robert_kc

IME, an important factor is synergy between the speaker and amp. My modern NAD D 3020 sounds OK for general PC use (e.g., youtube) in my office system (speakers are JBL L880). (However, the NAD D 3020 does not sound as good as one of my tube amps for playing classical music in this system.) When connected to my Klipsch RF-7II, the NAD D 3020 does not sound good. “Shred my ears” might be an over-statement, but I would describe the NAD D 3020 as unlistenable with RF-7II. (Playing hi-res recordings of classical music.) Consider my modern single-ended-pentode amp: Inspire “Fire Bottle” SE Stereo Tube Amplifier HO. (Hand made in the USA a few years ago.) When equipped with certain tubes (I like 6L6GC), it sounds great with my RF-7II for music that doesn’t have much dynamic range. However, my Inspire “Fire Bottle” SEP amp doesn’t sound as good with my Klipsch Palladium P-37F. IME, synergy (e.g., between an amp and speakers) is not “audiophoolery”.

I agree with this approach. I’ve moved amps between my 5 hi-fi systems so that each is installed in the system where it produces the best sound quality. (My criterion for the audio quality from my hi-fi systems is a pleasant simulacrum of what I remember hearing in the symphony hall.) Following are my systems. (Each amp has been electronically restored, and is in good working order.) These systems (plus numerous other amps that have come and gone over the years) represent my “test bed” for hi-fi. IME, amps sound different. Living room: Stereo speakers are Snell Type CV. Subwoofer: Klipsch P-312W. The source components are Oppo BDP-105 (used to play SACD, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Blu-ray, and equipped with USB hard drive containing high-res FLAC recordings), and Dual 1249 with Stanton 681EE. Amps include a pair of McIntosh MC30s, Scott 296, McIntosh MX110Z / McIntosh MC275, a pair of Pilot HF-56 mono receivers, an NAD pre-amp and Acurus A250 power-amp for movies, and a McIntosh 2155 driving JBL L830s in the kitchen / dining room. A patch panel (banana plugs) allows me to connect the speakers to whichever amp I want, and a Niles AXP-1 RCA selector switch connects the Oppo to the amp. Chromecast Audio for internet radio and Spotify Premium. TV room: Stereo speakers are Klipsch Palladium P-37F. Subwoofer: Klipsch P-312W. The source is an Oppo UDP-205 (used to play SACD, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Blu-ray, and equipped with USB hard drive containing high-res FLAC recordings). The amps are Scott 399, McIntosh MC225, Kenwood KR-9050, Fisher 800B, Fisher X-1000, Scott 299C, McIntosh MC240, and an NAD C375BEE. The tube amps are for music. The solid-state amps are for movies. A patch panel (banana plugs) allows me to connect the speakers to whichever amp I want, and Niles AXP-1 RCA selector switches connect the Oppo to the amp. Chromecast Audio for internet radio and Spotify Premium. Basement: Front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch RF-7 II. A single rear speaker is a Klipsch RF-7. Subwoofers: SVS SB16-Ultra, Klipsch R-115SW. Source: Oppo UDP-205 (used to play SACD, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Blu-ray, and equipped with USB hard drive containing high-res FLAC recordings). Amps: Scott 272, Inspire “Fire Bottle” SE Stereo Tube Amplifier HO, Scott 222C, McIntosh MX110Z tuner/preamp, Fisher KX-200, Scott 296, Pilot SA-260, Scott LK150. A patch panel allows me to connect the speakers to whichever amp I want, and F/F RCA cables enable me to connect an amp to the Oppo, and a power amp to the MX110Z. Chromecast Audio for internet radio and Spotify Premium. Office: Stereo speakers are JBL L880. Sources: Oppo DV-980H SACD/CD/DVD, and my Windows 10 laptop with Music Streamer II DAC. Amps: Fisher 500C, Scott 299B, Altec 353A, and an NAD D 3020 for general internet use (and summertime). Banana jacks allow me to connect the speakers to whichever amp I want, and a Niles AXP-1 RCA selector switch connects the Oppo to the amp. Bedroom: The speaker is a single Klipsch WF-35. Source is an older CD player. Fisher TA 500 (AM/FM mono receiver). Chromecast Audio for internet radio and Spotify Premium.

