Is More watts better?

[RGA]

Feanor

The problem is you need a test that would get detractors of blind tests on board. After all the accuracy guys on Tea Harman/Floyd Toole where they test ONE speaker not a pair of speakers in blind tests with the SAME amplifiers get discarded by many people - E-Stat - Me and anyone with an ounce of science background and can see marketing science a mile off.

That's the problem - if we are under the impression that amplifiers sound different and certain speakers perform better with certain amplifier types then you have to start the test as agreeable "Systems"

It is not difficult to get two identical rooms (say hotel rooms) with identical furnishing and room dimensions. And it only takes 20 seconds for someone to walk from one room to the next - or across the hall.


The problem I have with most of the notions of accuracy is that after auditioning so many system over 20 years I know what many view as "accurate."

After sleeping it on it I don't really take issue with their stance - They believe that an ATC SCM 150 is about as accurate as boxes get - well it's in my top 5. I get what it is they're after. I also get why the owners here place tube amps in front of them - I get why Dynaudio brings Tube amps to audio shows.

So the issue comes down to two scenarios - system A is technically accurate but unlistenable long term and system B is less accurate but far more enjoyable - as you note - even the musicians and critics may choose the AN system over the ATC system.

So I guess my question is what's your problem with that? A reviewer's job is to note the difference but as a consumer I know which one I want to sit back in my chair sipping a tea and enjoying Vivaldi. Perhaps I hear less with the lesser system but if it is 20 times more enjoyable then it will be turned on more.

Take the mastering engineer of Chesky records - they use one set of equipment to record music and make wonderful recordings - then in his off hours he listens to Audio Note and not only that conducted their show in New York some years back. ATC I like for listening to amplifiers because it could tell me a lot about them in a relatively short audition. But they're not easy to listen to in the same way a Quad 2905, AN E, Harbeth is easy to listen to. Is the ATC more accurate? Does it matter?

Amplifiers as before - if the amp makes you listen more than amp B which is technically more accurate then again does it matter?

People leave SS for tubes and SET - and most of the time they never go back. SS is technically more accurate - but it's musically worse. And there is no way to objectify that or measure it.

Oh sure people come out with the it has more second harmonic distortion but again - so what? I am an "ends" guy not a "means" guy. I don't care what trick you're pulling to do it if the result is that you get what sounds more "natural" and more "real" even if what sounds more "natural" and more "real" is in fact less accurate.

I don't think anyone who argues the merits of tubes over SS can make technical arguments that will convince.

I started on the path of PMC and Bryston - I was looking to buy the 3BST or 4B and PMC pro monitor standmounts. So I get the people who believe that this is accuracy - I did - that's why I was preparing to buy. Indeed, if I didn't get laid off I probably would have bought the combo a month or two later.

I suppose I come across as somewhat defensive about SET and Tubes defending the bad measuring higher distortion devices as being accurate. It's certainly not more accurate according to the measurements.

The issue tube/set guys probably have is that we can't separate that something that sounds far more like real life music reproduction could possibly be less accurate.

That's the major disconnect. If it is close ok but in direct comparison at Soundhounds it wasn't close - remember I was there looking at Bryston/B&W/Reference 3a type stuff and never heard a SET or monkey coffin ANs (which will actually fit a monkey).

So when one sounds like a piano and singer is in the room and the other in the same room sounds like a complete pile of **** - then accurate or not low THD and noise floor or not - and with excellent recordings from Chesky Opus 3, RR then it's not an issue of the system making bad recordings sound pleasing - it was making excellent recordings sound excellent and the Bryston based systems making them unlistenable.

I have pretty much perfect hearing for my age - so it is difficult to separate the technical argument from what I hear. System A sounds more accurate - I hear much more of the recording and the hall, it sounds cleaner and less distorted and has considerably better deeper bass response. System B is technically more accurate but is muddy - I have to turn it up to make out what is going on - the hall is missing, there is more "air" which doesn't occur in any live unamplified event - what is that shooshy sound then - it's not there in real life but it's considered "good" in the audio community.

Then after 1/2 hour (at best) I want to shut it off and do something else - then on audio forums I can tell everyone I am smart and buy accurate stereo systems and the other fools are duped by distortion and buy based on "mere" preference.

