Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    meteo man
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Fort Wayne, IN
    Posts
    35

    Analytical sound

    Sorry if this has been asked before, but what does it mean if an amp, etc sounds "analytical"?
    meteo man

    Adcom GFA-5400 amp
    Adcom GTP-602 tuner/preamp
    Toshiba SD2700 DVD player
    Rotel RCD-1070 CD player
    Paradigm Signature S2 speakers
    Velodyne SPL-800R subwoofer
    Adcom ACE-615 AC line conditioner
    Straightwire Stage speaker wires
    Straightwire Chorus cable interconnects

  2. #2
    Suspended topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    California
    Posts
    3,717
    Overly detailed, sometimes grainy, bright or sibilant, might exhibit a hump in the upper midrange and/or treble. I'm grasping for descriptors here but like art, you'll know it when you hear it. Go listen to some ARC, BAT, or VAC amps and you'll know the antithesis of "analytical."

  3. #3
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by edlchiang62
    Sorry if this has been asked before, but what does it mean if an amp, etc sounds "analytical"?
    I would describe this as a characteristic of certain audio equipment to present musical information in a very detailed, yet unmusical manner. In other words, every detail of the music is there... almost to a fault. All of the parts seem to exist independent of one another rather than being part of a synergistic whole. Of course, this is exactly the presentation that some prefer and would describe as detailed and accurate. There is always going to be a spectrum between extremes with individual preferences found at either extreme and everywhere in between. One man's "analytical" is another man's "detailed" or "nuanced". You'll have to decide for yourself where your preferences fall along this spectrum

    Q

  4. #4
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326
    Quote Originally Posted by edlchiang62
    Sorry if this has been asked before, but what does it mean if an amp, etc sounds "analytical"?
    If you have an amp that is forward in treble responce, and then team it up with a speaker that is also bright you can get "analytical" sound from it. As with most all audio systems, it's a matter of proper synergy. I wouldn't shy away from something just because a reviewer called it "analytical".

    I personally like a lot of detail in my Audio system. On some poor recordings this can make them sound "analytical" but that's the price I'm willing to pay for having a high resolution sound system.
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  5. #5
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    In the grand lexicon of...

    ..."audiospeak" over the years it seems to have taken on the opposite meaning of "musical" or "warm", terms of that type...somewhat derrogatory in nature.

    Since one of the goals of the early days of the hi-fi hobby was for gear to emulate "straight wire with gain", I(and others) take it to mean non-colored accuracy or precision, hence analytical or of lab quality...revealing both good and bad sources for what they are, rather than masking things to the point of euphony.

    jimHJJ(...FWIW...)












    Quote Originally Posted by edlchiang62
    Sorry if this has been asked before, but what does it mean if an amp, etc sounds "analytical"?
    Hello, I'm a misanthrope...don't ask me why, just take a good look around.

    "Men would rather believe than know" -Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by Edward O. Wilson

    "The great masses of the people...will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one" -Adolph Hitler

    "We are never deceived, we deceive ourselves" -Goethe

    If you repeat a lie often enough, some will believe it to be the truth...

  6. #6
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    I tend to agree with RL...if I had to choose between "warm" or "analytical" I'd take analytical - live music I've been to generally sounds anything but "warm" to me.

    This is one of those words I'm sure some snob just fabricated out of the blue to insult some popular gear among the science camp of audiophiles...usually we restrict adjectives for audio equipment to those we'd use to describe things with our other 4 senses.

    "This amp sounds "analytical"...geez, all stereo equipment sounds a bit analytical by the definition of the word...kind of ironic, music can be extremely analytical and even mathematical at times...

    I think over the years it's been associated with bright gear and gets used that way now.
    I prefer "analytical" gear, but too much of anything becomes extreme.

    What's the opposite of analytical? Irrational? Illogical? That doesn't sound any better.

  7. #7
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    Analytical to me was the same as R Loser said, I had no idea that it had taken on a negative perception. I also prefer analytical equipment to that which colors, masks or exaggerates. This should definitely be an eye opener for us that not all understand or get the same idea from the adjectives that we use to describe equipment. It could also account for why we see so many conflicting comments on the same gear. Per RL's definition my gear is analytical and I'd be proud of it, but according to Topspeed's definition, I would disagree and be insulted.

    Kex brought up an interesting point about music being mathematical, you should read sometime how Bach composed his Fugues. When you read it, you think this couldn't possibly turn out sounding like music but somehow it worked.

  8. #8
    Silence of the spam Site Moderator Geoffcin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    3,326
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Analytical to me was the same as R Loser said, I had no idea that it had taken on a negative perception.
    Unfortunately it has. There are several pro reviewers out there who use the term "Analytical" to describe the qualities of everything from CD players to speaker cables. Topspeed & Quagmires take on what they are inferring is correct.

    Usually when I hear the term used I discount the review. I believe that the term "analytical" is a poor term to describe any components qualities, as it's meaning was not meant as an adjective, and therefor cannot be accurately defined in context.
    Audio;
    Ming Da MC34-AB 75wpc
    PS Audio Classic 250. 500wpc into 4 ohms.
    PS Audio 4.5 preamp,
    Marantz 6170 TT Shure M97e cart.
    Arcam Alpha 9 CD.- 24 bit dCS Ring DAC.
    Magnepan 3.6r speakers Oak/black,

  9. #9
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    Analytical to me was the same as R Loser said, I had no idea that it had taken on a negative perception. I also prefer analytical equipment to that which colors, masks or exaggerates. This should definitely be an eye opener for us that not all understand or get the same idea from the adjectives that we use to describe equipment. It could also account for why we see so many conflicting comments on the same gear. Per RL's definition my gear is analytical and I'd be proud of it, but according to Topspeed's definition, I would disagree and be insulted.

    Kex brought up an interesting point about music being mathematical, you should read sometime how Bach composed his Fugues. When you read it, you think this couldn't possibly turn out sounding like music but somehow it worked.
    I believe those who use this term, use it to describe equipment, which in their opinion, IS coloring and exaggerating certain aspects of the musical presentation. I've never heard this term used in a possitive maner; those who would ascribe possitive attributes to the clarity of presentation would probably used terms like "detailed", "accurate", or "neutral" instead. And if they believed the sound had crept past those points on the musical spectrum, they would start to describe the sound as being "a bit analytical". What does that mean exactly? Well, one analogy that might make sense... take something beautiful like poetry; now imagine it being read by Ben Stein doing his best rendition of the ecconomics teacher in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" -- Bueller? Bueller? (gotta love it!): All of the words are there, but the effectiveness of the poetry to convey any sense of emotional content the writer may have had in mind is lost. Presentation is everything.

    For the record. This isn't how I describe audio gear. I think I can honestly say that I've never described an audio component as sounding "analytical". But I do think this is a fairly accurate description of what most "reviewers" mean by the term; and I do understand the attribute they are trying to describe when I hear them use this term. It is true that there isn't really a glossary for such subjective terms used to describe audio gear or how it sounds, and as such, it is easy to misconstrue what is meant by a term like analytical. But for the most part, I have consistantly heard it used in the manner I've described to be comfortable saying... This is what I think it means or what people mean to say when they use this term. Interesting topic -- I think.

    Q

  10. #10
    Forum Regular vinylphile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    10
    analytical -- separating a whole into its elemental parts or basic principles.

    To me: revealing (neither a positive nor negative connotation); cold (negative in an emotional sense), clinical (very objective and devoid of emotion; detached).


    In my experience the word is not used in "audiophile literrature" with any degree of precision or consistency of meaning, as can be seen from all the entries in this thread (mine included).

  11. #11
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Most audiophile terms are bogus and this is another one. Detail is one that could mean a positive or a negative and analytical could mean neutral or accurate but it is often used to mean uninvolving and unengaging. of course they're too afraid to come out and say uninvolving or unengaging or just bright and irritating with high listener fatigue.

    Detail and anaylitical and even neutral can be warning signs -- unfortunately so can the term warm. Warm is a temperature last I checked so to me warm has a cuddly scozy connotation which my mean "Just right" or it could mean bloomy and veiled. I hate all of these terms because they're not helpful -- listening to it yourself is helpful. When i did my auditions it "hit me" as to which did it right and which did not. After that it's all verbiage to try and explain an audible experience to othe rpeople who have not experienced it...that is extraordinarily difficult.

    This article will help you find good gear without the blathering audiophile terms which lead to confusion and take you off the hunt for musical nirvanna. The article can apply to any product from any company and you don't need to know jack squat about hi-fi and best of all you don't have to trust self-appointed "Golden-Ears" on audio forums or in audio magazines.

