Different Definitions of Quality [Archive]

View Full Version : Different Definitions of Quality

Ian Mackenzie

12-11-2011, 08:00 AM

Lee in Montreal

12-11-2011, 08:31 AM

I think that some parameters about what makes sound hi-fi may not have been taken in account. It goes along some thoughts from the thread about taking measurements. Some amps are fast, others are slow. Some are blurry, some are well defined. Room correction will not fix that. Separation, depth, imaging, etc, cannot be fixed with room correction devices. Sure, sound can be pleasing, but t doesn't mean it will be a proper rendition of the original recording. Bose's counter top systems would be a good exemple of crappy, yet "pleasing" sound. ;)

Basically, a $10k Mark Levinson amp offers more than just a flat frequency response...

jerry_rig

12-11-2011, 08:33 AM

richluvsound

12-11-2011, 11:33 AM

I bet Papa is in tears ....:dont-know: . I'm now on my second Pass Labs amp , XA 160 mono blocks and don't look back with regret !

I have heard and owned few amps, I have owned and used room correction -NONE OF IT MASS PRODUCED .... With my present set up I don't feel the need for room correction. I didn't like the the digital tone - sterilised sound .My speakers are efficient enough not to need volumes high enough to excite the room .

Rich

Mr. Widget

12-11-2011, 12:04 PM

4313B

12-11-2011, 12:33 PM

A 96dB/W/m speaker (like my 12" Tannoys) doesn't need a kilowatt in a domestic living room.Which Tannoy model do you have?

Ian Mackenzie

12-11-2011, 06:14 PM

Not me, see other thread on cables.

Ian

Ian Mackenzie

12-11-2011, 06:26 PM

> if both are properly set up, a $10k Pass amp will be markedly lower in fidelity than a $2k A/V receiver.

I have a new Pioneer Home threatre amp 83 model 2nd from the top.

While the in built equ and room correction is not exectly the same as Audyssey MultEQ XT32 the end use is the same.

The intent being to improve muli channel audio in the the context of a HT experience

I have used both in the same room withe following result.

With the Pioneer following the Eq routine there is no requestion it improves the movies audio sound track.

On audio cd play back switched in and out the audio quality is effected in a way that is difficult to quantify but I prefer the EQ off and overall the experience is very good

With the Pass labs set running stand alone there is an impovement in overall fidelity that quite obvious.

brett_s

12-11-2011, 06:40 PM

Widget may have answered this in his post, but I thought I would ask the question anyway. What if you were to combine a modern higher quality home theater pre-pro with a good main amp for 2 channel and an av amp for the surround stuff. I was thinking of something along the lines of the new Marantz, Anthem, Mcintosh pre-pro. This way you could combine the room correction with a high quality amp for 2 channel (as well as the home theater stuff for those of us that are trying to do both).

You would have to think that at some point, technology would allow the two paths (digital room correction vs pure analog path) to cross, or at least come close. Maybe technology isn't at that point, but logically you would have to think that it will be possible. Especially when you consider that my room (along with most other folks) aren't sonically perfect, that using room correction may be a better way to go than a pure analog path. Maybe this isn't practicle yet.

I'm been thinking about this lately, and was looking to demo some various stuff and see what i found. If i could find a nice easy to use, family friendly, pre-pro to do it this way, and only sacarfice a minimal amount in stereo audio quality, I would seriously consider it.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Brett

Ian Mackenzie

12-11-2011, 06:47 PM

What I did find was that some mild room treatment the apparent audio playback reproduction of both the Pioneer and the Passlabs improved beyond differences made by the Pioneer room correction.

In terms of power the Pioneer is 190 watts per channel 6 ohms and the Pass labs 250 watts channel 8 ohms.

I have not used a 100 watt per channel amp since burning out some tweeters about 10 years ago.

100 watts per channel does not seem to cut it on the 2245H woofers. Hence the statement would appear invalid

In John Eargle's book Sound Recording that calculated minimum power in an example of a JBl monitor is 150 watts per channel bi amped

On the assumption that 1000 watts Passlabs amps were used I would need to install additional air conditioning to evacuate the 600 watts of thermal heat per 1000 mono block.

Aside from reducing the risk of clipping and subsequent damage to voice coils more power brings with it a robust and life like reverbant quality to the entire sound stage.

Ian Mackenzie

12-11-2011, 07:00 PM

Brett great post.

I was asking the same vexing question when I recently built a new home.

In my own way I rationalised the question by deciding on the end useage of the room and equipment.

I tend to use my rumpus room for movies and Blue Ray music concerts.

The Pioneer and 55 inch Led Samsung is a no brainer for convenience and it does quite a good job.

For more intimate and more sophisticated playback of analogue recordings where the focus is on analogue only I decided to move the Pass labs gear to the lounge room with the vista view of french doors and adjoining alfresco outdoor dining area.

P

JeffW

12-11-2011, 07:03 PM

Widget may have answered this in his post, but I thought I would ask the question anyway. What if you were to combine a modern higher quality home theater pre-pro with a good main amp for 2 channel and an av amp for the surround stuff. I was thinking of something along the lines of the new Marantz, Anthem, Mcintosh pre-pro. This way you could combine the room correction with a high quality amp for 2 channel (as well as the home theater stuff for those of us that are trying to do both).

I do this. My AVR has pre outs, so I run FL/FR as pre outs to an input of my 2 ch preamp, and the center and rear surrounds off the amp outs of the AVR. When watching a movie, just get the 2 ch pre amp level set and use the volume of the AVR to control the whole shebang. I can then just switch inputs on the 2 ch pre amp to listen to albums, CDs, digital, TV, whatever.

This makes it seamless between TV, BluRay/DVD, albums, CDs, digital media, everything.

Allanvh5150

12-12-2011, 01:43 AM

I have a Yamaha HT system and I have always run it with outboard power amps for the subs and the fronts. Surrounds and rears are run from the yamaha as there is not a lot going on in those channels. Just running separate power amps makes a huge difference in fidelity jus from the simple fact that there is a heap more power to drive the system accurately. Now I am about to do away with the big amps and I am building a three way amplifier and crossover for each cabinet in the system. These will be placed at the speaker cabinets and I may even drive them wirelessly. Interesting project.

Allan.

brett_s

12-12-2011, 01:31 PM

I was expecting more thoughts or debate on this. Not quite as many as in the "high cost wire and cord" thread, but at least a couple more:).

Is technology just not this far along yet?

Brett

Mr. Widget

12-12-2011, 01:52 PM

Is technology just not this far along yet?It is, but precious few consumers care enough so the offerings that are full featured surround capable and sonically excellent are few and extremely costly... even the $35K Mark Levinson No. 502 which sounds very good, probably doesn't sound as good at "simple" two channel reproduction as the $10K No.326S. I'd like to do the comparison, but we no longer have the No. 326S in stock. I hope we get another one so that we can compare.

I'm sure the prices would drop considerably if high performance sonically superior processors were in demand and mass produced. On the other hand, simply feeding the output of a surround processor into the Aux input of a high quality preamp isn't that big of a hassle and keeps things pure when you want purity.

As for opinions... I don't think gobs of watts are all that important. AVR's amps are generally pretty poor sounding and using an outboard amp will help, but I think the line level and DAC circuits are where most of the grain and general ick comes from.

Widget

JeffW

12-12-2011, 02:17 PM

On the other hand, simply feeding the output of a surround processor into the Aux input of a high quality preamp isn't that big of a hassle and keeps things pure when you want purity.

Yeah, I thought that's what he was asking. Guess I missed the question.

As for opinions... I don't think gobs of watts are all that important. AVR's amps are generally pretty poor sounding and using an outboard amp will help, but I think the line level and DAC circuits are where most of the grain and general ick comes from.

Widget

The amps I'm using for LF/RF are actually rated at less that the rated per channel value of the onboard amps of the AVR. I did it that way not so much for "high quality" of the LF/RF signals, but so I could run the same speakers as LF/RF on the surround and 2 channel music without having to swap any wires. It's a lot easier to let the 2 ch preamp do the swapping and for watching TV in stereo mode I don't even have to mess with the AVR remote. Not sure any of it's "high quality", but it's sure handy.

tomt

12-12-2011, 07:25 PM

seems that to whatever extent technology has progressed to,

how much can a person actually get would be a consideration.

and by that i mean -

first, how much can a person understand about technology,

(the science of physics)

would/could be a limitation on their sound system.

like the basic electricity lesson,

what happens when a electrical current is passed through a wire?

and the answer is -

a magnetic field is created.

those that aren't able to remember this, or can't understand,

how this interacts with a 'signal' might feel that cable differentiations

aren't real.

hence the calls of 'snake oil' and the like.

second.

the amount of money for better quality parts

could also be a factor.

if we haven't access to better quality parts,

how would we make our system(s) better ,

when built to a certain price point?

mechanical stability in capacitors,

is an area where much improvement is made.

duelund and mundorf brands make no small note of their efforts to reduce microphonics.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/8066/pict42479718457.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/100/pict42479718457.jpg/)

in a car stereo -

http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/716/img22179200992.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/818/img22179200992.jpg/)

http://www.google.com/search?q=Duelund CAST&um=1&hl=en&safe=off&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=999&bih=469&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw&ei=T6zmTqbFAqGJiALS2IGoBw

Allanvh5150

12-12-2011, 10:53 PM

Ah yes, the old capacitor on the car stereo trick. I am pretty sure that there is no capacitor that you can buy "off the shelf" that will perform the same as you average car battery.

Allan.

timc

12-13-2011, 12:53 AM

Ah yes, the old capacitor on the car stereo trick. I am pretty sure that there is no capacitor that you can buy "off the shelf" that will perform the same as you average car battery.

Allan.

Perhaps, but you would need to buy a second battery, and place it close to the amplifier(s). Anyway, that is a way cheaper option :)

Allanvh5150

12-13-2011, 01:08 AM

Probably not. I have a vehicle with 1400 watts in the boot. Fed with 2 x 16mm cables. No capacitors in site and no brown out to be sure. :bouncy:

Allan.

Mr. Widget

12-13-2011, 11:48 AM

I guess you guys are just drifting into auto audio speak... the photo that tomt posted has nothing to do with capacitive storage etc. it is showing a low end Peugeot with an uber high end speaker crossover... the caps (the flat black rectangles) are several hundred dollars each and the coils (the round cardboard tubes) are a couple of hundred to well over a grand each depending on value. The resistors are hollow graphite tubes that cost $25 bucks or more... are they worth it? I have no idea, but in a car???? I hope that image was some sort of joke.

Widget

SEAWOLF97

12-13-2011, 12:05 PM

.
as AE said "its all relative"

quality depends on who you are, your expectations, where you are , when you are, your age...etc

Ian is in a place where Bose & CALI are considered top quality gear
K2's sound quality prolly isn't good in the middle of Yankee Stadium
In the late 60's , I thought Pioneer was great quality
The under 30 crowd hears quality different than older folks
The MP3 generation thinks pods are fine quality
Wud guess that 1920's tinny sound was quality to them

all implied in SW's theory of relativity/quality ...;)

DS-21

12-13-2011, 12:45 PM

I routinely alternate powering my 96dB efficient speakers off of my high-end amps (using a Pass Labs XP-20 pre) and a $4K Denon AV receiver with Audyssey. No one would suggest, after careful listening, that the Denon is in the same league. As much as we'd like it to be the case, it just ain't so.

That's probably true. If it was calibrated competently, the Denon isn't in the same league as a dumb analog box - it's better.

Turn the processing off, and with such sensitive speakers the only possible difference may be induced noise from the interconnect in the separates system...

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've never even bothered to listen with levels matched, let alone blind. Most often, when somebody hears a difference between two audio electronics chains, assuming no signal processing, the difference is one actually heard by the listener. However, the listener misattributes it to something other than its actual cause, which is more often than not merely a slight level difference.

These modern AVRs and processors do a lot of amazing things, but for pure audio enjoyment, I doubt anyone would pick one of them over an all analog high end piece.

Why not?

I think the question for anyone who doesn't have a pecuniary interest in the sale of audio gear is, rather, "why would one want a stack of ugly power-hog analog boxes when with levels matched and biases as to price/brand taken out of the picture, when one can get superior functionality out of a single box?"

(There are exceptions, of course. For instance, such devices typically don't have pre-out/main-in loops that would allow the use of all their features (i.e. the built-in amps) even with active-crossover biamped speakers. So for that kind of thing one does need separates anyway. Though at least the new Denon AVR's allow one to disengage the amps when not using them. That saves energy, though IMO a better solution would be the aforementioned pre-out/main-in loop.)

FWIW, I have close to zero interest in TV/movies. As long as the dialog's reasonably clear and the picture visible, I'm happy.

Modern audio technology improves the fidelity of music reproduction. That is IMO its only utility.

Which Tannoy model do you have?

System 12 DMT II guts in closed-box cabinets designed to minimize diffraction (something that, unlike many of the different boxes discussed on this thread, is actually audible and deleterious), but with the same baffle dimensions. I thought about modifying the crossover, but couldn't come up with something that struck a more appropriate balance than the stock one. (Same baffle dimensions, remember. Just much larger roundovers on all surfaces.)

What I did find was that some mild room treatment the apparent audio playback reproduction of both the Pioneer and the Passlabs improved beyond differences made by the Pioneer room correction.

That makes sense. You might also have more headroom with the Pass amp, given that they probably have about twice (3dB) the power, if your speakers are voltage hogs.

100 watts per channel does not seem to cut it on the 2245H woofers. Hence the statement would appear invalid

In John Eargle's book Sound Recording that calculated minimum power in an example of a JBl monitor is 150 watts per channel bi amped

For what use? I would think that depends on the size of the room.

That said, given that the discussion was impliedly about mains (AVR v. separates) and not about subs, it's worth noting that different rules apply when deep bass is involved. Speakers get less efficient, so they need more voltage drive.

I was expecting more thoughts or debate on this. Not quite as many as in the "high cost wire and cord" thread, but at least a couple more:).

There's one point to which all reasonable and knowledgable people analyzing the data in good faith must agree, for if they don't they are either unreasonable or analyzing the data in bad faith (often with said bad faith analysis driven by pecuniary interests):

To date, with levels matched and preconceived biases removed from the equation, nobody has yet been able to reliably distinguish a difference between two non-broken audio electronics chains of sufficient bandwidth and gain, assuming enough power to adequately drive the loudspeakers to the intended SPL.

And one corollary that should be obvious: signal processing changes things. If done well, it can sometimes be an improvement. That it can also make a complete hack of things if not done competently based on competently-acquired in situ measurements should also be clear.

Reasonable people will accept that and move on to discussing things on which gear actually differs that matter, such as wide vs. narrow patterns, and the desirability of pattern control down through the lower mids and upper bass.

That's not, of course, to say "it's all the same so buy the cheapest stuff." One makes one's own choices based on any number of variables on which any two actually parts differ (looks, warranty, brand appeal, ergonomics, expected resale value, feature set, etc.). But "sound," unless one's talking about expressly low-fi gear, such as amps with non flat frequency response, cannot reasonably be one of those factors.

(Now, if someone prefers the signal processing inherent in an SET or whatever, which is technically a low-fidelity device in that it is not a straight-wire-with-gain, that's a perfectly valid choice.)

JeffW

12-13-2011, 01:06 PM

That said, given that the discussion was impliedly about mains (AVR v. separates) and not about subs, it's worth noting that different rules apply when deep bass is involved.

The 2245H is the woofer in his mains, not a sub.

Mr. Widget

12-13-2011, 01:43 PM

To date, with levels matched and preconceived biases removed from the equation, nobody has yet been able to reliably distinguish a difference between two non-broken audio electronics chains of sufficient bandwidth and gain, assuming enough power to adequately drive the loudspeakers to the intended SPL.Are you the son, grandson of Julian Hirsch? :D

Seriously, I will assume you are not simply being provocative for the sake of "shit stirring" to use the common parlance and give your lengthy post the answer it deserves. But first, please let me know what equipment you own or at least regularly listen to. I think a point of reference is needed here.

Widget

Ducatista47

12-13-2011, 01:56 PM

Are you the son, grandson of Julian Hirsch? :D
Widget
:rotfl:

DS-21

12-13-2011, 03:01 PM

Seriously, I will assume you are not simply being provocative for the sake of "shit stirring"

No, I am simply stating facts that frankly in 2011 should be obvious to everyone. At this point, the only ways they could not be are:
(1) simple ignorance of the relevant data (though that might have been more an excuse in 1998 than it is in 2011)
(2) unreasonableness
(3) bad-faith dealing (often to defend pecuniary interests)

But first, please let me know what equipment you own or at least regularly listen to. I think a point of reference is needed here.

Current reference system:

Measurement gear: MacBook running OSX Lion, FuzzMeasure Pro 3, M-Audio FireWire Solo, Velodyne SMS-1 and MIC-5, 6x calibrated Behringer ECM-8000 clone (came with Velodyne SMS-1 and Velodyne MIC-5 spatial averaging kit, but I had them each professionally calibrated.)

Sources: MacBook media server (optical digital), Oppo BDP-83 SACD/DVD-A/etc disk player (HDMI single-wire connection), AppleTV (HDMI single-wire connection) (Also a B&O RX-2 TT in storage, but I had a local shop digitize all my vinyl into AIFF files several years ago, which I have since losslessly compressed)

Pre-Pro-Mains amp: Denon AVR-4308ci with Audyssey DynamicEQ feature upgrade. It runs in LFE+Main mode, which allows

Mains (LCR): aforementioned low-diffraction Tannoy System 12 DMT II, crossfired ahead of and above the listening position.

Surrounds (5.1-channel; I've never seen a 7.1-channel SACD or DVD-A so don't see the use of back channels): bespoke based on Tannoy 2046 (System 800, etc.) 8" Dual Concentric, mounted high (above the listening position) and to the sides, firing straight up (hey, that's what subjectively worked best in this room).

Subs: Geddes-style mode-smoothing array with four subs, using the amps' controls for level/phase-delay and a Velodyne SMS-1 for global level, EQ, and line drive. Main sub is an M-Design Eleganza Godfather (Aurasound NS15-992-4A + 1kW Class G amp in a giant cherry-and-piano black pie wedge), the two other floor subs are each being M-Design Eleganza Bellas (Aurasound NS12-794-4A + 500W Class G amp in a cherry-and-piano black end-table looking cabinet), and the high sub a DIY unit using the Aurasound NS10-794-4A in a 15L closed box, powered by a Dayton HPSA-1000R.

Headphones: Apple dual-driver IEM, Denon D2000, Sennheiser HD-580.
Headphone amps: HeadRoom Total AirHead, HeadRoom Micro (pre- and post- 2007)

Electronics not in current use (non-exhaustive list): Sonic Frontiers Line-3 tube preamp, Marantz AV-600 pre-pro, Adcom GFA-5800 amp (proved in a blind, level-matched test indistinguishable from a Class CA-300 on Martin Logans), Classe CAP-101 (I think) integrated (240V - in my Salzburg apartment), Panasonic XR55 AVR, Audiolab 8000P integrated, B&O RX-2 TT with their second-best cart (MMC2?), Adcom 535II 2-ch amp, Adcom 2535 4-ch amp, AudioControl PCA-3 crossover/subharmonic synth, cheap Samsung DVD player that proved indistinguishable from a Meridian 508.20 factory-upgraded to 508.24 spec blind and with levels matched.

JBL drivers not in current use: 2x 2235H, 1x W15GTi.

Mr. Widget

12-13-2011, 03:30 PM

Hi DS-21,

Thank you for your very thorough answer to my question. I'll give you an equally thorough reply. Unfortunately I am currently working and will need some time to compile the data necessary to properly respond.

Widget

tomt

12-13-2011, 06:07 PM

the photo that tomt posted has nothing to do with capacitive storage etc. it is showing a low end Peugeot with an uber high end speaker crossover... the caps (the flat black rectangles) are several hundred dollars each and the coils (the round cardboard tubes) are a couple of hundred to well over a grand each depending on value. The resistors are hollow graphite tubes that cost $25 bucks or more... are they worth it?
I have no idea, but in a car???? I hope that image was some sort of joke.

Widget

as the duelund caps are designed with resistance to vibration

as a primary goal,

auto sound might be an ideal place for these.

how much can the average consumer can appreciate?

to be able to say, my xover cost more than $... ,

might come in handy at spl competitions.

how many people know anything about part quality?

for instance -

That's probably true.
If it was calibrated competently,
the Denon isn't in the same league as a dumb analog box - it's better.

depends on what you mean by 'better'.

perhaps you could explain what would be 'better'.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you've never even bothered to listen with levels matched, let alone blind. Most often, when somebody hears a difference between two audio electronics chains, assuming no signal processing, the difference is one actually heard by the listener. However, the listener misattributes it to something other than its actual cause, which is more often than not merely a slight level difference.

anyone can assume whatever,

would it be fair to say you've never even bothered to try different

components in the same circuit?

ever modify your equipment?

ever built your own equipment?

Mr. Widget

12-14-2011, 02:41 AM

No, I am simply stating facts that frankly in 2011 should be obvious to everyone. At this point, the only ways they could not be are:
(1) simple ignorance of the relevant data (though that might have been more an excuse in 1998 than it is in 2011)
(2) unreasonableness
(3) bad-faith dealing (often to defend pecuniary interests)Let's start by giving everyone the benefit of the doubt and rule out unintentional unreasonableness as well as full blown dishonesty and bad faith dealing.

As for "simple ignorance of the relevant data"... I guess you'll need to define relevant data to me... or perhaps I'm simply ignorant. :)

"I am simply stating facts that frankly in 2011 should be obvious to everyone."

I'm not sure how obvious, I obviously disagree. ;)

I'm going to paraphrase your position as I interpret it. Please correct me if I misinterpreted what you were saying. I believe you are suggesting that a properly functioning modern AVR such as your Denon AVR-4308ci when set in an uncalibrated mode with all tone controls defeated and set to a specific amount of signal gain will sound indistinguishable from any other audio device or collection of devices in proper working order (say an analog preamp and power amp) with exactly the same gain and similarly free of equalization, dynamic compensation, calibration etc. Is that correct?

If I got that correct, I agree that it may be possible to find two devices or systems that measure essentially identically. From a purely objective measurement standpoint making a comparison on paper I'd expect there to be virtually no differences between two channels of your Denon and say a Pass Labs INT 150. The Pass Labs is an all analog integrated amp with a 150 wpc stereo output. The Pass Labs unit is more robust and will put out full power into a low impedance for a significantly longer time period before thermal shut down and the Pass Labs unit will most likely still be fully operational in 20 years while the Denon most likely will have failed in one of it's many sophisticated digital circuits... HDMI being a prime example, but we are not discussing these aspects. I agree that at a moderate power level of say 10-20 watts, the two units will measure very similarly.

That was the objective comparison. I have heard and sold numerous Denons as well as Marantzs and Integras... both their AVRs and the separate pre/pros. I have set them up for many years in countless rooms. I have also compared them with Parasound Halo, Bryston, Mark Levinson, and yes Pass Labs. They simply do not sound the same. Even with the AVR set at a slightly higher SPL (theoretically giving them the edge) they fail to sound as free of grit, grain, etch... pick the word. No, I have never set up CLIO to level match to within a tenth of a dB... I didn't need to. There is simply no comparison. I can not eloquently explain the unmeasurable... perhaps Nelson Pass can, but I have done a lot of listening and I am open to cheaper sounding better and newer being an improvement.

Let's put it another way. With the typical AVR playing an SACD you have a digital source that is converted in it's onboard DAC into analog. The built in analog section then feeds the analog input of the AVR. The AVR then digitizes the signal, processes it, perhaps 3 or 4 times and then another DAC converts the signal back to analog. Do you think all of these DACs and A to Ds don't have an effect? It is probably measurable, but I am not sure how you would make the comparison with the all analog system that has none of it.

More on measurements... Can I hear a difference between two CD players? Sometimes. Is one clearly better? Almost never. There are frequently piles of data comparing the two... which has lower jitter etc. I simply haven't found that to be a consistent indication of superior sound. Measurements are useful, but in my fairly experienced opinion they don't always tell the whole story.

