Which Amp

[CannondaleSuperVee]

Between Parasound, Odyssey, ATI, Adcom or Sunfire, they will all end up being about the same price with very similar wattage ratings. Are they all about the same so the diffrence would be inaudible or is there one that would stand out. Thanks Jason

[musicguy04]

I like the way parasounds sound, especially the Halo's. I think they have a clear sound. I don't know much about the other brands, sorry.

[topspeed]

What will you be driving? What kind of music do you listen to?

[sy_lu]

I never heard of Odyssey and my experiences to other brands are limited to models that are a few years old. I have an older HCA series Parasound. A just ok but not greate amp. Its ability to drive low ohm speakers is not very good and it also has the worst ground loop problem of all the audio devices I ever owned. ATI probably can drive the low ohm speakers better but the sound is less clean. Adcom was only on par with a mid range receiver. The worst sound of all was the Sunfire. I got an in home trial of the Sunfire and its sound was so muddy that the Denon 3300 (I used it as a pre/pro) receiver's amp section has a clearner sound. I end up got a Legacy PowerBloc5 that was oem from a small company call Coda. I think regardless what music or movie you play, a good amp should be fast and have very good current capacity to handle any speakers you will put on it.

[psonic]

I would add Rotel to that list, if you can find a dealer that is. IMO Rotel is possibly the best power amplifier under $1000. I own the RB981BX which is basically same as the current RB-1070 130wpc. The $999 RB1080BX 200wpc is a stereophile class B product, which none of the others can boast. Another enjoyable amp in that range would be B&K. Both well worth considering...


http://www.rotel.com/products/stereo-power-amplifiers.htm

[CannondaleSuperVee]

I have a set of MB Quart 2000's that they no longer make, they are 4 ohm and each cabinet has 2 @ 8 inch drivers 2 @ 5 1/4's and a tweeter, retail was $3200.00 for the set. I usually listen to rock music and use it for movies but the music is the main thing I want it for.
All the amps i'm looking at are going to end up being around $3000 if its 2 odyssey 3 channels amps or the ATI 2505 five channel.

[topspeed]

I have a set of MB Quart 2000's that they no longer make, they are 4 ohm and each cabinet has 2 @ 8 inch drivers 2 @ 5 1/4's and a tweeter, retail was $3200.00 for the set. I usually listen to rock music and use it for movies but the music is the main thing I want it for.
All the amps i'm looking at are going to end up being around $3000 if its 2 odyssey 3 channels amps or the ATI 2505 five channel.

Just to clarify, are you looking for a 2 channel or multi-channel? You've only mentioned the MBQ's but are referring to purchasing 5 to 6 channels of amplification. You're not planning on bi-amping your mains with the the same amp, are you?

[CannondaleSuperVee]

Topspeed,
I also have Quart center and surround speakers but the music is the main thing. The local store has a Krell 5 channel amp for $3050 sale price, but now I found an ATI 2505 clearanced for $1395 instead of $2500 so now i'm really confused.
I'm trying to build a nice sounding system and so far I have speakers I really like, wired with Monster Z3(probley will sell and get either Z4 or M 2.4), the Monster Signiture Series voltage regulator and the Sig. Ser. 7000 surge protector is on order and the amp is the next thing I need to get. Sorry to ramble :) Jason

[sy_lu]

Krell is a better amp than the ATI. More refined sound and possibly better current control too. If you can afford it, take the Krell.

[RGA]

Krell unfortunately is grossly overpriced for what you get. Personally with $3000.00 I would seriously buy a Bryston 3b which is a 2 channel amp which would drive the rear and the 6BSST which would drive your front three channels as it is a 3 channel amp.

In fact the 6b may be all you need. Your receiver's MAIN power could then drive the rear channels. The Brystons simply are about as good as Solid state can get from a technical standpoint if your goal ois to drive a difficult speaker.

20 year wrranty transferable - but more important they've been around long enough that the warranty holds merit. And they are not ridiculously priced. http://www.bryston.ca/6bsst_m.html

[topspeed]

Topspeed,
I also have Quart center and surround speakers but the music is the main thing. The local store has a Krell 5 channel amp for $3050 sale price, but now I found an ATI 2505 clearanced for $1395 instead of $2500 so now i'm really confused.
I'm trying to build a nice sounding system and so far I have speakers I really like, wired with Monster Z3(probley will sell and get either Z4 or M 2.4), the Monster Signiture Series voltage regulator and the Sig. Ser. 7000 surge protector is on order and the amp is the next thing I need to get. Sorry to ramble :) Jason
Well, first I'd reconsider what you are allocating for all of this Monster stuff and apply it towards your amp budget. You'll hear a bigger difference between amps than you will switching cable. Even Paul Seydor of TAS mentioned how absolutely miniscule the audible differences are between high cost/high profile cables and Home Depot outdoor power cord. YMMV.

OK, on to the amps. I've never heard ATI so we'll leave that one out in the parking lot. My impressions of the other amps you listed are:

Odyssey:
Pros-Very good for the $, will have no problem with your load, runs cool, decent if not stunning bass depth and slam, very good in the microdynamics, pick your faceplate, customer support before sale, enviable warranty
Cons-Silvery and sibilant in the top end, leans toward the cooler side of neutral, the epitome of ss sound and not tube like in the least (this could be a pro depending on your taste), customer support if you want to return it :eek:.

Parasound (This is the for the Halo, not HCA's):
Pros- Excellent for the $, smooth mids and top end extension, very good bass depth and response, neutral sound, cool looks
Cons- Can be a bit fuzzy sounding, not the fastest in transients, apparently a ground loop problem based on recent posts

Adcom:
Pros- Usually huge bang for your buck, slamming bass, good all-rounder
Cons- Can sound grainy on certain systems, sibilant highs, another amp that is damn proud to be a ss design and sounds like it.

Sunfire:
Pros-switchable current design, run cool, no prob driving your speaks, lightening fast transient response
Cons-Cold, clinical, analytical sound, not musical in the least. I'll be honest, I can't stand Sunfire amps so 'nuff said.

Of the ones you've mentioned, I'd pick the Halo in a New York minute. I'd then compare them to the two other amps that RGA and Psonic mentioned because they are absolutely right, both Bryston and Rotel and superb amps. I'm not a fan of Krell either but they are very good amps if you're into their sound. I'd also consider B&K and Aragon while you're out there. A'gon has some interesting options from Proceed, Classe, and I particularly like this one:
http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?ddampsmult&1094971550&demo&3&4&

Hope this helps and good luck in your search.

[musicguy04]

Topspeed,

I'm also in the market for a new amp, but given what I've heard on these forums, I'm probably going to wait until I get my new speakers to even bother looking for an amp. I do a lot of searches from past threads on these forums to see what other people have to say. Believe me, your last post left me as confused as ever!

You mentioned Odyssey, Parasound Halo, Adcom, and Sunfire amps. What you said about the Odyssey is on par with what I've heard from other people, and to me isn't worth the hassle of not being able to buy locally.

Parasound Halo is a little different from what I've read. I've read that it's pretty good with transients, and not fuzzy at all, except with a ground loop problem, but then I heard all amps can have this. You said it's fuzzy and not good with transients. So I'm not sure what to think.

Adcom is a little different from previous posts. I've read it's better than a receiver, but not that much better.

Sunfire is waaaaaaaay different from what I've read. I've read Sunfire amps are very fuzzy, similar to tubes. They're very bad with transients. You said the exact opposite.

Of all the above amps, or any amps, I've only heard a Parasound Halo, and it sounds better than any receiver I've had, but I believe that about 95% of the amps out there will sound better than what I have! :-)

Yes, I'm new to this. I'm not really sure what half the terms are, but it's all very confusing. I'd like to learn. I guess from the terms listed, my tastes would sit with what you have listed for the Parasound Halo except without the fuzziness and with very good transient response. Is there any amp that fits the bill,without exceeding the $bill? :-)

I will probably be driving B&W 804 speakers, but I'm not sure if that makes a difference.

[RGA]

musicguy04

When you auditioned the N804 - if you have - if you REALLY love them - then find out the amp running them and buy that amp. System synergy is key not just picking any old amp with any opld speaker because they god a good review. Every company in this thread has had GREAT reviews - just like speakers - and most of them do nothing for me.

I like the Brystons - I would choose something else if I had B&W however.

[musicguy04]

If you had B&W, what would you choose, and why?

[musicguy04]

I heard B&W with Parasound Halo amps and Rotel amps. I preferred the Parasound Halo by far. The Rotel was muddy(compared to the Parasound), but still much better sound that what I currently have, but I've heard weird things about the Halo's and I know there's a lot of amps out there. From reading these posts alone, some I would consider for my tastes would be Musical Fideltiy and Bryston. Why not the Brystons, although, I've never heard them?

[RGA]

Atually I should take that back because the sound was probably the Bryston Preamp. Power amps should not impart a soinic signature - neither should the preamp for that matter. But this isn't a perfect world and they all do.

Parasound has always been a relative fringe player - not bad but not high end - maybe this Halo is a new move. By the way people with B&W swear by Bryston - and I liked the Rotel/B&W combo I heard. But uit also depends on the Rotel - their preamps I'm not a fan of and I don't particularly like their integrated's as a result.

The best SOUND I have heard from B&W N801's came from a Nuvista 11 watt tube amplifier. BUT, you could not play it at real loud levels. McIntosh was an utter disaster.

Try the Brystons. They hold their value very well - you won't find a more sturdy well built product - and their 20 year totally transferable warranties as well as their excellent customer servivce are huge reasons along with quality that has made them king of the hill of the power amp industry for what are relatively reasonable prices.

[topspeed]

Parasound Halo is a little different from what I've read. I've read that it's pretty good with transients, and not fuzzy at all, except with a ground loop problem, but then I heard all amps can have this. You said it's fuzzy and not good with transients. So I'm not sure what to think. Fuzzy is a relative term. The Halo is not as sharp in the microdynamics as the Stratos is, but I've heard few that are. This may or may not be to your liking however as too much definition can actually sound less than musical imo. I also said the Halo wasn't the fastest in transients, not that it was bad. In relative terms it is more than adequate. The fastest amp in transient response I've encountered is the one I have in my rig; the HCA2 :)


Adcom is a little different from previous posts. I've read it's better than a receiver, but not that much better. Yep, I agree. Perhaps I was being too nice ;)?


Sunfire is waaaaaaaay different from what I've read. I've read Sunfire amps are very fuzzy, similar to tubes. They're very bad with transients. You said the exact opposite. What can I tell you, this is my impression. Maybe it was the speakers? System synergy is sooo important when building a rig but when I heard the Dyn Evidence Temptations driven by Sunfire, it was the proverbial nails on the chalkboard for me. Blechh. Same thing with Vienna Acoustics (can't remember the speaker). I've also read some people compare Bob's stuff to tubes but I sure didn't think so, and I like tubes.


If you had B&W, what would you choose, and why?I have B&W in my main rig actually and after auditioning countless amps, including most of those mentioned here, I choose a PS Audio HCA2. It all depends on personal preference and system synergy. For me, whenever I hear a true reference system, it invariably is being driven by tubes. Therefore, one can easily deduce that I prefer the tube sound. However, with two rug-rats running around, tubes at this stage of my life is courting disaster. I preferred the PSA because is seemed to meld the best of the ss and tube worlds into one smart chassis. It has depth and slam that bettered every amp I heard this side of Krell yet possesses a luscious, silky midrange and top end finesse that only tubes seem able to muster. I can't explain it and chances are you would hear something different anyway. My only advice is to give it a try and see if it moves you.

Hope this helps.

[Geoffcin]

Topspeed,

I'm also in the market for a new amp, but given what I've heard on these forums, I'm probably going to wait until I get my new speakers to even bother looking for an amp. I do a lot of searches from past threads on these forums to see what other people have to say. Believe me, your last post left me as confused as ever!

You mentioned Odyssey, Parasound Halo, Adcom, and Sunfire amps. What you said about the Odyssey is on par with what I've heard from other people, and to me isn't worth the hassle of not being able to buy locally.

Parasound Halo is a little different from what I've read. I've read that it's pretty good with transients, and not fuzzy at all, except with a ground loop problem, but then I heard all amps can have this. You said it's fuzzy and not good with transients. So I'm not sure what to think.