    Detail and Resolution

    We'd like to briefly examine one of the more interesting misperceptions common to audio critique. Many listeners speak of a playback system's revolving power in terms of its ability to articulate detail, i.e. previous unnoticed phenomena. However, it is more likely that what these listeners are responding to when they say such-and-such has more "detail" is: unconnected micro-events in the frequency and time domains. (These are events that, if they were properly connected, would have realized the correct presentation of harmonic structure, attack, and legato.) Because these events are of incredibly short duration and because there is absolutely no analog to such events in the natural world and are now being revealed to them by the sheer excellence of their audio, these listeners believe that they are hearing something for the first time, which they are! And largely because of this, they are more easily misled into a belief that what they are hearing is relevant and correct. The matter is aided and abetted by the apparentness of the perception. These "details" are undeniably there; it is only their meaning which has become subverted. The truth is that we only perceive such "detail" from an audio playback system; but never in a live musical performance.


    "Resolution" on the other hand is the effect produced when these micro-events are connected ... in other words, when the events are so small that detail is unperceivable. When these events are correctly connected, we experience a more accurate sense of a musical performance. This is not unlike the way in which we perceive the difference between video and film. Video would seem to have more detail, more apparent individual visual events; but film obviously has greater resolution. If it weren't for the fact that detail in video is made up of such large particles as compared to the micro-events which exist in audio, we might not have been misled about the term "detail", and would have called it by its proper name, which is "grain". Grain creates the perception of more events, particularly in the treble region, because they are made to stand out from the musical texture in an unnaturally highlighted form. In true high-resolution audio systems, grain disappears and is replaced by a seamless flow of connected musical happenings.[cf. "As Time Goes By" Positive Feedback Magazine, Vol. 4, No. 4-5, Fall '93].

    http://www.audionote.co.uk/anp1.htm

  12. #12
    It's just a hobby
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    808
    The highly resolution system is detailed by definition, but not vice -versa whether a recording is highly detailed or not is another matter as a recording may or may not have a lot of low level detail or nuances depending on the recording perspective of the particular recording, for example a open air recording is necessarily less detailed than an intimate recording in a purpose built small orchestral hall because of the much higher level of ambient noise in an open air concert.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    ..These "details" are undeniably there; it is only their meaning which has become subverted. The truth is that we only perceive such "detail" from an audio playback system; but never in a live musical performance..
    This statement is largely erroneous as the perception of detail in a live acoustic performances is necessarily determined by the distance between the performers and the listeners in question, A listener in the front row of a chamber orchestra (set in small church) performance will as a matter ofcourse perceive much more detail than a listener sitted 20 rows back, It also follows that the amount of level detail captured on a recording will largely depend on the recording choices made at the time of the recording, recording made from a row A perspective will sound more detailed than one made from a Row M perspective.

  13. #13
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    bogus -- detail is not associated to volume - wehther you are in row a or row m is not at all any function of detail. And detail and resoolution are nto the same things not even resembling the same things.

  14. #14
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    RGA, I don't agree with the author of that article. When I speak of detail and have in mind is hearing something on a recording that wasn't heard before. Grain is not a detail it's a distortion and I wouldn't perceive as a detail of anything. I experienced what I called "graininess" on some gear and the note of a piano just didn't ring clear, it was like it was under water. The effect was enough to mess up the notes to some extent but not like the whole sound was under water. If I notice a tamborine faint in the background that I hadn't noticed before to me that is detail or the breath through the reed of a sax is more apparent. I don't see how anyone could perceive grain as detail. When talk of parts of the music floating around detached you lose me, is that like improv jazz? Come on, I can understand terms like "cold" or "un-engaging" but "detached", I started out with entry level gear like most but I don't think I've experienced detached floating sound. If all the adjectives are negative then how do we describe the sound? We all know that listening for ourselves is the best but sometimes that's not possible and getting others opinions gives something to go on. That's part of what this forum is about, right? Maybe?

    We may have to start a new thread for "resolution", I tend to think of it as meaning nearly the same as detail or revealing. Maybe some could help me put my finger on the difference.

    RGA, I'm not shooting the messenger, I just don't have the same mindset as the author.

  15. #15
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    bogus -- detail is not associated to volume - wehther you are in row a or row m is not at all any function of detail. And detail and resoolution are nto the same things not even resembling the same things.
    Does a higher resolution video display make it possible to view the picture in greater detail? If not, then what's the point? To describe an audio system as having great resolution and then to detach it from musical detail makes no sense to me. What is this high resolution system resolving if not musical detail? What is its purpose?