I think Art Dudley has it right - he doesn't really give a damn as to the why's. We know which sounds "better"

I have a Rotel power amp that is far more technically accurate than my OTO. Not even close. But it sounds worse. And that too is not even close. So whatever voodoo is in the OTO it is voodoo that makes every single recording sound much more like actual instruments - while the Rotel is sitting here collecting dust. I am contemplating selling it or using it as a power amp for home theater once I get the voltage changed - but musically it's a paper weight - and the sad thing is it's as good as (if not better) than comparable Brystons for much less money - also used in recording studios.

[Feanor]

RGA, I won't argue anybody's preference -- you don't have to convince me that you prefer your OTL.

I prefer the most accurate amp because I believe that the very best recordings sound best played through more accurate amps. Lousy recordings can definitely sound better filtered by amps of lessor accuracy but prettier character. I discovered that when I tried the Monarchy SM-70 Pros which aren't class A's, aren't zero feedback, but are high bias with only local feedback only in the driver section, (an opamp).

The Monarchys sounded better on 70% of recordings vs. the Bel Canto eVo2i they replaced. But they were the less good recordings. When I moved to the Class D Audio amp, the Monarchys still sounded better on about 30% of recordings, but they were the worst recordings.

Recording practice leaves a lot to be desired. Few or no recording engineers will take the time or spend the money to make really capture the sound of a fine concert hall. Most use many microphones close to the instruments and "fix it in the mix". Sir Terrence as assured us that it excellent results can be achieved with close microphoning and I believe him that they can because I have many excellent recordings made that way. Unfortunately there are many, many recordings, (old and new; CD and LP), that have a raunchy quality of sound that you will never hear from a good seat in a good concert hall.

However I personally am not disposed to compensate the shortcomings of recording by adding pleasant sounding distortion.

[Florian]

Hi Bill,

and you found all of that out with a Magnepan 1.6 and a Subwoofer with normal room acoustics, no room correction, time and phase issue with the subwoofer. On top of that a resolution limited dipole with different drivers for each frequency range?

I intend no offense, they are good speakers and i had them myself. Even had two pairs of 3.6s and ice amps (PS Audio HCA2). But to come to the conclusion that you prefer an "accurate" amp based on a measurement method we believe to be in contradiction to "accurate" sound reproduction is quite off the norm if you come to that conclusion with your current system and room.

Best regards

[Feanor]

Hi Bill,

and you found all of that out with a Magnepan 1.6 and a Subwoofer with normal room acoustics, no room correction, time and phase issue with the subwoofer. On top of that a resolution limited dipole with different drivers for each frequency range?

I intend no offense, they are good speakers and i had them myself. Even had two pairs of 3.6s and ice amps (PS Audio HCA2). But to come to the conclusion that you prefer an "accurate" amp based on a measurement method we believe to be in contradiction to "accurate" sound reproduction is quite off the norm if you come to that conclusion with your current system and room.

Best regards

Thanks for your comments, Florian. I knew you had Maggies, (Lord Magnepan ), at one time. I'm always open to suggestions from you and morricab, though I'll also use my own judgement.

I'm constrained in ways that you aren't, viz. I have an extremely limited budget for equipment and I have space limitations (since the available room is a family living room). There isn't much I can do to perfect speaker of subwoofer placement. I would be nice to have like a TacT or Lyngdorf device for room correction but this is unaffordable for me. (In my HT system I do use the Onkyo's Audyssey 3EQ which is fairly effective.)

In case of my stereo system, I use Parts Express' OmniMic system to measure listening response. I use AIXcoustic Creation's Electri-Q equalizer component for the Foobar2000 player; this is quite effective for correcting (at least) the response at the listening position.

I'm not aware of any technical review of my Class D Audio amp. The amp uses International Rectifier's IRS2092 chip; I have looked at their reference amplifier design for the chip and Class D Audio's implementation. Of interest is their test results (thought obviously not independently verified).

For your interest, here is are the spectra the provide for stereo and bridged operation. As you can see, in stereo operation, it throws wide range of harmonics but none higher than -70 dB. The bridged spectrum is astonishing, (if it can be believed), having essentially zero HD. Anybody interested can see the ref design and test results HERE.

