Food For Thought!

[blackraven]

Here's a couple of interesting web sites that I though may involk some discussion and more controversy

http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/rece...d-quality.aspx

http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/wisdom.html

[Feanor]

Here's a couple of interesting web sites that I though may involk some discussion and more controversy

www.hometheaterfocus.com/receivers/amplifier-sound-quality.aspx

http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/wisdom.html

I'll read these reference more thoroughly after work. A couple of things come to mind however.

First, I've read the amplifier test in question before. It is interesting that the article was written by Ian G. Masters know for his "objectivist" bias, nevertheless the testing did prove that some amp could be distinquished from each other by at least some of the participants; this puts the lie to the notion that "all amplifieres sound alike".

The second item refers to Peter Aczel and The Audio Critic. One thing for sure is the Aczel is thoroughly hated and detested by virtually every "subjectivist" audiophile.

Personally I'm convinced I can hear differences between amplifiers, and even between different vacuum tubes in the same device, but I have rarely even suspected I heard differences between decent inteconnects, much less power cords.

[blackraven]

I always take things with a grain of salt. I just posted those sites for some interesting discussion but it looks like no one else has any opinions or comments.

[Ajani]

I always take things with a grain of salt. I just posted those sites for some interesting discussion but it looks like no one else has any opinions or comments.

That's the best way to take any claims in audio.... Though I believe there are differences in the sound of amplifiers, I don't think they are nearly as 'Night and Day' as many 'audiophiles' claim....

I don't think the article disproved that there are differences, it seemed to show that most people can't accurately tell the differences... In other words - the differences are likely quite subtle....

The only thing I've heard truly dramatic differences with are: Speakers & Room acoustics...

[blackraven]

I tend to agree that differences in amps are subtle but I certainly have heard some amps that are warmer or brighter than others especially when used with high end speakers and CDP's. I think there can be big differences among CDP's as I have seen with modifying my MusicHall and comparing the Marantz SA8001, 740c and 840c. Cables, power cords and power conditioners, I'm skeptical about differences in sound.

[SlumpBuster]

Of the "Top Ten Audio Lies" one is the "Cable Lie" and one is the "Bi-Wire Lie." But to me those cancel eachother out. If I use affordable wire, then why can't I bi-wire just in case? In otherwords, if a don't believe lie one (that cable matters) then lie two (that you have to bi-wire) becomes a strawman. There is no harm no foul in bi-wiring if I'm using cheap wire. In fact, I'm creating an effectively larger guage wire in the the process.
I use quality Home Depot 14 guage speaker wire terminated with bananas in a bi-wire configuration. I had the extra wire so I figured "Why not bi-wire?" At least it looks cool. If it has no effect, then so what. If it does have a positive effect, then I'm covered.

[Les Adams]

I noticed a huge difference when I changed my power amp from a Quad 405 to a Quad 909. Midrange clarity in partictular was dramatically improved and the overally tonal quality changed to give a more open and detailed sound - and that is comaping two amplifiers from the same manufacturer, albeit one design older than another. I suspect preamps may make an even bigger difference and changing from a Denon AVR 3801 as a preamp to the Quad 99 certainly made an instant improvement. But, both these changes were apparent to my ears without question, but my girlfriend could not tell the difference! This is all very subjective I think!

[KUNK]

Thank you...I added "Audio Wisdom" to my audio links....cool site....lets find mo

[E-Stat]

Here's a couple of interesting web sites that I though may involk some discussion and more controversy

What this twenty-five year old amp article doesn't begin to address is the effect of the amplifier-speaker interaction. Maggies are very nice speakers (had some myself back in the 70s) that present a nearly perfectly resistive load to the amp. Best case scenario if you will. The vast majority of box speakers, however, have impedance curves that are all over the place. Or, if you favor electrostats like I do, you need an amp that can perform the same with a particularly nasty reactive load. The Rat Shack receiver would likely shut down trying to drive my speakers where the Levinson wouldn't even be breathing hard. Some Crown pro amps go into protection with the 1200 pf capacitive load of the Sound Labs.