Adcom is a little different from previous posts. I've read it's better than a receiver, but not that much better.

Sunfire is waaaaaaaay different from what I've read. I've read Sunfire amps are very fuzzy, similar to tubes. They're very bad with transients. You said the exact opposite.

Of all the above amps, or any amps, I've only heard a Parasound Halo, and it sounds better than any receiver I've had, but I believe that about 95% of the amps out there will sound better than what I have! :-)

Yes, I'm new to this. I'm not really sure what half the terms are, but it's all very confusing. I'd like to learn. I guess from the terms listed, my tastes would sit with what you have listed for the Parasound Halo except without the fuzziness and with very good transient response. Is there any amp that fits the bill,without exceeding the $bill? :-)

I will probably be driving B&W 804 speakers, but I'm not sure if that makes a difference.


IMHO; Every amp made today (from a respectable company) can be a great amp. It all depends on the SPEAKERS you hook them up to. The real truth is that the best amps sound great with nearly every speaker made. There's also killer budget amps like Adcom, that with some speaker you'd be hard pressed to hear the difference with a Krell, but most assuredly not with ALL speakers. There's amps with huge damping factors that will grab your woofers by the balls, but then some speakers don't like that. Some amps can deliver huge current for short bursts, but amps like this can also cause your speakers to overload if they can't take the current. This is pretty rare, but I've fried a few fuse in my day (still do), so I can tell you it does happen. There's even low power/high quality amps that work incredible with high efficiency speakers. It's a real smorgasbord out there. The best world is the one where you can BORROW an amp and see how it works with your speakers. I was, and am lucky in that regard, as I've got several friends who I swap components with. That's how I came upon my current amp. Barring that, you should try to hear your speakers with at least three different amps using the EXACT same source. If you can't arrange that then you should at least see of you can get to hear someone else's system that uses YOUR speakers. Most likely he's got an amp that works well with them.

Good luck, and have fun!

[musicguy04]

Geoffcin,

I see you have the Arcam 72 CD player. What do you think of it and how do you feel it compares to others in the price range?

As for the amps, I think I'll have to A/B/C Parasound Halo A23 or A21, Bryston 3B SST, and the PS Audio HCA2, as that has gotten excellent reviews. Any thought on Musical Fidelity, or are those generally not all that great?

[Geoffcin]

Geoffcin,

I see you have the Arcam 72 CD player. What do you think of it and how do you feel it compares to others in the price range?

As for the amps, I think I'll have to A/B/C Parasound Halo A23 or A21, Bryston 3B SST, and the PS Audio HCA2, as that has gotten excellent reviews. Any thought on Musical Fidelity, or are those generally not all that great?


But what else did you expect me to say? I've listened to some VERY expensive CD players (Meridian, Linn, ect.) and I decided that I would much rather put my budget into speakers instead of trying to get the very best CD player. I don't regret the decision, but there are better CD players out there that with a VERY limited amount of CD's you can hear a difference. (with the right setup)

Musical Fidelity makes some of the best amps in the world. Their KW series can be considered one of the few "world class" reference amps. My A3cr amp is a giant killer, and you would be hard pressed to top it for less than 3X the price. My speakers require an amp that can deliver a LOT of current into 4 ohms, and this amp can do it. It does have it's limit though, and in my room it's about 100db before it runs out of steam with my speakers. For me this is not a compromise, as I rarely listen that loud. It also doesn't have the rock sold bottom end of a Krell, or a large Classe amp. For me this is also not a compromise as my main speakers don't have an extended bass response. I make up for it by having two powered 15" subs. As you can see this amp is well matched to my system, and as such works BETTER then some amps costing much more. Is it the amp for your system? Only you can tell, but I would recommend at least trying it to see.

[92135011]

But what else did you expect me to say? I've listened to some VERY expensive CD players (Meridian, Linn, ect.) and I decided that I would much rather put my budget into speakers instead of trying to get the very best CD player. I don't regret the decision, but there are better CD players out there that with a VERY limited amount of CD's you can hear a difference. (with the right setup)

Musical Fidelity makes some of the best amps in the world. Their KW series can be considered one of the few "world class" reference amps. My A3cr amp is a giant killer, and you would be hard pressed to top it for less than 3X the price. My speakers require an amp that can deliver a LOT of current into 4 ohms, and this amp can do it. It does have it's limit though, and in my room it's about 100db before it runs out of steam with my speakers. For me this is not a compromise, as I rarely listen that loud. It also doesn't have the rock sold bottom end of a Krell, or a large Classe amp. For me this is also not a compromise as my main speakers don't have an extended bass response. I make up for it by having two powered 15" subs. As you can see this amp is well matched to my system, and as such works BETTER then some amps costing much more. Is it the amp for your system? Only you can tell, but I would recommend at least trying it to see.

"But what else do you expect me to say"

Maybe it isnt the best to ask someone who actually owns that piece of equipment, Musicguy. It's no doubt that Geoff likes his gear or else he would never buy it. And if he spent thousands on some gear he didnt like...well you know...I have also heard other opinions on MF being too bright or just not hifi, but as long as he's happy with it then thats the most important thing. But then you have people saying those things about all brands in the world no matter how high or low end. So it depends on your preference really, just like how you hated the rotel/B&W combo while I thought it was pretty good.

[RobotCzar]

Since you label yourself as a newbie, you deserve to at least hear a few facts instead of the usual BS.

Under controlled conditions nobody (that is nobody) has demonstrated that they can hear differences among properlyperforming and measuring amps and they have been tested in a variety of conditions over the past 25 years. If frequency response is flat and they have relatively low distortion into reasonable loads, then there is no reason in the world they would "sound" differently. (Even if they did, moving your head or your speakers a few inches would have more effect on what you hear.)

Audiophle magazines lie about this or fool themselves (as to audio fans) beacuse they need something to talk about. Things that actually affect what you hear are generally ignored because you can't buy them (except speakers).

Do yourself a favor and research the issue beyond what you read in forums and magazines. People can't hear difference among even cheap vs. expensive amps. The ones you listed are all just fine and should be judged base on power output per dollar, features, and build quality only.

[DMK]

Since you label yourself as a newbie, you deserve to at least hear a few facts instead of the usual BS.

Under controlled conditions nobody (that is nobody) has demonstrated that they can hear differences among properlyperforming and measuring amps and they have been tested in a variety of conditions over the past 25 years. If frequency response is flat and they have relatively low distortion into reasonable loads, then there is no reason in the world they would "sound" differently. (Even if they did, moving your head or your speakers a few inches would have more effect on what you hear.)

Audiophle magazines lie about this or fool themselves (as to audio fans) beacuse they need something to talk about. Things that actually affect what you hear are generally ignored because you can't buy them (except speakers).

Do yourself a favor and research the issue beyond what you read in forums and magazines. People can't hear difference among even cheap vs. expensive amps. The ones you listed are all just fine and should be judged base on power output per dollar, features, and build quality only.

Nobody? That's a wild claim! You are infinitely familiar with each and every person that may have done such a test? Don't you mean nobody, as far as YOU know? If you do some research yourself, you might find that two guys from Stereophile demonstrated exactly what you're saying "nobody" has done. Not enough trials to be a true demonstration? That's been said before. So now what you mean is that they haven't demonstrated it to YOUR satisfaction. That's quite a bit different from your original half-baked claim.

Audio magazines don't lie or fool themselves. What they do is exaggerate the differences they hear until they become "night and day" differences instead of what my experience tells me they are - slight, subtle, minute. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

As for your last paragraph, I'd say the first sentence is very good advice, the second sentence is a claim you can't substantiate and the third is only your opinion. I'm not going to say you're wrong because, quite frankly, I think most solid state amps that measure properly and are of adequate power for the speakers DO sound nearly identical. But that's only MY experience and my opinion. So I essentially agree with your basic premise but it's absolutely wrong to think it's an absolute truth, at least at this point.

To the original poster, take Robot Czar's advice and arm yourself with some research knowledge. Then listen carefully, and preferably in a controlled test. Then take your results to the bank and forget what both the "measurements only" crowd and the "night and day" difference crowd tell you. They're both wrong, IMHO. It's true that there is a lot of BS that circulates through the world of audio gear. It appears when someone leans too far to one side. As with many debateable issues, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[mtrycraft]

Nobody? That's a wild claim! You are infinitely familiar with each and every person that may have done such a test? Don't you mean nobody, as far as YOU know? If you do some research yourself, you might find that two guys from Stereophile demonstrated exactly what you're saying "nobody" has done. Not enough trials to be a true demonstration? That's been said before. So now what you mean is that they haven't demonstrated it to YOUR satisfaction. That's quite a bit different from your original half-baked claim.

Audio magazines don't lie or fool themselves. What they do is exaggerate the differences they hear until they become "night and day" differences instead of what my experience tells me they are - slight, subtle, minute. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

As for your last paragraph, I'd say the first sentence is very good advice, the second sentence is a claim you can't substantiate and the third is only your opinion. I'm not going to say you're wrong because, quite frankly, I think most solid state amps that measure properly and are of adequate power for the speakers DO sound nearly identical. But that's only MY experience and my opinion. So I essentially agree with your basic premise but it's absolutely wrong to think it's an absolute truth, at least at this point.

To the original poster, take Robot Czar's advice and arm yourself with some research knowledge. Then listen carefully, and preferably in a controlled test. Then take your results to the bank and forget what both the "measurements only" crowd and the "night and day" difference crowd tell you. They're both wrong, IMHO. It's true that there is a lot of BS that circulates through the world of audio gear. It appears when someone leans too far to one side. As with many debateable issues, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Are you refering to the large group test with 5 trials? Out of the number of participants just by chance you can expect exactely that result, nothing more of getting 5 out of 5. Besides, it was a very poor test indeed, regardless what they try to claim about it. This may also be the one where the frequency was not level matched, among other things.

So, that one is out of the way. Next?

There is a compilation of amp tests in The Proceedings of the AES 8th International Conference, 1990, page 117-120. 13523 trials prior to that time.

[DMK]

Are you refering to the large group test with 5 trials? Out of the number of participants just by chance you can expect exactely that result, nothing more of getting 5 out of 5. Besides, it was a very poor test indeed, regardless what they try to claim about it. This may also be the one where the frequency was not level matched, among other things.

So, that one is out of the way. Next?

There is a compilation of amp tests in The Proceedings of the AES 8th International Conference, 1990, page 117-120. 13523 trials prior to that time.

Yes, that's the one. Statistical analysis may suggest that the 5/5 was by chance and there could have been other things wrong with the test, no question. But we don't KNOW that the two people didn't or couldn't hear differences. As such, we have to be careful what we claim as fact. For all anyone knows, someone HAS heard differences. But there ain't no "next" as far as I know. There may never be one and there may never have been one. I would bet the farm that even if there are sonic differences in solid state power amps, they are so miniscule that no one could ever be sure they heard them - all the appropriate codicils attached i.e level matched, etc, of course! But I am speculating, the same as anyone is.

You may recall that I participated in some single blind test of SS power amps several years ago. The amps ranged in price from extremely modest to quite expensive. None of us heard even the subtlest of differences. For a group of audiodorks, it was like having our legs cut off! Ever see one of those Springer shows where the male swears he's not the father of his girlfriends child and the test results show he is? Well, the look on those guys faces is the same one we had! Then the protestations began! :D

[skeptic]

This statement ignores the fact that nearly all vacuum tube amplifiers exhibit significantly inferior performance by delivering an indistinct unclear sound and boomy colored bass with limited low end capability. (I exclude the relative handful of OTL tube amplifiers which have overcome the high output impedence exhibited by conventional designs using very high plate impedence output circuits with inefficient impedence matching transformers.) This is regarded by some audiophiles as a "warm" or "sweet" sound especially when connected to their shrill audiophile loudspeakers with limited low frequency output capability. The electrical shortcomings of these amplifiers may actually compensate for the shortcomings of the loudspeakers but that hardly justifies their other obvious limitations for example the fact that they begin to self destruct from the first second they are turned on.