    Detail can be influinced by where you sit in an auditorium or by mic placement for recording purposes. Play a musical selection through studio monitors in a room set up to optimize near field listening and then play the same musical selection over an auditorium PA system. Think it will sound the same? There are many factors which can effect our ability to discern musical detail - not the least of which is our proximity to the musical event and the environment where it takes place.

    Not trying to pick a fight here, I just don't agree with your position on this. If you were trying to describe the taste of a food to someone, would saying that it tasted "good" or "right" be of much help to them? Probably not, because "good" and "right" are subjective relative terms that will be different for each individual. What taste good to you might taste aweful to someone else. But you could use words like "sweet", "salty", "like stawberries", etc... to give someone an idea of how the food might taste. They will of course, have to try it for themselves to see if they agree and if they like it or not. Someone who really likes stawberries may be more inclined to try a food that tastes "like strawberries" and those who dislike them will know to avoid such a food. And that's really the point of trying to use discriptive terms (adjectives) when asked about a particular piece of audio gear. I guess it can be construed as being snobbish -- there again, if someone doesn't want to know such things, they probably wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.

    Q

  16. #16
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    RGA, I don't agree with the author of that article. When I speak of detail and have in mind is hearing something on a recording that wasn't heard before. Grain is not a detail it's a distortion and I wouldn't perceive as a detail of anything. I experienced what I called "graininess" on some gear and the note of a piano just didn't ring clear, it was like it was under water. The effect was enough to mess up the notes to some extent but not like the whole sound was under water. If I notice a tamborine faint in the background that I hadn't noticed before to me that is detail or the breath through the reed of a sax is more apparent. I don't see how anyone could perceive grain as detail. When talk of parts of the music floating around detached you lose me, is that like improv jazz? Come on, I can understand terms like "cold" or "un-engaging" but "detached", I started out with entry level gear like most but I don't think I've experienced detached floating sound. If all the adjectives are negative then how do we describe the sound? We all know that listening for ourselves is the best but sometimes that's not possible and getting others opinions gives something to go on. That's part of what this forum is about, right? Maybe?

    We may have to start a new thread for "resolution", I tend to think of it as meaning nearly the same as detail or revealing. Maybe some could help me put my finger on the difference.

    RGA, I'm not shooting the messenger, I just don't have the same mindset as the author.
    I think the article is very clear with regards to detatched sound - I also think it helps to hear a speaker, his upper speakers, for a reference base and then say a B&W speaker to determine whether you then "get" what he he is saying. These articles are basically preaching to a select choir who have already heard it for themselves and an explanation of it and not as useful to people who read first without hearing. and it is simply the opinion of a man and a group of audiophiles and recording engineers (Norwitz) over a vast album collection -- the biggest personal collection in the world. It is one I agree with and the video analogy is very astute. There is an organic complete picture with film that DVD/tvs do not muster. The DVD has a more "detailed" appearance but is shallow and unorganic compared to film because the resoltion of DVD is low - so instead we get shimmer (literally) on chrome sequences. Very striking even on great DV's like T2 where as the camera pans near the beginning you see a shimmerring of the chrome instead of what it looks like in real life or on the film version...detail is video noise and a lack of resolution for vide.

    In audio, what he is essentially saying is that in the subtle time domain within the driver or speaker "unconnected micro-events in the frequency and time domains: is what he says. Think of it another way. A digital photograph on a 3.2 mega pixel camera and a 4X6 print may look quite good and is made up of many pixels. If blown up to a 17x11 you will see the "micro-events" or individual pixels that made up that photograph. The Film camera has high resolution the other one shows you all the Details (and gaps) that made up the photo -- which one would you rather have on the wall? The film version has no gaps to be filled in. This analogy doesn't quite work totally but it's close enough.

    I think I understand what you are saying when you use the word detail. What he is saying is that grain(there are different kinds) and detail are be mixed up. Grain can sound cool incidentally which is possibly a reason why they're mistaken. I have a number of recordings that when in A/B auditions both trebles will extend to the supreme upper frequencies and cover the instrument but speaker B has noise artifacts along with it that is added to what should not be there while the other speaker is a dead black background. the way it should be. At first listen speaker B seems to have more treble and that;s the one designed to be chosen in quick sessions because in actuality you are getting more but the mroe isn;t on the recording and it becomes fatiguing later on -- and then one gets into an endless stream of CD player, cable, and amplifier upgrades to fix something the no one can quite put their finger on because ti is the speaker all along or some other componant -- in fact it may not even be the speaker's fault but something else in the chain.