Lastly on Audyssey and calibration. I have used both the Audyssey and Velodyne SMS-1 systems. I have used the integrated Audyssey in lower end AVRs as well as the stand alone Audyssey processor and the Audyssey Bass Equalizer. I have had mixed results with all of them. Often I find it necessary to override the direction that these automatic calibration devices choose. At Harman, they tested Audyssey as well as several other calibration systems at several price points. I believe they tested five systems and set them all up according to the specific recommendations that came with each unit. They found Audyssey to be the second to the worst in their objective comparisons. I mentioned to the engineer that relayed this info to me that my results have been mixed. His response was that it is possible that Audyssey's assumptions may work better in some rooms than others. So, simply having DSP power is no guaranty of superior sound. It certainly can help, but usually fixing the room, using better speakers, placing things in better locations all are a better fix.

As much as you may want to trust measurements more than yours or anyone else's ears, my suggestion is to keep doing whatever makes you happy, and perhaps be a bit more open to other possibilities. Alternatively if our perception of audio plays a greater roll in our perceived sound quality, then maybe billet machined faceplates are indeed what is necessary for some, and a lot of features at a good price point for others to find audio nirvana.

Widget

timc

12-14-2011, 03:34 AM

If I got that correct, I agree that it may be possible to find two devices or systems that measure essentially identically. From a purely objective measurement standpoint making a comparison on paper I'd expect there to be virtually no differences between two channels of your Denon and say a Pass Labs INT 150. The Pass Labs is an all analog integrated amp with a 150 wpc stereo output. The Pass Labs unit is more robust and will put out full power into a low impedance for a significantly longer time period before thermal shut down and the Pass Labs unit will most likely still be fully operational in 20 years while the Denon most likely will have failed in one of it's many sophisticated digital circuits... HDMI being a prime example, but we are not discussing these aspects. I agree that at a moderate power level of say 10-20 watts, the two units will measure very similarly.

Widget

As a "measuring person" I would strongly disagree with this. It might be true for frequency response into an apropriate load for preamps. Simliary it might be almost true for the frequency response of power amplifiers when driving a purely resistive load.

Lets take the preamp section first:
In addition to frequency response you have to measure Harmonic spectrum (Not only THD), intermodulation, and general noise levels. I can gurantee that the Pass and the Denon wil be different. I'm not saying anything about wich is best.

For power amps you have to meaure the same things, but in addition you have to measure it's performance with a dynamic load. A resistive load poses no real challange for almost any ok built amplifier. Throw in some capacitive and inductive load, that varies with frequency and a lot can happen. Another thing is that all the other parameters like Harmonics, intermodulation and such will also change when driving dynamic loads. Meaning that the dynamic performance can be quite different from the static (steady) state performance.

What affects all these parameters is another discussion. And a bloody complicated one.......

Ian Mackenzie

12-14-2011, 06:07 AM

For what use? I would think that depends on the size of the room.

That said, given that the discussion was impliedly about mains (AVR v. separates) and not about subs, it's worth noting that different rules apply when deep bass is involved. Speakers get less efficient, so they need more voltage drive.

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by brett_s http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=325121#post325121)
I was expecting more thoughts or debate on this. Not quite as many as in the "high cost wire and cord" thread, but at least a couple more:).

There's one point to which all reasonable and knowledgable people analyzing the data in good faith must agree, for if they don't they are either unreasonable or analyzing the data in bad faith (often with said bad faith analysis driven by pecuniary interests):

To date, with levels matched and preconceived biases removed from the equation, nobody has yet been able to reliably distinguish a difference between two non-broken audio electronics chains of sufficient bandwidth and gain, assuming enough power to adequately drive the loudspeakers to the intended SPL.

We dont have pecking order for top dog on such discussions so I see no sense in a shit stirring.

Be that as it may on the question of power for the 2245H or the 2235H I it come down to 30 years of experience with large format monitors and knowing only too well the sound the a 100 watt amp clipping while trying to keep up with the mid / high array.

With such systems the distortion products and bandwidth are such that apparent volume levels running 250 watts + aside even in domestic setting are irrelevent and that is where dynamic headroom is so important. I have a Yamaha 800+800 watt amp on ice waiting for recently re coned 2245Hs. That and the Passlabs X250.5 on the mid / highs should be really excellent.

I am not sure of your live unamplified sound experience but MOST domestic audio systems cannot re produce a Piano or a trumpet at typical levels without gross distortion. The laws of physics are self explanatory.

A Muso living in the same building at my previous address asserted this when he thought I was practising!

On the later statement again it comes down to practical experience or being ignaminius.

Either way you have been deprived.

My woman who has been selling pro audio for years remarks that a new bit of audio equipment for a hifi buff is like watching the emperor with new clothes but she repects the JBL sound done right without compromises because its in different league.

Once you experience hi end amplification like the Passlabs/ Bryston and ML there is no going back after using a Flame Linear.

That does not mean to say I dont enjoy the convenience of the wonderbox for suround sound.

But like so many things in life what you don't have you don't miss.

I thank Nelson Pass for personally helping me build my first Aleph class A amp about 10 years ago.

Those guys have a large following with JBL users and dealers because of what those amps do for these kinds of systems.

JeffW

12-14-2011, 09:57 AM

Alternatively if our perception of audio plays a greater roll in our perceived sound quality, then maybe billet machined faceplates are indeed what is necessary for some, It always comes down to the faceplates, never even an outside chance that what's behind the faceplate might be the important part.

Mr. Widget

12-14-2011, 10:12 AM

As a "measuring person" I would strongly disagree with this. It might be true for frequency response into an apropriate load for preamps. Simliary it might be almost true for the frequency response of power amplifiers when driving a purely resistive load.I don't disagree, but .1, .01, .001... -.2dB @ 20KHz, -.5dB@50KHz etc. Is there a difference? I'm not sure there is. Now with amps, certainly you can put complex loads and see much greater differences and perhaps that is a significant contributor to why they sound different, but I hear similarly great differences between line level gear driving very benign loads. I'm not saying that there are sonic differences, see my :blah: long post, but the standard measurements that are significantly different? Significant difference from a purely scientific point of reference... I'm not so sure.

Widget

timc

12-14-2011, 11:05 AM

I don't disagree, but .1, .01, .001... -.2dB @ 20KHz, -.5dB@50KHz etc. Is there a difference? I'm not sure there is. Now with amps, certainly you can put complex loads and see much greater differences and perhaps that is a significant contributor to why they sound different, but I hear similarly great differences between line level gear driving very benign loads. I'm not saying that there are sonic differences, see my :blah: long post, but the standard measurements that are significantly different? Significant difference from a purely scientific point of reference... I'm not so sure.

Widget

Maybe you missinterpreted me. What you refer to here, i agree is not necesarily that important. The distribution of the harmonics and intermodulation on the other hand......... This is present in sources/line level equipment as well, and will influence what we hear (subjectively).

My point was that Frequency response and THD isn't enough to say anything defenite. Add in all other measurable parameters, and we can say quite a lot. However, if you were refering to the specs normally provided by the manufacturers i totally agree. It says next to nothing.

Titanium Dome

12-14-2011, 01:25 PM

I'm sure in individual ways, we're all competent to write both about our subjective and objective opinions. (See how I made them both subjective there? :D )
In the end though, it's just a different kind of faith: faith in experience or faith in science or faith in cognitive dissonance.

As a real genius quipped: Not everything that can be measured matters; not everything that matters can be measured. That's paraphrased, of course, because even the memory of Einstein-ian quotes is subject to interpretation.

There was a time in early hi-fi history when specs mattered a lot. The differences in quality were sometimes huge, and scientists, hobbiests, engineers, and manufacturers used them to point out discernible differences. At a certain point, marketing took over this process and used specs to exploit consumer naivete about what constitutes a quality product. So there might have been multiple ways to give a spec for power output, distortion, channel separation, etc. They'd just fudge the numbers to look better than the competition, then hide the means by which the numbers were generated in a foot note or tech sheet that nobody read.

This kind of baloney still gets practiced today, but more savvy consumers like those who frequent boards like this know how to read the fine print and between the lines, generally speaking. Specs are important enough to me that if I don't see them presented in a straight-forward manner, I will pass up the product. It's a simple test of faith that if a manufacturer is building a quality product, the numbers should be honest and quality-focuesd, too. Otherwise I have no faith in their science.

Nonetheless, there are so many products these days that can produce similarly competent specs--which would be miraculous specs just a few decades ago--that specs can only be one aspect of the measurement of quality. So, I'll put some faith in the science of it all, but I'll also put some faith into the experience of it all.

There are any number of speaker manufacturers that can produce response curves for their products that appear to be the equal of JBL's best products. Some even have nicer looking cabinets or more impressive collections of multiple drivers. Yet, despite the similarities on paper, my experience at audio shows and dealers is usually one of disappointment when listening to these seemingly equally capable loudspeakers. Going to friends' and acquaintances' homes produces much the same experiential let down, and I'm not just writing about a few Bose-loving friends. That's too easy. I'm writing about Sonus Faber, Magico (yes, I wrote Magico), DefTech, and B&W, as examples that I have to listen to more often than I'd like. Most of these speakers are gorgeous to look at, but I enjoy them more when looking than when listening.

Yes, I have a ton of JBLs of varying vintage, design principle, driver complement, and cabinetry, but my experience tells me I can always count on a good experience with any of them, even recent gear that sometimes gets derided in these threads. Yes, companies and products change over time, and there's some inevitability to a decline in quality for most brands, but Harman as an example spends tons of money on research and development, and it still employs engineers and designers who make compelling products with quality in mind. I have a lot of faith in the JBL experience to this point, right up to my most recent JBL purchase.

So there's science and there's experience that inform my quest for quality. Sometimes a combination of the two backs me into an acquisition, like the ATI amps driving the K2s. I was impressed with the build quality, science, and engineering of ATI, but wondered about the experience. Once I discovered that ATI had produced some of my most trusted and favored amps under OEM licenses, I realized I'd already experienced ATI quality, longevity, power, and sonic neutrality. It became an easy decision, without the influence of billeted front plates. ;)

(All the really expensive amps got sent back. Yay! :banana: )

So how about the cognitive dissonance bit? That's the belief that even though what you believed to be true hasn't actually come true, you still believe it could become true in the future if you just keep believing it. (That's most major religions in a nutshell, BTW.)

If one believes that 300W coming out of a Lexicon silver-faced, billeted amp would be of higher quality than 300W coming out of an Outlaw black-faced, nonbilleted amp, the science would simply defy that belief, despite the difference in price of $1000s. One could say, "But my experience informs me that it truly does sound better; I've head them both." Yet in blind listening, one would fail miserably to distinguish between the two. Then one's response would inevitably be, "I still know it's true, and someday there will be a fair test that proves that I was right." Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

Some genius will chime in, "But it's probably the room where you heard those speakers, or the equipment they were hooked up to, or the source material, :blah: :blah:." I'll just call :bs: right now. Most of us have been around long enough and worked these issues often enough that we know these things already, so just be quiet about them. I didn't just make this stuff up today. Lordy, I've got quite a few different rooms, different audio chains, and different source materials in my own house to have quite a lot of practical experience, and plenty of folks (some from this forum) have been over for testing, calibration, listening, critiquing, placement assistance, you name it, so it's not like available science wasn't applied. These same things are true of the acquaintances I visit in some of the audio and video groups I hang out with. We have endless, interesting, and mostly productive discussions about how to optimize everyone's gear, including swapping out amps, treating rooms, changing components, and using different source material.

So when it comes to "defining quality" I think it helps to know whom you are talking to.

Is it someone who values science, measurements, and precision above all? :deal:

Is it someone who values experience, tradition, and familiarity? :cool:

Or is it someone who's waiting for a Second Coming to justify and glorify their beliefs and punish all the doubters at the same time? :beamup: :montyp:

I think you can have parts of all three and that you can have a productive discussion with all three. You cannot assume that someone who fanatically adheres to one over the others will be reasonable and polite, however. It's just not part of some folks' social skill set. I'm happy to see everyone more or less behaving thus far.

SEAWOLF97

12-14-2011, 01:57 PM

Specs are important enough to me that if I don't see them presented in a straight-forward manner, I will pass up the product. It's a simple test of faith that if a manufacturer is building a quality product, the numbers should be honest and quality-focuesd, too. Otherwise I have no faith in their science.

as I recall , JBL did NOT publish frequency response specs on consumer speakers.

JeffW

12-14-2011, 03:24 PM

So there's science and there's experience that inform my quest for quality. Sometimes a combination of the two backs me into an acquisition, like the ATI amps driving the K2s. I was impressed with the build quality, science, and engineering of ATI, but wondered about the experience.

I could say the same thing about these amps. And how they operate in class A with no global negative feedback. But I'm sure the ATI amps do, too. ;)

It became an easy decision, without the influence of billeted front plates. ;)

Anybody that buys an amp because of what the faceplate looks like is an idiot.

It always comes down to the faceplates, never even an outside chance that what's behind the faceplate might be the important part.

I'm glad that ATI has a faceplate that suits your delicate sensibilities.

If one believes that 300W coming out of a Lexicon silver-faced, billeted amp would be of higher quality than 300W coming out of an Outlaw black-faced, nonbilleted amp, the science would simply defy that belief, despite the difference in price of $1000s. One could say, "But my experience informs me that it truly does sound better; I've head them both." Yet in blind listening, one would fail miserably to distinguish between the two. Then one's response would inevitably be, "I still know it's true, and someday there will be a fair test that proves that I was right." Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

I have a Marantz SR5003 AVR hooked right in alongside the despised billet faceplate amps. It has specs very similar to the Denon AVR that DS-21 is running. My experience is that they not only sound different, but quite a lot different. But you are telling me that it's only because I have amps that happen to have billet faceplates that I want to hear a difference? OK, so the entirely different amp topology (class A vs probably class D or something in the AVR) makes no difference. The lack of feedback vs probably a lot of feedback to get the vanishingly small THD figure of the AVR makes no difference. The 180,000uf of power supply capacitance per channel vs whatever is crammed into the AVR makes no difference (not to mention the AVR probably has a switching power supply).

Only the billet faceplate makes the difference.

Got it.

How about this cognative dissonance, from the flip side? I buy a nice little budget amp. When I first fire it up, I'm underwhelmed, but I WANT to like it so I can tout its merits over and over as a giant killer? I know it's true, and someday there will be a fair test proves I was right!

Sound familiar?

I think you can have parts of all three and that you can have a productive discussion with all three. You cannot assume that someone who fanatically adheres to one over the others will be reasonable and polite, however. It's just not part of some folks' social skill set.

So long as you assume that anyone who owns a Pass amp only bought it because it has a billet faceplate, you are fanatically failing.

1audiohack

12-14-2011, 03:54 PM

Sounds like a market opportunity to me! "Ass Labs" billet face plates with lit meters for popular AV components. Do you think the meters would actually have to function for the effect to work?

4313B

12-14-2011, 04:00 PM

Anybody that buys an amp because of what the faceplate looks like is an idiot.So you're saying that beauty is only skin deep?

SEAWOLF97

12-14-2011, 04:03 PM

So you're saying that beauty is only skin deep?

and the end of that quote is " and ugly goes all the way to the bone"

didn't Lexicon put fancy face plates on Oppo's and jack the price waayyy up ?

JeffW

12-14-2011, 04:34 PM

So you're saying that beauty is only skin deep?

Not at all. Beauty is what's behind the faceplate. And the funny thing is, the billet faceplates on these amps are really very plain. Like high school milling 101 plain. But the fact that they're not stamped tin has become a real point of contention around here. It's unfortunate that they decided to use billet aluminum, really. Some people just can't wrap their head around the fact that there's an amplifier! behind it.

Faceplate, faceplate, faceplate.

But hey, I figure my obsolete Marantz AVR is an amp, and all amps are created equal (save the all important faceplate), so I really should be running that as my front row set up.

Or something.

JeffW

12-14-2011, 04:40 PM

Sounds like a market opportunity to me! "Ass Labs" billet face plates with lit meters for popular AV components. Do you think the meters would actually have to function for the effect to work?

You're overcomplicating it!

Don't you see, there doesn't need to be ANYTHING behind the faceplate! Nobody buys this stuff because of how it performs, they only buy it because it has a (really plain) billet faceplate!

Sheesh, try to pay attention. :blink:

Titanium Dome

12-14-2011, 05:03 PM

Mr. Widget

12-14-2011, 05:07 PM

I'm not sure if all this billet faceplate talk is because I brought it up at the end of my long post... but if so, I was using the term as shorthand for the possible effect on the "perception of quality". I do not damn or praise the use of billet aluminum whether it be in a Lexicon use trying to look the part, or Pass Labs doing it simply because the market paying for uber quality hand built products expects it.

FWIW: I'd covet the Pass Labs gear with or without the meters and massive faceplates.

Widget

pathfindermwd

12-14-2011, 05:41 PM

I'll chime in purely as comic relief...:p

My NAD has a plain black aluminum face plate. It also has a volume know with No, I repeat No, indicator whatsoever. I had to put a sticker on it just so I knew where it was at before blowing something up accidentally when turning it on. I sure wish they would have put some more lights, or whatever on this thing! Aside from that, it sounds great! It has gotten better and better as time goes on, this also defies complete explanation.

I'm not sure what exactly the argument is here. I can tell the difference between the amp/receivers I own. Could i do it blindfolded if you just picked a random one to turn on.....NO. But when I play one, and then hook up the other, I can definitely discern a difference, a big difference! In context of short term memory.

I recently bought a used Pioneer receiver for the fiber optic input from the computer. It's a damn nice looking receiver (no aluminum faceplate). How did it sound? Terrible! But that's ok, I have a few speakers, they all can't get expensive amps. It only really becomes an issue at higher volume, and in quick comparison.

What is the beef here? Titanium and Mr. Widget seem open mined. Am I missing something?

JeffW

12-14-2011, 06:11 PM

with or without the meters

See, that doesn't enter into my buying decision, either. I have mentioned before that I really don't care for the blinding blue LEDs they use, and the meters don't do anything. That's right, they don't move.

But I didn't buy them so I could show off blinding blue LEDs that I hate or meters that don't move. Or billet faceplates.

Robh3606

12-14-2011, 06:55 PM

You know what the most basic requirements are for a "Quality Product"? That it makes it's owner happy, does what it claims and doesn't fall apart in 6 months. In that light there is nothing wrong with an AVR user being just as happy as a Pass Labs user.

The way I see it you can argue all day about which is better but it really doesn't matter all that much as long as you are happy with what you have. If you think it's the best thing since sliced bread that's great!

People listen to MP3 at 128Kbt data rates all day long and don't hear what some consider as obvious encoding artifacts. That's just a real life example of the differences that we as individuals have as far as what we consider as acceptable sound vs unacceptable sound. It's a fairly large range and experience coupled with how much importance we place on it influences what we consider as acceptable. So in that vien live and let live. It's a pointless exercise in futility to try to convince another person unless they pose the question and are open to others opinions. Then of course they have to be convinced themselves and make up thier own minds. That's not something that's going to happen on the net. I am not saying not to have the conversation just don't take any of this personally.

Rob:)

JeffW

12-14-2011, 07:44 PM

And the kicker? Although I don't consider my AVR to be the last word in high fidelity music reproduction, and it's only HDMI 1.3, and it's been obsolete for a couple of years, I bought another one identical to it for my bedroom system. I like the performance and functionality, plus the reliability. I like it.

But it really is a different animal than my 2 ch system.

One other point before I move on:

I rarely ever even mention what gear I'm running, and make an effort to never come across as a salesman, or push product, or anything like that. I buy what I like and try to leave it to others to do the same without passing judgement on them for doing so. I might not always be 100% successful, but I never try to do this.

JeffW

12-14-2011, 08:14 PM

People listen to MP3 at 128Kbt data rates all day long and don't hear what some consider as obvious encoding artifacts.

My DAC only goes to 24/192, and even 24/96 files are pretty dang big. The 24/192 files are about 150MB for a 4 minute song, and 24/96 seems to be pretty standard for "hi res" files at only 75MB for the same 4 minutes.

I thought the 24/96 stuff sounded OK, but it's not even as good as crappy 128? What's considered "good"?

Mr. Widget

12-14-2011, 08:14 PM

I really don't care for the blinding blue LEDs they use, and the meters don't do anything. That's right, they don't move."They don't move..." That's a good thing. When the meter does move it shows you that you are demanding so much power that the amp must go out of a Class A bias.

And I agree about the "Blue Light Special".

Widget

Titanium Dome

12-14-2011, 08:24 PM

So are we all agreeing to get along and let bygones be bygones? I can only add that my Al billeted Fosgate Audionics FAA 1000.5 amps have full billeted fronts, as do the FAP T1 and FAP T1+ AND blue LEDs, and I love the way they sound. :)

Mr. Widget

12-14-2011, 08:24 PM

Titanium Dome

12-14-2011, 08:26 PM

The way I see it you can argue all day about which is better but it really doesn't matter all that much as long as you are happy with what you have. If you think it's the best thing since sliced bread that's great!

Rob:)

I'm pretty dang happy. :yes:

Robh3606

12-14-2011, 08:39 PM

I thought the 24/96 stuff sounded OK, but it's not even as good as crappy 128? What's considered "good"?

That's just the data rate of 128 Kbit/sec the sampling is at 44.1k like a CD. The data rate for a CD is 1.4 Mbit/sec (Mbps). That means a 128K MP3 has only about 10% of the data vs the CD it was encoded from. That's a big difference and when you are talking 24/96khz the data rates are obviously much bigger than a CD.

Here read this it explains it beter than I can

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?4150-Learn-how-Audio-and-Video-are-encoded-on-CDs-Blu-rays-and-Internet

Rob:)

Robh3606

12-14-2011, 08:44 PM

Absolutely... but I think this discussion is about whether or not someone with average hearing can hear a difference between properly working audio equipment whether it is a mid priced AVR or a high end piece.

Hello Widget

I understood that which is why I said

People listen to MP3 at 128Kbt data rates all day long and don't hear what some consider as obvious encoding artifacts. That's just a real life example of the differences that we as individuals have as far as what we consider as acceptable sound vs unacceptable sound. It's a fairly large range and experience coupled with how much importance we place on it influences what we consider as acceptable.

What's average?? The guy listening the the MP3's or the guy who won't even think about not using a lossless compression codec on his Ipod??

Me I compromise with my Ipod. I want as much music as I can on there so I use 256K VBR Best Quality encoding. At home I have all my music on CD or vinyl and don't use my Ipod as a source in either system.

Rob:)

JeffW

12-14-2011, 09:11 PM

"They don't move..." That's a good thing. When the meter does move it shows you that you are demanding so much power that the amp must go out of a Class A bias.

Widget

Yeah, I know that. I just put that in there for the fans of the gear with the big ol' W/VU meters that jump up and down with the music. Just imagine their disappointment after spending all that money on a billet faceplate only to discover that their meters just kind of sit there.

I have moved my meters, just not much and not often.

And after Barry's post, I got to thinking. What I need is some blank sheetmetal plates that I can fit on there instead of the aluminum stuff. That way I can get rid of the LEDs, meters, billet, and be able to show my face in public again. There's only about 6 screw holes to drill.

richluvsound

12-15-2011, 10:01 AM

Even my toaster has a blue LED .... I love anodised ally on all things especially HUGE FECKEN CLASS A power amps ... If this DS - 21 tried a Pass amp on his Tannoy's he'd shut up ! Besides , thats an export Tannoy not made here in the factory .... not like these :

These came out of Rattlesnake Studios in Battersea. UK studio of Ike and Tina . Photo by the Aussy shit stirrer!

Lee in Montreal

12-15-2011, 11:44 AM

Titanium Dome

12-15-2011, 11:59 AM

I've had a few amps where I was pretty glad there were handles on them. I've got a couple where a pallet jack would have been preferable.

:hmm: So maybe weight is the true measure of quality?

I could have a 30 lb. transformer with a gorgeous 15 lb. faceplate with a blue LED or two 20 lb. transformers with a plain 5 lb. faceplate with three LEDs: red, yellow, green. That doesn't even include the case, heat sinks, wiring, and other innards, which would weigh a lot, too.

richluvsound

12-15-2011, 12:56 PM

You guys are totally in the wrong. It's not the blue LED nor the thick billet faceplate that makes the amp and defines the upper most level of hifi equipment quality. Nop. It's the HANDLES. You need big fat handles. Bunch of proletarian amateurs ;)

You may be right ..... can you set up clio and measure . probably best to grind the corners of the handles too so they don't cause diffraction .