[Florian]

Off Topic, or ON Topic depending on the way you view the thread history:

I just bought another Set of NAT SE2's and NAT SE1's. So i got 6 of them now on the Grand. :-)

[Florian]

Hi Bill,

i really leave it up to Brad to decide if that chart is good or meaningful :-) I have no idea and it really doesn't show how it sounds. "Lord_Magnepan" brings back some fine memories. Maggie's always have a special place in my heart... they are so easy and forgiving and so cheap on maintenance. I wish i were a Lord with a castle..... surely it would be of benefit to my speakers.

Happy listening

[RGA]

Feanor

Well we're going to agree to disagree - I own elite recordings and they sound miles better too - it's not a fix for poor recordings or rock/pop. And since you refuse to audition anything good - then there is no point to the discussion.

[Feanor]

Feanor

Well we're going to agree to disagree - I own elite recordings and they sound miles better too - it's not a fix for poor recordings or rock/pop. And since you refuse to audition anything good - then there is no point to the discussion.

"Refuse" isn't the right word. I'd like to try a nice tube amp but my cash resources are very limited at present.

Every now & then I have a look around. Recently I was attracted to the Decware Zen Torii, 25 watts of quasi-SET power that would be reasonably adequate for my Maggies. But it's too expensive.

[Florian]

Hi Bill, whats your budget?

[Feanor]

Hi Bill, whats your budget?

Sadly, Flo, under US$800, new or used, plus tax & shipping.

Preferably that would be a SET amp with enough power to drive my MG 1.6QR's to a modest level. I know it's I'm asking a lot. I might consider bi-amping the Maggies, with the tube amp on top.

[RGA]

My point doesn't take budget into account. Cheap amps have compromises regardless of the technology/topology.

Unlike some i am not a bang the Tube drum. Plenty of SS I prefer to plenty of tubes at the budget end.

My speakers are easily driven by 3-5 watts in a small room. I purchased a tube amp but not a SET - I like SET better but not at the budget end of the spectrum.

Magnepan has never sounded better to me than with the Soro. But it's $5k.

[Feanor]

My point doesn't take budget into account. Cheap amps have compromises regardless of the technology/topology.

Unlike some i am not a bang the Tube drum. Plenty of SS I prefer to plenty of tubes at the budget end.

My speakers are easily driven by 3-5 watts in a small room. I purchased a tube amp but not a SET - I like SET better but not at the budget end of the spectrum.

Magnepan has never sounded better to me than with the Soro. But it's $5k.

I've heard only a couple of tube amps and those weren't in my system; also, they were relatively cheap amps. The combination of those amps with the systems they were in, was quite unimpressive.

My current amp is very good, and amazingly so for the money. I would be willing to try a half-decent tube amp, however I'm skeptical that I'd prefer it and I'm definitely not going in to hock on the mere chance that I might.

[Smokey]

Cheap amps have compromises regardless of the technology/topology.

Same thing can be said of low power amps

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Recording practice leaves a lot to be desired. Few or no recording engineers will take the time or spend the money to make really capture the sound of a fine concert hall. Most use many microphones close to the instruments and "fix it in the mix". Sir Terrence as assured us that it excellent results can be achieved with close microphoning and I believe him that they can because I have many excellent recordings made that way. Unfortunately there are many, many recordings, (old and new; CD and LP), that have a raunchy quality of sound that you will never hear from a good seat in a good concert hall.

Feanor,
The mentality "fix it in the mix" has not existed at least among live recording engineers for over a decade. The studio is a different story since it is already a manufactured environment.

In saying that, for various reasons whether equipment or musician based we have to go back to the studio and edit in or out something. This is why I always put out more microphones than I really need when I record live. I had an instance where I had to "fix it in the mix" because a clarinet player squeaked at the beginning of his solo. I had a spotlight microphone to capture it because the orchestra was quite large, and there were other instruments playing at the same time. Since this was a live performance, we could not stop and do it over. When I returned to my studio to tweak the mix(some light balancing of certain passages to flush them out) I could not shut that microphone off as we mixed live to 5.1 on the spot. So I took the solo off a practice run(which was flawless), edited out the squeak, and replaced it with the flawless take from that practice run. The Clarinet player was shocked because he knew he squeaked, but heard nothing but a flawless solo. I don't really like to do this kind of thing, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do to get things right.