The abillity of amplifiers with linear signal topology to perform up to their audible potential depends on the quality of the power supply and the nature of the load. Small amplifiers with relatively modest power supplies will sound indistinguishable from heftier designs with efficient easy to drive loads. On the other hand, the beefier designs will show their mettle when the loads are difficult and the program material is demanding. The good news it that for people more interested in the quality of the amplifier and not the quality of the brand cache, there are excellent units available at remarkably modest prices, a far cry from the market realities of 40 years ago.

The current specifications presently in use for describing and measuring amplifiers has been inherited fromt the 1930s when they showed the real differences between competing designs. They are completely obsolete and of almost no use today when comparing units. For example, frequency response is still measured at 1 watt with a resistive load. What of any practical use does that tell us?

If what you sad was true, you could pick practically any amplifier off the shelf at random and it wouldn't matter. IMO, sound systems should be engineered as a totality considering budget, type of music to be played through it, room acoustics, room size, and maximum undistorted sound levels required. Pick the loudspeakers first and then choose from amplifiers which can satisfy their drive requirements. You won't need an engineering degree to do that.

[DMK]

This statement ignores the fact that nearly all vacuum tube amplifiers exhibit significantly inferior performance by delivering an indistinct unclear sound and boomy colored bass with limited low end capability. (I exclude the relative handful of OTL tube amplifiers which have overcome the high output impedence exhibited by conventional designs using very high plate impedence output circuits with inefficient impedence matching transformers.) This is regarded by some audiophiles as a "warm" or "sweet" sound especially when connected to their shrill audiophile loudspeakers with limited low frequency output capability. The electrical shortcomings of these amplifiers may actually compensate for the shortcomings of the loudspeakers but that hardly justifies their other obvious limitations for example the fact that they begin to self destruct from the first second they are turned on.

The abillity of amplifiers with linear signal topology to perform up to their audible potential depends on the quality of the power supply and the nature of the load. Small amplifiers with relatively modest power supplies will sound indistinguishable from heftier designs with efficient easy to drive loads. On the other hand, the beefier designs will show their mettle when the loads are difficult and the program material is demanding. The good news it that for people more interested in the quality of the amplifier and not the quality of the brand cache, there are excellent units available at remarkably modest prices, a far cry from the market realities of 40 years ago.

The current specifications presently in use for describing and measuring amplifiers has been inherited fromt the 1930s when they showed the real differences between competing designs. They are completely obsolete and of almost no use today when comparing units. For example, frequency response is still measured at 1 watt with a resistive load. What of any practical use does that tell us?

If what you sad was true, you could pick practically any amplifier off the shelf at random and it wouldn't matter. IMO, sound systems should be engineered as a totality considering budget, type of music to be played through it, room acoustics, room size, and maximum undistorted sound levels required. Pick the loudspeakers first and then choose from amplifiers which can satisfy their drive requirements. You won't need an engineering degree to do that.

If you're responding to me, my statements ignore the "fact" you began with because I've never found it to be a fact. I've found tube amps outperform solid state with ease, if all we're talking about is the resultant sound and not the technical or longevity or convenience problems. If you're hearing boomy bass and especially an unclear sound, you're listening to the wrong amps! My speakers could hardly be called "shrill". No tweeter! If anything, the highs are rolled off which is ok since I can't hear anything above probably 13 khz anyway.

But I'm glad you responded because it made me remember your post regarding SS amp sound where you wrote that you knew SS amps could sound different because when you swapped one out, you had to re-calibrate your equalizer. Could you refresh this for us and perhaps Mtrycrafts could respond?

[skeptic]

First of all DMK, I was responding to Rober Czar but I will be happy to discuss the recalibraton of my equalizer when I had to swap out my blown Dynakit Stereo 120 with the comparably powered (60wpc) Mosfet 120 I built in 1993. After more than 20 years of venerable service, the Dynaco was taken out by Prokifiev's Alexander Nevsky, track 5 The Battle on the Ice DG 419 603-2. The load was the relatively efficient but not necessarily easy to drive 4 ohm Teledyne AR9s with three additional Audax tweeters per channel in parallel. I can't say if my identical vinyl recording would have been so effective at blowing up that amplifier. The Mosfet was a kind of lineal decendent of the 120 designed by Klaus and Peterson, two very respected amplifier designers. Much to my amazement, a direct swapout of the amplifiers yielded a rather different sound. For other people who haven't read any of my postings about equalization and other matters, I want my sound system to reproduce the sound of acoustical instruments as exactly as I can remember them on as many of my recordings as possible and that I haven't found the kind of measurement equipment for audiophile use including noise generators, calibrated microphones, and spectrum analyzers useful in achieving that goal. So unfortunately, I have come to resort to a long period of trial and error trying to achieve one small incremental improvement at a time and sometimes going backwards. It took me about two years to get back to where I felt I had been. Can I be absuolutely sure that the end results are exactly the same? The obvious answer is NO.

Thanks for reminding me DMK. That experience alone was enough to convince me that all amplifiers do not sound the same.

[RGA]

Good tube amplifiers that I have heard don't sound warm or sweet. most new even cheap Tube amplifiers put out under 1% total harmonic distrotion across the complete audible bandwidth - including new Single ended topoplogies - and when it does happen to distort sounds better to the ear.

I would be happy to own either a SS or a Tube so long as it sounds good - and there are pretty good and bad examples of both.

[skeptic]

As an amplifier is strictly an electrical device performing strictly an electrical function, it ought to be possible for it to be judged strictly by electrical performance criteria. It's bad enough that manufacturers of other purely electrical devices such as cables have not developed specifications, measurements, performance criteria which demonstrate the differences between their products and that of their competitors describing their unique aspect but the fact that they haven't been researched and developed by amplifier manufacturers or in other research laboratories is inexcusable. Even if these criteria weren't understandable to the average non technical consumer or had so many aspects that there are often no clearcut winners and losers, they should at least be understandable to engineers. The meager exceptions are the half hearted and far from complete efforts to describe and measure transient intermodulation distortion in the 1970s and the qualifier that harmonic distortion be described as "up to and including rated power" in the 1960s. As a result, the market for audio amplifiers has degenerated into cultism. I don't think anybody would have forseen this decades ago.

While I don't agree with Rober Czar, I sympathize with him. You could take 20 amplifiers off the shelf and to look at their specifications, every one of them should sound identical. But they don't always and not only can't you predict what their differences will be by their specifications, even when you know that they sound different, there is no rational explanation as to why. Does it have to do with the way the power supplies interact with different loudspeakers? What are the other specifications we are missing. It's maddening. Will a $4,000 Bryston power amp outperform a $400 Panasonic receiver? The industry has no difinitive way to tell us. We are left to guess, conjecture, argue, and divide in to opposing camps. Cults. If an 8 watt SET has special electrical properties which mitigate its otherwise miserable performance by outperforming the competion substantially in some critical aspect as yet unknown, there ought to be a way to prove it. And this time you can't just blame the SET manufacturers, it's an entire industry that has been lazy and indifferent. Don't look for the answers from advertising hype either. If and when answers do come, they will start out in professional journals like AES or IEEE.

[CannondaleSuperVee]

Ok, i'll come to Rober Czars' defense and anyone that wants to try and take Richard Clarks amp comparison challange and win $10000.00 is able to try, you can find out about it on carsound.com in the forum under his column, search amp challage. I got in the middle of an agument about being able to hear the diffrence between a $200 sony and a $30000 krell and R C said that if I can tell the diffrence to bring both and win an easy $10K.

[RGA]

Will a $4,000 Bryston power amp outperform a $400 Panasonic receiver? The industry has no difinitive way to tell us. We are left to guess, conjecture, argue,

Well you could also listen - if you're in the DBT rigged and goes against Validity according to psychology then listening in the same manner you would normally listen is thrown away - I have done SBT's - thanks I'll take the Bryston. And hey I owuld be happy to take the 2k CDN bryston model over the 4kUS receiver.

[skeptic]

Even if what you say is true, because we don't understand why, there is no way to predict if we would get the same results with other loudspeakers. We also have no way to know if your preference is based on an objectively better performance or your personal preferences which might be exactly the opposite were other people doing the evaluation. This is the difference between science providing understanding and validating what we hear and cultism. Not only would objective standards by which to measure and evaluate perceived differences tell us why we perceive them differently, it would tell us how far we have to go before we reach the limit of what is possible and indicate for engineers the direction they have to go in. As it is, even for engineers, it's strictly hit or miss optimizing the parameters they do know about and leaving the rest to pure chance.

[rb122]

Ok, i'll come to Rober Czars' defense and anyone that wants to try and take Richard Clarks amp comparison challange and win $10000.00 is able to try, you can find out about it on carsound.com in the forum under his column, search amp challage. I got in the middle of an agument about being able to hear the diffrence between a $200 sony and a $30000 krell and R C said that if I can tell the diffrence to bring both and win an easy $10K.

The man claims that all amps sound alike, regardless of whether they are tubed or transistored. That's a very dangerous claim for someone who is offering to pay $10K. If he kept it to transistors, he might have something.

Recently, I had the displeasure of listening to a tubed amp that exhibits some of the characteristics mentioned by Skeptic in his above post. Simply by dialing in more negative feedback, the sound worsened considerably. I'll mention this challenge to the owner of the amp. I can't imagine anyone mistaking this amp for anything else.

[skeptic]

The improper use of negative feedback is not merely deleterious, it can be an outright disaster. It can send an amplifier into spontaneous oscillation. The people who have never looked at the complex equations describing negative feedback circuits let alone solved them are playing russian roulette with their designs if they try using it. You really have to look at the phase response as a function of frequency. It really requires a lot of skill to pull it off well. Many designs are probably ho hum in this respect realizing gains in some aspects of performance and losing some in others. I'm sure there is software for the really clever EEs to just plug in their numbers and let the CPU do the crunching. There is on the othe hand real risk in not using negative feedback. Not only is harmonic distortion considerably higher, possibly by a factor of ten times or more, and not only is bandwidth more limited but negative feedback also stabalizes performance so that gain remains constant and to a degree less dependant on tube condition.

Anybody who thinks all tube amplifiers sound great should hear my old HK A500. Specs said its frequency response extended out to something like 50 or 70 khz but it had a high end rolloff to my ears, it didn't have enough power, and it didn't sound clear enough. But in those days, so did most other amplifiers because they were all tubes.

[DMK]

Anybody who thinks all tube amplifiers sound great should hear my old HK A500. Specs said its frequency response extended out to something like 50 or 70 khz but it had a high end rolloff to my ears, it didn't have enough power, and it didn't sound clear enough. But in those days, so did most other amplifiers because they were all tubes.

Not all tube amps sound great, or even decent. The best amp I ever heard is a single ended triode. The worst amp I ever heard is a single ended triode. I've heard exactly ONE SET amp that I thought sounded good. I've heard single ended pentodes that sounded good and push-pull triodes that sounded good and I've heard lousy examples of both, either of which would make a SS amp sound like nirvana. I haven't a clue what makes one sound good and the other bad. I chose my tube monoblocks because they were the best sounding amps I could afford and I don't worry about distortion numbers and the like because I've also heard a system that had measurements to die for and it sounded like hammered s**t. I ask two things from my gear: first, that it bring me as close to the live event as possible and second, that it not break down every third day. While I could ask for more in the first case, my system definitely does better than any solid state, enviable test bench system I've ever heard. Who was it on this board that said he prefers distortion that simulates reality rather than reality that simulates distortion? If I find him, I'll give him a cigar.

[skeptic]

"Who was it on this board that said he prefers distortion that simulates reality rather than reality that simulates distortion? If I find him, I'll give him a cigar."

Then give him an exploding one because distortion by its very definition doesn't bring you close to the live event, your stated goal but further away. I said in my other postings that the art of measureing amplifiers hasn't kept up nearly with the art of building them. Therefore, to a degree, the objectives for an engineer to design to are incomplete and left to hit or miss. For a purely electronic device such as an audio amplifier, this is intollerable and inexcusable.

"I haven't a clue what makes one sound good and the other bad."

That's the crux of the problem. To a degree, neither do the engineers who design them.

[DMK]

"Who was it on this board that said he prefers distortion that simulates reality rather than reality that simulates distortion? If I find him, I'll give him a cigar."