    Bryston is a love or hate kind of thing for many audiophiles but that etchy quality is often there for these amps and that detail just is tiring after a while. When one goes to a live band there is none of these stupid buzzwords. Wow listen to the detail. If I'm hearing microevents added AIR to the treble then chances are there is something wrong. I had a Bryston for a weekend and it was cool sounding got me into higher end audio but that air was an artifact or "grain" imo.

    I'm not saying I'm correct at all by the way -- I posted that simply because I've heard and agree with it based on my listening experiences. If you have not then chuck it out.

  17. #17
    AR Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    214

    I have learnt to ignore

    the terminology used in many reviews. When I was young and naive, I placed much store on these descriptions and made short lists of equipment to audition based on them. After a time, I discovered that what I was hearing seemed to have no corrolation between my experiences and what I imagined was being discussed by the reviewer. It took me quite a while to realise that nobody's description of sound could tell me what was pleasing to me.

    I find what RGA said about Bryston interesting, and a good example. Based on reviews, I lusted for a Bryston in my system for several years, but at first did not even bother to audition them because at the time I was short of funds. When I got around to auditioning a few, I could not understand what the hype was all about. I lack the terminology to describe it, but once I listened to it, I found the Bryston did not produce music the way I wanted to hear it on a day to day basis.

    Quality of build issues and features are much more easily described. If something is poorly built, I won't even look at it. If it is, and it has the features I want, I'll check it out and make up my own mind on the sound aspects, regardless of what the interviewer said.

  18. #18
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Stanly

    Sorry about the lack of sense in my last post but I was in a hurry. I think it comes down to a kind of noise, etch or grain which he is referring to in the article. For instance when he has tested himself and others in listening people often say wow listen to the great detail and they are usually referring to the treble band -- I'm betting it's always in relation to the treble band.

    I put it to the test with the Single Ended Tube Amplifier the Meishu an expensive 8 watt beast of an amp. I listened to the Rotel RA 02 something about 1/12th the price and solid State with the great solid state spec sheets all of them offer. The speakers were easy to drive high efficiency full bandwidth standmount speakers and often used in blind listening comparison for a major British magazine when comparing amplifiers and cd players etc precisely because it serves to differentiate products so well.

    Now listening to a vilin solo and cello solo as I often do along with orchestral work what is interesting is that the amplifier that SHOULD sound noisy the tube amplifier was in fact not. On the Barber (Platoon theme) piece there is some very extended and dynamic violin work. Both extended in terms of the frequency resposne to the same degreehitting the upper notes with force but the Meishu presents it against a noiseless backdrop in a 3 dimensional space that is frankly beguiling to me. The Rotel does no such thing, there is a sense of spittyness no front to back space but some kind of filler background.

    With speakers it is more noticeable and a reason why I don't like most speakers treble response. -- it is either the tweeter itself or the tweeter to woofer alignment that presents an added tilted up sound. It is very very difficult to put into words.

    There are many different opinions with regards to the most important things in audio and what goal you are seeking to attain. The writer of that article is most interested in the system theat gets the point of where music begins out of silence as right as is possible. Too many systems need to be turned up to sound good --- I hear it from audiophiles, I read it in forums and reviews. Well this really starts to sing when you turn it up. IMO that is because the set-up seriously lacks the ability to resolve properly. One reason I was so unimpressed by the B&W 705/Bryston Separates combo was that I had to keep turing the volume up and up and up to make things out clearly and after a little turning the sepakers bass collapsed the box had an audible thump as the woofer was trying to cope and this is something that "they" tell you to spend $5k on -- cd player not included. Meanwhile the $600.00 speaker on a SEP 10 watt amp presented the information at low volume and or at medium volume and the SAME information at higher levels...silence is one of the best kept secrets in sound reproduction - the silence in the start-stop not just at the end of crescendo but at the end iof every note not filled inby ringing, noise, spit, break-up, "air" or any bloody thing else.

    It is quite interesting to say that Motley Crue's Dr.Feelgood Album is so incredibly clean and clear at high levels on the above system that the recording is actually quite 3 dimensional and rather startling. On the 705 Bryston is has a sheen a noise that pervades the whole thing and it's just completely unlistenable for very long...and I thought it was just that I was getting older and I didn't like that kinda music anymore. On that SET/ Higher efficiency speaker the noise "grain" is gone I can play way louder far clearer and without fatigue -- the artifacts have been removed -- it is the artifacts not the volume that causes fatigue. After all I can go to Jazz clubs and live wors that play far far louder than a typical home listening system -- the difference is that I can spend four hours at a live system...but by track four at a louder level of many a speaker/SS combo I either get bored or get a headache. Many speakers using metal tweeters for some reason cause this for me. Some $20k+ exceptions.