When you are messing around with dwindling recording budgets like we are now days, you have to always have some sort of back up just in case something goes wrong. Since I mostly do live recordings, there is often no oportunity to re-record anything in case a mistake has happened.

So you understand, every recording engineer I know goes into a project wanting to capture the best sound he or she can. However, as some stage the project is out of our hands, and into the marketing departments. It is there were the most damaging decision in regard to the audio are made. The loudness war was created by the marketing departments in studios, not by the mastering engineer themselves. The record company has the last word on ANY recordings made on their label. The only way to end this whole loudness thing was to just not do any project where the marketing department has the last word. I refuse to do any mastering that required uber amounts of compression on a recording already recorded too hot. A lot of mastering engineers have done the same thing.

[Feanor]

Feanor,
The mentality "fix it in the mix" has not existed at least among live recording engineers for over a decade. The studio is a different story since it is already a manufactured environment.
....

Well, I'll take your word for that, Sir T.

Since I'm almost entirely a classical listener, problems with extreme compression aren't the usual problem.

"Harsh" sound however is all too common, even typical for classical music problems. Skreechy violins and other strings is the biggest aggravation. Next I'd say is too much brightness or imbalance towards the high end of the spectrum. Thirdly -- and exaggerating the first two issues -- too many records have very close-up perspective, performer rather than concert goer. To be sure, perspective is partially personal preference.

If I loved tubes and vinyl, I guess I'd blame s/s and CD for these problems. However what I see is that some recordings sound great: violins timbres are captured but the sound isn't gratuitously skreechy, therefore I tend to blame the recordings, not the play-back equipment.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, I'll take your word for that, Sir T.

Since I'm almost entirely a classical listener, problems with extreme compression aren't the usual problem.

"Harsh" sound however is all too common, even typical for classical music problems. Skreechy violins and other strings is the biggest aggravation. Next I'd say is too much brightness or imbalance towards the high end of the spectrum. Thirdly -- and exaggerating the first two issues -- too many records have very close-up perspective, performer rather than concert goer. To be sure, perspective is partially personal preference.

If I loved tubes and vinyl, I guess I'd blame s/s and CD for these problems. However what I see is that some recordings sound great: violins timbres are captured but the sound isn't gratuitously skreechy, therefore I tend to blame the recordings, not the play-back equipment.

Feanor,
In my opinion Redbook CD is not very friendly to acoustic music. Also there is occasionally a poor choice of microphones picks for recording. The problem with RBCD is two fold. If you try and record with a "audience" perspective, instruments in the rear of the orchestra lose their precision. It becomes much more difficult to balance the orchestra, and you have to use some equalization to sharpen up that imprecise sound, hence the hardness that can crop up. I would have to say 16/44.1khz is not enough resolution to do acoustical music in a large venue. It is much better for rock, gospel, and other genre's were you can go direct to the mixing board, eschewing any use of a microphones for recording.

Just as an example; critically listen to the SACD of Jack Renner's 1812 Overture. Then listen to the CD layer of that same recording. If you listen carefully, you will find that the overall presentation of the CD is quite a bit more diffused than the SACD. This is the problem with Renner's microphone technique and the RBCD format.

In saying all of this, there are sometimes just poor recordings made, and that is a fact.

[E-Stat]

Just as an example; critically listen to the SACD of Jack Renner's 1812 Overture. Then listen to the CD layer of that same recording. If you listen carefully, you will find that the overall presentation of the CD is quite a bit more diffused than the SACD. This is the problem with Renner's microphone technique and the RBCD format.

You're comparing apples and oranges. That is true when a MC recording is remixed later for stereo as is the case here. Let's listen to Robert Woods describe the differences in the liner notes for that recording.