Then give him an exploding one because distortion by its very definition doesn't bring you close to the live event, your stated goal but further away. I said in my other postings that the art of measureing amplifiers hasn't kept up nearly with the art of building them. Therefore, to a degree, the objectives for an engineer to design to are incomplete and left to hit or miss. For a purely electronic device such as an audio amplifier, this is intollerable and inexcusable.

"I haven't a clue what makes one sound good and the other bad."

That's the crux of the problem. To a degree, neither do the engineers who design them.

I don't recall who first said what I quoted -it may have been RB. I can't say what he may have meant but I can give my take. Without speculating on things I know nothing about such as recording, mastering, amp construction, etc, I'll have to talk about what I do know: sound. Or at least, the sound I hear in my head and deem proper, which is all I have to go on.

For me, tubes and vinyl almost without fail bring me closer to my view of the live even than do SS and CD. Particularly with CD, the exceptions are few and therefore notable. On a few memorable occasions, I was present during the live event. When I bought the CD, there were major sonic anomalies that negatively impacted my enjoyment of the music. Whether this is the medium itself or something else makes for interesting arguments but is ultimately at least somewhat irrelevant to me, since the quality of the finished product is what I deem important.

Yet, tubes and vinyl measure less well than SS and CD, with distortion figures being the primary culprit. With tubes and vinyl, distortion may very well simulate reality while with SS and CD, measured "reality" sounds distorted. However, I understand your point. I just can't reconcile it with my idea of what music should sound like in the home.

It would be easy for someone reading to simply conclude that I prefer the sound of distortion. That someone would be wrong. A list of sonic preferences for me would look like this:

1) Live music
2) Master tape (I've heard three and neither the corresponding LP or the CD sounded remotely like it - absolutely stunning!)
3) 45 RPM LP
4) 33 RPM LP
5) SACD (4 and 5 may become inversed at some point)
6) CD

If the LP's distortions are greater in number, they are at least musically consonant. The CD's distortions are amusical and grating - to my ears. As for amps, I could easily live with SS and not feel I was missing much but I find certain tubed amps sonically superior to any SS amp I've ever heard. The differences aren't earth shattering but they're there. No exploding cigar for RB - he gets a Cuban Montecristo Torpedo, the creme de la creme! He stated succinctly what it took me several paragraphs to explain! :)

[rb122]

I don't recall who first said what I quoted -it may have been RB. I can't say what he may have meant but I can give my take. Without speculating on things I know nothing about such as recording, mastering, amp construction, etc, I'll have to talk about what I do know: sound. Or at least, the sound I hear in my head and deem proper, which is all I have to go on.

For me, tubes and vinyl almost without fail bring me closer to my view of the live even than do SS and CD. Particularly with CD, the exceptions are few and therefore notable. On a few memorable occasions, I was present during the live event. When I bought the CD, there were major sonic anomalies that negatively impacted my enjoyment of the music. Whether this is the medium itself or something else makes for interesting arguments but is ultimately at least somewhat irrelevant to me, since the quality of the finished product is what I deem important.

Yet, tubes and vinyl measure less well than SS and CD, with distortion figures being the primary culprit. With tubes and vinyl, distortion may very well simulate reality while with SS and CD, measured "reality" sounds distorted. However, I understand your point. I just can't reconcile it with my idea of what music should sound like in the home.

It would be easy for someone reading to simply conclude that I prefer the sound of distortion. That someone would be wrong. A list of sonic preferences for me would look like this:

1) Live music
2) Master tape (I've heard three and neither the corresponding LP or the CD sounded remotely like it - absolutely stunning!)
3) 45 RPM LP
4) 33 RPM LP
5) SACD (4 and 5 may become inversed at some point)
6) CD

If the LP's distortions are greater in number, they are at least musically consonant. The CD's distortions are amusical and grating - to my ears. As for amps, I could easily live with SS and not feel I was missing much but I find certain tubed amps sonically superior to any SS amp I've ever heard. The differences aren't earth shattering but they're there. No exploding cigar for RB - he gets a Cuban Montecristo Torpedo, the creme de la creme! He stated succinctly what it took me several paragraphs to explain! :)

Thanks but no thanks on the cigar! You accurately defined my earlier statement relative to distortion. I have the same issues as you with the gross inaccuracies of CD's. I'm not a diehard tube fanatic, however. I simply chose the best amp of all those I auditioned and it just happened to be powered by tubes.

[RobotCzar]

Nobody? That's a wild claim! You are infinitely familiar with each and every person that may have done such a test? Don't you mean nobody, as far as YOU know? If you do some research yourself, you might find that two guys from Stereophile demonstrated exactly what you're saying "nobody" has done. (PLEASE GIVE REFERENCE, IT IS UNLIKELY A GUY FROM STEREOPHILE COULD DEMONSTATE ANYTHING SCIENTIFICALLY.) Not enough trials to be a true demonstration? That's been said before. So now what you mean is that they haven't demonstrated it to YOUR satisfaction. That's quite a bit different from your original half-baked claim.
(MY CLAIM IS BETTER BAKED THAN YOURS AS YOU ARE ASSUMING SOMETHING WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE--"THAT I KNOW OF". DO YOU KNOW OF ANY?)

Audio magazines don't lie or fool themselves. What they do is exaggerate the differences they hear until they become "night and day" differences instead of what my experience tells me they are - slight, subtle, minute. That doesn't mean they don't exist.
(IT ALSO DOESN'T MEAN THEY DO EXIST!)

As for your last paragraph, I'd say the first sentence is very good advice, the second sentence is a claim you can't substantiate and the third is only your opinion. I'm not going to say you're wrong because, quite frankly, I think most solid state amps that measure properly and are of adequate power for the speakers DO sound nearly identical. But that's only MY experience and my opinion. So I essentially agree with your basic premise but it's absolutely wrong to think it's an absolute truth, at least at this point.

.

Of course I mean nobody I have heard of. How could I know about something I haven't heard of? I am not aware of any evidence that people can distinguish properly performing amps. Nit picking that statement is useless. I don't know that nobody can jump to the Moon, and I haven't checked everybody out. Still, I get the feeling that nobody can jump to the Moon. After 20+ years of NO ONE I KNOW OF being able to demonstrate they and hear amp differences AND due to the logic involved of distortioni and frequency response errors lower than can be detected, reasonable people might conclude that nobody can because (to my knowledge) nobody has and it defies the known perceptual abilities of humans to do so.

So, you can take the middle road and the reasonable position that we don't know that NOBODY can jump to the Moon. But, don't bet on it.

Skeptic criticizes measurements "from the 30s" (I guess the laws of physics and human perception have changed a lot since then), but he doesn't say what could be causing audible differences other than distortion and frequency response errors. There ain't anything else! He posits that some amps may have audible distortion into some speaker loads, but he is quite unspecific about that and, in my view, overestimates the problem because he thinks he hears problems in a 30 year old amp. Why assume that people can hear differences in amps, skep? Don't you think they should prove it? We are all awaiting such proof. Don't hold your breath and don't spend money on amp differences that are imaginary.

[DMK]

Of course I mean nobody I have heard of. How could I know about something I haven't heard of? I am not aware of any evidence that people can distinguish properly performing amps. Nit picking that statement is useless. I don't know that nobody can jump to the Moon, and I haven't checked everybody out. Still, I get the feeling that nobody can jump to the Moon. After 20+ years of NO ONE I KNOW OF being able to demonstrate they and hear amp differences AND due to the logic involved of distortioni and frequency response errors lower than can be detected, reasonable people might conclude that nobody can because (to my knowledge) nobody has and it defies the known perceptual abilities of humans to do so.

So, you can take the middle road and the reasonable position that we don't know that NOBODY can jump to the Moon. But, don't bet on it.

Skeptic criticizes measurements "from the 30s" (I guess the laws of physics and human perception have changed a lot since then), but he doesn't say what could be causing audible differences other than distortion and frequency response errors. There ain't anything else! He posits that some amps may have audible distortion into some speaker loads, but he is quite unspecific about that and, in my view, overestimates the problem because he thinks he hears problems in a 30 year old amp. Why assume that people can hear differences in amps, skep? Don't you think they should prove it? We are all awaiting such proof. Don't hold your breath and don't spend money on amp differences that are imaginary.

As for the reference on the Stereophile test, I don't save references. Sonic differences or no sonic differences among amps isn't a meaningful enough issue for me to go nuts and horde references. However, Mtrycrafts may have effectively shot that one down anyway.

What I meant by "no one you're aware of" has heard differences in amps is that the people that claim to do so aren't concerned enough about what you think (or what I think, either) to sit and take DBT's and make copious notes. That's for the scientific crowd. Your average audiophile only cares about what sounds good (or different) to him. There's no reason for him to try to prove anything to you. You're the skeptic - he's not. If you need proof, you can always gather your own. For what reason would they be obligated to make you happy with a peer reviewed, bias controlled test? Have you ever participated in one? I have! never again! They are a major PITA. And because YOU want proof, audiophiles should go through that?

My point is that simply because you aren't aware of anyone being able to detect differences in amps (assuming enough power, etc etc etc) doesn't mean they aren't there. You claimed they weren't. Until you've personally tested all amps under all conditions, you don't know for sure. I've tested enough of them to believe they sound virtually identical. However, Skeptic's experience with equalization that he has quoted a few times makes me wonder if perhaps my ears simply aren't up to the task. Either way, I'm satisfied with what I can or cannot hear but I don't presume that everyone else has my same hearing.

[RobotCzar]

What I meant by "no one you're aware of" has heard differences in amps is that the people that claim to do so aren't concerned enough about what you think (or what I think, either) to sit and take DBT's and make copious notes. That's for the scientific crowd. Your average audiophile only cares about what sounds good (or different) to him. There's no reason for him to try to prove anything to you. You're the skeptic - he's not. If you need proof, you can always gather your own. For what reason would they be obligated to make you happy with a peer reviewed, bias controlled test? Have you ever participated in one? I have! never again! They are a major PITA. And because YOU want proof, audiophiles should go through that?

IF "AUDIOPHILES" ONLY CARE ABOUT WHAT SOUNDS GOOD TO THEM, THEN WHY SHARE THEIR OPINIONS WITH OTHERS. THEY ARE HEARING THINGS THAT ARE ONLY IN THEIR HEADS, AND THEY ARE PRETENDING THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT REAL, OBJECTIVE DIFFERENCES. THEY NEED TO STOP AS THEY ARE MISLEADING AUDIO NEWBIES. THEY ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO MAKE ME HAPPY. ....AND I AM UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO RESPECT THEIR UNFOUNDED OPINIONS.

My point is that simply because you aren't aware of anyone being able to detect differences in amps (assuming enough power, etc etc etc) doesn't mean they aren't there. You claimed they weren't. Until you've personally tested all amps under all conditions, you don't know for sure. I've tested enough of them to believe they sound virtually identical. However, Skeptic's experience with equalization that he has quoted a few times makes me wonder if perhaps my ears simply aren't up to the task. Either way, I'm satisfied with what I can or cannot hear but I don't presume that everyone else has my same hearing.

And my point is that there is no evidence (I am aware of) that anyone can hear differences in amps. If you are aware of such evidence then tell us, if not, then don't pretend my statements are unreasonable. They are a lot more reasonable than believing things for which there is no evidence and also make no logical scienctific sense.

Let me reinterate this last point. Current scientific information about human auditory perception indicates that people cannot hear differences in distortion typical in modern amplifiers (driving typical speaker loads--for skeptic's sake). So why in the heck do you believe that some people can? If some claim that they can, shouldn't they be on the hook to demonstrate that they can? Well, to date, I am aware of no body that has demonstrated that they can.

Ask me if I care if audiophiles don't care about this or my opinion. Who cares who doesn't care about other people's opinions. Those people shouldn't be reading and writing in audio forums.

[DMK]

And my point is that there is no evidence (I am aware of) that anyone can hear differences in amps. If you are aware of such evidence then tell us, if not, then don't pretend my statements are unreasonable. They are a lot more reasonable than believing things for which there is no evidence and also make no logical scienctific sense.

Let me reinterate this last point. Current scientific information about human auditory perception indicates that people cannot hear differences in distortion typical in modern amplifiers (driving typical speaker loads--for skeptic's sake). So why in the heck do you believe that some people can? If some claim that they can, shouldn't they be on the hook to demonstrate that they can? Well, to date, I am aware of no body that has demonstrated that they can.