It is all about system matching.

rw

[audio amateur]

What this twenty-five year old amp article doesn't begin to address is the effect of the amplifier-speaker interaction. Maggies are very nice speakers (had some myself back in the 70s) that present a nearly perfectly resistive load to the amp. Best case scenario if you will. The vast majority of box speakers, however, have impedance curves that are all over the place. Or, if you favor electrostats like I do, you need an amp that can perform the same with a particularly nasty reactive load. The Rat Shack receiver would likely shut down trying to drive my speakers where the Levinson wouldn't even be breathing hard. Some Crown pro amps go into protection with the 1200 pf capacitive load of the Sound Labs.

It is all about system matching.

rw

Cool stuff. What are you powering them with at the moment?

[Ajani]

What this twenty-five year old amp article doesn't begin to address is the effect of the amplifier-speaker interaction. Maggies are very nice speakers (had some myself back in the 70s) that present a nearly perfectly resistive load to the amp. Best case scenario if you will. The vast majority of box speakers, however, have impedance curves that are all over the place. Or, if you favor electrostats like I do, you need an amp that can perform the same with a particularly nasty reactive load. The Rat Shack receiver would likely shut down trying to drive my speakers where the Levinson wouldn't even be breathing hard. Some Crown pro amps go into protection with the 1200 pf capacitive load of the Sound Labs.

It is all about system matching.

rw

That's a really good point actually.

Though I don't tend to hear huge differences in sound in amps; power and ability to drive diificult loads are essential when trying to match amp with speakers.... I've heard 50 watt amps drive efficient loudspeakers to ridiculously loud levels in a small room, but for inefficient speakers in a much larger room I'd want nothing less than 200 watts...

[E-Stat]

Cool stuff. What are you powering them with at the moment?

A pair of VTL MB-450 mono tube amps. Previously, with my former electrostats, I used a Threshold Stasis amp that was likewise load insensitive.

rw

[filecat13]

All your amps are belong to my Haflers.

Okay, you guys make good points. The speaker-amp interaction is quite the deal. I've got a large number of amps, some of them bought on a whim to see if they could improve the sound of some of my speakers.

I was having a "b" of a time driving these JBL 4430s here in my office with a Carver (OK, don't start ), but a Soundcraftsmen A200 set them right.

Running some L7s with Soundcraftsmen A200s didn't work well, but Hafler PR2600s worked wonders with them.

Driving L250s with the Haflers just didn't quite get it, but a Fosgate Audionics 4125 was just the ticket.

Best thing for the L100s: vintage Kenwood KA-801 integrated amp. Best for the S2600s: Panasonic SA-XR10 digital amp. And so it goes.

I couldn't tell you how many amps I swapped in and out, sometimes with no discernible effect, then suddenly one just clicked. If I were smarter (or more educated) perhaps I could study schematics, impedance curves, etc. to predict these things, but I'm just a random sequence generator looking for the right combination.

[audio amateur]

A pair of VTL MB-450 mono tube amps. Previously, with my former electrostats, I used a Threshold Stasis amp that was likewise load insensitive.

rw

Very nice

[Feanor]

That's a really good point actually.

Though I don't tend to hear huge differences in sound in amps; power and ability to drive diificult loads are essential when trying to match amp with speakers.... I've heard 50 watt amps drive efficient loudspeakers to ridiculously loud levels in a small room, but for inefficient speakers in a much larger room I'd want nothing less than 200 watts...

If there was ever a misused audio adjective it's got to be "huge". One guy's "huge" is another guy's "insignificant".

Despite having Magneplanars -- and easy load as mentioned by E-Stat -- I easily heard the differences among the seven or eight different amps I've heard in my system in the last 4 years, and the five or six preamps for that matter. In fact, I'm convinced I heard difference among the four or so different tubes I've heard in my current preamp.