"Over the years, our usual microphone setup for an orchestra has consisted of three or four space omnidirectional microphones across the front of the orchestra. The surround recording, however, requires a different approach: directional microphones for the front channels, outside and mid-hall microphones to help wrap the orchestra in a gentle arc in front of the listener, plus ambience pickup microphones that are arranged to mid and rear channels. I employed the Neumann binaural head microphone as a critical part of the surround pickup."

This "multi-channel from the start" recording was thus recorded quite differently than they would have done for a stereo recording.

That reality doesn't retract from the multi-channel result - it only renders comparisons to the derived stereo remix invalid to draw any conclusions.

[Feanor]

Feanor,
In my opinion Redbook CD is not very friendly to acoustic music. Also there is occasionally a poor choice of microphones picks for recording. The problem with RBCD is two fold. If you try and record with a "audience" perspective, instruments in the rear of the orchestra lose their precision. It becomes much more difficult to balance the orchestra, and you have to use some equalization to sharpen up that imprecise sound, hence the hardness that can crop up. I would have to say 16/44.1khz is not enough resolution to do acoustical music in a large venue. It is much better for rock, gospel, and other genre's were you can go direct to the mixing board, eschewing any use of a microphones for recording.

Just as an example; critically listen to the SACD of Jack Renner's 1812 Overture. Then listen to the CD layer of that same recording. If you listen carefully, you will find that the overall presentation of the CD is quite a bit more diffused than the SACD. This is the problem with Renner's microphone technique and the RBCD format.

In saying all of this, there are sometimes just poor recordings made, and that is a fact.

All this said, there are still some very good RBCD recordings.

An example I was listening to a couple of days ago is the Tokyo String Quartet's version of Beethoven's Early Quartets: very good instrument timbres, good ambience, and good perspective.



Their version of the Middle Quartets has the same very good quality. From what I've heard, no doubt a Hi-rez version would be even better, but still the point remains that RBCD can sound good and doesn't necessarily sound suffer from harshness or "digititis" as vinyl lovers declare.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

All this said, there are still some very good RBCD recordings.

An example I was listening to a couple of days ago is the Tokyo String Quartet's version of Beethoven's Early Quartets: very good instrument timbres, good ambience, and good perspective.



Their version of the Middle Quartets has the same very good quality. From what I've heard, no doubt a Hi-rez version would be even better, but still the point remains that RBCD can sound good and doesn't necessarily sound suffer from harshness or "digititis" as vinyl lovers declare.

I agree with ya. Do you see the size of that group? Small ensemble that does not necessarily challenge a recording system or format. I can create a GREAT RBCD with a group that small.

[Feanor]

I agree with ya. Do you see the size of that group? Small ensemble that does not necessarily challenge a recording system or format. I can create a GREAT RBCD with a group that small.

I'm confident you could!!

But I give you personal credit. What I'd really like to know why so many string quartet recordings sound like crap.

Not necessarily the worst example but pretty bad is this recording of Beethoven's Op. 130 quartet and Op. 133, Grosse Fuge by The Lindsays. (I have the hybrid SACD version; unfortunately my SACD player is capable of extracting any more resolution than my DAC is from the CD layer.) The problems here are screechy violins and a 'way too close perspective. If I were a performer I might like to sit among musicians but I prefer a 4th row seat for chamber music.



I must say, though, that my current DAC and amp are the most transparent I've owned and this recording sounds less bad than it did on some previous equipment. This is a matter of less grunge, not the caramel coating applied by some tube equipment.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm confident you could!!

But I give you personal credit. What I'd really like to know why so many string quartet recordings sound like crap.

Not necessarily the worst example but pretty bad is this recording of Beethoven's Op. 130 quartet and Op. 133, Grosse Fuge by The Lindsays. (I have the hybrid SACD version; unfortunately my SACD player is capable of extracting any more resolution than my DAC is from the CD layer.) The problems here are screechy violins and a 'way too close perspective. If I were a performer I might like to sit among musicians but I prefer a 4th row seat for chamber music.



I must say, though, that my current DAC and amp are the most transparent I've owned and this recording sounds less bad than it did on some previous equipment. This is a matter of less grunge, not the caramel coating applied by some tube equipment.

I am willing to bet is just plain poor microphone position combined poor microphone choice. It could also be low quality converters in the signal chain.