Ask me if I care if audiophiles don't care about this or my opinion. Who cares who doesn't care about other people's opinions. Those people shouldn't be reading and writing in audio forums.

1) I am not aware of any such evidence regarding sonic differences in amps. I don't care.
2) Your statement IS unreasonable! Your saying that because you know of no one that can discern differences in amps, that no one can.
3) I don't believe people can hear such differences. Again, that is only my belief. It just so happens I share your belief (emphasis on "belief"). But some people with some amps in some systems certainly may be able to tell differences.
4) "On the hook" to whom? You? Me? Why? Who should feel the need to demonstrate to you or me?
5) At least you finally admit that your post is only your "opinion".
6) I'm not saying you aren't totally correct. You may very well be. You may not be. But until you're proven correct, is it prudent to state unequivocally that power and features are all that's required in an amp?
7) Almost forgot - people post about their experiences with amps on audio forums because that is what they've experienced. Their implied suggestion always seems to be "try it for yourself".

[mtrycraft]

(I guess the laws of physics and human perception have changed a lot since then), .


It's called evolution :D

[mtrycraft]

7) Almost forgot - people post about their experiences with amps on audio forums because that is what they've experienced. Their implied suggestion always seems to be "try it for yourself".

Not all experiences are created equal or of equal value, right? Just like opinions, some are much better than others.
And the implied suggestion is also fatally flawed since no mention is made of biase, its affect on perception, and the subsequent reliability of the experience.

[lattybuck]

It is all in the synergy for me, and manyn others I suspect as well. I was taught that lesson when after rediculing radio shack, realistic equipment for their plain/flat sound a few years back a friend showed me his setup suing a realistic amp. It soudned great. He did lots of tweakin on it, but it was well balanced and very worth the under 1000 total he had in it all.
It is easy to only see thru the experiences we personally have. Doesn't make anyone elses sonic experience less valid though. Or possibly even less accurate in technical terms either. Everyone hears a little differently just as all equipment has some differences in how it reproduces that sound.
The mix is whats important in the end. Electronics to speakers to environment and finally to the sound curve you can physically hear. I have tested myself a few times and there have been changes in what I can hear clearly over the years. There is an evolving sound curve to my listening ability that I suspect everyone has to some degree. Mother nature will deal out what sounds good to you as much as anything you can obtain. In the end all we can do is give pointers based on ourselves.
My take on the "what sounds best" issue.
Take care all

[DMK]

Not all experiences are created equal or of equal value, right? Just like opinions, some are much better than others.
And the implied suggestion is also fatally flawed since no mention is made of biase, its affect on perception, and the subsequent reliability of the experience.

Right. that's why you and I have the ultimate judgment of whether we choose to believe the opinions and experiences. And it's highly unlikely the poster will care either way we go. To him, his experience is highly valuable.

The implied suggestion is "try it for yourself". Very few audiophiles find anything more powerful than their own perceptions, including bias - right or wrong. But then, I'm not telling you anything you don't already know! :)

[RobotCzar]

Right. that's why you and I have the ultimate judgment of whether we choose to believe the opinions and experiences. And it's highly unlikely the poster will care either way we go. To him, his experience is highly valuable.

The implied suggestion is "try it for yourself". Very few audiophiles find anything more powerful than their own perceptions, including bias - right or wrong. But then, I'm not telling you anything you don't already know! :)


I just want to say that I do not find a lot to disagree with in DMKs comments in this area. I disagree with his notion that there are "subtle" differences in amps, but what I really object to is his standards of proof and evidence. We have been over this a lot, but the scientifically correct view is that it is up to those making an assertion to prove it. Scientific investigation never tries to find all instances of a phenomina (e.g., all listeners). The philosophical postion that "not everyone has been tested" is merely a dodge to get the onus of proof off of those making a claim. This could be said about any scientific law or principle (e.g., not all matter has been check to see if gravity is the same for it as other matter).

The other thing that bugs me is this notion that we should all be "fair" and "accept" the views of others as they have a right to their beliefs and opinions. That is all well add good, but there is such a thing as evidences and that evidence is being ignored by a large number of "audiophiles", so much so that the extreme subjectivist magazines are now the mainstream in audio publications. Many ridiculous and unsupported concepts are taken as fact in the audio world and I find that detrimental to the hobby (or whatever you want to call it).

Perhaps the worst notion in home audio is that idea that you can simply listen and compare components. The number of variables affecting what you here is very large and a listener cannot control them all. Perhaps the most ignored variable is the listener's own expectations--one's expectations are PROVEN to effect ones perceptions therefore you can never get control of that variable unless you blind yourself. The second variable most ignored is level, but there are many, many other factors that make it impossible to get a comparison that, for example, removes all audible variables except the current from the amp. Audiophiles' "own perceptions" ARE powerful, they just happen to be very unreliable. (This unreliabity has been established in several listening tests that I AM aware of.)

I'd really like to talk about skeptic's idea that our standard measurements are lacking. There are two problems with his position at this point:

1) he merely criticizes by saying that frequency response measurements into 8 ohms of resistive impedance is inadequre, instead of giving some evidence that frequecy response changes into 4 ohms (or non-resistive loads) with typical amps. In other words, he needs some evidence other than his opinions.

2) he keeps saying he hears difference in amps, but there is no credible evidence (I am aware of) that anyone has demonstated this. If he can he should share the details with us (and not use old amps that may not be performing up to spec).

[rb122]

Perhaps the worst notion in home audio is that idea that you can simply listen and compare components. The number of variables affecting what you here is very large and a listener cannot control them all. Perhaps the most ignored variable is the listener's own expectations--one's expectations are PROVEN to effect ones perceptions therefore you can never get control of that variable unless you blind yourself. The second variable most ignored is level, but there are many, many other factors that make it impossible to get a comparison that, for example, removes all audible variables except the current from the amp. Audiophiles' "own perceptions" ARE powerful, they just happen to be very unreliable. (This unreliabity has been established in several listening tests that I AM aware of.) ).

Robot,

We've heard all of this many times in the past. However, I don't think it really hit home for me until I read the above. Your comments were succinct but thorough. I think every audiophile owes it to him/herself to read this and take heed. Thanks.

[RobotCzar]

Robot,

We've heard all of this many times in the past. However, I don't think it really hit home for me until I read the above. Your comments were succinct but thorough. I think every audiophile owes it to him/herself to read this and take heed. Thanks.


Hey rb, how are you doing? I have taken a part time job at an instructor and my class uses a computer-lab with fast Internet access, so I have some time to read and respond in AR (while they are working on projects). Find any good LPs lately? Have I ever asked you about your views on direct-to-disc LPs?

Thanks for your kind comment. As you know, I think there are many factors that are important in getting a good (i.e., realistic) result in home audio. Too bad so many people are attending to the wrong ones (in my opinion). Pehaps it is simply easier for some people to spend a lot of money on snobby equipment rather than to learn what really matters.

[DMK]

I just want to say that I do not find a lot to disagree with in DMKs comments in this area. I disagree with his notion that there are "subtle" differences in amps, but what I really object to is his standards of proof and evidence. We have been over this a lot, but the scientifically correct view is that it is up to those making an assertion to prove it. Scientific investigation never tries to find all instances of a phenomina (e.g., all listeners). The philosophical postion that "not everyone has been tested" is merely a dodge to get the onus of proof off of those making a claim. This could be said about any scientific law or principle (e.g., not all matter has been check to see if gravity is the same for it as other matter).

The other thing that bugs me is this notion that we should all be "fair" and "accept" the views of others as they have a right to their beliefs and opinions. That is all well add good, but there is such a thing as evidences and that evidence is being ignored by a large number of "audiophiles", so much so that the extreme subjectivist magazines are now the mainstream in audio publications. Many ridiculous and unsupported concepts are taken as fact in the audio world and I find that detrimental to the hobby (or whatever you want to call it).

Perhaps the worst notion in home audio is that idea that you can simply listen and compare components. The number of variables affecting what you here is very large and a listener cannot control them all. Perhaps the most ignored variable is the listener's own expectations--one's expectations are PROVEN to effect ones perceptions therefore you can never get control of that variable unless you blind yourself. The second variable most ignored is level, but there are many, many other factors that make it impossible to get a comparison that, for example, removes all audible variables except the current from the amp. Audiophiles' "own perceptions" ARE powerful, they just happen to be very unreliable. (This unreliabity has been established in several listening tests that I AM aware of.)

I'd really like to talk about skeptic's idea that our standard measurements are lacking. There are two problems with his position at this point:

1) he merely criticizes by saying that frequency response measurements into 8 ohms of resistive impedance is inadequre, instead of giving some evidence that frequecy response changes into 4 ohms (or non-resistive loads) with typical amps. In other words, he needs some evidence other than his opinions.

2) he keeps saying he hears difference in amps, but there is no credible evidence (I am aware of) that anyone has demonstated this. If he can he should share the details with us (and not use old amps that may not be performing up to spec).

I did not say that there are subtle differences in power amps, at least not one SS to another. I said it's possible. You are not even allowing for the possibility that you could be wrong. I'm certainly no scientist but that doesn't sound very scientific to me.

I wasn't aware that I had standards of proof and evidence! I guess if I do, they are pretty simple. I don't require proof of any kind when it comes to someone's perceptions. If they say they heard it, that's fine with me. I may believe that they merely perceived something and it had nothing to do with the different amp or whatever and that is my right. In most cases, all these people are stating is an opinion of what their perception lead them to believe. You are free to discount it. If you do (and you obviously do in each and every case), why not just leave it at that? The bigger question is, what makes you think that anyone on this board or in any remote corner of the globe owes you any proof of what they perceive???? Put another way, who cares if you want proof? And how is the fact that some people ignore evidence detrimental to the hobby, particularly if their experiences fly in the face of that evidence?

I agree with rb's assessment of your paragraph regarding simple listening and comparing. I subscribe to it myself and it was very well written. I'm not trying to piss you off; I'm just asking how you can be so positive that there are no sonic diffs in amps simply because you've seen no evidence to support the contrary view. It helps your case but it doesn't prove it. For all you know, some guy who doesn't give a rat's behind what the scientific world thinks has performed successful DBT's with SS power amps with identical specs and he just hasn't bothered or cared to come forward.

[mtrycraft]

[QUOTE=RobotCzar] Have I ever asked you about your views on direct-to-disc LPs?

QUOTE]

I had some before the CD was affordable. They sounded nice. Those vinyls have long been sold :)

[DMK]

[QUOTE=RobotCzar] Have I ever asked you about your views on direct-to-disc LPs?

QUOTE]

I had some before the CD was affordable. They sounded nice. Those vinyls have long been sold :)

When did the CD become affordable? I missed that! I was buying new vinyl in 1989 for about $8 just before I bought my first CD player and gasped at the $14 price tag for CD's. By the time I realized that the CD was a sonic step backward, new vinyl had all but disappeared. But maybe some of your LP's are now in my collection! :)

I never heard a CD (to my knowledge) until 1989. Did you adopt the format pretty early? I've heard the very early players were pretty awful. They've seemed to stabilize these days and my current experiences are much better than those I had in my early digital days.

[rb122]

Hey rb, how are you doing? I have taken a part time job at an instructor and my class uses a computer-lab with fast Internet access, so I have some time to read and respond in AR (while they are working on projects). Find any good LPs lately? Have I ever asked you about your views on direct-to-disc LPs?

Thanks for your kind comment. As you know, I think there are many factors that are important in getting a good (i.e., realistic) result in home audio. Too bad so many people are attending to the wrong ones (in my opinion). Pehaps it is simply easier for some people to spend a lot of money on snobby equipment rather than to learn what really matters.

I am well, sir! It's good to see you back on the forum, albeit somewhat sporadically. I trust things are going well for you.

Have I found any good LP's lately? Yes, indeed! I had to pass over a fairly large cache of 1950's and 1960's jazz because the price was prohibitive but I've found a number of Concord Jazz discs from the '70's and quite a fair amount of classical. I've purchased only a very few CD's this year. I'll have to check and see if I own any direct-to-disc LP's. I'm really a poor excuse for an audiophile! As you know, I take a purely personal stance on audio i.e what sounds proper to me is proper. I'm not too concerned about accuracy as it is measured. My system is modest by audiophile standards and it was all purchased on the used market. I have a day job to help support my family and my "play" money comes from my gigs which are few and far between these days! My point is that I purchased my system almost at once and I have no desire and no means to go through the arduous upgrade process that consumes my audiophile brethren :)

I believe most audiophiles don't really want to know how the equipment does what it does, assuming it does anything different. If the mystique goes, the interest might wane.