Were any of these differences "huge"? Well, let's just say they were "significant" -- at least to me

Other differences:

• I've heard about five different CDPs or DACs in my system and I'd say the the differences were "subtle".
• I can't say heard any differences among the interconnects or even speaker cables I've used. Then again I haven't had tried Vallhala cables, for instance.
• Some people say they can hear difference between iTunes and Foobar2000: sorry, no-can-hear, but that might be computer and configuration dependant.

[Ajani]

If there was ever a misused audio adjective it's got to be "huge". One guy's "huge" is another guy's "insignificant".

Despite having Magneplanars -- and easy load as mentioned by E-Stat -- I easily heard the differences among the seven or eight different amps I've heard in my system in the last 4 years, and the five or six preamps for that matter. In fact, I'm convinced I heard difference among the four or so different tubes I've heard in my current preamp.

Were any of these differences "huge"? Well, let's just say they were "significant" -- at least to me

Other differences:

• I've heard about five different CDPs or DACs in my system and I'd say the the differences were "subtle".
• I can't say heard any differences among the interconnects or even speaker cables I've used. Then again I haven't had tried Vallhala cables, for instance.
• Some people say they can hear difference between iTunes and Foobar2000: sorry, no-can-hear, but that might be computer and configuration dependant.

Whether you use the word 'Huge' or 'Significant', the magnitude of the differences are still totally relative...

Just check out this post (which is also in this thread):

I noticed a huge difference when I changed my power amp from a Quad 405 to a Quad 909. Midrange clarity in partictular was dramatically improved and the overally tonal quality changed to give a more open and detailed sound - and that is comaping two amplifiers from the same manufacturer, albeit one design older than another. I suspect preamps may make an even bigger difference and changing from a Denon AVR 3801 as a preamp to the Quad 99 certainly made an instant improvement. But, both these changes were apparent to my ears without question, but my girlfriend could not tell the difference! This is all very subjective I think!

I haven't seen anyone arguing that all speakers sound the same.... but even after decades, some people still claim all amps sound the same and even more claim all CD players sound the same and most claim that all cables sound the same...

I look at things this way: If it can still be debated after decades then there is probably something to it.... IMO, the differences are all far subtler than many audiophiles claim... and the reason I used the word 'Huge' is just to say that I've not experienced any 'Night & Day' differences in amplification.... I've heard differences, but their significance really depended on how much money you're willing to spend...

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

If there was ever a misused audio adjective it's got to be "huge". One guy's "huge" is another guy's "insignificant".

Hey! This is a family forum!

[blackraven]

My wife uses the word huge all the time!

[filecat13]

My wife uses the word huge all the time!

I'm confused. Is she referring to your ego?


Hey, it's just a cheap joke. Nothing else intended.

[Les Adams]

I haven't seen anyone arguing that all speakers sound the same.... but even after decades, some people still claim all amps sound the same and even more claim all CD players sound the same and most claim that all cables sound the same...

I look at things this way: If it can still be debated after decades then there is probably something to it.... IMO, the differences are all far subtler than many audiophiles claim... and the reason I used the word 'Huge' is just to say that I've not experienced any 'Night & Day' differences in amplification.... I've heard differences, but their significance really depended on how much money you're willing to spend...

I think it depends on HOW you listen. My afore mentioned girlfriend has only ever experienced soundstage once when I managed to get her sitting in the correct position and told her what to listen for. She was very impressed by what she heard, as though she had just witnessed some kind of magic trick, but it did not change how she listens and she is still happy to sit off to one side and enjoys the music just as much. The "depth" of her listening goes no further than the words and melody and she really can not hear the difference between amplifiers let alone cables. I on the other hand get completely immersed in the music and the more imagery and detail there is, the more I enjoy it.

I would compare the appreciation and perception of fine audio with that of fine art. I might look at a fine painting and my enjoyment of it would be based purly on the subject matter, i.e. is it a nice flower, or pretty scene? Whereas an art Connoisseur can also appreciate the brush strokes and the finer detail that is missed by my un-trained or un-appreciative eye. I might also miss the detail because it doesn't matter to me, just as my girlfriend doesn't care if the hi-hat is ting-ing beautifully, or the bass is tight and punchy, her attention and enjoyment of the music is based purely on the basic subjects - the song and the singer.. she likes it or she doesn't.

In my experience, amplifiers DO sound different. I conceed however that the differences between loudspeakers are more dramatic and therefore more obvious. I struggle to hear the difference between one good cable and onother, but that does not mean there is no difference, it simply means that I can't hear it.

[Ajani]

I think it depends on HOW you listen. My afore mentioned girlfriend has only ever experienced soundstage once when I managed to get her sitting in the correct position and told her what to listen for. She was very impressed by what she heard, as though she had just witnessed some kind of magic trick, but it did not change how she listens and she is still happy to sit off to one side and enjoys the music just as much. The "depth" of her listening goes no further than the words and melody and she really can not hear the difference between amplifiers let alone cables. I on the other hand get completely immersed in the music and the more imagery and detail there is, the more I enjoy it.

I would compare the appreciation and perception of fine audio with that of fine art. I might look at a fine painting and my enjoyment of it would be based purly on the subject matter, i.e. is it a nice flower, or pretty scene? Whereas an art Connoisseur can also appreciate the brush strokes and the finer detail that is missed by my un-trained or un-appreciative eye. I might also miss the detail because it doesn't matter to me, just as my girlfriend doesn't care if the hi-hat is ting-ing beautifully, or the bass is tight and punchy, her attention and enjoyment of the music is based purely on the basic subjects - the song and the singer.. she likes it or she doesn't.

In my experience, amplifiers DO sound different. I conceed however that the differences between loudspeakers are more dramatic and therefore more obvious. I struggle to hear the difference between one good cable and onother, but that does not mean there is no difference, it simply means that I can't hear it.

All good points... what I'll add, is that much of the problem with our hobby is that we often overemphasize subtle differences and thus leave the uninitiated scratching their heads in bewilderment....

Even though you're not an art connoisseur, (short of being colour blind) I'm sure you would notice the difference between a painting in Bright Red versus one in Dull Green.... that is a major difference... brush strokes are a subtle one that only the well trained are likely to identify... our hobby is just like that... Speakers can make major differences in sound, while many of the other items i.e. amps, cd players and cables usually make far more subtle differences.... However, I must add that combining several subtle differences can result in a major difference in the overall sound of your system...

[bfalls]

Common to almost every post in this thread is the word "difference". I have no doubt differences can be heard by someone in almost every comparison whether amps, cables, speakers, whatever.

The problem comes in when deciding how the differences relate. Without specific standards how do we tell if the difference is better. So the midrange is more "fluid", the bass "punchy", the high-end "sweet". Unless you can put specific value to these terms they're all related to a value stored in your head. Is the tweeter sweet as in "sweet as honey" relating to its smoothness, or sweet like sugar which has some grain, or texture to it. Can a "revealing midrange" mean all the beatutiful detail is there, or annoying as in "I hear everything including breathing, background noise, fingers on the fretboard. It's all relative to an ideal stored in your head which can be different for each of us.

I know I hear a difference between optical and coax digital interfaces. To me the optical is better, more rounded, warmer. But to someone else the coax may be better, because it's transparent with no sonic signature. This is why these questions never get answered because the reference in my head is not necessarily the reference in yours.

It becomes too easy sometimes to relate better to cost. If you just paid $1200 for a 1M interconnect and it sounded "different". As an "audiophile" I'm not likely you'll tell anyone it doesn't sound better. After all so many other "Golden Ears" have proclaimed it to be better. Why subject yourself to ridicule for not knowing it's better. I'd be more likely to ridicule for buying a $1200 interconnect in the first place.

I know my ears have changed over the years, but I'm not sure the reference in my head has. The question is if my brain smart enough to compensate correctly?

[Ajani]

Common to almost every post in this thread is the word "difference". I have no doubt differences can be heard by someone in almost every comparison whether amps, cables, speakers, whatever.

The problem comes in when deciding how the differences relate. Without specific standards how do we tell if the difference is better. So the midrange is more "fluid", the bass "punchy", the high-end "sweet". Unless you can put specific value to these terms they're all related to a value stored in your head. Is the tweeter sweet as in "sweet as honey" relating to its smoothness, or sweet like sugar which has some grain, or texture to it. Can a "revealing midrange" mean all the beatutiful detail is there, or annoying as in "I hear everything including breathing, background noise, fingers on the fretboard. It's all relative to an ideal stored in your head which can be different for each of us.

I know I hear a difference between optical and coax digital interfaces. To me the optical is better, more rounded, warmer. But to someone else the coax may be better, because it's transparent with no sonic signature. This is why these questions never get answered because the reference in my head is not necessarily the reference in yours.

It becomes too easy sometimes to relate better to cost. If you just paid $1200 for a 1M interconnect and it sounded "different". As an "audiophile" I'm not likely you'll tell anyone it doesn't sound better. After all so many other "Golden Ears" have proclaimed it to be better. Why subject yourself to ridicule for not knowing it's better. I'd be more likely to ridicule for buying a $1200 interconnect in the first place.

I know my ears have changed over the years, but I'm not sure the reference in my head has. The question is if my brain smart enough to compensate correctly?

Your point about whether different + more expensive = better is why it's best not to take reviews of equipment as 'gold'... You have to listen for yourself...

Simple example is comparing three highly critically acclaimed speakers at the same price: B&W 683, Revel Concerta F12 and Monitor Audio RS8.... All 3 sound very different and depending on what you're looking for, could be audio nirvana... IMO, B&W are the most detailed, Revel are the most neutral and Monitor Audio are the most musical... now what does that mean to someone??? Possibly nothing without my frame of reference...

Now if you assume that different + more expensive = better, then obviously a Pair of B&W 804S speakers must sound better than a Revel Concerta F12 (since the B&Ws both sound different and are more expensive)... however, in reality you might well prefer to stick with the cheaper Revels because you find the B&W sound too detailed (breathing, background noise, fingers on the fretboard)....

[O'Shag]

What a load of rubbish. Just when I think that there may be a place for double blind testing in audio, then I read an article like this. Its just complete and utter rubbish and I know this because the differences are so profoundly evident to anyone with half an ear or a brain. Take the $200 Pioneer cited. Does this Pioneer sound the same as my $4,500 Yamaha RX-Z9 multi-channel processor receiver? I doubt it, but lets just suppose it does. What I can tell you is that my Yamaha RX-Z9, which I love, sounds crap compared to my Mark Levinson, Audio Research or Spectron amps. Its literally a night and day difference. Comparing solid state to triode tube amps? The way the music is conveyed and projected is entirely different. You do not need to learn what to listen for. You do not need to sit in a certain sweet spot. A high-quality amplifier will be immediately evident from first listen - even from outside the room!. What sounds different?

- The sound image is three dimensional and has real body as opposed to the flat lifeless 2d image of mass market products
- The sound is much bigger/lifesize and is projected effortlessly from the speakers ie no compression
- The sound is complete, meaning you can close your eyes and you can believe you are witnessing a real performance live.
- The instruments sound like themselves with correct harmonic completeness, tone and timbre
- Massive dynamic capability allows the aliveness and essence of the music to be fully conveyed, something which a mass market receiver can only dream of.

If one believes this type of drivel suggested in such an article, then whats the point of being an audiophile, really? Just go out spend the$1000 on a system and live in totally blissful ingnorant stupidity for the rest of one's days.

No offence to anyone

[blackraven]

Hey, I just threw this out there to create a little controversy and discussion. I'm not saying I believe it!