  19. #19
    AR Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    214

    Hi RGA

    No, I think I do understand what you are saying. It's just that I, personally, lack the hi-fi vocabulary to describe what I'm hearing. I just wanted to make the point that, based on reviews, the Bryston appeared to be the amp of my dreams (especially because it had a 20 year warranty - I hate things which wear out early). I listened to the 2B ST integrated, the 3B ST and the 4BST (I have not gone back to listen to the SST versions, although I hear they are better).

    I have heard systems which seem to impart a hard edged electronic haze to everything they reproduce, even violin solos and chamber music, and that drives me nuts.

    The Brystons somehow left me feeling uninvolved, and there was something not quite right, although I could not put my finger on it. I could never figure out why, bearing in mind their credentials. It is a number of years ago now, so I don't remember all the details, but I have wondered since whether it was the speakers the dealer hooked them up to which spoiled the sound for me, rather than the amps themselves. At that stage, I was toying with getting a powerful SS amp and then partnering it with a tube pre-amp. I may still experiment along those lines one day.

  20. #20
    It's just a hobby
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    808

    Grain and detail are very different qualities

    Whatever anyone's impression about Bryston amplication, grain and detail are not the same thing, and in actual listening they are not confused. Lack of grain is key quality determining factor in source, amplification or loudspeakers, as all components can have their sound quality diminished by grain. A system maybe grainy whether it is high resolution or not. And as others have noted a high resolution system is a detailed system. whether a recording is detailed or not is another matter entirely.

    The Hi-Fi Choice and JGH Stereophile glossaries are broadly similar and JGH glossary is broad enough to describe components, and I will advice any person who intends to write about audio components to read them and stick to their definitions them to avoid ambiguity.

  21. #21
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by StanleyMuso
    No, I think I do understand what you are saying. It's just that I, personally, lack the hi-fi vocabulary to describe what I'm hearing. I just wanted to make the point that, based on reviews, the Bryston appeared to be the amp of my dreams (especially because it had a 20 year warranty - I hate things which wear out early). I listened to the 2B ST integrated, the 3B ST and the 4BST (I have not gone back to listen to the SST versions, although I hear they are better).

    I have heard systems which seem to impart a hard edged electronic haze to everything they reproduce, even violin solos and chamber music, and that drives me nuts.

    The Brystons somehow left me feeling uninvolved, and there was something not quite right, although I could not put my finger on it. I could never figure out why, bearing in mind their credentials. It is a number of years ago now, so I don't remember all the details, but I have wondered since whether it was the speakers the dealer hooked them up to which spoiled the sound for me, rather than the amps themselves. At that stage, I was toying with getting a powerful SS amp and then partnering it with a tube pre-amp. I may still experiment along those lines one day.
    We're on the same page with Bryston and many people are in agreement with us. UHF reviewed the 3bST and it was one of the rare dissenting reviews that was kind of negative. I also agree with them that the 2BLP (they're longest running amp) was the best sounding musically and didn't have that etchy sound - I considered buying a 2B a while back but went with a Sugden.

  22. #22
    None sam9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    82
    Lacking the hi-fi vocabulary isn't a serious handicap. I've found it common to have two people describe the same sound using adjectives 180 degress apart. The difference is more likeley if each is unaware of the other's description.

    I've listened to demonstation .wav files (used because they can be manipulated by software to add a particular characteristic) because that show an example of various adjectives. While I believe there is the possability of asigning a specific advective to a specific sound charateristic -- in actual practice there is so much case-to-case inconsistancy then even if you are fluent in the vocabulary you may still not know what the other guy is talking about.


    Re "analytical". It seems to be a term applied to to an amplifier that is highly accurate and little or no discernable coloration or other interesting characteristic.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Paradigm Studio 20 vs B&W 602 S3
    By Yeti2003 in forum Speakers
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 08-22-2005, 11:04 AM
  2. Setting up dipole surrounds.
    By Coldwater in forum Speakers
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-07-2005, 02:16 PM
  3. The Nuance thread
    By Mike H in forum Speakers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-06-2005, 03:45 AM
  4. Looking for a certain type of speaker
    By nahmed in forum Speakers
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-31-2004, 10:14 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •