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.Originally Posted by Titanium Dome
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?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.
Without exception the answer is none.
Ergo the statement was a deflection and purely combative against a former statement of fact where assumption of quality is lauded by the experience of a large population sample and therefore becomes a known fact.
While not worth wasting time on historically these types of defiant statements are eschewed by socket puppets or an invitee as is most likely the case from a sale by a member to an outside troll.
In relation to the facia there are two aspects.
Mechanical strength and industrial design.
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.
Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears
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.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.
Ever compare a Charge Coupled Schematic vs a generic?? More parts or more complexity in no way definately assures poorer performance.
Rob
"I could be arguing in my spare time"
Might be easier to just play the instruments yourself. Eliminate all electronics that way.
Why buy used when you can build your own?
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
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
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
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."
Yes generalizations simply don't work. There are way to many variables to just blindly draw a line.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."
Rob
"I could be arguing in my spare time"
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...
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 hear it everyday... let's just say, "It ain't subtle!"
I have absolutely no idea what you are saying.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...
Widget
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
Are there any really good AV amps?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote