the crossover and tweeter to get the sound they desire. These companies have sophisticated measuring tools - just because the end result may have a higher measured distortion doesn't mean anything - they will ensure that all their amps measure the way they want them or need them to measure.

Why don't measurements matter much - well a measurement - if it matters - will correlate directly with the professional reviewer's listening experience. There is more to it than one single measurement. A speaker with a flat frequency response may look good on the graph but it may sound terrible. Conversely a speaker with dips and spikes - depending where they are may be far more desirable. And Stereophile is a prime example of this - they measure everything - some of it measures to what the editor believes to be EXCELLENT and some it pretty much off the mark - yet the reviewer's listening of it has no correlation other than individual aspects. For example my speakers have a shelved down treble, and higher than average box resonances (though that is intentional and specifically chosen to operate with these resonances). On a measurement without listening that shows up as pretty darn wonky. Yet the Stereophile reviewer after auditioning hundreds and hundreds of loudspeakers over the last 40 years and a big Quad panel owner ended up buying the speaker.

There is nothing particularly great about the measurements of this speakers and one can hear the deficiencies - but at the same time when all factors are taken in to consideration the pluses far outweigh the minuses. The speaker was designed to be listened to at a certain distance in room and was designed factoring in corner loading floor bounce etc. measuring that speaker in the center of a room in an anechoic environment at 1 meter is frankly idiotic.

In fact I will use Audio Note as the example because frankly I can't think of a system that would measure WORSE. Their speakers use little internal damping - no damping materials in the tweeter either. They use no speaker treatments to curb refraction. The amplifiers are high distortion SET - this is the highest distortion amplifier type. Now you have two oddball measurements - but wait let's add their zero times oversampling cd player technology which uses no error correction of any kind and no filters - the distortion here is as high as CD players get.

You're not just talking amplifier distortion but you ADDING the CD player distortion and the weird speaker measurements - yet people tend to leave Bryston and PMC (some of the best measuring stuff available for AN and not the other way around).

And that is generally true of single ended amplifiers - the SET was not sold in North America before Audio Note came out selling on these shores in 1990. So virtually everyone who has gone SET - left something else - and this kind of amplification is beginning to see larger and larger sales the more people "listen" to them.

What people have to do is stop reading spec sheets and watt ratings. I can play at leave the room volume levels with a pair of 93db speakers and a generously rated 10 watt amp. 4.2 undistorted.

It sounds deeper more fleshed out and has much better transients (attack) and decay than a Bryston anything. When you look at specs it should not be the case - the Bryston should kill my amp - believe me I could have purchased a bryston separates package for the same price - the Bryston combo had a 20 year warranty - is easier to use - bigger and badder with the specs. My amp has a lowly 1 year warranty and plain jane looks. For me to sacrifice the warranty, resale value and ease of use the sound has to be so far and away better because if it was close I would have bought the Bryston combo (or countless other SS amplifiers). Plus like many measurement lovers, there is nothing the OTO does from a typical measurements perspective that beats a Bryston - and frankly the Bryston gear even win in terms of build quality! But from one piano key press - it was completely game over for the Bryston - if you're buying sound the OTO was easily better - if you're buying audio as an appliance the Bryston is the clear choice.

[RGA]

You should do a search for all of RGA posts, he's our local Audio Note (one note?) fan boy.

I have no problem with the notation of being a fan boy - sometimes some things are worth becoming a fan of.

[E-Stat]

You are correct that there are some exceptions...
I merely point out that the technology exists. Over time, switchers will certainly be around but I'm hopeful that more companies will grasp the more innovative ways of finding inherently linear solid state circuits that operate like the Pass designs.

rw

[Luvin Da Blues]

I have no problem with the notation of being a fan boy - sometimes some things are worth becoming a fan of.

No offense meant, just a little dig. As much as I like Audio Note gear, and this could be my personal taste, I also realize that there is other gear I would enjoy having just as much, if not more.

[hifitommy]

that may work for some here. join the local audio society or club and attend the meetings. here in socal we have the LA/Orange County audio society. we visit dealers and manufacturers and also have presentations in a buena park hotel on occasion.

[/URL]

the clip below is for our next meeting in sept at manley labs (free beer!). eveanna will conduct a tour of the factory and give extensive explanations of many features of the products they make.

>
Dear Members and Friends,
Coming in September: The Grand Tour of Manley Labs in Chino!!!!!
You asked for it! It's the Event you have been waiting for! It just does not get better than this!!
Sunday, September 20th, 2-5pm: We'll tour Manley Labs with our own wonderful EveAnna Manley, President and CEO, as our exclusive guide!
It's a fabulous facility...tons to see! Unbelievable goodies! All made right there in house!!
The amazing EveAnna Manley has announced an incredible raffle of a pair of gorgeous MANLEY RETRO 100 AMPLIFIERS [URL="http://www.manleylabs.com/containerpages/retro10099.html"]http://www.manleylabs.com/<WBR>containerpages/retro10099.html (http://mail.google.com/mail/?source=navclient-ff#search/bob/123071a752921ec6)<WBR> Thank you!!!!!!
Just received from Chip Winston of Cable Research Labs: The CRL Copper Phono Cable, $895!! Thank you Chip and CRL!! The wonderful cable will be in the raffle along with the goodies from Manley!! WOW!
Great lunch! Beer! Superb and fun Raffle! Everybody will have a super time. Not to be missed!
Manley Laboratories, Inc.
13880 Magnolia Ave. Chino, CA.
1-909-627-4256
www.manleylabs.com (http://www.manleylabs.com/)
Please save the date. Visitiors, members, and guests are welcome! EveAnna is our 2009 Founder's Award Winner. Please congratulate her in person!!
Bob Levi
President
Los Angeles and Orange County Audio Society
America's Premier Audio Society with over 500 Members!
www.laocas.com (http://www.laocas.com/) 1-714-281-5850 <

you may even hear something. our previous meeting was at acoustic image whare we heard some VERY nice equipment, vinyl included.

only one whom has not heard a DECENT (not spelled astronomically priced) vinyl setups will understand what the superiority is all about. lets just say that a $500 player will suffice to open your eyes. tubes too. there are many components that exhibit none of the stereotypical soft/fuzzy/warm/mushy sound that some believe is present in all tubed designs.

if after youve taken real time to hear these things and you dont care, go back to the bose mindset. digital will be 'good enough' for you. it isnt for me. i realy like my CDs, SACDs, and DVDAs but LP playback has more "there" there. tubes enhance that.

[frahengeo]

that may work for some here. join the local audio society or club and attend the meetings. here in socal we have the LA/Orange County audio society. we visit dealers and manufacturers and also have presentations in a buena park hotel on occasion.

http://mail.google.com/mail/?source=navclient-ff#search/bob/123071a752921ec6

the above link is for our nest meeting in sept at manley labs (free beer!). eveanna will conduct a tour of the factory and give extensive explanations of many features of the products they make.

you may even hear something. our previous meeting was at acoustic image whare we heard some VERY nice equipment, vinyl included.

only one whom has not heard a DECENT (not spelled astronomically priced) vinyl setups will understand what the superiority is all about. lets just say that a $500 player will suffice to open your eyes. tubes too. there are many components that exhibit none of the stereotypical soft/fuzzy/warm/mushy sound that some believe is present in all tubed designs.

if after youve taken real time to hear these things and you dont care, go back to the bose mindset. digital will be 'good enough' for you. it isnt for me. i realy like my CDs, SACDs, and DVDAs but LP playback has more "there" there. tubes enhance that.

Hifi,

Are your comments directed at anyone in particular or is it toward the thread? This isn't about analog vs. digital, though inevitably some discussions will cover that, as you can see. The subject was regarding an effective way to evaluate audio equipment. In the end, the final test will be the listening test for most, if not all.

[hifitommy]

YES, thats IT. there have been numerous catcalls in this thread against vinyl vs digital. so yes, lets all LISTEN and then make decisions. i bought my first CD player after hearing music that way. and it was good but i eventually started to realize i shouldnt give up the vinyl

the digs were that vinyl is less dynamic that digital (not true) and that distortion in tubed equipment dismiss them from consideration (again not true).

i learned the most in stereo stores by keeping my mouth shut and listening to the equipment and some knowledgeable sales personnel.

[E-Stat]

the clip below is for our next meeting in sept at manley labs (free beer!). eveanna will conduct a tour of the factory and give extensive explanations of many features of the products they make.
I would love to attend. I have some frequent flier miles left if the schedule permits. EveAnna is definitely one of the good guys, er gals in the industry!

rw

[Smokey]

Based upon exactly what?

Based on assumption that THD above 0.3% is audible.


These companies have sophisticated measuring tools - just because the end result may have a higher measured distortion doesn't mean anything - they will ensure that all their amps measure the way they want them or need them to measure.

In actuality what you are saying is that you let somebody else (designer) decide how an amp should sound and what specifications it should have. Because when you buy their amp, you are also buying their vision of what does “sound” good and what doesn’t.

And for all we know, the designer might be deaf in one ear and can’t hear out the other :D

[E-Stat]

Based on assumption that THD above 0.3% is audible.
Assumption? LOL! Why not test your own ability? Mine was only slightly above 1.6%. My assumption is that you can't even get close to that, much less go all the way to -45 db (which is only 0.56%). Good luck!

Distortion Test (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=26428)


In actuality what you are saying is that you let somebody else (designer) decide how an amp should sound and what specifications it should have.
In actuality what I continue to say is specifications remain useless and I use my own ear as the judge. :)

rw

[JoeE SP9]

It comes down to one thing. If it sounds better it is better. Forget the specs and let your own ears do the deciding!

[frahengeo]

It comes down to one thing. If it sounds better it is better. Forget the specs and let your own ears do the deciding!

Okay. So your rich nephew or your wealthy best friend comes to you and says: "I'm really interested in getting the best sounding 2-channel system. Since you have a vast knowledge, combined with years of experience in audio, can you help me?"

Knowing full well that everyone hears things differently and has different tastes. What do you tell him?

Do you:

1) Talk up your own system and convince him to buy the same?
2) Tell him to go read Sterophile and similar magazines as a starting point?
3) Tell him that its not your problem and to go fly to California and hit every possible HiFi store along the westcoast and listen to every possible combination of components?
4) Do a preliminary questioning to help narrow down the search?
5) Another option

[RGA]

In actuality what you are saying is that you let somebody else (designer) decide how an amp should sound and what specifications it should have. Because when you buy their amp, you are also buying their vision of what does “sound” good and what doesn’t.

And for all we know, the designer might be deaf in one ear and can’t hear out the other :D

No - what you are saying is to design equipment requires no listening whatsoever but merely calculations from a textbook. I have no doubt this is how most stuff is designed because even the engineers at such places after listening to their gear have been shown to like 20 year old tube amps at a fraction of the price better.

The goal of Audio Note - a SET maker is "Rather than try design out the deficiencies in the software, we try to retain as much of the information as possible, good or bad, it is not for the equipment manufacturer to change the sound of the software, if the software sounds bad, write an insulting letter to the recording and balancing engineers, not to us!!"

What counts is which "system" makes a Beethoven Piano Sonata sound more like a piano. As I already posted in the Stereophile link - the top SS makers know which one sounded more like a piano - the tube guys already know and most people leave SS for tubes and don't go back.

However your quote does illustrate something - people who have poor hearing and don't know what a piano sounds like will no doubt 'buy" based on measurements - they need to because they can't trust their ears to say system A sounds like a piano and system B does not. Yes "some" makers may design to their ears and what they like but what you assume, incorrectly, that I am buying based on "their" preferred sonic aesthetic. One buys based on their "own" preferences. If it is your preference to buy an amplifier with less than .03% THD or as some poster's buy based on the measurements traits found by Floyde Toole based on "other people's" blind listening sessions that is up to you and them. It saves them from trusting their ears which they obviously have zero confidence in. That's a real shame.

[JoeE SP9]

Okay. So your rich nephew or your wealthy best friend comes to you and says: "I'm really interested in getting the best sounding 2-channel system. Since you have a vast knowledge, combined with years of experience in audio, can you help me?"

Knowing full well that everyone hears things differently and has different tastes. What do you tell him?

Do you:

1) Talk up your own system and convince him to buy the same?
2) Tell him to go read Sterophile and similar magazines as a starting point?
3) Tell him that its not your problem and to go fly to California and hit every possible HiFi store along the westcoast and listen to every possible combination of components?
4) Do a preliminary questioning to help narrow down the search?
5) Another option
1. I let him listen to my system. I'm very happy with it and others whose opinion I value think it sounds good. I don't try to convince anyone to buy full range ESL's.
2. Of course I suggest checking out Stereophile and Absolute Sound etc.
3. I do that to people I don't like. There are lots of decent HiFi dealers here on the East Coast so they can save on plane tickets.The money is better spent on gear.
4. I always do that
5. I take him around to my fellow audio buddies so he can hear their systems.

[E-Stat]

No - what you are saying is to design equipment requires no listening whatsoever but merely calculations from a textbook.
Leon Kuby, designer of many a Harman-Kardon Citation classic had some interesting comments about that topic. I cited some of his quotes from an old TAS review here. (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=speakers&n=201243)You were on that thread as well in a different area.

rw