As always, it's a pleasure chatting with you. Best wishes!

Rob

[DMK]

I am well, sir! It's good to see you back on the forum, albeit somewhat sporadically. I trust things are going well for you.

Have I found any good LP's lately? Yes, indeed! I had to pass over a fairly large cache of 1950's and 1960's jazz because the price was prohibitive but I've found a number of Concord Jazz discs from the '70's and quite a fair amount of classical. I've purchased only a very few CD's this year. I'll have to check and see if I own any direct-to-disc LP's. I'm really a poor excuse for an audiophile! As you know, I take a purely personal stance on audio i.e what sounds proper to me is proper. I'm not too concerned about accuracy as it is measured. My system is modest by audiophile standards and it was all purchased on the used market. I have a day job to help support my family and my "play" money comes from my gigs which are few and far between these days! My point is that I purchased my system almost at once and I have no desire and no means to go through the arduous upgrade process that consumes my audiophile brethren :)

I believe most audiophiles don't really want to know how the equipment does what it does, assuming it does anything different. If the mystique goes, the interest might wane.

As always, it's a pleasure chatting with you. Best wishes!

Rob

...let me see if I have the facts straight and then I'll add one or two of my own:

1) You found a bunch of '50's and '60's used jazz LP's for sale somewhere.
2) You did not purchase same, meaning they were, at least for a short time after you found them, still available.
3) You dishonored your A/R brothers by not telling us where they were.
4) I'm going to have to hurt you! I'm sorry, but you deserve nothing less! :D

I just found a bunch of the same era jazz LP's about two months ago. The price was high and it cost me the Sota Cosmos turntable I was saving up for but they were worth it! That Roy DuNann at Contemporary Records in particular could sure record! Absolutely stunning sound.

[mtrycraft]

When did the CD become affordable? I missed that! I was buying new vinyl in 1989 for about $8 just before I bought my first CD player and gasped at the $14 price tag for CD's. By the time I realized that the CD was a sonic step backward, new vinyl had all but disappeared. But maybe some of your LP's are now in my collection! :)

I never heard a CD (to my knowledge) until 1989. Did you adopt the format pretty early? I've heard the very early players were pretty awful. They've seemed to stabilize these days and my current experiences are much better than those I had in my early digital days.


I meant the CD palyer was affordable to switch. CD was about what the direct to disc were. I never saw then at $8 but closer to $15 so I had a few to try.
Now that you ask, I don't remember when I changed but I heard it by 1985 or so. I doubt I paid $1k for the new stuff so the price had to have come down a lot.
I had no problems with the early players what I heard. Sounded great, better than vinyl, so I started to save for the day of the coming :)

[hertz]

All amps sound the same in ideal conditions. Ideal world and conditions exist only in Utopia. In this real world, we are dealing with mass market amp makers who are cutting corners everywhere.So most of the amps end up sounding different.

Yesterday I had been to this friend's house. He has klipsch reference series speakers as fronts. He has an onkyo reciever for movies and a Rotel RB1070 power-pre combo for stereo. When I reached his house, he was watching a movie. I suggested he play one of my fave soungs (stimela from the burmester test cd 3) using the reciever. Well it sounded okay but not at all natural.The reciever was set to direct mode. Then we switched to the rotel. Man what a difference ! Natural and involving with hardly a hint of digital glare. The control on the woofer was awesome. What sounded like a wooly thump on the reciever sounded like a real thwack on the bass drum with the rotel.Well..I can go on.....

[Geoffcin]

All amps sound the same in ideal conditions. Ideal world and conditions exist only in Utopia. In this real world, we are dealing with mass market amp makers who are cutting corners everywhere.So most of the amps end up sounding different.

Yesterday I had been to this friend's house. He has klipsch reference series speakers as fronts. He has an onkyo reciever for movies and a Rotel RB1070 power-pre combo for stereo. When I reached his house, he was watching a movie. I suggested he play one of my fave soungs (stimela from the burmester test cd 3) using the reciever. Well it sounded okay but not at all natural.The reciever was set to direct mode. Then we switched to the rotel. Man what a difference ! Natural and involving with hardly a hint of digital glare. The control on the woofer was awesome. What sounded like a wooly thump on the reciever sounded like a real thwack on the bass drum with the rotel.Well..I can go on.....

If you have the time please read my review of the Cambridge Soundworks T500 speakers on Audioreview.com. After purchasing them I got them home and DIDN'T like them all that much. I was ready to return them when a though crossed my mind, and said; "perhaps they are just showing you the receivers faults". Sure enough, after hooking them up to my PS Audio amp the difference was startling. Anyone who says that amps don't make a difference has never listed to different amps. With some speakers it makes all the difference in the world.

[CannondaleSuperVee]

"Anyone who says that amps don't make a difference has never listed to different amps."

Geoffcin and hertz, once again I will restate that if you are sure you can tell the diffrence between two amps go take the challange, if you are so sure you can tell the diffrence its an easy $10000.00 in your pocket. You can pick the amps, speakers and music. Later

[DMK]

I meant the CD palyer was affordable to switch. CD was about what the direct to disc were. I never saw then at $8 but closer to $15 so I had a few to try.
Now that you ask, I don't remember when I changed but I heard it by 1985 or so. I doubt I paid $1k for the new stuff so the price had to have come down a lot.
I had no problems with the early players what I heard. Sounded great, better than vinyl, so I started to save for the day of the coming :)

In 1989, I paid about $200 for a player that I could now buy for about $80, feature-wise. Not too bad. Actually, the advent of the CD started me on the upgrade path to audiophiledom. I thought my system all of a sudden sounded bad but turns out it was those horrid CD's. 15 years later, they're better but those in the first several batches are still bad. Better than vinyl? Still waiting.... :)

What's this got to do with amps? :D

[mtrycraft]

All amps sound the same

Did I really say this? Or, that is the unreliable perception that people are jumping on?


In this real world, we are dealing with mass market amp makers who are cutting corners everywhere.So most of the amps end up sounding different.

Then those differences would show up under DBT listeing conditions. Only the ones that are broken, poorly designed do.

Yesterday I had been to this friend's house. He has klipsch reference series speakers as fronts. He has an onkyo reciever for movies and a Rotel RB1070 power-pre combo for stereo. When I reached his house, he was watching a movie. I suggested he play one of my fave soungs (stimela from the burmester test cd 3) using the reciever. Well it sounded okay but not at all natural.The reciever was set to direct mode. Then we switched to the rotel. Man what a difference ! Natural and involving with hardly a hint of digital glare. The control on the woofer was awesome. What sounded like a wooly thump on the reciever sounded like a real thwack on the bass drum with the rotel.Well..I can go on.....


And you arrived at this amazing differences under bias controlled conditions? Or, just another unreliable perception, poor setup?

[mtrycraft]

Anyone who says that amps don't make a difference has never listed to different amps. With some speakers it makes all the difference in the world.

Yep, that is why the books are full of null results of amp DBT comparisons. But then who ever said you had to listen only with your ears. After all, your eyes are very important to tell components apart, right?

I wonder why people claim to hear differences between the same amp presented twice, under bias controlled conditions? It should be a slam dunk, right?

[Sealed]

The *PRIMARY* problem with amp perception (other than loudness) is hearing a difference when an amp cannot handle the speaker it is connected to.

A 50 wpc reciever will *NOT* be able to adequately drive speakers lie B&W N802's or ATC SCM-35's , so naturally a stout 200 wpc separate will sound different because it can properly drive them. The best the 50wpc reciever could achieve before running out of steam would be a moderate ly low volume. Any dealer or home demo can prove this in minutes.


Tube amps have this problem, because if they struggle with a load, they will sound slow and bloated. It doesn't need to be hyper scrutinized to hear that a 9wpc set amp sounds flabby when attempting to drive a difficult load it wasn't designed for.

On a benign load, like Paradigm Titans or axiom m22's for example, it would be almost impossible to tell audible differences beyond the minute.

[RobotCzar]

The *PRIMARY* problem with amp perception (other than loudness) is hearing a difference when an amp cannot handle the speaker it is connected to.

A 50 wpc reciever will *NOT* be able to adequately drive speakers lie B&W N802's or ATC SCM-35's , so naturally a stout 200 wpc separate will sound different because it can properly drive them. The best the 50wpc reciever could achieve before running out of steam would be a moderate ly low volume. Any dealer or home demo can prove this in minutes.


Tube amps have this problem, because if they struggle with a load, they will sound slow and bloated. It doesn't need to be hyper scrutinized to hear that a 9wpc set amp sounds flabby when attempting to drive a difficult load it wasn't designed for.

On a benign load, like Paradigm Titans or axiom m22's for example, it would be almost impossible to tell audible differences beyond the minute.


This writer is making a point that is often overlooked: The factor that is most audible of power amps is power output. You will hear a difference in a 200 wpc and 50 wpc amp if you play inefficient speakers (which is not a bad quality) very loudly. The distortion goes up with output and the 50 watt amp may even be clipping. In my experience, power output matters in terms of an audible difference. I like to have all the power I can get (i.e., afford).

"Driving a difficult load" is another story that is the basis of skeptic's claim he can hear differences. Just what a "difficult load" is, is not clear. Surely speakers with a nominal imediance of 4 ohms and above is not "difficult", but if your speakers sometimes get down to 3 ohms (like my AR98s) then you might have some problems with less well-designed amps (note that I did not say cheap ones). You will need a special amp if your speakers present 2 ohms or less a significant at significant frequency ranges.

"Adequately drive" should mean, "not cause your amp to clip or to output significant (i.e., audible) distortion". Those who think that many amps cannot adequately drive many speakers are on to hook to provide some evidence beyond uncontrolled, subjective listening opinions (i.e., distortion measurements and frequency response plots).

Now, will you be able to tell your amp is having some problems is casual listening to music? Highly unlikely.

[skeptic]

"This writer is making a point that is often overlooked: The factor that is most audible of power amps is power output. You will hear a difference in a 200 wpc and 50 wpc amp if you play inefficient speakers (which is not a bad quality) very loudly. The distortion goes up with output and the 50 watt amp may even be clipping. In my experience, power output matters in terms of an audible difference. I like to have all the power I can get (i.e., afford)."

This is quite true as soon as you begin to challenge the limits of available amplifier power. The sound of an amplifier clipping can be wretched. How the amplifier recovers from clipping is also important. The notion that vacuum tube amplifiers are somehow superior to solid state amplifiers because they clip with predominantly even harmonics while the other clips with predominantly odd harmonics or visa versa is absurd. ALL clipping can be awful. It is important to select an amplifier which will produce sufficient power to play the loudest levels required without any clipping regardless of the type.

""Driving a difficult load" is another story that is the basis of skeptic's claim he can hear differences. Just what a "difficult load" is, is not clear. Surely speakers with a nominal imediance of 4 ohms and above is not "difficult", but if your speakers sometimes get down to 3 ohms (like my AR98s) then you might have some problems with less well-designed amps (note that I did not say cheap ones). You will need a special amp if your speakers present 2 ohms or less a significant at significant frequency ranges."

This was the explanation HH Scott gave us for the failure of their high power Mosfet receiver in the late 1960s driving AR3s. They claimed the impedence of the nominally 4 ohm speaker was below one ohm at some frequencies. AR of course denied it. My Dynaco Stereo 120 didn't much care for my 4 ohm nominal Teledyne AR9s either. After 23 years of reliable service, it was taken out when driven hard into those speakers. There are other factors however which can affect the perceived sound of a speaker when connected to different amplifiers. Frequency response is one of them. Too bad the only specifications you're likely to see is the response at 1 watt into an 8 ohm resistive load. Who knows what happens at other impedences and power levels. Who knows what limitations the eddy current and hysterisis losses in output transformers do. Furthermore, loudspeakers are not even passive loads but generate a back emf which brings us to the issue of damping factor. Another shortcoming of vacuum tube amplifiers is their high output impedence which gives the amplifier comparitively less control of heavy woofer cones resulting in muddier, boomier bass than with a high quality solid state amplifier. Furthermore, tube amplifiers have uneven frequency responses even at one watt and harmonic distortion and intermodulation distortion orders of magnitude higher than the best solid state amplifers. Can these limitations be overcome? To a degree. But solid state amplifiers are not without their own shortcomings and many early ones suffered from crossover notch distortion in their output stages making them sound bright and harsh. This was later substantially reduced in better biasing of bipolar designs and in Mosfet designs.

""Adequately drive" should mean, "not cause your amp to clip or to output significant (i.e., audible) distortion". Those who think that many amps cannot adequately drive many speakers are on to hook to provide some evidence beyond uncontrolled, subjective listening opinions (i.e., distortion measurements and frequency response plots)"

This is where amplifier design engineers have really fallen down on the job. They haven't bothered to delve into the relationships between amplifiers and loudspeakers beyond what they were handed down by their instructors from generations past. Therefore, on paper many of them look identical when they are anything but.

Of all amplifier designs, the 8 watt per channel SET costing many hundreds or thousands of dollars would appear to be the absolute worst value on the market. If anyone has the onus of proving that these amplifiers outperform far cheaper and more powerful designs in ways which mitigate their inability to adequately drive any but a tiny fraction of the loudspeakers available on the market, it seems to me that it is these people who have the burden of proof. So far all we have is testimonial evidence from individuals with no scientific studies to even back up their listening claims. Just like the claims for after market cables, moving coil phonograph cartridges, and a slew of other audiophile mantras.

[mtrycraft]

[QUOTE=skeptic

Of all amplifier designs, the 8 watt per channel SET costing many hundreds or thousands of dollars would appear to be the absolute worst value on the market. .[/QUOTE]


How about those costing into the 5 or even 6 figures :D

[mtrycraft]

When amps are compared under DBT conditions, one of the condition is not driving it beyond its design limits. Of course it will sound different outside that envelope :)

So, if a speaker needs 100watts of power, how would a 50 watt amp deliver unless the signal is of a dynamic nature and the amp has 3dB headroom.

[skeptic]

Here's a trick I've mentioned here before that an old electrical engineer friend of mine told me from back in the vacuum tube days (actually he was a professor of electrical engineering); play music at a very soft level with very efficient loudspeakers. Put your ear right up to the speakers. This will reveal crossover notch distortion (yes you can get it in tube amplifiers too) because the region around the cutover from positive to negative going and visa versa where crossover notch distortion occurs will be a relatively large proportion of the total sound wave. This kind of distortion contributed to the harsh brittleness of many solid state amplifiers in the early 1960s. The notion that all amplifiers could conceivably sound the same is easily dispelled by anyone who has an amplifier test report from high fidelity magazine or audio magazine from the early to mid fifties. Just look at those awful frequency response curves. Those old tube amplifiers often just don't have the clarity or bass impact of more modern solid state amplifiers. Their harmonic distortion could get pretty high too with ratings of 1% or higher not uncommon. The switch from vacuum tube to solid state amplifiers was driven as much by market demand as by the desire to advertise the newest technology. When the top echelon of the day, Marantz and McIntosh went solid state, and even Dynaco, the handwriting was on the wall for vacuum tubes. There seems to be a nostalgia for these old sets. They have a charm which transcends their usually inferior sounding performance. They have individuality, each with its own distinctive personality. They have that warm glow at night that can be comforting, a kind of electronic hearth. They were far more artistically designed and some of them had excellent human engineering compared to today's sterile looking black boxes with remote controls and blue fluorescent digital displays. But they just don't sound as good to me.

[mtrycraft]

Here's a trick I've mentioned here before that an old electrical engineer friend of mine told me from back in the vacuum tube days (actually he was a professor of electrical engineering); play music at a very soft level with very efficient loudspeakers. Put your ear right up to the speakers. This will reveal crossover notch distortion (yes you can get it in tube amplifiers too) because the region around the cutover from positive to negative going and visa versa where crossover notch distortion occurs will be a relatively large proportion of the total sound wave.

Will it be audible at the normal listeing seat? I don't listen up so close :)

This kind of distortion contributed to the harsh brittleness of many solid state amplifiers in the early 1960s.

Oh, ok. How about much later, into the 70s and beyond to today?

The notion that all amplifiers could conceivably sound the same is easily dispelled by anyone who has an amplifier test report from high fidelity magazine or audio magazine from the early to mid fifties. Just look at those awful frequency response curves.

OK, so those were poorly designed or par for the time period. The other aspect of DBT liseti8ng of amps is level matching to .1dB spl. So, obviously it would not be possible with that FR spec.

Those old tube amplifiers often just don't have the clarity or bass impact of more modern solid state amplifiers. Their harmonic distortion could get pretty high too with ratings of 1% or higher not uncommon.

Again, they are broken by later specs:)

[hertz]

All amps sound the same

Did I really say this? Or, that is the unreliable perception that people are jumping on?


In this real world, we are dealing with mass market amp makers who are cutting corners everywhere.So most of the amps end up sounding different.

Then those differences would show up under DBT listeing conditions. Only the ones that are broken, poorly designed do.

Yesterday I had been to this friend's house. He has klipsch reference series speakers as fronts. He has an onkyo reciever for movies and a Rotel RB1070 power-pre combo for stereo. When I reached his house, he was watching a movie. I suggested he play one of my fave soungs (stimela from the burmester test cd 3) using the reciever. Well it sounded okay but not at all natural.The reciever was set to direct mode. Then we switched to the rotel. Man what a difference ! Natural and involving with hardly a hint of digital glare. The control on the woofer was awesome. What sounded like a wooly thump on the reciever sounded like a real thwack on the bass drum with the rotel.Well..I can go on.....


And you arrived at this amazing differences under bias controlled conditions? Or, just another unreliable perception, poor setup?

That's exactly what I am talking about.If you randomly pick and compare amps with the same specs from some 10 manufacturers, you will find that most of them are designed poorly. This results in diffrences in sound with revealing speakers.I tried out
some five amps at home before deciding on my NAD C350.So the consumer has to be careful. When I did my checks I had a pair of 96 db wharfedales.I checked out a higher power spec Yamaha and nakamichi including some others. Both the yamaha and nakamichi had a tough time driving the wharfedales especially at high volumes. They lost control and sounded "shouty" wheras the NAD sounded controled and musical. I checked out the lesser powered 320 bee also. Even that sounded fine. I learned that day that
spec sheet is as good as TOILET PAPER when it comes to mass market manufacturers.

I know it is very much different because the frown that I had on my face when I listened to the reciever was replaced with a
smile which extended from ear to ear with Rotel. This smile came on automatically so it is a function of my Brain which reacted positively to the music reproduced by the rotel.Remember that this is a song I listen to atleast twice a week on my my NAD/B&W setup for the last year.

[rb122]

...let me see if I have the facts straight and then I'll add one or two of my own:

1) You found a bunch of '50's and '60's used jazz LP's for sale somewhere.
2) You did not purchase same, meaning they were, at least for a short time after you found them, still available.
3) You dishonored your A/R brothers by not telling us where they were.
4) I'm going to have to hurt you! I'm sorry, but you deserve nothing less! :D

I just found a bunch of the same era jazz LP's about two months ago. The price was high and it cost me the Sota Cosmos turntable I was saving up for but they were worth it! That Roy DuNann at Contemporary Records in particular could sure record! Absolutely stunning sound.

As much as I enjoy my "A/R brothers", I would be silly to even breathe a hint of where this vinyl be reside if I ever wanted another chance at it. I believe I've mentioned before that you, in particular, are gluttonous when it comes to LP's. I would not want to add to that. It is, after all, a sin! :D

Roy is still around! I don't think he's recording much anymore, though. Have you heard "Way Out West" by Sonny Rollins or any of the old Hampton Hawes LP's? THAT, my friend, is what small band jazz sounds like in a club. Good luck finding that quality on CD.

[RobotCzar]

That's exactly what I am talking about.If you randomly pick and compare amps with the same specs from some 10 manufacturers, you will find that most of them are designed poorly. This results in diffrences in sound with revealing speakers.I tried out
some five amps at home before deciding on my NAD C350.So the consumer has to be careful. When I did my checks I had a pair of 96 db wharfedales.I checked out a higher power spec Yamaha and nakamichi including some others. Both the yamaha and nakamichi had a tough time driving the wharfedales especially at high volumes. They lost control and sounded "shouty" wheras the NAD sounded controled and musical. I checked out the lesser powered 320 bee also. Even that sounded fine. I learned that day that
spec sheet is as good as TOILET PAPER when it comes to mass market manufacturers.



This is exactly the kind of response that is unhelpful to the discussion and to those new to home audio. You say the the amps are "designed poorly" but you give no explanation of what you mean by that. Did you study the schematics or measure their performance?

The implication is that you heard a difference. But, you did not control for the many variables that could have caused an audible difference that are unrelated to amplifier design. Therefore your report is worthless. Also, because nobody (I know of, or have heard of in 30 years of home audio) has been able to distinguish properly performing amps (not most tube amps) we have a very good reason to doubt that you can. (Let me also say that many of those tested claimed they could easily hear differences, but failed to do so when tested--so reports from audiophiles are extremely unreliable.)

[skeptic]

"Therefore your report is worthless. Also, because nobody (I know of, or have heard of in 30 years of home audio) has been able to distinguish properly performing amps (not most tube amps) we have a very good reason to doubt that you can. "

One amplifier I can report sounded harsh and bright was an early model made by a company called Acoustech which was later bought out by Koss. It had surprisingly high harmonic distortion for a solid state amplifier running about 1%.

Among vacuum tube amplifiers, even Marantz must have felt that there was a difference in sound because they provided a switch on the Model 8 power amp which allowed the user to switch from pentode to triode operation but with less maximum power (I think the reduction was from 60 watts for the pentode to 40 watts for the triode.

The heart and soul of any audio power amplifer regardless of its type is its power supply. You can often tell a lot about the quality of an amplifier just by how heavy and large it is. A huge power transformer and filter capacitors suggests plenty of available power and conservative design. These are the heaviest and most expensive electronic components in the amplifier (except of course in the case of vacuum tube amplifiers where the output transformers and tubes themeselves can cost a bundle.) Does circuit topology or circuit element selection matter? Can you really hear the difference between old wax paper capacitors and polypropylene capacitors? Can you hear a difference in the poor selection Amber made using Sylvania switching transistors in output stages of their units? Will two separate power supplies and careful layout prevent crosstalk between channels to an audible degree? What about poor use of feedback? Is there such a thing as "transient intermodulation distortion" or is that just a myth? BTW, the Crown DC 300 which is so maligned by audiophiles had a very fast slewing rate and should have had very low TIM. And what about the IC 150 preamplifier. If they sound as good as anything out there, they are the steal of the century putting out enormous power, offering tremendous control flexibility, being practically bulletproof even after 35 years of use, and available for far less than most new equipment. And I would have hunted a pair down except that today, Crown makes brand new units which sell at very reasonable prices. The even more powerful CE-1000 only costs $450 including shipping. Crown claims even better audible performance for their Studio Reference series which for comparably powered units is about three times higher but still far below Bryston, Krell, and Mark Levinson. While still maligned by audiophiles, these ultra reliable, ultra powerful units would also seem a great bargain. On paper at least, these are among the best value in audio amplifiers on the market. Anybody got one to report about it?

[RGA]

Hi Fi choice level matched to .1db - blind panels(all componants in this manner including amplifiers, receivers and speakers) They have a sound quality componant to their sessions - the manufacturers themselves sit in on the tests as part of the panels much of the time - and they don't even choose their own equipment as being best all of the time. I would love to get some back issues but shipping from the UK I have a feeling will set me back heavy on the Duty. Their method defeats some of the psychological concerns of test stress which is more valuable to the consumer.
http://hifichoice.co.uk/reviews.asp

[mtrycraft]

Hi Fi choice level matched to .1db - blind panels(all componants in this manner including amplifiers, receivers and speakers) They have a sound quality componant to their sessions - the manufacturers themselves sit in on the tests as part of the panels much of the time - and they don't even choose their own equipment as being best all of the time. I would love to get some back issues but shipping from the UK I have a feeling will set me back heavy on the Duty. Their method defeats some of the psychological concerns of test stress which is more valuable to the consumer.
http://hifichoice.co.uk/reviews.asp


Unfortunately their protocol is not statistically validated or published.
They also have other porblems, panel discussions, etc. Flawed.

[RobotCzar]

One amplifier I can report sounded harsh and bright was an early model made by a company called Acoustech which was later bought out by Koss. It had surprisingly high harmonic distortion for a solid state amplifier running about 1%.

Among vacuum tube amplifiers, even Marantz must have felt that there was a difference in sound because they provided a switch on the Model 8 power amp which allowed the user to switch from pentode to triode operation but with less maximum power (I think the reduction was from 60 watts for the pentode to 40 watts for the triode.

The heart and soul of any audio power amplifer regardless of its type is its power supply. You can often tell a lot about the quality of an amplifier just by how heavy and large it is.

I accept 1% THD as the liimit of audibility (at lower frequencies). An amp with 1% THD into 8 ohms @ 1 KHz probably can be distinguished by golden ears with test tones (don't bet on music). IMHO an amp with 1% THD is not performing properly.

People have demonstrated that they can distinguish tube amps (probably because of freqency response errors due to impediance mismatches). Tube amps are also not "performing properly" according to me (and are therefore excluded from consideration in the question of whether properly performing amps sound different). The fact that some people LIKE the improper performance of tube amps is okay by me, but not good evidence that they sound "better". Why pay extra for an amp with built-in non-adjustable tone control? Most tube amps are simply inferior for a host of reasons beyond sonic inaccuracy (such as the fact that they go out of "alignment" with alarming regularity).

I'm all for good build quality, and I somewhat agree that it coreleates to weight (though manufacturers often fool people by using a heavy case). A good design using proper integrated circuits could be fairly light weight (e.g., the Marantz monoblocks). The problem is; how much am I willing to pay for things that don't affect audible performance? Expected longer life is a crap shoot (I have a SS Yamaha power amp from the early 80s that works just fine). So, if you have the bucks for solid build and great measured performance, go for it--just don't pretend it "sounds better".

I appreciate skeptic even temper. Is he mellowing with age?

[E-Stat]

The heart and soul of any audio power amplifer regardless of its type is its power supply. You can often tell a lot about the quality of an amplifier just by how heavy and large it is.
Indeed. My twenty year old Threshold Stasis amp weighs 50 pounds for 100 watts/channel output. The newer VTLs weight 85 pounds each.


BTW, the Crown DC 300 which is so maligned by audiophiles had a very fast slewing rate and should have had very low TIM. And what about the IC 150 preamplifier. If they sound as good as anything out there, they are the steal of the century...
Absolutely no danger of that being the case. Take a listen some time and weep.

rw

[hertz]

I agree that ideally all amps with the same spec sheet should sound the same. But from my experience this is not true. I have dealer friend who deals in NAD , CA and quite a few estoric brands. I spend a lot of my sunday afternoons at his place. He has a pair of hybrid (electrostat and dynamic ) cadence speakers permenantly setup in his home cum showroom. They are very revealing. Most of the time he will have a different amp connected to them. I have heard LINN CLASIK, marantz, Nad, audio analoque, denon, audio note, creek, cadence, rotel, CA amongst a host of others in his setup.
All of them have signature sound to them. I listen to at least one familiar song and immedately I can make out. Some amps have a shrill top end, some subdued, some have fluid mid frequecies, some shouty, some have a boomy bottom end, some defined and taut, some very warm, some cold and clinical (very icy feel to the sound), some are loud and uncontrolled, some are involving and controlled, well....I can go on and on.
This is my experience. By the way when I evaluate amps, I listen to only audiophile grade Jazz and clasical recordings.Most people I know select amps depending on their music taste. For example, a friend of mine traded in his Nad c 370 (100w/ch) for an audio analogue Puccini (50w/ch) because he is a jazz and classical lover. He found the audio anaogue much more involving, natural and less glare free in his setup with his music. With rock it is a different story. He is a very happy person now.

[RGA]

Hertz

Don't bother - you are preaching to the converted. The most powerful religion is the religion of science misapplied. For serious answers to psychological testing proticol you need to, as I have done, talk to several pychologists in the field of cognitive study - these scientists(engineers are merely doers not scientists) will go over all of the problems of relying on DBT's for real world analysis - there is a lot of profit to be made from the counter-audiophile market but since one calls himself a skeptic(not counting necessarily the poster here) one seems to present themselves as objective(Lot's of money selling Anti-Audiophile magazines - given Tom Nousaine a good prfitable career and the folks at The Audio Critic a good windfall). Mentioning any problem with the test gets a response that I support sighted listening(this has happened often) which goes to sho these people typically jump to conclusions(engineers again do this not scientists).

I was dating a PHD student in Cognitive psychology at the time and I went over this audio argument with her and other members of the student body and faculty - and when you do the same you will understand the foibles that the engineers(or engineer wannabes) here A) don't even know exist or B) know perfectly well they exist but are too self-righteous and arrogant to admit they exist or C) Ignore these issues because they can't be worse than the biases eliminated. A = incompetant don't wate your time talking to them - B = subvert the value of science are dangerous like Scientists who PROVED the notion of Eugenics --- Good ol Hitler Aryan Master Race - or C = Well I can accept their take on the matter.

Think of this - even when the amp is the SAME people will STILL make a selection of A or B in a DBT. Some think that this strengthens their pro dbt stance. Which of course when you talk to the right people in the right field you will gain an understanding the poor dimwits in the field of engineering don't grasp - too bad so sad.

[Pat D]

Hertz

Don't bother - you are preaching to the converted. The most powerful religion is the religion of science misapplied. For serious answers to psychological testing proticol you need to, as I have done, talk to several pychologists in the field of cognitive study - these scientists(engineers are merely doers not scientists) will go over all of the problems of relying on DBT's for real world analysis - there is a lot of profit to be made from the counter-audiophile market but since one calls himself a skeptic(not counting necessarily the poster here) one seems to present themselves as objective(Lot's of money selling Anti-Audiophile magazines - given Tom Nousaine a good prfitable career and the folks at The Audio Critic a good windfall). Mentioning any problem with the test gets a response that I support sighted listening(this has happened often) which goes to sho these people typically jump to conclusions(engineers again do this not scientists).

I was dating a PHD student in Cognitive psychology at the time and I went over this audio argument with her and other members of the student body and faculty - and when you do the same you will understand the foibles that the engineers(or engineer wannabes) here A) don't even know exist or B) know perfectly well they exist but are too self-righteous and arrogant to admit they exist or C) Ignore these issues because they can't be worse than the biases eliminated. A = incompetant don't wate your time talking to them - B = subvert the value of science are dangerous like Scientists who PROVED the notion of Eugenics --- Good ol Hitler Aryan Master Race - or C = Well I can accept their take on the matter.

Think of this - even when the amp is the SAME people will STILL make a selection of A or B in a DBT. Some think that this strengthens their pro dbt stance. Which of course when you talk to the right people in the right field you will gain an understanding the poor dimwits in the field of engineering don't grasp - too bad so sad.
The "I dated someone" argument is not much better than the "my significant other heard the differences when driving up and parking in the garage" argument. Just what did you tell the young lady and just what sorts of relevant things did she say back?

[RGA]

I have been over it before many times and it has went unanswered - My comment was to Hertz and only Hertz and I mentioned his best approach to discoviering the answers to his questions. This is not an attack on the DBT as a tool either - just for him to discuss with people who know how it is being misapplied in this and a great many psychological and certain medical contexts. Her field is focussed on cognitive research in intelligence in children and learning dissabilities where controlled double blind testing HAD often been used and Now being steadily chucked out. The way tests impact subjects alone has been greatly examined over the last few years - music added to the mix now you have a cognitive emotion diameteric opposition. The tool is useful - the tool can be done by most anyone who is careful in any field - controlling variables and what you think you are really testing is another matter.

My answers have been more than satisfied - I will not engage in he said she said because if I get one miniscule thing she and or they said wrong then I will get blasted for it from both sides. And frankly, it will go on and on anyway. I stand by Hi-fi Choice's use of level matched blind panel listening which is not a TEST environment. (The word TEST is but one hint - you go ask em if you were real interested). I am leaving this thread - more important things in life than me worrying whether some guy is happier with a $2000.00 amp over a $49.00 Sanyo ghetto blaster amp section using an $6.00 box to add inputs to it. If the other guy wants to believe the $55.00 unit is better then hey go for it. Some guy claims his 2k amp is the bee's knees and better than the $55.00 ghetto blaster modded unit and some other guy just takes his word for it and buys it well Caveat Emptor. I'm willing to bet the "other" guy in the equation will "feel" he got a better amp and "believe" he got a better amp and may "actually" have gotten a better amp. But tough numnuts if some guy spends $3k on some interconnect because he read a review - if you're that stupid you don't deserve help for DBTers warning them - DBTers should be warning people of the drug companies LACK of evidence to support hundred dollars drugs that have 100% failure rates - and that money changing hands dwarfs the cable makers.

[mtrycraft]

Hertz

Don't bother - you are preaching to the converted. The most powerful religion is the religion of science misapplied. For serious answers to psychological testing proticol you need to, as I have done, talk to several pychologists in the field of cognitive study - these scientists(engineers are merely doers not scientists) will go over all of the problems of relying on DBT's for real world analysis - there is a lot of profit to be made from the counter-audiophile market but since one calls himself a skeptic(not counting necessarily the poster here) one seems to present themselves as objective(Lot's of money selling Anti-Audiophile magazines - given Tom Nousaine a good prfitable career and the folks at The Audio Critic a good windfall). Mentioning any problem with the test gets a response that I support sighted listening(this has happened often) which goes to sho these people typically jump to conclusions(engineers again do this not scientists).

I was dating a PHD student in Cognitive psychology at the time and I went over this audio argument with her and other members of the student body and faculty - and when you do the same you will understand the foibles that the engineers(or engineer wannabes) here A) don't even know exist or B) know perfectly well they exist but are too self-righteous and arrogant to admit they exist or C) Ignore these issues because they can't be worse than the biases eliminated. A = incompetant don't wate your time talking to them - B = subvert the value of science are dangerous like Scientists who PROVED the notion of Eugenics --- Good ol Hitler Aryan Master Race - or C = Well I can accept their take on the matter.

Think of this - even when the amp is the SAME people will STILL make a selection of A or B in a DBT. Some think that this strengthens their pro dbt stance. Which of course when you talk to the right people in the right field you will gain an understanding the poor dimwits in the field of engineering don't grasp - too bad so sad.


I suppose the folks at NRC have no clue? Really?
Please.

I think perhaps you have been talking with the wrong people on this? Sure looks like it.

[mtrycraft]

. I stand by Hi-fi Choice's use of level matched blind panel listening which is not a TEST environment. .


This explains a lot as well. It is not a meaningful test either. No value. Only a surface facade. But, you do have a choice.

[RobotCzar]

I agree that ideally all amps with the same spec sheet should sound the same. But from my experience this is not true. I have dealer friend who deals in NAD , CA and quite a few estoric brands. I spend a lot of my sunday afternoons at his place. He has a pair of hybrid (electrostat and dynamic ) cadence speakers permenantly setup in his home cum showroom. They are very revealing. Most of the time he will have a different amp connected to them. I have heard LINN CLASIK, marantz, Nad, audio analoque, denon, audio note, creek, cadence, rotel, CA amongst a host of others in his setup.
All of them have signature sound to them.....

Please read my post elsewhere regarding the variables that effect what we hear. You seem to have taken no steps to control these variables, so we can't be sure that the amps themselves that are causing the difference you hear.

From your comments we might assume that it is pretty easy hear differences among amps. The probem is that nobody (I have heard of in many year of being an audio fan) has been able to demonstrate that they can when the variables I mention are controlled (eliminated as a source of differences). Because of the repeated failure of people like you (who claim to easily hear differences), I can't simply take your word about this issue.

Discussion about amps is still of interest to audio fans becasue of factors that are audible (e.g., power output) and factors that are not audible but still of interest like build quality and features.