I still think big , heavy and hot is sexy !

Mr. Widget

12-15-2011, 02:06 PM

I still think big , heavy and hot is sexy !
Oh dear... do you have any idea what TiDome will do with a statement like that?
:blink:

Widget

richluvsound

12-15-2011, 02:59 PM

Something witty perhaps ... ? I don't want to upset him ... I'm after his guest room next summer :D

Rolf

12-15-2011, 04:01 PM

I have followed this thread with great interest. Am I out of line, or has this thread bacame about how thick the front panel is? Blue or green lights? The weight of the amp? Maybe I am not getting it because I don't understand all the english word here.

If I am right, I can tell you that that the front of my amps is 10mm thick, they don't have much weight, and they still weight about 35 kg each. If right, the front panel has only one light, showing if they are on or off. And they sound beautiful on my 4343B's.

Have I lost something? If so, please tell me. I am confused.

hjames

12-15-2011, 04:07 PM

richluvsound

12-15-2011, 04:27 PM

Sorry Rolf ,

I don't think this thread could ever be taken seriously ..... it was sired by a person with a slim grasp of reality .... Someone that really didn't know what he was talking about . He declared that one thing was better than another . Members with far more experience were trying to help him see that his opinions were ill informed and it became a personal attack . Another argument built on the premise of quicksand !

Many of the issues raised have been done to death . Besides , what is a world without humour ?

Rich

Lee in Montreal

12-15-2011, 04:55 PM

Yeah. Definition of quality is a moving target as everyone wll have a different perspective on the subject. There's no unique answer.

Personally I like when it is big, flashy and sports tons of knobs. Oh. And the chrome. Lots of it...

54077

richluvsound

12-15-2011, 05:04 PM

Maybe you should chrome the 2395's

Titanium Dome

12-15-2011, 06:58 PM

Oh dear... do you have any idea what TiDome will do with a statement like that?
:blink:

Widget

Where's that picture Bo used to post of the big, naked guy sitting at his computer?

Mr. Widget

12-15-2011, 09:11 PM

Sorry Rolf ,

I don't think this thread could ever be taken seriously ..... it was sired by a person...Personally, I'd prefer to keep it more on topic and serious.

And as a moderator I feel compelled to say there is no need to disrespect another forum member... and you can bet there are many who feel as he does. Just as you feel strongly one way, he feels strongly another. We should try to discuss our positions without assuming members of the other camp are somehow lacking in mental acuity or that they must be deaf.

Widget

Titanium Dome

12-15-2011, 09:33 PM

What?

Titanium Dome

12-15-2011, 09:45 PM

Okay, I promise, that's it for this thread. No. More. Sarcasm. :yes:

I'll agree with Jeff that the amplifier class can make a difference. However, the two amps I used in my example met my criteria of "similarly competent specs" which would include same class of amp, same rated power output, same (or very similar) figures for distortion, etc. And then there's "the kicker." :p

Mr. Widget

12-15-2011, 10:09 PM

I'll agree with Jeff that the amplifier class can make a difference. However, the two amps I used in my example met my criteria of "similarly competent specs" which would include same class of amp, same rated power output, same (or very similar) figures for distortion, etc.I think you are saying that sometimes amps from different manufacturers that are of similar architecture and both of the same class sound similar or perhaps even virtually identically. If that is what you are saying I agree. There are lots of good designs out there that don't sound particularly different from one another however there are some amps that really do stand out... both good and bad.

Widget

Allanvh5150

12-16-2011, 01:09 AM

Oddly enough, quality is always quality. For some people though, if they do not like the product they will go on to say that it is not quality purely for the fact that they do not like the product. Sometimes, many times, people confuse quality with like or dislike.

Allan.

cooky1257

12-16-2011, 02:18 AM

The closer we get to the 'straight wire with gain' neutrality the less there will be to choose between top class amplification.
Different routes are taken to achieve the same and so audio compromises will differ hence even top class amps will/can sound different.
Occasionally a 'budget' amp(read affordable to Joe Bloggs) will get most of things 'right' and can give the big boys a run for their money-that last few nths of excellence can cost a hell of a lot of extra cash.

The biggest effect on a system is the room and I think this is what some were getting at when they said average+ room correction can exceed top end without it.
If you want to hear how crap high-end can sound go to a hifi show.
I think we all at some point reach a stage where we can say "that'll do me"-it has everything I can expect without selling the kids.
DIY and 2nd hand is an affordable route to nirvana-the important thing to remember is its only your nirvana-dif'rnt strokes apply.

JeffW

12-16-2011, 07:53 AM

So maybe weight is the true measure of quality?I could have a 30 lb. transformer with a gorgeous 15 lb. faceplate with a blue LED or two 20 lb. transformers with a plain 5 lb. faceplate with three LEDs: red, yellow, green. That doesn't even include the case, heat sinks, wiring, and other innards, which would weigh a lot, too.Indeed you could, but then I'd point out that the amp I pictured is a mono. So there's another transformer and all important faceplate (and innards, not that they evidently matter) for the other channel. So for you weight watchers out there, it's 75#/side.

Ian Mackenzie

12-19-2011, 02:57 AM

Ducatista47

12-19-2011, 02:07 PM

Internally less is often more in terms of audio re production.
I would personally replace "often" with "usually to almost always." One might look at the inside of a FirstWatt amp or an Alan Kimmel design. They are astonishingly simple.

Then look inside any typical Japanese receiver.

Robh3606

12-19-2011, 03:20 PM

I would personally replace "often" with "usually to almost always." One might look at the inside of a FirstWatt amp or an Alan Kimmel design. They are astonishingly simple.

Then look inside any typical Japanese receiver.

If you were talking about a vintage 70's reciever it would be a much fairer comparison. The amount of technology in a rudimentary AVR reciever is mind bogling compared to a simple analog amplifier.

Ever compare a Charge Coupled Schematic vs a generic?? More parts or more complexity in no way definately assures poorer performance.

Rob

duaneage

12-19-2011, 03:25 PM

Might be easier to just play the instruments yourself. Eliminate all electronics that way.

Mr. Widget

12-19-2011, 03:51 PM

Rolf

12-19-2011, 04:23 PM

Once again you are right Widget. I have no skill to comment your first paragraph. Regarding the CC network, I have had several people, (friends and others) that after listening to the network that Guido made for me, and mostly they think that "it is not the same drivers you have now". But it is. So the CC networks does "wonders" with our "old" speakers. Of coerce I respect those who want to keep the original, but they miss what the speakers can do. OK:)

Two very good points... to add to that, a typical '70s era Marantz, Pioneer, Sansui, etc. receiver sounds far better than any of the modern AVRs I have heard... obviously comparing two channel playback only. Making the comparison you suggest though, any of those vintage receivers are significantly more complex than the purists would like. I certainly feel that my vintage GAS amps sound far cleaner than my vintage Marantz receivers or McIntosh SS gear of the same era.

As for the CC network, they "look" more complicated, but typically are the same basic circuit. Now if one wants to compare a modern JBL network with zobels, notch filters, and other tweaks to the typical textbook butterworth filter of JBL's past, you bet they are more complex! ...and a hell of a lot better sounding! Of course this is due to the designers' knowing far more about the performance of their speakers than they did in 1960, 1970, or even the '90s.

Widget

cooky1257

12-19-2011, 04:31 PM

Yeah, doesn't do to replace one set of sweeping statements with another.
Some of those old classic 70's japanese amps sound fantastic.
I've heard and in fact own/use/enjoy some what appear to be quite complex MC2 power amps that sound fantastic,
I've also heard some great sounds from some very simple designs too.
There's always been junk and class-use your ears before you take the lid off:)

4313B

12-19-2011, 05:47 PM

Two very good points... to add to that, a typical '70s era Marantz, Pioneer, Sansui, etc. receiver sounds far better than any of the modern AVRs I have heard... obviously comparing two channel playback only.H/K AVR 7000 or 7200.

Of course either of those AVR's are now considered vintage as well.

As Greg mentioned recently, "It's too bad you can't rip the amp sections out of those things when they blow up (their processors). They're top shelf."

Robh3606

12-19-2011, 07:28 PM

As Greg mentioned recently, "It's too bad you can't rip the amp sections out of those things when they blow up (their processors). They're top shelf."

Yes generalizations simply don't work. There are way to many variables to just blindly draw a line.

Rob:)

Ian Mackenzie

12-19-2011, 07:54 PM

If you were talking about a vintage 70's reciever it would be a much fairer comparison. The amount of technology in a rudimentary AVR reciever is mind bogling compared to a simple analog amplifier.

Ever compare a Charge Coupled Schematic vs a generic?? More parts or more complexity in no way definately assures poorer performance.

Rob

Hi Rob,

My point about less is more was about comparing the audio quality of a complex conventional amplifier schematic where additional circuitry is used to provide error correction to the underlying design that is non linear with higher distortion by design compared to a simple one that has been designed to be linear and have low distortion without additional ciruitry.

In the 70s when amps where sold on the distorition figures in terms of the number of decimal points the amplifier was designed with very high open loop gain an massive feedback to attain low distortion.

In order to achieve this in practise meant the amplifier had several or more stages because one stage could not provide the high open loop gain required. Each stage had its own feedback to impove linearity anf overall feedback was used to impove linearity and reduce distortion.

The problem with this approch is that the audio signal must pass through several or more stages of amplification with lots of error correction which leads to an overall degradation of the purity of the original audio signal.

Some of these designs including a large Marantz power amp were prone to wild oscilation under certain conditions.

The large amounts of feedback also leads to high order distortion products that feedback cannot remove and T.I.D.

It is more expensive to design and manufacture a simple amplifier that is linear with low distortion .

While I have no doubt the 70s amplifiers sound better sound better than many current crop AVRs you then have to ask then how bad must these modern AVRs sound compared to a simple high end power amp?

As to the notion of room correction making an AVR sound better than the simple high end amplifier I guess its then a case of how much vanilla and ice cream do you like in your milk shake...;)

Allanvh5150

12-20-2011, 12:52 AM

It is more expensive to design and manufacture a simple amplifier that is linear with low distortion .

I know of quite a few Mosfet output stage amplifiers that were build using the generic amplifier circuit taken from the Hitachi data book. The basic circuit had no protection whatsoever appart from a zener diode to stop the Fets from being overdriven. The schematic had 5 transistors in the driver stage and that was it. A small assortment of resistors and capacitors were also present. These amplifiers sounded fantastic and the circuit is still being used today. All of the Perreaux amplifiers in the '80's used this circuit and it was no secret that they had used the circuit from the data book. Little to no design work from Perreaux yielded a great amplifier that is still very highly regarded today.

Allan.

Mr. Widget

12-20-2011, 02:01 AM

While I have no doubt the 70s amplifiers sound better sound better than many current crop AVRs you then have to ask then how bad must these modern AVRs sound compared to a simple high end power amp?I hear it everyday... let's just say, "It ain't subtle!"

As to the notion of room correction making an AVR sound better than the simple high end amplifier I guess its then a case of how much vanilla and ice cream do you like in your milk shake...;)I have absolutely no idea what you are saying. :)

Widget

Mr. Widget

12-20-2011, 02:04 AM

Little to no design work from Perreaux yielded a great amplifier that is still very highly regarded today.
Perhaps, but the quality of the parts used, the care in device matching, the layout of the boards, etc... these all affect the final sound of a piece of gear. Perreaux, didn't simply wire up a pile of Mosfets and ship a successful product.

Widget

cooky1257

12-20-2011, 02:28 AM

Are there any really good AV amps?

Allanvh5150

12-20-2011, 02:51 AM

Perhaps, but the quality of the parts used, the care in device matching, the layout of the boards, etc... these all affect the final sound of a piece of gear. Perreaux, didn't simply wire up a pile of Mosfets and ship a successful product.

Widget

Pretty much, it was all marketing. There were 5 other manufacturers here in the '80's. There marketing was not at all good and they went by the by many years ago. They all used the same circuit and all of their specs were remarkably similar. These amps still come up second hand and they all perform great. The quality of parts in the Perreaux's were not at all brilliant and indeed, most of the resistors used were 5% carbon comp. However, the product was and still is, hugely successful.

Allan.

Allanvh5150

12-20-2011, 02:55 AM

Are there any really good AV amps?

Yup, Lots of em. But it depends on what level of "really good" you are talking of.

Allan.

cooky1257

12-20-2011, 03:36 AM

Yup, Lots of em. But it depends on what level of "really good" you are talking of.

Allan.

:):):)

Fort Knox

12-20-2011, 05:03 AM

I was expecting more thoughts or debate on this. Not quite as many as in the "high cost wire and cord" thread, but at least a couple more:).

Is technology just not this far along yet?

Brett

I don't watch movies but ...Concert music ..off "You tube.. for that I use a Gemini Circle Surround 5 ch preamp w/Titanium Sound Blaster card
and rack mt Peavey tube amps w/PM700 Carver Pro sub amp:)

Rolf

12-20-2011, 06:16 AM

Perhaps, but the quality of the parts used, the care in device matching, the layout of the boards, etc... these all affect the final sound of a piece of gear. Perreaux, didn't simply wire up a pile of Mosfets and ship a successful product.

Widget

Hi Widget . I own 3 Perreaux products. Pre Amp - SM6MK2 and 2 350's. All from the PRISMA series. Before that I had a SM2 Pre Amp and a 2150B. Excellent products all, but from the SM2 and 2150B up to what I now have, a great improvement. The 350's is connected so left channel is driving the woofer, right channel is driving the rest. (on the left speaker), and the other 350 is doing the same on the right channel. So I got 700W a channel, and the 4343B's is very comfortable with this. Of course you have to be careful regarding the volume, as that amount of power can kill.

They use MosFet's, and is the closest thing I have heard to the tube sound, but with a much better control of the woofer.

Just my opinion.

Ian Mackenzie

12-20-2011, 07:30 AM

I know of quite a few Mosfet output stage amplifiers that were build using the generic amplifier circuit taken from the Hitachi data book. The basic circuit had no protection whatsoever appart from a zener diode to stop the Fets from being overdriven. The schematic had 5 transistors in the driver stage and that was it. A small assortment of resistors and capacitors were also present. These amplifiers sounded fantastic and the circuit is still being used today. All of the Perreaux amplifiers in the '80's used this circuit and it was no secret that they had used the circuit from the data book. Little to no design work from Perreaux yielded a great amplifier that is still very highly regarded today.

Allan.

I guess it depend on what you mean by good and that is based on experiences.

My point is i used to think a Phase Linear 700B sounded good and a Phase Linear 400 was a bit better.

The Quad 405 was neither good nor bad. I recall David Grownow of Zepher Products in Melb showing me the 1st Perreaux power amplifier that he had imported in the early 80's.

I then experienced class A bi polar and class A mosfet amplifiers and I soon realised this type of amplifier is an order of magnitude better than other classes of audio amplifiers.

The draw back is cost, heat and size. The difference is not unlike comparing Solen Fast caps in a non charge coupled crossover to a charge coupled crossover.

Most conventional class A / B mosfet power amps have a characteristicl warmth and brilliance to the sound that is easy to live with but I would not go so far as to say they are entirely accurate.
.
Those that use J fet front ends are superior and those that have highly based output stages are excellent.

Ian Mackenzie

12-20-2011, 07:34 AM

Another quality question.

Given the apparent unquestionable superiority of the Speakon connector why is it not used in the current Crop of AV amplifiers?

Robh3606

12-20-2011, 08:18 AM

A stereo integrated amp with room equalization

http://www.stereophile.com/content/harman-kardon-hk-990-integrated-amplifier-specifications

Rob:)

Rolf

12-20-2011, 09:44 AM

I guess it depend on what you mean by good and that is based on experiences.

My point is i used to think a Phase Linear 700B sounded good and a Phase Linear 400 was a bit better.

The Quad 405 was neither good nor bad. I recall David Grownow of Zepher Products in Melb showing me the 1st Perreaux power amplifier that he had imported in the early 80's.

I then experienced class A bi polar and class A mosfet amplifiers and I soon realised this type of amplifier is an order of magnitude better than other classes of audio amplifiers.

The draw back is cost, heat and size. The difference is not unlike comparing Solen Fast caps in a non charge coupled crossover to a charge coupled crossover.

Most conventional class A / B mosfet power amps have a characteristicl warmth and brilliance to the sound that is easy to live with but I would not go so far as to say they are entirely accurate.
.
Those that use J fet front ends are superior and those that have highly based output stages are excellent.

You are not far from the truth my friend. My first Perreaux (SM2 + 2150B) was made in the early 80's. I think I got them via Denmark around 81 or 82.

brett_s

12-20-2011, 10:38 AM

That stereophile article is one of the things that got me thinking about this whole mess in the first place. Integrated amp with room correction. I'm not saying I believe the article, it just got me thinking about it. Again, on paper it looks like a good idea, but I have no clue about reality.

Brett

Mr. Widget

12-20-2011, 11:26 AM

Pretty much, it was all marketing.That's always a possibility... a buddy of mine and I were wondering how a big company like Harman could be so bad at it when there are so many average products that sell so well due at least in part to superior marketing. I have no personal experience with Perreaux gear and only know of it by reputation. I'll take your word for it that at least part of the explanation for their success is due to superior marketing.

Yup, Lots of em. But it depends on what level of "really good" you are talking of.Amps perhaps... ATI for example makes several very good AV oriented amps... the processors tend to be the problem. They are simply asked to do to much, it is very difficult to build them at anything approaching a reasonable price point... and then there is the fact they are meant to be used in conjunction with video. As soon as you have a video image flashing before your eyes, the brain is swamped with processing demands and can't really distinguish between good and great audio.

Those that use J fet front ends are superior and those that have highly based output stages are excellent.That would be a description of a Hafler 9505 and I would agree with you. A few years ago I tried one in a positively stupid application. I used one to power a TAD TD4003 in a bi-amped setup... I had a second one on the woofer, but on the HF requiring at most a few hundred milliwatts I was not at all impressed. The amp was grainy and hard sounding. I wrote it off as showing it's true colors under the harsh light of a beryllium microscope. I parked the amp in storage and happily went with a ~20 watt SET amp on the HF. Recently when a forum member offered to buy one of my Haflers (still in storage) I dragged one out and put it into service full frequency on my 1400 Arrays... in this far more appropriate application where the amp is asked to produce several watts into the dozens, the damned thing sounds really, really, good. Perhaps not as good as a Class A amp from Mr. Pass, but certainly very enjoyable.

Another quality question.

Given the apparent unquestionable superiority of the Speakon connector why is it not used in the current Crop of AV amplifiers?
Two simple reasons. First is real estate. Speakons are huge and on the back of a seven channel AVR they'd never fit and even on an amp with balanced and RCA inputs, selectors for configuring inputs and outputs, bridging etc... there often simply isn't the room. The other more important reason that they aren't offered is that they aren't an industry standard in the domestic side of the biz. If someone were to offer them the purchaser would have to terminate all of his own cables, and they are never on the speaker end anyway so what would the point be?

Widget

Mr. Widget

12-20-2011, 11:40 AM

I'm not saying I believe the article, it just got me thinking about it. Again, on paper it looks like a good idea, but I have no clue about reality.I don't remember the review... I guess I wasn't particularly interested, but I doubt they'd lie...the opinions may not agree with someone else's, but the basic statements are factual I'm sure.

Widget

Edit: I just clicked on Rob's link... "Oh that piece." I do remember seeing the review and being surprised that Harman would even attempt to enter such a narrow market space. It isn't a bad idea, and it might even be a good piece, but I'd be surprised if it was good enough to satisfy most two channel folks. I expect they'll be available at famous Harman blow out prices via their website in the next year or so... and when they do I'll bet a few of our members will pick them up. The feedback will be interesting.

4313B

12-20-2011, 12:47 PM

I don't remember the review... I guess I wasn't particularly interested, but I doubt they'd lie...the opinions may not agree with someone else's, but the basic statements are factual I'm sure.

Widget

Edit: I just clicked on Rob's link... "Oh that piece." I do remember seeing the review and being surprised that Harman would even attempt to enter such a narrow market space. It isn't a bad idea, and it might even be a good piece, but I'd be surprised if it was good enough to satisfy most two channel folks. I expect they'll be available at famous Harman blow out prices via their website in the next year or so... and when they do I'll bet a few of our members will pick them up. The feedback will be interesting.I'd be curious as to what went on during new product discussions to bring about such a unit.

As for it being good enough to satisfy most two channel folks... I don't think this beast is very portable and that is the overwhelmingly vast majority of two channel folks. :rotfl:

It looks like H/K has already reduced the price some $600 on these.

hjames

12-20-2011, 01:46 PM

Well, if its got the reliability factor of my TOTL HK AVR-7300 (that worthless POS),
discounting it from the $2599 MSRP by just $600 isn't anywhere NEAR cheap enough.
That puppy needs to be in the $1200 range if its only going to last 3 years ...

:rotfl:

I'd be curious as to what went on during new product discussions to bring about such a unit.

As for it being good enough to satisfy most two channel folks...
I don't think this beast is very portable and that is the overwhelmingly vast majority of two channel folks.

It looks like H/K has already reduced the price some $600 on these.

4313B

12-20-2011, 03:40 PM

Well, if its got the reliability factor of my TOTL HK AVR-7300 (that worthless POS), discounting it from the $2599 MSRP by just $600 isn't anywhere NEAR cheap enough.That puppy needs to be in the $1200 range if its only going to last 3 years ...:rotfl:Yep. H/K replaced my AVR 7000 TWICE. The second time I received an AVR 7200 instead. And that one I had to crack open immediately and remove a long piece of unused solder before I turned it on for the first time.

When mine blows up I'm going all separates again.

But this is nothing new. Back in the 70's and 80's H/K had some real PITA units and they had some real nice sounding units.

Look at the Citation 22. Plenty of people blew the hell out of theirs and yet mine are still going strong over twenty years later. All one has to do is refrain from licking the output jacks and trim the bias every so often. Oh, and not crack the main board when shipping them. H/K kind of forgot to put that little hard rubber spacer between the bottom of the board and the chassis on some of them. :rolleyes:

JeffW

12-22-2011, 07:11 PM

Well, they're out of here. Every single blue light, billet faceplate stinking piece of amp. All packed away in storage. I did keep the phono stage and preamp, they'll just have to do until I can find something else. Now running a dimunitive pair of Perreaux SX60M amps, but they just really ain't cutting it. And damn if they don't have some sort of aluminum faceplate and a friggen blue LED. I just can't win on this deal. I think I'll just toss the Perreaux stuff and run straight off the AVR amps and call it good.My rig took a way big back step in sound quality, but at least I don't have to apologize for it.Merry Christmas!

The new rig, subject to approval, of course.

1audiohack

12-22-2011, 10:04 PM

It's about freakin' time you come to your senses Jeff! Put all that stuff you took out to use as heaters for the shop while you build a fitting pedestal for a great big AVR.

No apologies needed, just don't do it again.

Titanium Dome

12-23-2011, 08:48 AM

Well since this whole thing is moving in the wrong direction, here's a project I just completed that should address everyone's favorite issues: non-silver, Al-billeted, blue-LED-packin' pre that cost $3500 a few years back with the optional "Let's Have Peace" operational display.

1audiohack

12-23-2011, 09:38 AM

Hey Ti I like that!

And, sorry, I'll straighten up and fly right, away,, but I would like to offer some help to a friend in crisis. Jeff, in the spirit of friendship and the holidays, I will trade you equal rack space of the much more socially acceptable soft black extruded aluminum, with red LED power on lights Adcom amps for all the Pass Labs gear you can't use. Glitz, bling and lights are the norm in Vegas, I'm sure I'll survive. :o::p

JeffW

02-08-2012, 09:18 PM

Last vestige of aluminum has been purged. Ditched the Perreauxs for an ancient but well restored pair of Dynaco MkIII monoblocks. Not a sliver of aluminum, no lights save the tubes. Stamped steel chassis, I think I'm good. Pending approval, of course.

So this is where I end up. Not really what I had envisioned, not really where I was previously happy.

I miss my dang near new turntable, cartridge, and phono stage more than anything else.

I'll carefully select new components to start the system rebuild. I've seen acrylic platters, wood cartidges, and surely there are suitable phono stages out there. The preamp is just going to have to stick around for now, I can't find anything that'll do it until I regroup a bit.

1audiohack

02-08-2012, 10:29 PM

OK, you're healed. Now get back to normal will ya!!!;)

4313B

02-09-2012, 06:38 AM

Last vestige of aluminum has been purged. Ditched the Perreauxs for an ancient but well restored pair of Dynaco MkIII monoblocks. Not a sliver of aluminum, no lights save the tubes.I once beadblasted a Citation 17, 18, 19 set for a guy that wanted a silver set instead of black after h/k stopped making the silver faces. The set came out really nice and the guy was happy as all hell. Back then there was champagne and black versions of various gear.
Pending approval, of course.I've never much cared for tubes. I would like to give them another go at some point in the future though.
So this is where I end up. Not really what I had envisioned, not really where I was previously happy.I guess I would have to read through the thread to try and understand what precipitated this.

JeffW

02-09-2012, 05:33 PM

I've never much cared for tubes. I would like to give them another go at some point in the future though.

This is my first tube gear, I really wanted to try to get away from vintage stuff that needed constant maintenence. Didn't really work out. I'd have to say these are pretty good little amps, but I've got ones that sound better.

I guess I would have to read through the thread to try and understand what precipitated this.

I just bought gear that drew the ire of a small but vocal :) contingent here, and got tired of being ridiculed about it. So I don't use it anymore, or anything that even resembles it.

Now they can delete this post, too.

louped garouv

02-09-2012, 09:58 PM

.

I just bought gear that drew the ire of a small but vocal :) contingent here, and got tired of being ridiculed about it. So I don't use it anymore, or anything that even resembles it.

Now they can delete this post, too.
Bah.... This stuff is all about the personal compromises we choose to accept....
IMHO.... :)

are there upgrade boards or circuits for this amp?
Like the Kimmel/wellBorne or others offered for the st70?

Titanium Dome

02-09-2012, 11:42 PM

Let's not degenerate this into faceplate rant. Widget was pretty clear with his comment that included "maybe" and "for some" in a limited context. My little comment with a wink ;) was a wink back at him. All my Synthesis® amps have nice, scrolled, billeted faceplates on them, and I display them with pride.

So please drop it, or get a sense of humor about it. No one is calling you or anyone else out.

I'm not sure if all this billet faceplate talk is because I brought it up at the end of my long post... but if so, I was using the term as shorthand for the possible effect on the "perception of quality". I do not damn or praise the use of billet aluminum whether it be in a Lexicon use trying to look the part, or Pass Labs doing it simply because the market paying for uber quality hand built products expects it.

FWIW: I'd covet the Pass Labs gear with or without the meters and massive faceplates.

Widget

So are we all agreeing to get along and let bygones be bygones? I can only add that my Al billeted Fosgate Audionics FAA 1000.5 amps have full billeted fronts, as do the FAP T1 and FAP T1+ AND blue LEDs, and I love the way they sound. :)

Absolutely... but I think this discussion is about whether or not someone with average hearing can hear a difference between properly working audio equipment whether it is a mid priced AVR or a high end piece.

It isn't about why someone should or should not like something.

Widget

I thought there were enough explanations, mea culpas, and please-let's-move-ons to put this to rest. Clearly I was wrong.

For inflicting an egregious wound the deep nature of which I was not aware, I apologize. There is no sarcasm in this remark.

Ducatista47

02-10-2012, 12:52 AM

I would personally replace "often" with "usually to almost always." One might look at the inside of a FirstWatt amp or an Alan Kimmel design. They are astonishingly simple.

Then look inside any typical Japanese receiver.

I will pile on...myself actually, and also make with an apology for both overstating and under-explaining my thought. Any friction generated by it generated no useful heat. Certainly not enough to cook a nice lunch. I will try to redeem myself in this thread by quoting men far wiser and more experienced than myself in these matters. While some might think my current choice of gear would put me on a fringe of the audio continuum, I have in fact become a moderate when it comes to these matters.

I will put forth this quote from Kevin Gillmore, who has designed most amps used to power TOTL Stax headphones. In a discussion about high voltage circuits, op amps, and so much more, he said this:

The biggest problem with opamps is the group delay associated with the feedback. You can

make the stuff test absolutely amazing and it will still sound like crap. And you can make

things like the Firstwatt that sound absolutely wonderful, but test awful.

I have been using FirstWatt gear lately, so I must be using listening over measurement these days. I don't know where that places me in this discussion, but I can report that the music sounds very convincing - to me. I am very happy with this new approach, at least until I hear something that makes me even happier.

I'll add this for good measure. It is RE: tube audio but most applies to audio amplification in general, and keeps me from becoming a "true believer" of the audio type. My own simpler is usually better statement was at odds with this, and it was wrong by being too general. Ian said it right the first time. This paper is sort of an audio beliefs bible for me. I had obviously not read it lately.

Alan KimmelFrom the orginal TubeLabs site Copyright © 2001 Alan Kimmel. All Rights Reserved
Myths That Plague Tube Audio
Tube Audio, more so than many other fields, is beset with myths, biases based on hearsay and "old husbands" tales, and unfounded criticisms of opposing viewpoints. The myths are fueled by bias and ignorance. Sometimes the believer of a certain myth has not thoroughly checked out the validity of his cherished belief. Or he made some little effort to do so but didn't do an adequate job. Either way, his cherished belief may be unfounded but he may think it is bullet-proof.

At the root of the myths you will find that the believer has chosen ONE belief, one paradigm, which he wants to believe is ALWAYS true. Some audiophiles, especially Tube audiophiles, desperately want some ONE THING to ALWAYS be true no matter what. There is no ONE magic thing which will always guarantee good sound. The sound of an amp is due to a combination of things.

The following are some of the myths that plague tube audio:

1. "The closer an amp is to Class A, the better it will sound.".
This myth says that Class B always sounds the worst, Class AB sounds better, and Class A always sounds best. I used to lean towards believing this one myself until my ears encountered a Class B amplifier (which uses transmitting tubes) that has more sonic purity than the majority of Class A and Class AB amps available. No, I'm not saying Class B is best. I'm saying the (operating) Class of a tube amp is not as important as how much "class" the amp has.

2. "Triodes always sound better than pentodes."
In some situations, even the opposite can be true. Triodes have the advantage that no matter how they are used they will usually sound good. Pentodes are more particular about how they are used. But if used properly pentodes can yield fabulous performance and superb sound.

3. "The simpler the better."
This myth says that the simpler an audio circuit is, the better it will sound. Einstein once said something very relevant to high end audio: "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Many feel that the Single Ended way is the best way to make an amplifier because SE is the simplest. But even the simplest SE amplifier is not as simple as it really could be. To be as simple as possible, there should be only ONE tube in the amp-- the output tube. Next, to be as simple as possible, your magnetic phono cartridge should be replaced with a crystal or ceramic type, because these put out a high enough signal level as to be comparable to Line level. This obviates the need for a phono preamp. If you want to be even simpler, obtain a speaker with an impedance of several thousand ohms so you can connect it directly to the tube, in place of the output xfmr primary, eliminating your output xfmr.

You now have a sound system that is truly the world's simplest, but how would it sound (even if it had enough gain) ?

Obviously it will not sound as good as a sound system containing one of the better magnetic phono cartridges. Also it may or may not have enough gain since the power amp has only one tube-- the output tube. Besides the fact that the better speakers are not available in the several thousand ohm category, the continuous DC current through the voice coil would probably push the voice coil out of its gap.

The point is, the simplest way is not always the best way. Instead of striving for things to be as simple as possible, the best thing to strive for is THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE TO THE MUSIC. As shown above, the simplest path is not necessarily the best path. The simplest path is not always the path of least resistance to the music.

Now consider the human hearing system-- the ear, the eardrum, the middle ear, and the inner ear, etc. It's complex! But it was made just right. The Master Designer knew exactly what He was doing. Would you go to an ear surgeon and say, "Doctor, I think my hearing system is too complex. I want you to remove some of it so it will be as simple as possible." Even if the Dr. could do this without harming your hearing, who would actually go through with it? Obviously there is AN IDEAL LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY designed into your ear. If you get simpler than the ideal level of complexity you fall short. Or if you EXCEED the ideal level of complexity, again you fall short sonically.

To sum up my comments on this myth: Just as circuitry that's too simple can be a disadvantage, likewise circuitry that's too complex is also a disadvantage. There is, in any given situation, a happy medium-- an ideal level of complexity, which is dependent upon the topology and techniques used.

So I believe what Einstein said. I believe amplifiers should be as simple as possible, but not simpler, for the very best sound reproduction.

4. Regarding Single Ended (SE) versus Push-Pull (PP) topologies, there are two myths:
One says SE sounds best, while the other myth says PP sounds best. The truth: The sole fact that it is either SE or PP will not guarantee one topology to have superior sound over the other. Some SE amps sound better than some PP amps, while some PP amps sound better than some SE amps. Again, the final sound is dependent on a combination of many things.

5. Another myth: Tube amps always sound better than solid-state amps.
Actually, this myth is often true. But everyone knows that the best sounding solid-state amp sounds better than the worst-sounding tube amp. What the solid-state-only crowd won't entertain is that the best sounding tube amp may well sound better than the best sounding solid-state amp.

6. Many believe negative feedback (NFB) always sounds bad.
The truth is, it depends on a combination of things, namely, how it is used. Are you aware that every triode tube has (local) NFB built into it? The plate, with nothing to shield it from the grid, injects some NFB into the grid. This fact led to the development of tetrodes and pentodes because engineers were seeking a tube whose plate had no influence on the grid (i.e., no NFB). Hey all you Zero NFB fanatics, if you really want to be 100% true to your Zero-NFB fixation you must throw away your triodes and use only pentodes. But I don't recommend you do that because triodes are usually the best voltage amplifiers. Pentodes can excel at current amplification. So let's use triodes for voltage amplification and pentodes for current amplification. This fact about triodes shows us that the human ear LOVES local feedback.
AND there are other examples that show that local feedback is pleasing to the human ear. When you don't bypass the cathode resistor of a gain stage, you are using local feedback. When properly done, local feedback is definite plus.
What about "global" NFB? Anti-NFB audiophiles oppose global NFB most of all. But chances are they haven't heard a Futterman OTL, which relies on global NFB. If they do get to hear such an OTL they may well change their tune. All I'm saying here is that in some situations global NFB can be a plus.

There are other myths in tube audio but these are probably the main ones. These myths hurt the cause of tube audio because some of their proponents criticize other technologies within the tube audio field. One of the richest strengths of tube audio is the great diversity of technologies that are possible. Each technology has a certain advantage or set of advantages which may best meet the needs of the individual for his/her situation. Many times the best solution is to combine many of these technologies. The Key: HOW each of these things are used determines the sonic excellence (or lack thereof) of a design.

No one thing will always guarantee good sound. Let's stop looking for one magic truth to always be so. Clinging dogmatically to only one cherished paradigm cuts you off from the vast realm of possibilities that exist. Just because a device or an idea sounds bad when used one way doesn't mean it can't sound good used another way. The key to great sound is a winning combination of things. Let your ears be your guide and keep an open mind.

BTW, Alan is a friend of mine and I think he would not mind me posting this here.

As a current example of both measure poorly and sound wonderful, the latest FirstWatt amp is by all reports another step. It has a single active device in the signal path. http://www.firstwatt.com/sit1.html

JeffW

02-10-2012, 09:36 AM

are there upgrade boards or circuits for this amp?
Like the Kimmel/wellBorne or others offered for the st70?

These have already been upgraded.

The driver boards are DIYTube Poseidon (http://store.triodestore.com/diytubemk3.html) units.

The power supplies have been upgraded with the SDS Cap Board (http://store.triodestore.com/sdslabmk3cap1.html). No more multicap.

And there is a dual bias adjustment (http://store.triodestore.com/dualbias.html) upgrade that allows individual bias adjustment of the output tubes.

Plus he added speaker binding posts instead of the screw terminals and new RCA input jacks and switch.

So about as fresh as a pair of 40 year old amps can be.

JeffW

02-10-2012, 09:43 AM

just reviewed back to #61 and did not read them same way you did.

It's not this thread, it's an ongoing situation for some time. But I'm done with it and will regroup with stuff that hopefully fits in.

JeffW

02-10-2012, 09:46 AM

I have been using FirstWatt gear lately, so I must be using listening over measurement these days. I don't know where that places me in this discussion, but I can report that the music sounds very convincing - to me. I am very happy with this new approach, at least until I hear something that makes me even happier.

You can bet your bottom goddamned dollar that whatever I buy in the future won't be from that company.

4313B

02-10-2012, 10:17 AM

You can bet your bottom goddamned dollar that whatever I buy in the future won't be from that company.Even if they add in all the other watts to sweeten the deal? :blink:

louped garouv

02-10-2012, 10:43 AM

These have already been upgraded.

The driver boards are DIYTube Poseidon (http://store.triodestore.com/diytubemk3.html) units.

The power supplies have been upgraded with the SDS Cap Board (http://store.triodestore.com/sdslabmk3cap1.html). No more multicap.

And there is a dual bias adjustment (http://store.triodestore.com/dualbias.html) upgrade that allows individual bias adjustment of the output tubes.

Plus he added speaker binding posts instead of the screw terminals and new RCA input jacks and switch.

So about as fresh as a pair of 40 year old amps can be.

cool! saves some time/trouble -- that's for sure. :)

herki the cat

02-10-2012, 01:18 PM

[QUOTE=Ducatista47;328516]I will pile on.... Class B always sounds the worst, Class AB sounds better, and Class A always sounds best. I used to lean towards believing thisuntil myears encountered aClass B amplifier (which uses transmitting tubes) that has more sonic purity than the majority of Class A ....[quote/]

Many Superb sounding 100 Watt to 50,000 Watt AM Transmiters have used Class B modulator Audio Power Amplifiers since day one.

Do You know why transmitting tubes sound so right in Audio Amplifiers? For example, the RCA 845 & 211's , & the old RCA 50, the 26 Radiotrons & others with 2.5 volt heaters, & all the WECO Tubes like the 262-C, 205-D, 300 A & B etc __ It is very simple, all of these tubes have massive heaters with virtually Unlimited Emission.

Keven Brooks has designed superb sounding amplifiers with transmitting tubes with horrible nonlinear I/E curves.

BTW, Does anyone have experience with the superb Nelson Pass Classic, Solid-State, model 400-A amplifier__ sliding from class A mode up to Class AB mode at increasing power drive? herki[Quote]

JeffW

02-10-2012, 06:11 PM

Even if they add in all the other watts to sweeten the deal? :blink:

Wouldn't matter, you'd still be called an idiot for buying it. I've got a kilowatt a side of the crap, damn near broke my back carting it out of here.

Ducatista47

02-10-2012, 09:00 PM

Wouldn't matter, you'd still be called an idiot for buying it. I've got a kilowatt a side of the crap, damn near broke my back carting it out of here.

I'm confused. FirstWatt amps so far top out at 25 watts, 40 watts into 4 ohms. Mine weighs between twenty and twenty-five pounds, I would guess.

Clark

JeffW

02-10-2012, 09:13 PM

I'm confused. FirstWatt amps so far top out at 25 watts, 40 watts into 4 ohms. Mine weighs between twenty and twenty-five pounds, I would guess.

Clark

First Watt is a side venture of Pass Labs. Pass Labs amps currently top out at 600 wpc and weigh 150lbs/channel. My Pass Labs jetsam is around 600lbs/channel.

Ducatista47

02-10-2012, 09:55 PM

First Watt is a side venture of Pass Labs. Pass Labs amps currently top out at 600 wpc and weigh 150lbs/channel. My Pass Labs jetsam is around 600lbs/channel.
Nelson has stated that the only thing FirstWatt and PassLabs have in common is Nelson Pass. Different design philosophies, different business models, no facilities shared. Until recently, when two young relatives joined him, all FirstWatt amps were built personally by Nelson in his workshop. Both of mine were soldered up and assembled by Nelson himself. The only thing the products have in common is that they hardly ever break. In fact, in twelve years all the Firstwatt amps are still running.

JeffW

02-10-2012, 10:05 PM

Nelson has stated that the only thing FirstWatt and PassLabs have in common is Nelson Pass.

That, and the faceplate.

Point is the same guy is responsible. You can query him vis-a-vis First Watt and Pass Labs and he'll compare.

Either way, they're laughing at you.

ETA: I get it now, I'm also an idiot for running Pass Labs instead of First Watt. Doesn't change a thing. I'd rather have my balls ripped off by a bulldozer than buy a goddamned piece of First Watt gear.

Happy?

1audiohack

02-10-2012, 10:08 PM

Hi Jeff;

I'm pretty sure I read most of what put a burr under your saddle. I don't remember all of it and none of it specifically but sometimes it was hard for me to tell what was arcane and what was snide humor. Furthermore at first I had a hard time knowing if you were playing, playing along or getting mad about it, until later when it became obvious.

I will say that if I had the impeccably good taste and the means to aquire the stack of Pass that you have, I wouldn't give a moments consideration to anyones opinion as to their value or appearance since without apology I value my own opinion above anyone elses.

One things for sure my friend, the next time I come your way, be prepared to get them out again, I want to hear them and see them! :bouncy:

All the best,
Barry.

JeffW

02-10-2012, 10:16 PM

1audiohack

02-10-2012, 10:24 PM

Don't forget I know where that shed is. :p

gferrell

02-11-2012, 04:27 PM

Titanium Dome

02-11-2012, 11:05 PM

Talk about a pretty faceplate, I just bought 2 of these and for my money they sound really nice. As you can tell cosmetics are very important to me.
54740

I have a lot of old junk but I think my junk sounds pretty darn good.

I've got at least a half dozen of those Soundcraftsmen shoeboxes, and they are amazing! Congratulations! They were some of the original SS MOSFET Class H amps, and they are little dynamos. I also have at at least eight and maybe nine of the full size units, and I've got A100, A200, and A400 pairs in operation right now, along with a Pro-Power unit or two. The A Series mimicked the Al billeted front with a stamped steel design that still looks pretty good today, though close inspection reveals it for what it is.

Titanium Dome

02-11-2012, 11:09 PM

Here ya go.

Mr. Widget

02-11-2012, 11:17 PM

Titanium Dome

02-11-2012, 11:27 PM

What a weird and twisted thread... not sure what all the talk of billet aluminum is about, but as for a definition of quality as it relates to "sound quality"... I used to have three of the Soundcraftsmen 800 series amps... a lot of amp for $100 or so. Sound quality? I think they sound better than your typical stereo receiver and a hell of a lot better than your typical AVR surround receiver, but not as good as any of the amps I have kept. I enjoyed them in my HT for years though the fan noise could be distracting during quiet passages.

Widget

Yeah, the PC800s could sound like a little Evinrude two-stroke motorboat that you'd hear from a great distance on a humid, foggy fall day while wearing a knit cap over your ears. I kept them in another room for that reason. The A Series stuff is a lot quieter, inasmuch as there are extensive heat sinks and (of course) no fans at all on the A100 and A200.

herki the cat

02-12-2012, 06:04 AM

Crosely Radio inc's 1,000,000 Watt AM Station, in Cincinnati, Ohio,was inspired in the 1930's Dr. Brinkley's, 100,000 Watt, speech quality only, Off Shore illegal AM Station (on which, Dr. Brinkley offered "goat gonads, trans-plants") __ Gad this really happened!__ now! back to the topic of Class B amplifiers at home.

Sunday Noon, sitting around crunching Pistachio Nuts, watching TV__ Some After Thoughts occurred to me regarding 50,000 Watt AM Transmitters with 12,500 watt, Class B Audio Modulator Power Amplifiers & transmitting tube High-Quality Sound during the entire 1930's, up to the 1950's demise of AM broadcasting and movie theaters, forced by burgeoning Television.

I worked in Crosely Radio's burgeoning Military Communication Devision in Cincinnati, Ohio, briefly in 1950, just as Crosely was shutting down the 1,000,000 Watt AM Radio Station which Crosely had built to expand the market for Crosely small kitchen radio receivers, backed up by expanding AM Radio advertising markets.

I did visit this Huge Radio Station, And my point here is to mention the Huge 250,000 Watt Modulation Transformer spec'd at 30 Hz to 10,000 Hz. This transformer stood like a huge refrigerator, 7 ft high, 4 ft wide by 5 ft front to back, oil cooled. I know that Bell Labs & WECO didn't know where to stop, but this AM, station was unique. herki[quote/]

gferrell

02-12-2012, 07:24 AM

What a weird and twisted thread... not sure what all the talk of billet aluminum is about, but as for a definition of quality as it relates to "sound quality"... I used to have three of the Soundcraftsmen 800 series amps... a lot of amp for $100 or so. Sound quality? I think they sound better than your typical stereo receiver and a hell of a lot better than your typical AVR surround receiver, but not as good as any of the amps I have kept. I enjoyed them in my HT for years though the fan noise could be distracting during quiet passages.

Widget

These amps are essentially new old stock and the fans are virtually slient (you have to put your ear up to them to hear) so I will enjoy because I know some day, as with all fans they will get louder. My next plan is to make some face plates for the 2 that are without. I have never experienced the sound of a high end, tube amp or class A so I don't know what I am missing. I have considered building one though as that would be the only way I could afford one.

rusty jefferson

02-12-2012, 05:32 PM

What a weird and twisted thread... not sure what all the talk of billet aluminum is about, but as for a definition of quality as it relates to "sound quality"...

Widget

Speaking of which, does anybody think one of those $900 power cords will improve.........okay only kidding.;)

herki the cat

02-12-2012, 08:47 PM

Speaking of which, does anybody thing one of those $900 power cords will improve.........okay only kidding.;)

Only kidding? Not necessarily, rusty! Off Topic or On Topic, Here are the considerations:

[text improved,2/13/12]

1.0 __ USE CAUTION!! you cannot examine candidate power cords by simply substituting a candidate power cord. Your system may already be clean of interference in which case you do not need these special cords.

Other wise, you may be concluding "that candidate power cord is a fake;" So what? you may already not need any fancy power cords.

Most power cords are fake fancy configurations of many types of simple wire mechanically beefed up, impressive looking, but do nothing useful. You need to first examine your AC power source net works with a 40 MHz oscilloscope to see if there is interference or noise on your power lines , either from some system component black box, or from the house AC power line.

There are two kinds of useful power cords with built-in Filter Components featuring serious measurable attenuation of interference; one of which incorporates a "hand-size module" designed by Richard Marsh which is a complete passive power conditioner.

1.1__Some cords use ferrite cores around the cord bundle. These will filter only common mode interference. You can hear a substantial improvement by cleaning up common mode inerferance.

1.2__The Richard Marsh Device addresses both common mode and differential mode interference. This gem features a passive wide-
band, five ohms shunt across the power line providing load attenuation of some 40 dB from slightly above 120 Hz up past 20,000 Hz which is very effective for both differential and common mode interferenc; especially cleaning up also the 60 Hz power line distortion to less than 0.25 percent total.

These are not cheap, costing typically around $700 MSRP. But, they are very competitive with the typical active power conditioners that regenerate a clean 60Hz signal amplified by substantial solid state hardware dissipating considerable waste heat, costing 3 or 4 times
the price of the Richard Marsh system.

BTW, Inserting a seres 10mH coil ahead of this shunt, five ohm, device further cleans up power line niose & distortion. You must use an
RC snubber ahead of this 10mH coil to remove the "L times DI/DT" surge generated locally by the "turn-on & off" power surge from this coil.

Before you buy any of these power cords, please examine your AC power with a 40 MHz oscilloscope. MIT Inc., has a lending library you can safely explore.
.

Mr. Widget

02-12-2012, 09:33 PM

Speaking of which, does anybody think one of those $900 power cords will improve.........okay only kidding.;)Obviously some people do.

Widget

herki the cat

02-15-2012, 03:45 AM

....Only kidding? Not necessarily, rusty! Off Topic or On Topic....Before you buy any of these power cords, please examine your AC power with a 40 MHz oscilloscope. MIT Inc., has a lending library ....

To request an in-home trial of a set of MIT Power cords or Cables, first, go to link: http://www.mitcables.com/highresolutiontechnology.html (http://www.mitcables.com/highresolutiontechnology.html).

There you will please skip this text= "Oracle V1.3 and V2.3, Now with High Resolution Technology"

Next,proceed to the search Box on the left, & click: "Gen 3 Lending Library"

Now, work your way down to [Quote....Bruce Brisson, MIT Cables' President and CEO]="I have created a Lending Library so you can borrow from MIT and audition MIT cables in your personal system…on me. I promise that you will not be disappointed!"

If you followed the above procedure, you can request an in-home trial of a set of MIT Power Cables__via an active "click here" button following Brissen's offer"To request an in-home trial of a set of MIT Power Cables' or other cables."

BTW, it took a great deal of time & effort to set up this post.herki[quote/]

Lee in Montreal

02-15-2012, 06:13 AM

$900 per power cable. My rack has 6 amps, 1 pre, 3 sources 1 DAC and 1 digital crossover. Does it mean I have to buy 12 cables at $900 each to reach aural climax? :D

herki the cat

02-15-2012, 01:29 PM

$900 per power cable. My rack has 6 amps, 1 pre, 3 sources 1 DAC and 1 digital crossover. Does it mean I have to buy 12 cables at $900 each to reach aural climax? :D

Positively not! You need to measure the noise levels in your AC power networks first.

There are Many Professional used $40.00, MHz Oscilloscopes available. First turn off all your audio equipment, and measure the 120 volt AC line for noise with various house hold appliances, florescent lighting, refridgerators, etc activated one at a time__on and or off.

Then activate your audio components one at at time & measure the power interface on each one individually to see if each component is clean or has noise requiring power line isolation or some kind of upgrade, usually in power supply's equipped with conventional solid state rectifiers that are not "fast recovery types"

Conventional Solid State Diodes store the charge and dump it with a violent RINGING SURGE, 120 time per second, each time the charging voltage drops below the filter capacitor charged voltage level. It is virtually impossible to clean up or filter power supply circuitry with poly propylene capacitors or any technology known to man. I have been there. You need to Change these nasty rectifiers to incorporate "Fast Recovery Diodes" or vacuum tube rectifiers, that do not retain & dump the charge.

As for the house wiring, it may be necessary to install dedicated private, isolated AC power feed lines __including isolated dedicated star grounding to each audio power feed duplex outlet all the way from your house 120 volt entrance panel, completely isolated from refrigerators etc.

If indeed you do need genuine power cables, consider the Excellent Ferrite encased common mode type costing $175 .00, the original Z series cord from MIT Inc.,I am not pushing MIT Inc., They just simply do lead the pack.

MIT's new "Z" 20 ampere Duplex @ $199.00—_is Designed to be easily installed in new or existing wall outlet receptacles, "MIT's "Six patented, parallel tuned filters operating over the widest frequency range, remove noise from any 50-60 Hz AC power line. Unlike the common series filter, the Z Duplex 20 Super will not limit dynamics, or reflect noise back at the source (amp, etc.) It also provies Elimination of common mode and differential mode noise.

I would not purchase from anyone else including Monster. I do not know of any decent power cord costing $900; there is just to much really fake junk boutique junk around. Also don't subscribe to gossip!

With Power Cords that MIT"s Bruce Brissen will loan you free of charge, you can investigate your probems with confidence. herki[quote/]

JeffW

02-15-2012, 08:36 PM

What a weird and twisted thread... not sure what all the talk of billet aluminum is about,

Oh give me a break. You were right there in the thick of it. From this very thread:

Let's start by giving everyone the benefit of the doubt and rule out unintentional unreasonableness as well as full blown dishonesty and bad faith dealing...

...Alternatively if our perception of audio plays a greater roll in our perceived sound quality, then maybe billet machined faceplates are indeed what is necessary for some, and a lot of features at a good price point for others to find audio nirvana.

Widget

Yep, we buy this shit because of the faceplates.

You've already confirmed that the sound quality is just a perception based on the friggen faceplate, then post this:

Recently when a forum member offered to buy one of my Haflers (still in storage) I dragged one out and put it into service full frequency on my 1400 Arrays... in this far more appropriate application where the amp is asked to produce several watts into the dozens, the damned thing sounds really, really, good. Perhaps not as good as a Class A amp from Mr. Pass, but certainly very enjoyable.

So why even go there with this post? You've already said it's just perception. Certainly flies in the face of the whole "the benefit of the doubt and rule out unintentional unreasonableness as well as full blown dishonesty". Why the condescending "perhaps not as good" little aside? You don't even need to answer, we know the condescending little aside is due to the construction of the damn faceplates. I just wonder why you'd try to deny all that now.

But you've pointed out in another thread (that I'm too weary to even find) that none of this crap is needed. I think you said was all you need is an iPod and some earbuds, right?

Don't fret, I'm doing what I can to rid myself of every component that costs more than a few dollars. I'm striving for the shittiest system possible. iPod and earbuds.

And I have you and TiDome to thank for setting me straight. Much appreciated.

ETA: I'm really not upset over this whole deal. I'm over the whole billet faceplate debacle, and realize I purchased shit. But I'm willing to own up to that, surely you can do the same re your posts on it.

Mr. Widget

02-16-2012, 12:38 AM

Jeff, it seems that you aren't joking. I'll proceed as though you are being quite serious.

As for being in the thick of it I must have missed something, because somewhere along the line what I thought was a light hearted rant about expensive housings (billet aluminum face plates) for expensive audio gear you started going on about how much you hated Pass Labs. I assumed you were joking... what's to hate? But never mind.

As for my comments on perception, I made no claims to any position, other than there seems to be far more going on than just the physics when it comes to our enjoyment of reproduced music.

As for the iPod? I do use one, but I use it as a hard drive, playing lossless files through a high quality DAC... I doubt I ever mentioned ear buds. I don't even particularly like listening to my large Sennheisers.

"I'm really not upset over this whole deal. I'm over the whole billet faceplate debacle, and realize I purchased shit. But I'm willing to own up to that, surely you can do the same re your posts on it."

:blink: I don't even know where to begin on this line. If I've inadvertently offended you, I apologize. If this whole thing is a joke, using a wink here or there would be helpful.

Widget

Allanvh5150

02-16-2012, 12:51 AM

On the topic of Billet faceplates, most of them are produced from flat bar. Totally pointless to machine a flat plate from a billet. They are also not overly expensive to produce.

Allan.

hjames

02-16-2012, 05:50 AM

If I contributed to pain in any way in this fest, I apologize -
I thought the thread was satire and parody and kidded appropriately.
No slander or pain was meant ...

grumpy

02-16-2012, 08:15 AM

I'm over the whole billet faceplate debacle, and realize I purchased shit.

how could this -not- be a joke, or at least a severe case of tongue-in-cheek...?
I'm not getting it, but than again... there is no requirement that I do.

Has this thread run it's course? or is there more on-topic to discuss?

Robh3606

02-16-2012, 08:22 AM

ETA: I'm really not upset over this whole deal.

You coulda fooled me. Are we eventually going to get past this or is this going to go on and on and on?? From this side of the fence it's a lot of ill will over nothing.

Rob:)

Mr. Widget

02-16-2012, 09:10 AM

Has this thread run it's course? or is there more on-topic to discuss?Personally I am very interested in the original topic... I guess that makes sense since I more or less started it. That said it has been rather disappointing as the signal to noise ratio has been unusually low.

Widget

timc

02-16-2012, 09:35 AM

I basically think there are two types of quality. Objective, meaning technical performance. Subjective, meaning how you experience things.

The objective one is easy and quite self explanatory imo.

The subjective bit is a bit more hairy. My view is that regardless of the amount of placebo, snakeoil, and other mumbo jumbo involved, an individual's experience can not be questioned. It might be that you're imagening things, but the experience is no less real. A lot of people is not interested in how things work, and how the flare ratio of a horn does "something". They are after a good musical experience, and even if they cash out alot of money on seomthing that doesn't really do anything, it might just give them the experience they are looking for.

PS: I'm somewhere in between those two, with emphasis towards the first.

Mr. Widget

02-16-2012, 10:03 AM

gferrell

02-16-2012, 06:55 PM

Thanks for the post Tim... I think I am in the same camp, I try to be objective as much as possible, and as to the perception mumbo jumbo... I agree, if you believe it, it is "real".

We are in fact trying to fool ourselves that a musician, a band or an orchestra are in our homes. We want to be fooled. :)

Widget

You are right Mr. W, My wife plays her piano and my thousands of dollars worth of equipment could never reproduce that sound in the same room. However music is recorded for us to enjoy when we can not be there live. I really enjoy both.

DS-21

03-12-2012, 11:53 AM

This post is going to ramble a bit, but there's a point to it. Promise.

I left this topic in December for one reason: the Denon receiver I was using when the thread started crapped its digital board during the course of the discussion. Not much fun to talk about something when it's dead. :)

Yes, when it worked it was audibly superior to any five-figure Pass or even Bryston or McIntosh or whatever electronics in my room, because I took advantage of the thing good room correction software does best (compensating for boundary-loading issues in the upper bass) and optimized my speaker placement for both aesthetics and sonics. (I am of the general belief that audio is best heard and not seen.)

But with a dead digital audio board, Audyssey's processing was unavailable, and the Denon was lowered to being merely as good as a five-figure Pass or whatever setup. That is, it was limited to 2 channels of output, drawing only from analog inputs. Which is to say, it was not acceptable to me. And since it was a few months (!) out of warranty, Denon thought it was appropriate for someone who had spent $2k+ on one of their boxes to pony up an additional $550-650 to repair it - IF the part was available, which their local authorized repair center did not know.

As I was not about to pay >500USD to fix a <3 year old AVR, I replaced it with an AVR that cost half as much (Anthem MRX 300), in the process giving up some functionality I never used anyway (control over the home wireless network, HD radio, that second HDMI output for the second TV I don't have or want, probably other things too) but gaining more advanced room correction software, a more compact and lighter package, and backing from a "higher end" company that I suspect will have less abysmal after-sales support than Denon does. (It was close between an Onkyo box and the Anthem, but I picked the Anthem based on the ARC hardware/software and my perception of superior customer support.)

The Anthem's audio hardware is unexceptional. Just standard Chinese commodity parts, likely made in the same Chinese factories using the same subassemblies as startlingly similar (except for the room correction software) AVR's from two other mid-level boutique brands, Arcam and Cambridge Audio. But ARC is a very good room correction system. I could write more on my subjective thoughts about Audyssey vs. ARC, but this post is going to be long enough as it is. ARC is good enough for Greg Timbers…

(Someone else earlier made an assertion about a Pioneer part's room correction system. I didn't reply to that at the time because I didn't know how far behind the market leaders Pioneer's room correction was. Ditto Yamaha's. Now that I've been forced to research the market a bit, I do. MCAAC or whatever may not have worked well for that person, but it's very primitive in what it can do compared to the more serious systems in the market: Audyssey, ARC, Trinnov, Dirac Live, and RoomPerfect.)

Truth be told, when I first hooked up the Anthem, it sounded much worse than I remembered the Denon sounding. The upper bass was horribly boomy, in particular. Of course, that was prior to running ARC, and as mentioned I leverage modern technology to improve the aesthetics of my living room without compromising on sonics. With Audyssey zeroed out on my second-room AVR, a Denon AVR-3808ci (subsequently sold on craigslist and replaced with a second MRX 300, as after my experience with Denon's customer service I wanted nothing more to do with them) and ARC not yet set up, with levels matched at the speakers' binding posts the two parts sounded absolutely identical.

Now, I'm sure I could've forced them to sound different, by using less efficient speakers and listening so loudly as to make explicit the Denon's considerable headroom advantage. Home Theater Magazine benched the Denon at ~180W/8Ω/2ch, 240W/4Ω/2ch, and 120W/8Ω/5ch for the larger and much heavier Denon. By contrast, on their bench the Anthem MRX 300 did 90W/8Ω/2ch, 135W/4Ω/2ch, 70W/8Ω/5ch. But at my normal (practically 7th-row-center-at-the-Musikverein) listening levels in my living room, the headroom advantage of the Denon simply did not come into play.

But here's where it perhaps gets amusing. After having the MRX 300 in my main system for about a month, I for a number of reasons decided I want to take out the passive crossovers in my front three mains and go with a miniDSP-based biamplified setup. (OK, the main reason for that was that miniDSP announced they'd be making an "in-a-box" version of their 8x8 board. I've been playing with one of their 2x4 units to set levels/delays/EQ on my multisub system, and I love how they work.) So I started looking at multichannel amps, and zeroed in Rotel unit that was nice and compact, cool-running and energy efficient due to the Icepower amp modules, good-looking, had 6 channels for three front 2-way mains. So I went to a local Rotel dealer to pick one up. I returned it shortly thereafter, because it failed my self-noise test. I hook up a cheap Eminence APT tweeter on a small horn - not a high-fidelity device, but very efficient and thus resolving of small differences in amplifier noise floor - to each channel, and listen for noise with no source connected, and if it passes that, I listen with a source connected. If I hear anything at all from the driver with the horn mouth more than an inch or so away from my ear, the amp isn't good enough for me.

Instead of opening up a second one to see if the first was merely defective (I brought the APT tweeter with me), I ended up coming home instead with an NOS Sherwood Newcastle A-965 the dealer had found in some dark recess of his warehouse and recently lugged out to a corner of his shop to clear out. The A-965 is an 80lb, dual-transformer Class AB, gigantic amp.

http://i425.photobucket.com/albums/pp339/elninoloco7/HTv8/sherwood-a-965-inside-hires.jpg

It came in a box so large it took some contortions to get it in (and out!) of my fiancee's Civic sedan. While the Sherwood's shipping box has hand-hold cutouts, the amp itself unfortunately lacks handles. They would make it easier to move around, though it's already so deep that I'm not sure they're worth the required real estate.

The Sherwood was offered at a very fair price, and a quick in situ investigation on my iPhone showed that one of the few audio reviewers worth a damn, Dr. David Rich, wrote a glowing review of the A-965's circuit design (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Sherwood+Newcastle+A+965-7-channel+power+amp+and+R+965+7-channel…-a0148006177) for The $ensible Sound* when it amp was newly-shipping product. I was very impressed with the amp when I did my "self-noise" test, and came up with total blackness. I've had that results from other amps (Bryston, McIntosh, Anthem Statement) but it's very rare in my experience to have such a low noise floor.

*Dr. Rich, being intelligent and of high character, did not lower himself to writing fanciful "listening impressions" of the amp. He limited himself to discussing things that actual vary between amps: the circuit layout, build quality, electrical safety certifications, and so on.

Yet, when I first plugged it into my system to test for ground loops, 12V trigger functionality, and so on, and re-ran ARC, I thought I heard "differences" compared to my memory on a few disks and tracks, including the awesome new Wish You Were Here 5.1-channel SACD, Adele's Live at Royal Albert Hall 5.1-channel lossless Blu-Ray, "You Are the Everything" on R.E.M.'s Green 5.1-channel DVD-A, "Separator" on Radiohead's King of Limbs in Apple Lossless on my music server, and Vladimir Ashkenazy's read of Shostakovich 5 with the Royal Philharmonic, also in Apple Lossless on my music server.

It was a rub-my-eyes kind of thing, because my brain knew that such differences were toweringly unlikely. But…on all of the cuts, highs seemed a bit more crisply rendered, and images on the periphery of the soundstage seemed to take on tighter definition.

The "differences" were startling and real enough to me to require further investigation. So I did a small sighted test. I matched voltage between the standalone MRX 300 and the MRX 300 + A-965 at the speaker's binding posts with test tones and a multimeter. Thus compared, I could find no differences in switching between them. What my senses first told me, at least a little bit (that a much more powerful amp with basically nonexistent distortion and a silent noise floor that weighed more than twice as much as the whole AVR and had clearly better circuitry, sounded better) turned out not to be the case when the slightest effort was made to institute controls.

The lesson there, obviously, is that most people are too lazy (or technically incompetent) to institute even the most rudimentary controls when comparing things, so they let flights of fancy get the better of them.

DS-21

03-12-2012, 01:30 PM

f both are properly set up, a $10k Pass amp will be markedly lower in fidelity than a $2k A/V receiver.

I have a new Pioneer Home threatre amp 83 model 2nd from the top.

While the in built equ and room correction is not exectly the same as Audyssey MultEQ XT32 the end use is the same.

By "not exactly the same," you mean markedly inferior in concept and execution, from measurement to processing.

After doing some research into room correction software after my last AVR blew, I came away shocked that Pioneer and Yamaha are still so far behind. Pity, because I wanted to like the Pioneer offerings due to their cool-running and energy-efficient Class D amplification. If the Pioneer units had a good room correction system, I would've gone that route.

With the Pass labs set running stand alone there is an impovement in overall fidelity that quite obvious.

From that I can only assume you've never bothered to do a level-matched comparison, let alone a blind one.

You are, I assume, aware of the instance in the late 1990s when a (now dead) Miami area audio salesman named Steve Zipser was unable to tell the difference between his own painstakingly assembled reference electronics chain, on his reference own speakers set up in his own home, with his own wires and whatever "vibration damping" or other tweako nonsense he was using with the electronics...and a cheap Yamaha integrated amp Tom Nousaine and Steve Maki flew to Miami. Mr. Zipser's reference electronics were all Pass Labs, BTW...

how many people know anything about part quality?

I don't think it matters what one "knows." It matters what can be heard, when bias is controlled for. To me, it doesn't matter if painting an amp blue makes it sound better. If an amp painted blue can be consistently and reliably identified by sound rather than by sight from the identical amp painted black with levels matched, then there's clearly something that the blue paint is doing to the sonics. "Why" is something interested people can determine later. But for an audio consumer like me, the "why" is ultimately less interesting than the result.

Let's start by giving everyone the benefit of the doubt and rule out unintentional unreasonableness as well as full blown dishonesty and bad faith dealing.

Fair enough, but it would be inappropriate to also rule out that some have judgment clouded by pecuniary interests, given that a couple people who make their living in "high end" audio have posted here. That's not an insult by any means, simply a statement reflecting the reality that in a given debate, anyone with a pecuniary interest in the outcome will by human nature find reasons to influence the outcome in a direction favorable to said interest.

As for "simple ignorance of the relevant data"... I guess you'll need to define relevant data to me... or perhaps I'm simply ignorant.

The unbroken line of "no difference" found in controlled listening tests between competently designed and assembled audio parts operating within their intended design parameters. Such tests date back to before David L. Clark's 1983 JAES article, but it's reasonable to assume that anyone who is actually interested in what is audible and what is not is familiar with that article, subsequent replications, and the consistency of their findings.

I'm going to paraphrase your position as I interpret it. Please correct me if I misinterpreted what you were saying. I believe you are suggesting that a properly functioning modern AVR such as your Denon AVR-4308ci when set in an uncalibrated mode with all tone controls defeated and set to a specific amount of signal gain will sound indistinguishable from any other audio device or collection of devices in proper working order (say an analog preamp and power amp) with exactly the same gain and similarly free of equalization, dynamic compensation, calibration etc. Is that correct?

Yes.

If I got that correct, I agree that it may be possible to find two devices or systems that measure essentially identically. From a purely objective measurement standpoint making a comparison on paper I'd expect there to be virtually no differences between two channels of your Denon and say a Pass Labs INT 150. The Pass Labs is an all analog integrated amp with a 150 wpc stereo output. The Pass Labs unit is more robust and will put out full power into a low impedance for a significantly longer time period before thermal shut down

I don't think that's so cut and dried. I wouldn't be so sure that Nelson's box actually has the stouter PS. Comparing the Stereophile tests of the Pass integrated and the Home Theater tests of the Denon AVR, I also couldn't help but note in Stereophile's measurements of the Pass part that "With both channels driven into 2 ohms, the rear-panel 4A fuse blew after just 15 seconds of continuous running at powers greater than 100W."

That's just sad, for a $7k audio part. My $500 NHT A1 monoblocs offer superior performance!

EDIT: I just read the fluff part of the review, and came upon something else I consider utterly unacceptable about the Pass integrated you mention at $70 let alone $7000:
"Slightly bothersome was some mechanical hum from the INT-150's transformer, as well as some barely audible ground buzz coming through my speakers. I tried various power cords and different outlets in my room, but the INT-150 always wanted to make a little noise. This was barely audible at my listening seat between tracks, but I still would have rather not heard it at all."

So, I revise my position to reflect observed reality: on an absolute basis, even a Denon AVR-4308ci with a dead digital board is a higher-fidelity device than a $7000+ Pass Labs integrated amp. [/edit]

If an amp makes any mechanical noise apart from the click of turn-on relays, in my view it is worthless garbage. In this case, seven thousand dollars of worthless garbage. I demand total blackness from my electronics. And oddly enough, even most $300 AVR's seem capable of providing that, whereas even alleged geniuses like Nelson Pass seem incapable of it for multiple thousands of dollars.

and the Pass Labs unit will most likely still be fully operational in 20 years while the Denon most likely will have failed in one of it's many sophisticated digital circuits...

Touche! :)

Though it's also in that vein worth noting that the Pass integrated amp's effing volume knob failed during Stereophile review of it. (http://www.stereophile.com/content/pass-labs-int-150-integrated-amplifier-measurements) Presumably, the review did not last 2+ years. That dovetails with my general experience that "high end" audio is notably slapdash in build quality and quality control.

However, there's another factor a reasonable person will consider here: cost. Let's assume one has to replace an AVR every three years, whereas the Pass part will last 20 years. The Pass unit stickers at over seven grand. Discounting future AVR purchases to present value, over those 20 years one will likely spend about the same, while getting considerably better features and sound (due to improving room correction systems) by simply budgeting for a replacement AVR every 3 years over buying a Pass and keeping it for 20 years.

That was the objective comparison. I have heard and sold numerous Denons as well as Marantzs and Integras... both their AVRs and the separate pre/pros. I have set them up for many years in countless rooms. I have also compared them with Parasound Halo, Bryston, Mark Levinson, and yes Pass Labs. They simply do not sound the same.

Again, there's never been a properly controlled test that confirms what your pecuniary interest as an audio dealer compels you to believe.

Let's put it another way. With the typical AVR playing an SACD you have a digital source that is converted in it's onboard DAC into analog. The built in analog section then feeds the analog input of the AVR. The AVR then digitizes the signal, processes it, perhaps 3 or 4 times and then another DAC converts the signal back to analog. Do you think all of these DACs and A to Ds don't have an effect?

First, using a modern player and AVR you're simply wrong on fact. There is only one D/A stage, that taking place prior to amplification, in a modern multichannel audio system. (I connect my Oppo BDP-83 to my AVR using a single HDMI wire, doing the DSD->PCM conversion for SACD in the player now, though the Denon did it natively.)

Second, yes multiple (20+) A/D/A loops have been confirmed as audible. Meyer and Moran showed in an extensive Boston Audio Society-sponsored listening test peer-reviewed and published in JAES that a single such loop, even if it cuts resolution down from SACD to Red Book CD levels, is inaudible.

Lastly on Audyssey and calibration. I have used both the Audyssey and Velodyne SMS-1 systems. I have used the integrated Audyssey in lower end AVRs as well as the stand alone Audyssey processor and the Audyssey Bass Equalizer. I have had mixed results with all of them.

That is fairly common. One needs to having a solid understanding of what a given system can do, and what it can't, in order to leverage its capabilities optimally.

(As an aside, all of them are total hacks when it comes to modern multisub systems. One still has to measure and listen to set them up. JBL's BassQ may be the exception. I'd love to play with one.)

At Harman, they tested Audyssey as well as several other calibration systems at several price points. I believe they tested five systems and set them all up according to the specific recommendations that came with each unit. They found Audyssey to be the second to the worst in their objective comparisons.

Actually, Audyssey was not second worst but the worst, with the other ones being a single and multiseat calibration Harman's Synthesis system, ARC, and RoomPerfect. The difference between Audyssey and no EQ was also statistically significant. Pretty damning, considering that Harman used a really crappy speaker (B&W N802) for the test.

As much as you may want to trust measurements more than yours or anyone else's ears,

Actually, all I care about is what can actually be heard, when bias is removed. Measurements with no correlation to audibility are of no interest to me.

As a real genius quipped: Not everything that can be measured matters; not everything that matters can be measured. That's paraphrased, of course, because even the memory of Einstein-ian quotes is subject to interpretation.

Measurements are of course not the issue.

Listening tests don't care what the underlying black boxes are, only whether, first, if they sound the same or different, and second, IF they do sound different, which is generally preferred.

There are any number of speaker manufacturers that can produce response curves for their products that appear to be the equal of JBL's best products.

Can, perhaps. But my experience is that they do not. At least when one includes polars as well as on-axis measurements. The on-axis sound is such a small portion of what is actually heard in a room. One really needs to see what a speaker does horizontally and to a lesser extent vertically to begin to correlate measurements with fine-grained sonic preferences.

That's too easy. I'm writing about Sonus Faber, Magico (yes, I wrote Magico), DefTech, and B&W, as examples that I have to listen to more often than I'd like. Most of these speakers are gorgeous to look at, but I enjoy them more when looking than when listening.

IMO, all of those companies make severely flawed loudspeakers. None of them make any attempt to control the tweeter's directivity at the bottom of its passband, so they have "mushroom cloud" midrange polars. I'd rather listen to an Infinity Primus or KEF Q-series than any of those firms' flagships, and would purchase one of those over any of the marques you named, even if pricing was equivalent.

For example, here is the horizontal response measured by Stereophile of a Magico speaker that I personally heard and found severely wanting.

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/508Magfig4.jpg

Compare that hack job to a decent JBL direct radiator, such as the LSR 32/LSR 6332, and...well, there is no comparison. The JBL is heads and shoulders superior.

My experience is that they not only sound different, but quite a lot different.

What controls did you use when arriving at that conclusion?

If none, then you have no conclusion of any relevance to anyone but you.

OK, so the entirely different amp topology (class A vs probably class D or something in the AVR) makes no difference.

Actually, and IMO sadly, most AVR's still use bog-standard class AB discrete amps, rather than more energy efficient units.

didn't Lexicon put fancy face plates on Oppo's and jack the price waayyy up ?

Yes. (http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/transports/high-definition-dvd-players-hd-dvd-blu-ray/lexicon-bd-30-blu-ray-oppo-clone)

(And, it should be noted, not even the "SE" model, but the standard one!)

Ayre does something similar. They do futz with the power supply, true. And they also charge a whole lot more than Lexicon did.

***If this DS - 21 tried a Pass amp on his Tannoy's he'd shut up !

That's just feckless snob-speak.

First, what makes you think I haven't heard Pass amps?

Second, I refer you to the Zipser saga, supra.

Besides , thats an export Tannoy not made here in the factory .... not like these :[

These came out of Rattlesnake Studios in Battersea. UK studio of Ike and Tina . Photo by the Aussy shit stirrer!

Actually, mine are better than those in every way that matters to me.
First, the driver is better, with a phase plug that maintains directivity better than the old pepper pot.
Second, the cabinet is both stiffer and much lower in diffraction than that large, sharp-edged monstrosity.
Third, the cabinets are sealed for better integration with multiple subwoofers, rather than festooned with multiple vents for maximum group delay (2 "full range" speakers is simply speaking a low-fidelity approach, given that two speakers placed to image will will have 15+ dB swings in the modal region in most rooms).
Fourth, they are physically smaller.
Fifth, there are a proper three of them up front, rather than a mere two.

I think the plausibily of the above statement can be answered in why are not all two channel hi fidelity audio amplifiers equiped with room correction systems?

Without exception the answer is none.

You've never heard of TacT or NAD, I assume. Or, as mentioned above, Harman/Kardon.

Never mind that "two channel" is simply not "high fidelity" in 2012. It's good enough for headphones and maybe cars, but that's about it.

Decent discrete multichannel audio blows the doors off of the best 2-channel. And the best multichannel makes the best 2-channel sound more like Bose than music...

Are there any really good AV amps?

Yes.

There are also some spectacularly bad "high end" ones. Here's an example measured by Stereophile (http://www.stereophile.com/content/theta-digital-intrepid-5-channel-power-amplifier-measurements-part-2), a (pre-ATI) Theta* amp that has too high output impedance, a quarter-decidel channel imbalance, and other obvious sins. Oh, it's also rated less accurately than most boom boxes, with output closer to 40W/8Ω than the claimed 100W/8Ω. That Theta piece will probably sound different from a $350 Pioneer receiver, with different imaging characteristics due to the channel imbalance - a broadband different of .25dB is definitely audible, though most will describe the difference as something other than a levels problem! - but the $350 Pioneer receiver is actually the higher fidelity part.

*Since that POS left Theta's factories, ATI bought Theta. I would hope that instead of under-engineered and poorly QC'ed dross that Theta amps are now high-quality ATI amps with ugly curved faceplates that for some reason make me think "stingray vagina." Also, ATI recruited Jeff Hipps from Sherwood Newcastle, where he distinguished himself by bringing Trinnov room correction to the consumer A/V market in the well-reviewed R-972 receiver in addition to overseeing good but conventional products like the amp I use, to run Theta. I expect the combination of ATI technology and Mr. Hipps will make newer Theta products pretty good.

Another quality question.

Given the apparent unquestionable superiority of the Speakon connector why is it not used in the current Crop of AV amplifiers?

Because home audio is a very reactionary business, for better or worse. Also, snake oil venders would have less to sell if they couldn't get more gullible customers to "compare" different bananas and spades…

That said, while I don't know the market well, in a recent shopping expedition I noticed some current Rotels do have modern speaker terminals, in addition to the old-fashioned ones:

http://x2b.xanga.com/661c665b37432193251992/m149024369.jpg
http://xb6.xanga.com/f38c662650632193251985/m149024362.jpg

Perhaps Rotel is not alone.

The subjective bit is a bit more hairy. My view is that regardless of the amount of placebo, snakeoil, and other mumbo jumbo involved, an individual's experience can not be questioned. It might be that you're imagening things, but the experience is no less real.

Agreed. However, in such a case it is also only valid as to that person. Others cannot benefit from it in the slightest, because it's based on nothing but individualized flights of fancy.

Mr. Widget

03-12-2012, 02:39 PM

This post is going to ramble a bit, but there's a point to it. Promise.

:applaud: :rotfl: :applaud:

Damn... that is a lot to get through.

Agreed. However, in such a case it is also only valid as to that person. Others cannot benefit from it in the slightest.

I've only read the first couple of lines and the last line quoted here. I agree we should take everyone's opinions with a grain of salt, but I certainly doubt most of us, "cannot benefit from it in the slightest"... if we all felt that way, why would we post and why would we waste our time reading other's posts?

I'll come back to your rather lengthy ramble this evening when I have the time.

Widget

1audiohack

03-12-2012, 05:17 PM

Damn! Now where is that "axe to grind" emoticon?!?

I will say this, I'm glad your happy with what you have. Truly.

DS-21

03-12-2012, 10:40 PM

I've only read the first couple of lines and the last line quoted here. I agree we should take everyone's opinions with a grain of salt, but I certainly doubt most of us, "cannot benefit from it in the slightest"... if we all felt that way, why would we post and why would we waste our time reading other's posts?

First, please see my edited "last line quoted here," because I did not really follow through on my reasoning in version you quoted.

Second, it is a good question why any reasonable, intelligent person would waste an iota of time reading, listening, or posting about the "sound" of a commodity electronic part like a preamp or amplifier or digital source, to say nothing of course a wire, magic stone, green pen, equipment racks, etc. Talking about unicorn sightings is just about as tethered to reality as talking about the "sound" of an amplifier.

That is quite different from discussing a loudspeaker, loudspeaker placement technique, crossover topology, room correction system, etc. Those things actually do differ, and there is much all of us can learn from the experiences of others there in selecting speakers, placing them in given rooms, calibrating complex systems with mains and multiple subs all overlapping in the modal region to smooth out upper bass response, using room correction software, etc.

That's also different from due diligence before an electronics purchase. In the internet era, before sinking a decent-sized sum of money into an audio part, one will likely want to know if, say, other people have reported noise (hiss, ground loops, transformer hum, fan noise, etc.) from that part. Also, one may survey fora and such to determine if people have noted reliability problems, perceived quality issues (loose-feeling input jacks, etc.), ergonomic flaws (non-standard turn-on triggers, for instance), and other such things that are actually real. One may also want to survey owner satisfaction generally, for that specific component and that brand's other products. But the "sound?" That is simply not something a reasonable person considers, because when these parts differ in sound it's because they were poorly engineered from the get go and/or assembled without due care, and/or not subjected to meaningful quality control before shipping out. See, e.g., the above-linked reviews of the $7000+ MSRP Pass integrated with audible transformer hum, audibly poor grounding, and intermittent volume knob; see also the above-linked review of that Theta multichannel amp with its large channel imbalance and tube-like output impedance that will result in frequency response deviations with many speakers.

Now, I'm very explicitly NOT saying one should just buy the cheapest whatever. Just that one is actually picking on something other than "sound," so one may as well display some intellectual honesty in the process rather than deluding oneself that it's all about "sound." Furthermore, there are definitely firms marketing to well-heeled home audio consumers that engineer superb audio electronics, build them to exacting standards of performance and reliability, actually perform quality control on shipping units, and charge a very premium price compared to other products that perform the same core function exactly as ably. To name a few but by no means all of them: Bryston, Boulder, DEQX, Anthem Statement, ATI, ADA, McIntosh, Meridian, TacT, Burmeister, and Quad. A 2-channel 250-300W McIntosh amp won't sound any different from a $400 Crown XLS 1500 DriveCore. In some performance aspects such as energy efficiency, the Crown will be markedly superior to the mighty Mac. However...I think most of us would reasonably prefer to display sweet-looking meters in a solid chassis in our living rooms, rather than a plasticky-looking lightweight little box that looks like it belongs under a wedding DJ's table.

However, one cannot reasonably deny that the rest of the "high end" is all too rife with poor engineering, slapdash-at-best assembly, and risible quality control procedures that fail to prevent boxes with glaring flaws such as channel imbalances and transformer hum from leaving the factory, and so on. We have two examples in this thread of risibly low-fidelity "high end" gear: a $7000+ MSRP Pass Labs integrated amp that suffers from transformer hum and had a component failure during a short review, and a Theta multichannel amp that left the factory with large-enough-to-be-audible channel imbalances and generally was engineered poorly. Such gear will sound different from well-designed and well-made gear, because it is audibly lower in fidelity. For example, compare that Pass amp to any decent mass-market AVR at 1/20 its MSRP, and the AVR will sound better because on ppp passages one won't hear the transformer humming, and one won't suffer listener fatigue from the Pass integrated's ground hum.

Generally, when such piece of "high end" gear sounds different from a mass-market $350 AVR, a smart person will first look to see where the QC or engineering flaws in the "high end" component lie, rather than assuming the more expensive part is sonically superior.

Mr. Widget

03-12-2012, 10:51 PM

I really tried, but ened up not having the time to thoroughly explain why your opinions and mine are completely out of phase.

I agree completely that in an AB comparison, it is utterly meaningless if accurate level matching isn't achieved.

I also agree that proper room correction can be a great tool. But I do not agree that it is such a universally powerful tool that it will make up for an otherwise poor sounding piece of gear.

As for my being biased by my pecuniary interest in audio sales? In all aspects of life I strive to be objective, I may or may not always be successful, but that aside, while I have often recommended several pieces of Pass gear that I have used and I recommend the company in general, I do not sell it and have no financial stake in the company. In fact I have stated publicly here on this forum that I preferred the sound of the Pass Labs XA30.5 to a couple of different Mark Levinson amps while comparing them in my system. And we are Levinson dealers.

Widget

Mr. Widget

03-12-2012, 11:20 PM

Generally, when such piece of "high end" gear sounds different from a mass-market $350 AVR, a smart person will first look to see where the QC or engineering flaws in the "high end" component lie, rather than assuming the more expensive part is sonically superior.I am trying to decide if you are sincere or are simply trying to get attention.

I'm going to leave it at: "While we share a hobby, we enjoy it very differently."

Widget

timc

03-12-2012, 11:25 PM

DS-21

I find a few faults in your logic.

When it comes to mechanical hum in a Pass Labs:
I have built a few Alephs, and they were all dead silent. I have also listened to a few of the commercial ones, with the same result. Mechanical hum in a transformer can have several reasons. Most hum is caused by some error on the powerlines. Of course some PSU's are more resistant to such things than others, but i have a hard time calling the "non resistent" ones faulty, or bad designed. It shouldn't be necessarry to fix a problem that shouldn't be there.

When it comes to difference in amplifiers I find your view a bit strange. You claim there is no difference between most, and claiming this to be an objective view. On the other hand there is quite a large difference to be seen when the amplifiers are asked to drive a dynamic load. The differences will of course change with how tough the impedance of the loudspeaker is. However, the differences documented by Stereophile (among others), is much larger than that wich have been documented as our thresshold for identifying differences (within the field of music techonolgy).

-Tim

BMWCCA

03-13-2012, 08:40 AM

DS-21 Always was an odd duck: 55070

Lee in Montreal

03-13-2012, 08:54 AM

DS-21 Always was an odd duck:

Odd perhaps, but way ahead of its time by several decades. ;)

Ian Mackenzie

03-13-2012, 11:27 AM

How can you validate your claims using only the Tannoys in your own listening space?

For example if I wanted I could play an unknown cd on every amp on the planet through a set of Bose lifestyle cubes with and without room correction and no doubt the room correction would win thumbs up.

What does this mean to the clear thinker?

No need to digger deeper here but one might ask:

There is no mention of the specific recordings used for the source? Cd's, DVD 5.1, Blue Ray Master Audio, 24/96 downloads, vinyl, Direct disk vinyl.

You have not published the room correction calibration curves or a description of the listening room acoustics.

How recently did you have your hearing checked by a medical professional?

None of these points are trivial and it is surprising how many people regardless of age have some form of hearing deficiency.

Some history of prior audio equipment and usage would be useful.

For example one member here who will remain nameless knowling bashed his ears for years in the college dorm with JBL 100s and thought they were the holy grail until he heard the JBL 4345.

Another member again who will remain nameless admitted bashed his ears senseless with a stack of JBL LE15 just to see how loud it would go and experience the threshold of pain. Then he decided it sounded better outside the house and now later in life considers himself to be an audiophile!

It is therefore unlikely that you will get two people or more to accept a definition of quality let alone a subjective agreement of quality

BMWCCA

03-13-2012, 05:36 PM

Odd perhaps, but way ahead of its time by several decades. ;)

Yep, I'm still waiting for a hydraulic suspension . . . that actually works! ;)

tomt

03-14-2012, 08:12 PM

This post is going to ramble a bit, but there's a point to it ...

... so they let flights of fancy get the better of them.

you certainly have ...

tom1040

03-16-2012, 05:25 AM

Mr. Widget:

"I'm going to paraphrase your position as I interpret it. Please correct me if I misinterpreted what you were saying. I believe you are suggesting that a properly functioning modern AVR such as your Denon AVR-4308ci when set in an uncalibrated mode with all tone controls defeated and set to a specific amount of signal gain will sound indistinguishable from any other audio device or collection of devices in proper working order (say an analog preamp and power amp) with exactly the same gain and similarly free of equalization, dynamic compensation, calibration etc. Is that correct?"

DS-21 Response:

'Yes.'

How can that be? Would it not depend, a little bit at least, on what is being driven(speaker)? I tried that with my JBL 1400 Array with a McIntosh MC402 and Marantz MA9S2 mono-blocks. Not only was the sound totally different, the McIntosh could not 'drive' the woofers as well as the Marantz. They sounded different in the whole spectrum of music. I like the somewhat lush presentation of the McIntosh and the very detailed, tight response in the bass of the Marantz. Those are a couple of differences I perceived.

There MUST be something I do not understand. Honestly, with this hobby, there is a lot I don't understand but it is a bit hard to learn if people contradict each other. No matter, I am happy.:D

Ian Mackenzie

03-16-2012, 06:19 AM

Some say that in the world as it stands at the end of 2011, if both are properly set up, a $10k Pass amp will be markedly lower in fidelity than a $2k A/V receiver. Why? The latter will have sophisticated and useful room correction processing, such as Audyssey MultEQ XT32. Considering this is the JBL forum we're talking about fairly efficient speakers. A 96dB/W/m speaker (like my 12" Tannoys) doesn't need a kilowatt in a domestic living room. 100W is more than enough

I have not been following this thread until quite recently but in review of the in initial post I feel the definition used "fidelity" is presumptious and in the context here is inappropriate and leads to only willful abuse of the term.

If used in an advertisement there would no doubt be a legal issues but on the internet .......pigs fly.

For example what does " will be markedly lower in fidelity " mean to the user and how does it apply or how should it apply?

Moreover what is the real intent of Audyssey MultEQ XT32 or similar inbuilt systems in home entertainment multi channel amplifiers?

In what instances is there real benefit from a premium two channel amplification system?

Are either approaches necessary in all instances of audio reproduction or are they best suited to specific applications like hi end listening rooms with premium quality loudspeakers or most useful for general home entertainment such as multichannel audio movie playback?

If you look at the application of both the above mentioned equipment categories and take the time to understand the design concepts of each a direct comparison in the manner used above is absurd.

But then again people use such absurd and sensationist statements in the media to control opinions and discussions on the pretext that they are telling you how to think because its suits their agenda.

This all precludes the inevitable discussions of any direct comparisons which has been largely the content of the posts here.

Robh3606

03-16-2012, 07:13 AM

This all precludes the inevitable discussions of any direct comparisons which has been largely the content of the posts here.

I can make a direct comparison between running my HT with and without Audyssey. I run without. As far as I am concerned my all analog option sounds better. So much for all the hype. In this case this statement:

Some say that in the world as it stands at the end of 2011, if both are properly set up, a $10k Pass amp will be markedly lower in fidelity than a $2k A/V receiver. Why? The latter will have sophisticated and useful room correction processing, such as Audyssey MultEQ XT32.

Is simply wrong.

Rob:)

richluvsound

03-16-2012, 09:44 AM

I can draw a conclusion on my preference toward analogue over a digitally processed sound .
My previous system , bi-amped 4345 with TAD up-grade , using DEQX for room correction and a crossover , Small class A mono blocks on thew HF and SS mono blocks on the LF . My first impression was overwhelming ,but as time went by I began to miss the warm presentation of the previous set up .

All of my system was either DIY or pre-owned gear ,none of it let me down mechanically .

My new set up : DIY speakers , DIY amps , a humble ,but eloquent DAC and a Bryston 4 pre . The amps are a Pass designed circuit , class A XA 160's ( I was referring to the engineering of the circuit and not the snobbery factor ). There are a few people world wide that would agree that Pass and JBL pair very nicely . I would not dare to suggest any one set up is better than another . Only that in my experience ,I prefer the un-processed sound I have know to the very clean and very very powerful sound of my previous set up ...
There are a few members that have heard my systems . All would say, that they do some things very well and other things quite well ,but nothing poorly .

The beauty of digital processing is that it makes any room and any gear sound passable to any ear .

There are many schools of thought here on the forum . In a constant state of flux , some of us build our own gear with the help of each other ,but none of us would be arrogant enough to declare perfection for more than that one moment when all the planets align and we find our SUBJECTIVE nirvana.

Quality to me = sound ( that I like ) , build quality ,service and looks. Your speech reads more like an affirmation performed daily in front of a mirror to reverse some deep insecurity .... not saying thats the case ,it just reads that way . Like the kid that shows up first day of term not wearing the right trainers :o:

BTW , what was your point ? Tannoy has its own forum !

Rich

Ian Mackenzie

03-17-2012, 06:01 AM

The beauty of digital processing is that it makes any room and any gear sound passable to any ear .

Positively oustanding.

I wonder if an ear with a cloth surround is a good as a foam surround or does it need Eq?:)

Lee in Montreal

03-17-2012, 06:15 AM

Ian Mackenzie

03-17-2012, 06:25 AM

There are a few people world wide that would agree that Pass and JBL pair very nicely .

Rich you are not the 1st to make is statement.

I while back (1999) I discovered the low power compression and spatial dymanics of JBL were a good marriage with class A amplifiers..
Kent English has also had similar feedback.

This is a bit OT but here but for a long time the traditioanal JBL with the slot and fog horn were regarded as bright and hardly accurate..even around here.

The a few of us started messing different amps and upgraded systems (improved passive crossovers, diaphragms) etc) and superior active crossovers like the DX1.

The rest is history in that many of these classic systems have been sleeping giants waiting for a refresh and some nice amplification.

The fact that GT has also posted about some of these systems and the upgrades is an endorsement that there is potential for improvement.

My comments are far from the snob factor as most of my amplifcation is with a couple of excpections diy

Ian Mackenzie

03-17-2012, 07:31 AM

In reference to my later comments about comparisions I fee there is a method in the madnesss.

While we all talk of A/B comparisons and blind tests I feel the more incumental approach is more rewarding.

It is useful to understand the playback system has many links like a chain.

Perhaps a better analogy is an audio signal being a light source . The original light source being of absolute purity and intensity.

Before the source reaches our ears it must be amplified and this is usually done in several stages.

If the amplifer is azoom lense that magifies the signal consider the effect of an imperfect lense and the impact on the image much like a camera.

Typically a zoom lense is a complex affair if 10-15 glass elements. Some of the glass elements are there just to correct distortions while others magnify the light source and image.

When such optical lense are tested they measure what is lost (detail) and what is added (distortions such as diffraction, ghosting)

Typcially but not always a prime lense will perform better because it is not being asked to perform a miracle and there are fewer glass elements.

If we take this a step further and add filters to the front of the lense we can add deliberate modifiications to the image.

However of the filter is of poor quality ie the glass is not flat and multicoated what goes on after that cannot be recovered.

This a very useful concept when assessing or deciding on upgrading the audio signal path

Quite a while ago (2006) I was asked by Porschedpm to build an external passive crossover as part of the upgrade for is much loved 4343 that were to become 4344s.

Ed was very pleased with the externa crossovers and was happy with the improvement.

At the time Ed was using the Ashley active crossover to biamp the speakers. As I recall he was using an X1 Pass preamp, an X 250 power and anoher amp.

In am email I suggested to Ed that he switch to full passive option and bypass the Ashley active crossover to assess the impact on the signal.

Initally Ed rejected the suggestion sighting it would not sound as good but in the end I won Ed over and he ageed to the change of objectivity grounds.

I got a glowing email the next day to advise he had been up all night listening and concluded that while the bass lost some definition the sound quality overali was significanly better in full passive mode. A discrete class A acive crossover was then providied abd this improved the bass clarity in biamp mode.

My point here is audio quality is not a blanket issue and when seen a system or a process it comes down identifying specfiics and what is important.

Someone mentioned earlier spliting up the pre processer and the power amps and that is perhaps the non compromise scenario if you feel you must have a processor engine operating in the signal path.

There are perhaps 3 outomes.

No change in audio signal quality

A reduction in audio signal quality where a more transparent power amp disciminates prior processing distortions .

An improvment in audio signal quality where the power amp provides improved tansparency of the original signal.

These days I fee the best outcome is with a linear approach to balancing quality throughout your audio system.

An expensive amp alone or loudspeaker is not going to allow the full potential of the investment

Rich nailed the wonderbox scenario : The beauty of digital processing is that it makes any room and any gear sound passable to any ear .

richluvsound

03-17-2012, 07:54 AM

Very funny discussion overall. Original vs digitally enhanced. Pretty much the same discussion could be started about silicone-enhanced breasts. Many parallels can be drawn, if you know what I mean... :eek:

Never liked the feel of silicone ...... Ironic , "Stop talking to my breasts" and " do they look real ?" usually from the same mouth !

I fully appreciate the benefits of digital processing for multi-channel HT ,but for 2 channel critical listening , I find "less is more "

Nice to hear you Macca.

Rich

tomt

04-28-2012, 01:57 AM

The beauty of digital processing is that it makes

any room and any gear sound passable to any ear .

lets just face the fact.

bose is best.

Oprah said so.

why would Oprah lie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCBe7-6rw4M

richluvsound

04-28-2012, 02:57 AM

WARNING ....

don't watch this with a mouth full of cornflakes, unless you want said cornflakes all over your laptop ....
Thanks Tom ,just the ticket for a grey rainy day in London :D

Rich

4313B

04-28-2012, 03:57 AM

Thanks Tom ,just the ticket for a grey rainy day in London :DSo... pretty much any day of the year then? :D

grumpy

04-28-2012, 11:18 AM

ROTFL!... so damn true.:applaud::banghead::applaud::banghead::applau d:

richluvsound

04-28-2012, 01:04 PM

So... pretty much any day of the year then? :D

At least I won't get skin cancer , or dehydrate . !

DS-21

05-04-2012, 02:20 AM

I really tried, but ened up not having the time to thoroughly explain why your opinions and mine are completely out of phase.

To be clear, I am not expressing 'my opinions' as to "sonics" of audio electronics, though other parts of my posts are opinion. But on that subject, I am merely the stating observed reality, as demonstrated by every single controlled listening test, that only incompetently designed or broken audio electronics sound different. You are going more on blind faith and pecuniary interest in the mythology of "high end" audio.

I also agree that proper room correction can be a great tool. But I do not agree that it is such a universally powerful tool that it will make up for an otherwise poor sounding piece of gear.

Which is great, because we actually seem to agree on the utility, and limits, of room correction.

I never wrote anything that would reasonably lead to your "I don't agree" statement, and frankly your "I don't agree" rhetoric is intellectually dishonest. (Though I will assume by "gear" you mean the loudspeaker/room interaction, because to ascribe "sound" to competently designed and built electronic parts is to be nonsensical.) My claim, if you read it carefully, was much narrower than the caricature you drew: the electronics themselves sound the same (I'm talking about competently designed and built electronics, not proven crappy stuff like that $7000+ Pass integrated amp, mind), so logically the part with the extra degree of freedom (room correction) is superior.

I certainly never claimed that the "order of operations" is anything but, first, get the basics right - controlled directivity speakers with reasonably smooth response and a pattern that is well-suited to the surfaces of the room (i.e. narrower if the room is more reflective, so as to avoid the need for unsightly "room treatments"), placed to maximize one's desired sonic qualities (apparent source width, image focus, spaciousness, etc), multiple subwoofers calibrated to smooth out the impact of the room in the modal region, sufficient power on tap for all loudspeakers in the system to hit one's desired SPL, etc., - and only then go to stuff like room correction.

As for my being biased by my pecuniary interest in audio sales?

Yes, you are biased against the reality that has time and time again been demonstrated in controlled listening tests (which is, frankly, that electronics don't matter) because to do so would be simple business suicide for an audio parts vender. Self-interest has over the years led a lot of otherwise smart and well-meaning people into black holes of reality-denial. I'm sure there are still some execs in North Carolina who are otherwise sharp as can be but who honestly believe that any links "scientists" have found between cigarette smoking and lung cancer are speculative and ill-founded...

But what matters to a salesman is different from what matters to a music lover with no pecuniary interest in the audio business.
What matters to a "pure" music lover is, to put it simply, the stuff with moving parts (analog sources, loudspeakers), the room, and the electronic signal processing. Everything else just needs to not suck. (Which means, for instance, no crappy Pass labs integrated amps.)

I am trying to decide if you are sincere or are simply trying to get attention.

Well, I did point out two instances of gear (a Pass Labs integrated oddly touted by you as a superior part, and a Theta multichannel amp) that objective testing by Stereophile, as well as subjective comments, revealed to be absolute low-fidelity garbage not worth being mentioned in the same breath as a typical base-model major brand AVR. So obviously unless you consider calling attention to the obvious flaws in "Emperor's New Clothes" gear like that crappy Pass integrated to be "trying to get attention," that is not the case.

That said, my latest audio purchase was a used Meridian 551, for the bedroom, to replace a pint-sized KEF Picoforte iPod Class D amp. I bought it because it has a more compact footprint than most integrateds, and I find it attractively styled. I also needed a piece of kit with multiple inputs and a built-in MM phono preamp, because I moved my TT from the main rig to the bedroom. The thought was the TT might get more use in the bedroom for background/mood music music, because my main system is simply too revealing of vinyl's flaws. However, the primary source for bedroom background music is still my old AppleTV2, feeding through a $40 DAC from Monoprice. (A new AppleTV3 replaced it in the main system.) Yes, a Monoprice DAC feeding into a Meridian integrated! :)

Truth be told, I would've much preferred something new. But the current remote-controlled integrateds with my needed I/O (an MM phono stage, a line-level input, and either stereo preouts or a mono subwoofer output), such as models from Cambridge Audio , Rotel, Music Hall, and NAD, were all too wide and/or deep and/or tall to not stick out in the bedroom. (The Rega Brio-r not only lacked preouts, but also as a half-baked remote that is very insensitive to commands, and isn't even set up to power down the part into standby mode!) So I was happy to find a used Meridian 551 with the MM phono pre option installed.

DS-21

I find a few faults in your logic.

Perhaps you do, and perhaps there are some, but the rest of your text was merely your unsupported opinion and the not the uncovering of any flaw in my logic.

When it comes to mechanical hum in a Pass Labs:
I have built a few Alephs, and they were all dead silent. I have also listened to a few of the commercial ones, with the same result. Mechanical hum in a transformer can have several reasons. Most hum is caused by some error on the powerlines. Of course some PSU's are more resistant to such things than others, but i have a hard time calling the "non resistent" ones faulty, or bad designed. It shouldn't be necessarry to fix a problem that shouldn't be there.

In his review of that crappy Pass part, supra, Stereophile's Erick Lichte commented that he's had many integrated amps come through his home. He also made idiotic and snotty comments about people who think amps all sound the same being brainwashed, etc.

Please point out one point in that review where Mr. Lichte commented that amp noise is a common problem with different amps in his home. Or another review of an amp where he discusses its hum or noise. (I've looked in a few, and saw no such mention.)

Also, please point out a review of a competent part in which John Atkinson's discovers significant line noise in his bench tests.

When it comes to difference in amplifiers I find your view a bit strange. You claim there is no difference between most, and claiming this to be an objective view.

It's a reality-based view, yes. If you wish to substantively disagree with that, please point me to a single controlled subjective same/different listening test, in which the listeners were able to reliably distinguish two competently designed, non-broken amplifiers. I will be happy to be proven wrong. But that is the only proof that a thinking person can accept for the claim that competently designed and non-broken amps sound different from one another.

Most amps, from "mid-fi" AVR's to the Bryston/McIntosh/Levinson/Anthem Statement/Burmeister level "high end" stuff, are competently designed.

There are a few amps on the extreme low and high ends that are incompetently designed to begin with, or constructed with insufficient attention to quality control. Nobody is claiming that those lower-fidelity devices won't sound different from a high-fidelity device.

On the other hand there is quite a large difference to be seen when the amplifiers are asked to drive a dynamic load.

No, there really isn't. Look closely at Stereophile's simulated (NHT?) loudspeaker load curves. The variance in them is captured entirely by one variable: output impedance.

Yes, to be sonically transparent an amp needs to have extremely low output impedance. Competently designed ones have that. Incompetently designed ones (see the Theta multichannel, supra) do not have very low output impedance, and those can have response errors severe enough to be audible with some speakers, depending on the speaker's impedance curve.

Yes, it's true, some may prefer the sound of an amp that is poorly designed. One can, however, get the same response errors by putting a resistor on the output of a competently designed amp. That's what Sideshow Bob did on his "soul of a 9-watt triode" or whatever Sunfire models.

DS-21 Always was an odd duck: 55070

My Goddess was the first car I owned, and she will be the last car I own. There have been, and will be, lesser cars used as daily drivers. But they are disposable, not enduring like the DS.

Thanks for posting a pic of the more attractive (IMO) quad-lamp refresh, instead of the earlier shark nose.

How can you validate your claims using only the Tannoys in your own listening space?

Did you read my posts?

I'm basing them on data from all over the world dating back to David L. Clark's 1983 JAES article. That dataset includes a well-known case where a Miami-area audio dealer was unable to distinguish his own Pass amps from a cheap Yamaha integrated in his own system, in his own home, using music he personally selected as being revealing of his Pass amps so-called sonic character.

Some history of prior audio equipment and usage would be useful.

Not really, because every time the so-called golden ears actually man up and compare gear without relying on their eyes and level differences, they learn what flights of fancy they had believed in. Or, they become science-deniers, and make mental contortions to find loopholes that excuse their inability to hear things that seem oh so obvious when one knows what fancy part is in the signal chain.

As for my own hearing acuity, suffice it to say that I can be driven out of a room by a CRT television's transformer. Have YOU had YOUR hearing checked by a medical professional? You must have, I presume, if you felt comfortable making such a smarmy insult.

For example one member here who will remain nameless knowling bashed his ears for years in the college dorm with JBL 100s and thought they were the holy grail until he heard the JBL 4345.

I have not been following this thread until quite recently but in review of the in initial post I feel the definition used "fidelity" is presumptious and in the context here is inappropriate and leads to only willful abuse of the term.

No, it's actually quite simple, and accurate. Fidelity means that the output equals the input, excepting deliberate manipulation (increased gain, an EQ curve, etc.).

Noise, hum, etc., make a device fundamentally low-fidelity.

IMoreover what is the real intent of Audyssey MultEQ XT32 or similar inbuilt systems in home entertainment multi channel amplifiers?

To smooth out the frequency response at the listening room and fit it to their target curve (there's also propaganda about time, but it boils down to frequency response), based on in situ measurements. Audyssey also has a couple other goals.

One thing I dislike about Audyssey (that is not present in other and IMO better room correction systems, such as Anthem's ARC) is a "crappy speaker compensation notch" at ~2kHz. The reason they do that is because speakers with a 6-7" woofer and a flush-mounted tweeter will have an excess of energy in that region, due to the uncontrolled directivity of the tweeter. But if one starts with competently designed speakers, such compensation is obviously not needed.

In what instances is there real benefit from a premium two channel amplification system?

Considering that there's zero benefit to "premium two channel amplification," the advantage is that one has a tool that may be useful. It may not be, of course, and if misused (poor attention to detail during the measurements phase, etc.) can result in far more problems than solutions.

If you look at the application of both the above mentioned equipment categories and take the time to understand the design concepts of each a direct comparison in the manner used above is absurd.

How do you reach that silly conclusion? There's no fundamental difference between the purpose of multichannel and 2-channel gear. Read Prof. Rubinson's "Music in the Round" column sometime! Audio gear is about reproducing music.

The beauty of digital processing is that it makes any room and any gear sound passable to any ear .

That's not been my experience.

Some of the worst-sounding systems are those where someone takes crappy speakers, places them haphazardly, and then expects the magic box to clean things up.

What good digital processing can do is compensate for a few issues, such as tubby bass from having mains too close to the wall behind them.

It cannot compensate for speakers with poor power response (EQ can only work at one point with such speakers, after all).

It cannot compensate for negligent placement.

It cannot, except in a very small area, compensate for other points of negligence in system design, such as failing to use multiple subwoofers to smooth out upper bass response.

Your speech reads more like an affirmation performed daily in front of a mirror to reverse some deep insecurity .... not saying thats the case ,it just reads that way . Like the kid that shows up first day of term not wearing the right trainers :o:

Projection, much?

It is amusing the lengths religious zealots will go to assassinate the character of people who actually understand things on a deeper, level.

As for shoes, though, for casual wear I generally favor adult shoes - e.g. JM Weston 180s, RM Williams wholecut chelsea boots, and Alden chukkas in unlined suede in the summer or no. 8 shell cordovan in the winter, that sort of thing - to trainers. And pretty much always have. Though I have since I was a teenager always kept a pair of "Austrian flag" (rot-weiss-rot logo stripe) Bally trainers in my rotation.

BTW , what was your point ? Tannoy has its own forum !

I only made an aside about Tannoy. My point was and is about a reality-based understanding of the role of audio electronics. Blind faith has many important roles to play in life, in answering the Big Questions. But the "sound" of an amp or DAC or whatever is not something a person capable of rational thought will take on faith. Rather, it is a falsifiable claim. The way a civilized person tests a falsifiable claim it is to control every other variable, and test for variance along the one isolated variable of interest. (In audio terms, that means matching levels and listening blind.) The data from such tests thus far is entirely on the side of audio kit that's not loudspeakers, analog sources, or signal processors only mattering when they're crappy to begin with (see, e.g. that low-fi Pass integrated), or when user error/incompetence creates a problem (improper gain structure, etc.).

One JBL thing I'm looking forward to hearing, as soon as the cabinets I commissioned for them are finished, are a pair of SUB 1500's I recently scored. I've thus far tested them for mechanical integrity and to measure their small-signal parameters, but haven't listened to them beyond that They're getting cabinets with a removable back panel. That way, I can not only compare them to my reference Aurasound-based subs, but also compare them as both monopoles and quasi-cardoids. (http://www.musicanddesign.com/NaO-II-U-frame.html) I've played with commercial (Gradient, Audio Artistry) and DIY (Linkwitz-inspired) bass dipoles before, but not cardoids. There's some interesting theory behind them, but nobody to my knowledge has compared cardoids to a monopole multisub system. Only to that horrible-sounding hack of two "full range" speakers, or even worse two speakers highpassed in the modal region to a single subwoofer, which is itself low-passed. Pretty much anything can improve upon those two horrid options.

Ian Mackenzie

05-04-2012, 03:08 AM

To be clear, I am not expressing 'my opinions' as to "sonics" of audio electronics, though other parts of my posts are opinion. But on that subject, I am merely the stating observed reality, as demonstrated by every single controlled listening test, that only incompetently designed or broken audio electronics sound different. You are going more on blind faith and pecuniary interest in the mythology of "high end" audio.

I dont accept your first paragraph and nor would anyone who read that statement with real world experience and qualifications

The simple reality is almost all low hifi and hi end brand designers will atest to their brands having a house sound.

This even applies to pro mixing consoles such the highly esteemed Neve brand.

World renowned engineers agree there is a Neve sound signature and this equipment is correctly designed.

Often tube based amplification preamps are used in recordings for their tonal characteristics..

Some professionally designed studio recording electronics devices are designed specifically to move from a solid state sound characteristic to a warm valve tonal character on the fly.

Care to add something further regards level matching and blind testing?

You appear to adopt a singular minority view point towards the entire forum community which is only matched by your apparent narrow interlectual and real world experience.

Lest you cease insulting the audience with how to think pro quo and take some well meaning advise from those who are in the know.

As you can see from this post a lot can be said in view few words on that basis best you keep you post short and to the point and resist the habbit of deliberating eternally on what is a dead issue.

The vexing question is why are you here?

1audiohack

05-04-2012, 07:36 AM

It is amusing the lengths religious zealots will go to assassinate the character of people who actually understand things on a deeper, level.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:Have you read what you have written?!?

Welcome to town Parson, as for me, I'd just as soon not be saved. Thanks just the same.

Gad I'm going to laugh all day!:rotfl:

JeffW

05-04-2012, 08:38 AM

It's a reality-based view, yes. If you wish to substantively disagree with that, please point me to a single controlled subjective same/different listening test, in which the listeners were able to reliably distinguish two competently designed, non-broken amplifiers. I will be happy to be proven wrong. But that is the only proof that a thinking person can accept for the claim that competently designed and non-broken amps sound different from one another.

OK, let's see what Stereophile has to say (http://www.stereophile.com/content/bryston-7b-ssts-monoblock-power-amplifier-page-5) about some amps from your "approved" list below, that we can rest assured are "competently designed" since you say so.

If I owned a pair of Bryston 7B SSTs, I'd make sure to find out whether they contained the old or new transformers. The improvement produced by the new transformers was significant. Nonetheless, even the improved version, while sounding pleasant enough - and particularly rich in the midrange - couldn't get my Wilson Audio MAXX 3 speakers to live up to their sonic potential, despite having enough power to do so. It's not a matter of cost - the similarly priced Parasounds did so with ease...

...But while the better of the two pairs of Bryston monoblocks always sounded pleasant, they rarely sounded exciting. The original pair elicited this conclusion: "I listened happily to the pair of them for a month, concentrating on the many things they did well. But their presentation was sort of like tofu: nourishing, but in need of spicing up to be truly tasty...

...While the second pair of 7B SSTs was clearly an improvement over the first, that conclusion stands. In my experience, it is hard to beat a lot of good, clean power, and the Bryston 7B SST offers that, plus ultra-low distortion, in a superbly built, reliable package at a very reasonable price. But before buying a pair, listen to the competition.

Sounds like some thinking persons listened to some non-broken (Bryston even upgraded some transformers after the initial review) amps and decided they sounded different. And there were amps other than the Parasounds in the mix, some Musical Fidelity Titans, that also sounded different - and better to the reviewers - than the amps on your "competently designed high-end" list. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you won't be happy about being proven wrong by their conclusions.

Most amps, from "mid-fi" AVR's to the Bryston/McIntosh/Levinson/Anthem Statement/Burmeister level "high end" stuff, are competently designed...

...Did you read my posts?

Yeah. And you screwed the coding up so bad that it's a real PITA to quote.

The main lesson has been that anyone who thinks all amps sound the same is inexperienced, unobservant, philosophically brainwashed, deaf, or crazy.

Learn it. Know it. Live it.

Ian Mackenzie

05-04-2012, 01:30 PM

Yes, you are biased against the reality that has time and time again been demonstrated in controlled listening tests (which is, frankly, that electronics don't matter) because to do so would be simple business suicide for an audio parts vender. Self-interest has over the years led a lot of otherwise smart and well-meaning people into black holes of reality-denial. I'm sure there are still some execs in North Carolina who are otherwise sharp as can be but who honestly believe that any links "scientists" have found between cigarette smoking and lung cancer are speculative and ill-founded...

I really dont understand your point here?

speakerdave

05-04-2012, 01:57 PM

It seems to me this attempt to dismiss perception of differences in audio electronics rests entirely on everyone's accepting the idea that there is among electron circuit engineers a universally acknowledged notion of "competently designed", as if there were no art and subtlety in that endeavor, that everything about it is known and formulated, that there is no frontier and nothing over the horizon yet to be noticed and understood. I think that is obviously nonsense.

richluvsound

05-04-2012, 02:21 PM

Please ... close this thread ! FFS

brett_s

05-04-2012, 05:51 PM

ahh come on....don't close this thread. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion...
:banghead:
you know it's horrific, but you just can't stop watching it.
:eek:

Ducatista47

05-04-2012, 06:16 PM

BMWCCA

05-04-2012, 06:52 PM

My Goddess was the first car I owned, and she will be the last car I own. There have been, and will be, lesser cars used as daily drivers. But they are disposable, not enduring like the DS.

Thanks for posting a pic of the more attractive (IMO) quad-lamp refresh, instead of the earlier shark nose.I rest my case! :screwy:

richluvsound

05-04-2012, 07:11 PM

Banning the troll would make more sense than locking the thread. Otherwise he will waste more of our bandwidth elsewhere. Face it, like a musician's musician, only in a completely negative way of course, he is a Troll's Troll. I know sock puppets are not allowed here, and lord knows he would be easy to spot.

Too right ! Sorry ,I wasn't thinking rationally !

Mr. Widget

05-04-2012, 10:57 PM

Banning the troll would make more sense than locking the thread. Otherwise he will waste more of our bandwidth elsewhere. Face it, like a musician's musician, only in a completely negative way of course, he is a Troll's Troll. I know sock puppets are not allowed here, and lord knows he would be easy to spot.Now you know, name calling isn't allowed. ;)

Personally, when I realize someone would rather provoke than converse, I simply ignore their posts.

Widget

Ian Mackenzie

05-05-2012, 01:59 AM

I propose to conduct a simple controlled listening test tomorrow to compare the Pioneer LX 83 with and without room Eq with the Passlabs X250.5
.

Sundown

05-05-2012, 05:46 AM

Personally i prefer the "simpler is more pleasing approach" to audio. I think in rare occasions (dependent on environment) a $2,000 amp w/room correction "could" sound as good as say a Mac, Audio Research or Pass Labs etc but that is few and far between. There's something about all this processing that just doesn't sound right to me, almost artificial. Vintage amps right up too current amps based on simple old technology sound so much better to me. While measurements are nice and good for a getting a general idea of the gear, i rather go by me ear. Some of the best concerts halls were built w/no computers or room correction equipment. People used their ears with great success. I'm a subjective guy when i comes to audio and would take a Pass Labs, Mac amp over any "digital amp" any day of the week. Thats my idea of quality and one of the big reasons i got tired of multi channel AVR setups.

richluvsound

05-05-2012, 08:36 AM

Now you know, name calling isn't allowed. ;)

Personally, when I realize someone would rather provoke than converse, I simply ignore their posts.

Widget

Even better idea ..... leave him alone , he'll get board and end up 'PLAYING WITH HIMSELF'
:D They do say 'it' makes one deaf !

Rich

Ducatista47

05-05-2012, 09:06 AM

Now you know, name calling isn't allowed. ;)

Personally, when I realize someone would rather provoke than converse, I simply ignore their posts.

Widget
Of course you are correct and I am - thank goodness - no moderator. What does have me worried is a slippery slope thing the other way. A few more like this poster and we might become like Head-Fi. More BS than readable content and no longer worth wading through. People who like to endlessly repeat themselves tend to generate a high word count.

A preemptive strike, I feel an August member who's forum name starts with 4 will observe that we are there already. If only my posts mattered, he would probably be correct! I wrote a lot of downright embarrassing stuff back in the day; now I wish I could send it into the nearest black hole.

Clark

Mr. Widget

05-05-2012, 09:28 AM

There's something about all this processing that just doesn't sound right to me, almost artificial. Vintage amps right up too current amps based on simple old technology sound so much better to me. While measurements are nice and good for a getting a general idea of the gear, i rather go by me ear.Precisely what my experience has been too.

Widget

Mr. Widget

05-05-2012, 09:32 AM

Even better idea ..... leave him alone , he'll get board and end up 'PLAYING WITH HIMSELF'
:D They do say 'it' makes one deaf !

RichThat was my point.. I read that fellow's posts the first few times and then realized it was a simple waste of time. This most recent post, I saw the poster's name an moved down the list... almost as though he wasn't there. ;)

Widget

Mr. Widget

05-05-2012, 09:39 AM

I wrote a lot of downright embarrassing stuff back in the day; now I wish I could send it into the nearest black hole.
I think most of us have... over the years, I have stumbled upon some of my older posts and wondered what the heck I was thinking... but it's all good, we call it growth. Good to know that it is still possible.

Widget

hjames

05-05-2012, 09:43 AM

... over the years, I have stumbled upon some of my older posts and wondered what the heck I was thinking...
but it's all good, we call it growth. Good to know that it is still possible.

Widget

... forgive me father, for I have sinned.
Its been 5 hours since my last posting ...

Ducatista47

05-05-2012, 09:55 AM

That was my point.. I read that fellow's posts the first few times and then realized it was a simple waste of time. This most recent post, I saw the poster's name an moved down the list... almost as though he wasn't there. ;)

Widget
I have to admit that has worked well for me. Some time ago I was considering blocking a member who sent me a series of negative, paranoid PMs; I simply don't want to be exposed to him again. Not wanting to do something that drastic, I just skip over his presence now. And since you mentioned it, I realize I was already doing it in this instance.

Clark

Titanium Dome

05-05-2012, 11:00 PM

I have to admit that has worked well for me. Some time ago I was considering blocking a member who sent me a series of negative, paranoid PMs; I simply don't want to be exposed to him again. Not wanting to do something that drastic, I just skip over his presence now. And since you mentioned it, I realize I was already doing it in this instance.

Clark

Besides, putting someone on ignore usually fails because of all the quoting that goes on around here, so just when you think you're free, someone quotes him or her. :banghead:

I keep one person on ignore by his/her request, which I found exceedingly odd at the time, but now except when that individual is quoted I am xxxxxxxxx-free. It actually turned out to be a good request.

Titanium Dome

05-05-2012, 11:06 PM

I think most of us have... over the years, I have stumbled upon some of my older posts and wondered what the heck I was thinking... but it's all good, we call it growth. Good to know that it is still possible.

Widget

Yes, it's true for all of us. I've not seen anyone who posts here regularly who doesn't cause me to scratch my head at least once a week. Of course, sometimes when we're in our cups we can post some amazing stuff until we re-read it later. In my case, though, most people just assume I'm stupid. People can believe what they want, because at the end of the day, I've got what I want, and others' opinions are just a key stroke from oblivion. ;)

Ian Mackenzie

05-06-2012, 05:17 AM

The comparison will have to wait until I get more time.

There was a mention of part qualty in one of the posts.

This is perhaps worthy of healthy debate.

Some people say a resister is a resister and they do not have an audible signature. Others say they do. Same for capacitors.

But what about the active semi-conductors? Is that a definition of quality? Or is the term quality not a useful to draw parts comparisons?

If a part can exhibit lower distortion and that can be related to transparency then I this its reasonable make reference to quality.

It is proven beyond doubt by key people in the field like Erno Borbely, Nelson Pass and John Curl that selected carefully, specific semi conductors can exhibit lower distortion as amplifying devices.

Historically all the buzz has been about passive parts and the subjectivity of that parts but little has been pubically discussed until recently about active parts.

Nelson Pass recently worked closely with a semiconductor manufacturer to develop a SIT (statis induction transister) with particular characteristics that would provide lower distortion in audio circuits. Previously these devices were used on radar installations.

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/firstwatt14/1.html

I am sure you will find this iink interesting reading.

In typical diy fashion a couple of years ago I replaced the IRF 9610 mosfets used in the differential pair of my AX Aleph power with Jfets. There is no question the Jfet has lower measured distortion and improved subjective performance in this application.

Its also interesting to note that recent technological advances have lead to a volume control chip (analogue , not digital) that has far superior parameters to the traditional potentiometer.

At last technology is being used to enhance sound quality not degrade it.

tomt

05-10-2012, 05:27 PM

the Denon isn't in the same league as a dumb analog box - it's better.

good news for you!

denon has a new av model!

http://www.phileweb.com/news/d-av/201205/11/30802.html

4313B

09-06-2012, 08:00 AM

Last vestige of aluminum has been purged. Ditched the Perreauxs for an ancient but well restored pair of Dynaco MkIII monoblocks. Not a sliver of aluminum, no lights save the tubes. Stamped steel chassis, I think I'm good. Pending approval, of course.I'm looking at this to power my five Tannoys. All I really care about is some kind of wattage from a box that has cool blue lights. I'm sick of green lights. If it has to be emo, so be it.

The XPR-5 faceplate is made of 25 millimeters of solid billet aluminum; tooled, machined, engraved, and finished like fine jewelry. The oversized Emotiva logo is laser embossed on the faceplate, and an array of 60 dual color LEDs forms a high performance metering system that is hidden behind a smoked polycarbonate window.

Notice I didn't post any specs because I don't care. I'm going on the "If it looks like it kicks ass, it probably does." principle. :rotfl:

Quite simply, the XPR-5 is a beautiful amplifier, both visually <BITCHIN'!> :bouncy: and audibly. <WHATEVS...w = v*i> :rolleyes:

SEAWOLF97

09-06-2012, 08:09 AM

Notice I didn't post any specs because I don't care. I'm going on the "If it looks like it kicks ass, it probably does." principle. :rotfl:

Finally

somebody in touch with todays values....:crying: *

*all that walnut and steel is soo Old Skool

jbljfan

09-06-2012, 08:25 AM

It looks like I'll be replacing my old PassX-5 with the newer and better XPR-5. :blink:

4313B

09-06-2012, 08:41 AM

It looks like I'll be replacing my old PassX-5 with the newer and better XPR-5. :blink:Hey, as soon as the Chinese manufacturers figure out what QUALITY CONTROL and QUALITY ASSURANCE mean we're all dead. Even Mr. Pass. ;)

Mr. Widget

09-06-2012, 09:45 AM

Hey, as soon as the Chinese manufacturers figure out what QUALITY CONTROL and QUALITY ASSURANCE mean we're all dead. Even Mr. Pass. ;)I just bought a pair of Parasound Halo JC-1 amps. California designed and serviced but built in Taiwan. These amps are damned close to Pass Labs in performance at a much friendlier price point, but they are not cheap China prices either... at $9K a pair for 400 watt mono blocks. Basically quality costs, regardless of who is doing it.

Widget

4313B

09-06-2012, 10:08 AM

I just bought a pair of Parasound Halo JC-1 amps. California designed and serviced but built in Taiwan. These amps are damned close to Pass Labs in performance at a much friendlier price point, but they are not cheap China prices either... at $9K a pair for 400 watt mono blocks. Basically quality costs, regardless of who is doing it.No way! :p I'm thoroughly familiar with various pay scales. And Taiwan isn't MLC. If something is being built in MLC and it's commanding a premium price that's because some guy at the top is raking in some serious cash, not because a bunch of guys and gals at the bottom are making any salary of substance. I can definitely find a factory in MLC that can crank out those Halos at a fraction of the cost. You might get some counterfeit electronic components in the process though. :rotfl: It is prudent to keep tabs on the suppliers of the suppliers.

Have you compared those $9K Halo mono blocks with those $2K Emo mono blocks?

Anyway, all this is supposed to be funny. I think it's funny.

pos

09-06-2012, 10:10 AM

Widget, have you had a chance to listen to the new hypex ncore amps?

Mr. Widget

09-06-2012, 10:58 AM

Widget, have you had a chance to listen to the new hypex ncore amps?No.

I'm sure they won't warm up the listening space in winter like the Halos will. :D

Widget

Odd

09-06-2012, 12:57 PM

No way! :p I'm thoroughly familiar with various pay scales. And Taiwan isn't MLC. If something is being built in MLC and it's commanding a premium price that's because some guy at the top is raking in some serious cash, not because a bunch of guys and gals at the bottom are making any salary of substance. I can definitely find a factory in MLC that can crank out those Halos at a fraction of the cost. You might get some counterfeit electronic components in the process though. :rotfl: It is prudent to keep tabs on the suppliers of the suppliers.

Anyway, all this is supposed to be funny. I think it's funny.

Yes, it's fun for those watching inside the products and have an understanding of the components used, and the price they cost. For two or ten, they cost a bit. Buy 10000 and the cost is not much.
For amplifiers, the major cost is labor.

An Honor to Nelson Pass for all the information he shares with DIY's

fpitas

09-06-2012, 01:11 PM

JeffW

09-06-2012, 04:16 PM

Rolled, billet, who gives a crap. The front plate on the Pass amps is just a sheet of aluminum, too, but then they bolt some machined pieces onto that. The more important question is why don't they used stamped sheet metal like good amps.

I think the main reason somebody would say the First Watt (J2, for instance) looks like a Pass amp is because aside from no meter and absent the machined handles, it looks pretty much just like a Pass amp. The screw holes on the J2 front are the same ones that the handles bolt onto the Pass. Same heatsinks. Same top cover. Pull the handles off the Pass and it'd be the same except for the meter (that doesn't actually do anything, anyway).

fpitas

09-06-2012, 04:23 PM

Rolled, billet, who gives a crap. The front plate on the Pass amps is just a sheet of aluminum, too, but then they bolt some machined pieces onto that. The more important question is why don't they used stamped sheet metal like good amps.

I think the main reason somebody would say the First Watt (J2, for instance) looks like a Pass amp is because aside from no meter and absent the machined handles, it looks pretty much just like a Pass amp. The screw holes on the J2 front are the same ones that the handles bolt onto the Pass. Same heatsinks. Same top cover.

Looks quite different to me. I was looking at Pass Lab amps and realized I don't like the meter or the odd protrusions. To me the J2 just looks like lab equipment, which is fine with me. To test that, I set it on a bench in the lab at work and no one batted an eye.

4313B

09-06-2012, 05:21 PM

looks like lab equipment, which is fine with me. To test that, I set it on a bench in the lab at work and no one batted an eye.:applaud:

I went ahead and fixed it so people would notice. I also added another 449 of those watt things.

JeffW

09-06-2012, 06:40 PM

Looks quite different to me. I was looking at Pass Lab amps and realized I don't like the meter or the odd protrusions. To me the J2 just looks like lab equipment, which is fine with me. To test that, I set it on a bench in the lab at work and no one batted an eye.

That's why I said it looked just like it " aside from no meter and absent the machined handles (odd protrusions)". Take the handles (odd protrusions) off the Pass, slap some duct tape over the meter (that doesn't do anything, anyway), and Bob's your uncle.

Mr. Widget

09-06-2012, 10:28 PM

What an odd thread. No one said the obvious (well, to me), which is that the whole discussion is apples and oranges. Room correction can't fix the faults of a bad amp (phase intermodulation with amplitude changes, crossover distortion etc.), and the best amp can't do room correction. Each is necessary to fix specific problems.I get your point, but at the end of the day... we buy equipment to satisfy our quest for audio nirvana. Yes, some buy bling and others feed their egos, but since normal people don't differentiate between the chrome and blue LEDs of a large boom box and a piece of high end audio gear, if you aren't buying this stuff to please yourself you are just wasting your money anyway.

In the quest for sonic bliss some will tolerate room influenced distortions focusing on subtleties of superb speakers and electronics while others are more or less oblivious to the rather harsh canned sound that most DSP based systems offer up and prefer their "corrected" sound. These are apples and oranges... true. That said, we can have preferences between apples and oranges too. ;)

Widget

Mr. Widget

09-06-2012, 10:36 PM

That's why I said it looked just like it " aside from no meter and absent the machined handles (odd protrusions)". Take the handles (odd protrusions) off the Pass, slap some duct tape over the meter (that doesn't do anything, anyway), and Bob's your uncle.I agree the styling is a bit over the top, but the meter does do something... it shows you the state of the amplifier's output biasing. As you push the amp(s) and the bias current increases pushing the amp(s) from class A into AB the meter will begin deflecting to the right and at about 2 o'clock the amp will begin clipping. That said, with the larger Pass amps where you will never really push them, the meter is as useless as the watt meters on the larger McIntosh amps...

Widget

Guido

09-07-2012, 02:16 AM

I agree the styling is a bit over the top, but the meter does do something... it shows you the state of the amplifier's output biasing. As you push the amp(s) and the bias current increases pushing the amp(s) from class A into AB the meter will begin deflecting to the right and at about 2 o'clock the amp will begin clipping. That said, with the larger Pass amps where you will never really push them, the meter is as useless as the watt meters on the larger McIntosh amps...
Widget

Maybe it was like this in the older X series amps. Nowadays in the X.5 and XA.5 amps it's different.
It just measures the Voltage difference between PS board (- Ref) and Bias-Board (Main-Board) with a 20mA Meter. It is adjusted to zero with a small pot.
The meter starts flouncing at higher currents as then there is a very very small Voltage difference between the boards.

Open one of your demo amps follow the pcb tracks and you see easily.

Whatever it doesn't do anything :)

fpitas

09-07-2012, 04:43 AM

I get your point, but at the end of the day... we buy equipment to satisfy our quest for audio nirvana. Yes, some buy bling and others feed their egos, but since normal people don't differentiate between the chrome and blue LEDs of a large boom box and a piece of high end audio gear, if you aren't buying this stuff to please yourself you are just wasting your money anyway. In the quest for sonic bliss some will tolerate room influenced distortions focusing on subtleties of superb speakers and electronics while others are more or less oblivious to the rather harsh canned sound that most DSP based systems offer up and prefer their "corrected" sound. These are apples and oranges... true. That said, we can have preferences between apples and oranges too. ;) Widget

It wasn't my intention to pick on anybody, just to note that two different problems are being addressed. Most rooms do need some attention; I hung drapes around my listening room to combat the excess reverberance and dampen reflections, which helped a lot. Maybe DSP room correction would help too, but I haven't tried it. Either way, any sonic imperfections of the amps is a separate problem.

Edit: Although, looking at some previous posts, people have already noted these are different problems. Never mind me...:o:

Mr. Widget

09-07-2012, 07:58 AM

It wasn't my intention to pick on anybody.... Never mind me...:o:Not at all... you made a very good point however I guess I wasn't clear in my response.

I agree that the two subjects are different, my point is that while they are different they do both affect the sound and that an individual may be more sensitive to one form of quality over the other.

Here is an example. In my 2 channel listening room the bass response is a bit uneven and depending on where you sit it has more or less bloom. A DSP could correct this and that would be a good thing. That said, I have yet to use one that is transparent enough that the rest of the spectrum wouldn't be compromised.

In a surround sound system with a video source, the distractions of the video and of the additional audio channels makes the importance of uber high end sound significantly less important. In this type of system, I generally prefer a bit of DSP correction.

Widget

Mr. Widget

09-07-2012, 08:06 AM

Maybe it was like this in the older X series amps. Nowadays in the X.5 and XA.5 amps it's different.
It just measures the Voltage difference between PS board (- Ref) and Bias-Board (Main-Board) with a 20mA Meter. It is adjusted to zero with a small pot.
The meter starts flouncing at higher currents as then there is a very very small Voltage difference between the boards.

Open one of your demo amps follow the pcb tracks and you see easily.

Whatever it doesn't do anything :)My experience with Pass Labs amps is limited to living with an XA30.5 for a few months. I never looked inside and wouldn't know what to look for if I had. I was told by the folks at Pass, that this is what the meter showed. I have no reason to doubt them. Certainly as the output level increased, the meter began deflecting and after it reached about 2 o'clock the sound was slightly strained.

If you are certain about your understanding of the circuit, then I guess they are liars or don't know what they are doing... I find both of these possibilities unlikely. Perhaps there is a third option. :)

Widget

JeffW

09-07-2012, 11:33 AM

As you push the amp(s) and the bias current increases pushing the amp(s) from class A into AB the meter will begin deflecting to the right and at about 2 o'clock the amp will begin clipping.

They don't begin clipping, they begin transitioning from their set bias point. The XA30.5 starts transitioning from Class A bias at about 40 wpc @ 8 ohms, that's when the meter starts moving. It doesn't clip until about 130 wpc @ 8 ohms IIRC. Why I even bother clarifying any of this is beyond me, bored I guess. You could just buy good amps and avoid all this meter nonsense.

4313B

09-07-2012, 11:42 AM

You could just buy good amps and avoid all this meter nonsense.That's like buying an aquarium without fish...

Mr. Widget

09-07-2012, 01:33 PM

They don't begin clipping, they begin transitioning from their set bias point. The XA30.5 starts transitioning from Class A bias at about 40 wpc @ 8 ohms, that's when the meter starts moving. It doesn't clip until about 130 wpc @ 8 ohms IIRC. Why I even bother clarifying any of this is beyond me, bored I guess. You could just buy good amps and avoid all this meter nonsense.Yes they begin clipping above 100wpc...which coincidentally is when the meter reads about 2 o'clock.;)

Widget

fpitas

09-07-2012, 01:46 PM

Rather than a meter, my preference would be an LED driven by a peak/hold circuit, to let you know when the peaks are exceeding the amp maximum output voltage (i.e., turn it down).

JeffW

09-07-2012, 01:50 PM

Yes they begin clipping above 100wpc...which coincidentally is when the meter reads about 2 o'clock.;)

Widget

It's a sad day when an amp can't do more than 3X its rated output before clipping. And IIRC, mine ran with the meter at about 2 o'clock steady state, then moved to the right from there.

Mr. Widget

09-07-2012, 01:54 PM

Rather than a meter, my preference would be an LED driven by a peak/hold circuit, to let you know when the peaks are exceeding the amp maximum output voltage (i.e., turn it down).Sure... and that is why most pro amps use LED power indicators. The meters on McIntosh amps and on Pass Labs amps are really just bling... they may not do nothing, but their utility is questionable.

Now, what the heck do aluminum face plates and meters have to do with quality? :D

Widget

fpitas

09-07-2012, 02:57 PM

Sure... and that is why most pro amps use LED power indicators. The meters on McIntosh amps and on Pass Labs amps are really just bling... they may not do nothing, but their utility is questionable.

Now, what the heck do aluminum face plates and meters have to do with quality? :D

Widget

I'll admit I didn't invent the idea; my M-243 mixer has a peak indicator that lights if any stage output gets within 3dB of max output. Nice feature.

JeffW

09-07-2012, 04:07 PM

fpitas

09-07-2012, 04:09 PM

You should consider a nice Crown D-75A instead of that J2. It has clipping LEDs, independent input attenuators, more power, it's smaller, lighter, less expensive, and has that subdued industrial "lab quality" look. Plus it's a good brand.

The J2 sounds just fine, but thank you. I don't want to hurt Mr. Pass's feelings, so I'll suffer with the sub-par brand.

JeffW

09-07-2012, 05:11 PM

The J2 sounds just fine

HHmmm.. Judging an amp on how it sounds instead of how it looks. Now there's a novel idea.

Ian Mackenzie

09-07-2012, 06:07 PM

The J2 sounds just fine, but thank you. I don't want to hurt Mr. Pass's feelings, so I'll suffer with the sub-par brand.

Agreed.

The J2 is a completely different design to the XA30.5, it has a differenty sonic signature (no surprise) and is not manufactered at the Pass Labs factory but in Nelson's shed.

Th First Watt Genre of amps are unique in the approach taken to meet specific needs of the audiophile unlike mass market produced amps that are designed to a broad range of consumer and professional applications.

The forte of the First Watt is simplicity of design and elegance of execution. The result of which is extracting high measured and subjective performance from very simple circuits.

I have no commercial affiliation to First Watt or Pass Labs but when you weigh up the above and fact that these amps are still manufactured / assembled in the USA then First Watt and Pass Labs respresent a unique definition of quality.

In an economy where retail is dead and many business are struggling to stay afloat you need to ask Kent English of Pass Labs why is the business doing so well when many of their direct competitors have not survived?

Another interesting story of quality is the EAR brand by Tim de Paravicini.
http://www.ear-yoshino.com/tim_bio.php?n=2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA7VHgVaZro

JeffW

09-07-2012, 07:07 PM

Agreed.

The J2 is a completely different design to the XA30.5,

I never meant to compare the two, I think Widget brought up the XA30.5, I just continued to use that as an example.

it has a differenty sonic signature (no surprise)

I think it would come as a big surprise to many here. Even "Pass Labs" amps get lumped together because of the unfortunate circumstance of them sharing a common faceplate design, but all Pass Labs amps don't sound the same. Doesn't really matter since they all look the same, and we go by looks instead of sound.

and is not manufactered at the Pass Labs factory but in Nelson's shed.

I still say they look very similar, except for the "odd protrusions" and meter. Maybe Nelson should have contracted out the case design so people wouldn't associate the two.

The First Watt Genre of amps are unique in the approach taken to meet specific needs of the audiophile unlike mass market produced amps that are designed to a broad range of consumer and professional applications.

The forte of the First Watt is simplicity of design and elegance of execution. The result of which is extracting high measured and subjective performance from very simple circuits.

They certainly don't get slagged on like the Pass Labs line, probably because they look simpler.

I have no commercial affiliation to First Watt or Pass Labs but when you weigh up the above and fact that these amps are still manufactured / assembled in the USA then First Watt and Pass Labs respresent a unique definition of quality.

And that definition seems to be what inspired this multi page rant against them.

In an economy where retail is dead and many business are struggling to stay afloat you need to ask Kent English of Pass Labs why is the business doing so well when many of their direct competitors have not survived?

They bought aluminum futures low?

ETA: Happy Birthday!

Titanium Dome

09-07-2012, 11:29 PM

Uh-huh.

Ducatista47

09-08-2012, 12:42 AM

fpitas

09-08-2012, 06:14 AM

One more interesting feature of FirstWatt products. Except for a brief period now past, when I think it was a son and a nephew helping out, all were/are hand soldered and assembled solely by Nelson himself. I am listening to two of his components right now. I have peeked inside one of them, and he is a terrific solderer.

The payoff is that between the design and the construction, none has ever failed in the field. Not one in over a decade. You get you money's worth.

It feels like having a Ducati assembled by Dr T.

Clark

Everything you say about First Watt is true, and certainly helped seal the deal. The real reason I bought the J2 though is I'm a sucker for JFETs. I've been designing with them for years, and even got a job designing low-noise electronic instrumentation because I knew about them. And these are silicon carbide JFETs; the geek in me couldn't resist. Luckily, they sound great :)

Guido

09-08-2012, 06:59 AM

... I find both of these possibilities unlikely. Perhaps there is a third option. :) Widget Nelson's, ask him...... Oh and yes, I understand the circuit. Not only the meter circuit.

fpitas

09-08-2012, 07:15 AM

That's like buying an aquarium without fish...

But if the needle never moves, isn't that like having dead fish?

/Couldn't resist

4313B

09-08-2012, 07:48 AM

You should consider a nice Crown D-75A instead of that J2. It has clipping LEDs, independent input attenuators, more power, it's smaller, lighter, less expensive, and has that subdued industrial "lab quality" look. Plus it's a good brand.No... it's Crown... better to just plug your loudspeakers directly into a wall socket...

Doesn't really matter since they all look the same, and we go by looks instead of sound.Well yeah! One drinks alot of beer to make some of this junk look better to the detriment of ones hearing. Better that it simply looks good right from the get-go.

But if the needle never moves, isn't that like having dead fish?:rotfl:

I haven't had meters since my Yamaha and Luxman days. That was along time ago! :(

Mr. Widget

09-08-2012, 09:08 AM

fpitas

09-08-2012, 09:20 AM

On a related topic... why do some threads insist on becoming repositories of lameness? :banghead:

Widget

OK OK...I'm sorry I made fun of the meter.

4313B

09-08-2012, 10:44 AM

On a related topic... why do some threads insist on becoming repositories of lameness? :banghead:

I'm not singling anyone out, and I am including many of my own posts... it's just odd how some threads are simply a waste of time.

WidgetI'm guessing because all of this is a waste of time. I had to go back and read the original thread this thread came from and it was kind of lame too.

I do kind of agree with your two statements above with respect to two channel versus five channel but I think it's kind of sad about DSP not being good enough for you in the two channel domain, I'm pretty sure it's the future. I have extremely high expectations of digital in the coming years. Perhaps I'll end up disappointed, I was certainly disappointed with that DEQX pile of garbage, but the theory is outstanding. I guess it really boils down to the quality guys trumping the guys that are out to just make a buck. Only time will tell I suppose.

Ian Mackenzie

09-08-2012, 01:13 PM

The new DEQX is out and its supposed to be an improvement.

Did anyone go to the CES this year? DEQX were there.

Back on topic ........

I recall the initial trigger to start this thread was the notion that a hme theatre digital wonder box with all its room correction glory would be more hifi than the simple Pass Labs amp.

Nad has a new all digital integrated amp out and Harman also has a new top line integrated amp with some DSP capability.

Of related practical experience I visited a headphone "only" retailer recently and walked out of the shop almost a convert of digital done right.

The shop owner set up a Laptop with a XYZ brand decoder and headamp with 3 different headphone sets for me to compare. (AKG Q701, Grado RS1i and Beyerdynamic T1

Before I commenced the demo he said he would do sound check. That involved conifiguring Windows not to screw up the bits and a special box was interted between the Laptop and the convertor to sort out the jitter from the Laptop USB output like the Stello U3 reviewed in the link below.

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/aprilmusic8/1.html

To my tin ears the sound quality of the 24/196 downloads via the $650 Grado cans was right up there with the best analogue playback and under 2 grand for the whole package.

These particular headphones actually throw quite a convincing sound stage
.
http://www.gradolabs.com/page_headphones.php?item=ae1595b5da20749abdc0f2ea6 6eb593f

I guess the point here is that if you take the room out of the equation (digital cannot make a bad room sound good) and use digital to do one thing "right" then you can get a good result.

Ducatista47

09-08-2012, 03:34 PM

On a related topic... why do some threads insist on becoming repositories of lameness? :banghead:

I'm not singling anyone out, and I am including many of my own posts... it's just odd how some threads are simply a waste of time.

Widget
Try Headfi or some strictly audiophile forums. It can take hours to find threads where BS doesn't dominate. The reasonable voices on Headfi have fled to the Sound Science forum, where you can still challenge posters claiming "night and day" and "revelatory" improvements with cables, tube rolling, wire break-in, the superiority of expensive highly colored tube amps, and such.

This place is not bad at all. Cable elevators, anyone? If it costs a lot it MUST sound better! ;)

Clark