Has anyone proven that various testing methodologies (e.g., ABX, DBT) are effective for evaluating the sound quality of a hi-fi system? What I think would make sense is to have a test wherein the sound is deliberately altered by various known degrees, and then determine what the listening test yields. If the listening test consistently yields correct results to a statistically significant degree, then that would seem to support the validity of the test methodology. If not, then it’s time to go back to the drawing board, and devise a better listening test. Have the test methodologies (e.g., ABX, DBT) been proven accurate when applied to the sound quality of a hi-fi system (i.e., human perception of sound), vs. when applied to some completely unrelated field? I think that several considerations are relevant to this issue: Consider all of the different variances in the design of different amplifiers. Doesn’t it seem unlikely that they would all sound exactly the same? Regardless of the speakers being driven (i.e., given the varying nature of the load that various speakers present to an amp)? And consider the complexities of human perception. The brain can be tricked. (E.g., The Invisible Gorilla. Speech-to-Song Illusion. Etc.) How much do we know about the fallibilities of the mind’s perception of sound (psychoacoustics), and auditory illusion, and how these affect listening tests of the sound quality from a hi-fi? And consider that some audio engineers have questioned the validity of procedures such as ABX for testing the audio quality of hi-fi systems. And most importantly, consider the fact that many experienced hobbyists report hearing differences in amps. What’s the probability that these are all dishonest people, or they are all being deceived? Don’t these considerations raise a concern about a testing methodology that indicates “all amps sound the same”? Weighing all of these considerations, isn’t it just as likely that the people participating in ABX tests are being deceived, vs. the hobbyists who report that they hear differences? Bottom line: Have the listening tests been tested (validated, calibrated) – specifically when used for evaluating the sound quality of a hi-fi system? At this point in the evolution of hi-fi, it seems to me that each individual must decide if they want to think and hear for themselves (using their own simple listening comparisons), or trust ABX or DBT test results. P.S. I think that the late 1950s and early ‘60s was a good era for hi-fi amps. And I specifically agree with the following statements by an amplifier manufacturer in the 1950s: “Don’t all amplifiers sound pretty much the same? Nothing could be further from the truth.” “Can I tell the difference by looking at performance curves? No, the listening quality of an amplifier is not revealed by its performance specifications.” “Simple listening tests reveal readily discernable differences in the reproduced sound.” Has the state-of-the-art advanced from the 1950s? Undoubtedly. At the same time, I suggest the following rhetorical question: 100 years from now will audio experts say: Back in 2019 the audio engineers understood every facet of human hearing, and how to measure every facet of audio quality that is relevant to the enjoyment of reproduced music, and amplifiers in 2019 “exceeded human hearing capability” – i.e. they were sonically perfect?

I agree with these comments by @TubeHiFiNut and @Edgar, and similar advice that others have offered to a newbie: Listen with your own ears, and form your own opinions about which hi-fi configuration sounds best to you. As has been discussed, I believe that from the consumer’s perspective, ABX testing doesn’t address the important issue: Which sound does the consumer prefer? ABX testing has entered this discussion based on the argument that “if people can’t reliably identify a difference in modern solid-state amps during ABX testing, then modern solid-state amps must all sound the same”. The problem is that many experienced hobbyists report that they can hear differences in amps – even differences between solid-state amps. Are the people who report hearing differences in amps “audiophools”, or is there a problem with employing ABX testing to evaluate audio sound quality? I’ve been reluctant to comment about the legitimacy of ABX testing for audio quality because I’m not an expert. And it’s been a few years since I’ve read about ABX testing. With that said, I suggest that the newbie ask themselves a few common-sense questions. (You can spend hours reading on-line about ABX testing if you wish.) Does the fact that ABX tests often fail to show that people can hear subtle differences in sound quality (e.g., different amps, hi-res recordings vs. CD, different cables, etc.) cause concern about the effectiveness of ABX for audio testing? Does ABX testing reliably provide information about differences in sound quality, or does ABX testing mostly provide information about limitations in people’s ability to remember sound? Is ABX testing fundamentally flawed when applied to the evaluation of audio sound quality? Suppose a listener were asked to listen to 1,000 music samples that have subtle differences in audio quality, followed by Sample X, and asked to identify which of the 1,000 samples is the same as X. My guess is that no one would be able to remember how 1,000 music samples sounded, and therefore would not be able to identify which is the same as X. (I have no scientific basis for this conclusion. I’m sharing my gut level instinct.) Can a person remember how 10 samples sounded, and reliably identify which is the same as X? $64k question: Can most people listen to 2 different music samples (A & B ) that have subtle sound differences, and then listen to Sample X, and reliably identify whether A or B is the same as X? What are the limits of human memory of sound? Bottom line: Does the fact that (reportedly) ABX tests often conclude “no difference proven” – even though experienced audiophiles often report they can hear differences – suggest that perhaps the ABX methodology is not well suited for audio tests? IMO the same general question is relevant for other forms of structured listening tests (e.g., blinded tests): Does the testing methodology reliably provide information about differences in sound quality, or do the test results suggest that the test methodology is ineffective - even if we don’t currently understand why the methodology produces flawed results. Note also that specific listening tests have had specific issues. For example, a test of recording sampling rates apparently did not use hi-res sources for the “hi-res” files. (Garbage in / garbage out.) And there are concerns about whether or not the listeners were hearing artifacts of software that apparently was used to facilitate testing and “simulate” different digital formats. (IMO anytime PC software “mucks around” with sound files, I have zero confidence in any test results.) This thread includes comments from many experienced audiophiles who say that they place faith in their “real world” experience with multiple amps, vs. placing faith in structured listening tests – even if the listening tests are described as being “scientific”. I don’t have a definitive answer regarding the effectiveness of various structured listening tests for audio, but I think there’s enough doubt about ABX testing methodology that one would be foolish to blindly draw conclusions from ABX test results. Your thoughts?

If I designed solid-state amplifiers for a living, I might care about comparing two modern solid-state amplifiers. (Though I certainly wouldn’t use this as my main criterion for designing an amp). However, I don’t design amps, and I’m not particularly concerned with comparing similar solid-state amps. I’m a classical music lover. What I care about is the sound that arrives at my listening chair from my hi-fi system. (As has already been discussed, critical factors include the synergy between the amp and speakers, the synergy between the speakers and room, quality of the recording, along with other factors.) For me, the $64k question is: Does the reproduced sound create a pleasant illusion that I’m in the symphony hall or opera house? I simply don’t care if the amplifier meets someone else’s technical criteria (e.g., “straight wire with gain”). And I’m not concerned with the results of an ABX test that compares similar modern solid-state amps, because my experience (based on 5 hi-fi systems that include more than two dozen amps) is that I generally prefer tube amps for classical music and Klipsch speakers. I believe a key issue is this: What is a consumer’s benchmark for excellent sound quality from their hi-fi system? I believe that each person must define the goals for their hi-fi system. You appear to be presenting as a benchmark a modern solid-state amp that is “linear”. However, many experienced hobbyists have reported that a modern solid-state amp doesn’t necessarily result in the most “musical” in-home listening experience. IMO you are suggesting the wrong criterion for someone who is a music lover (particularly if they listen to natural music for which there is a relatively clear benchmark). And IMO you are suggesting the wrong criterion for someone who is interested in participating in hi-fi as a hobby (e.g., the newbie who wants to invest more time than one trip to a big-box store when making their selection for an amp). As I said earlier, pairing Klipsch speakers with an amp that is “linear” makes little sense to me. What makes sense to me is pairing Klipsch with an amp that results in good sound quality. I’m not concerned with an amp being “faithful to the incoming signal”. I’m more concerned about whether the sound that arrives at my listening chair reminds me of a live performance in the symphony hall. $64k question for the newbie: Do you wish to participate in hi-fi as a hobby or not? For the person who answers yes, they’re unlikely to be content with allowing others to hear and think for them. Analogies are dangerous, nonetheless I’ll offer one: Has ABX double-blind testing proven that one wine is better than another? If not, should everyone drink the cheapest bottle of wine for a specified varietal? Some people are content with the cheapest option that meets their basic needs, whereas others enjoy judging for themselves what they like (i.e., John Q. Public vs. hobbyist/enthusiast). I enjoy my approach to the hobby of hi-fi, and my approach to the enjoyment of recorded music. Some newbies will enjoy forming their own opinions, based on their unique approach to the hobby. Others (non-hobbyists) are content with some expert making a recommendation for a mass-market modern solid-state amp (i.e., an amp they can buy at a big-box store). People are different. I think that if you were writing for Consumer Reports, and your audience were John Q. Public (i.e., someone who is not a hobbyist and will purchase an amp from a big-box store) then your comments would have relevance for a relatively higher percentage of readers. However, you are writing on a forum for hi-fi hobbyists, and the premise of your entire approach to decision making (i.e., no one has (arguably) proven that similar solid-state amps sound different, therefore buy the cheapest modern solid-state amp that meets your basic needs) will likely resonate with a relatively lower percentage of readers. Many experienced hobbyists have said that they prefer amps other than “big-box store solid-state amps”, and that’s something that a newbie hobbyist might want to consider. Regarding “proving” that someone can hear differences in audio technologies, my suggestion is this: Spend as many hours as you wish reading about the complexities of - and problems with – ABX testing. You’ll find that it’s a very complicated topic. The more you read, the less likely you’ll conclude that ABX testing for audio quality is straightforward and meaningful, and the more likely you’ll conclude that ABX testing for audio quality is fraught with problems. You’re presenting ABX testing as an infallible approach to audio testing, whereas this is hotly debated. Moreover, your suggested test is highly restrictive (only comparing modern solid-state amps that are linear). Moreover - and most important IMO - your suggested test is focused on the wrong issue, i.e., do two similar modern solid-state amps sound different, vs. which amp (whether tube or solid-state) results in the most musical sound when paired with particular speakers – as judged by the consumer. Who cares if two modern solid-state amps sound the same, if the consumer concludes that the most musical sounding amp for a given pair of Klipsch speakers is a tube amp? As has been pointed out repeatedly, why not suggest that the newbie who is interested in hi-fi as a hobby listen with their own ears, and suggest that they consider the full range of options (e.g., solid-state amps, tube amps, LPs, streaming, CDs, “hi-res” recordings, etc.)? As I’ve said before, here’s my advice for a newbie to the hobby of hi-fi: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/180122-advice-for-beginners/&do=findComment&comment=2324328

I believe that different people have differing sensitivities to various aspects of sound. For example, apparently some people are very sensitive to spatial presentation - but I don’t care about that. For my hi-fi systems, I care about the natural timbre of orchestral instruments being reproduced faithfully, and recreating (within reasonable limits) the full sound of a large-scale symphony orchestra (i.e., frequency range and dynamic range). Perhaps next time I’m at the symphony (purpose-built symphony hall that seats 1,600), I’ll try to remember to close my eyes and try to localize instruments. Similarly, next time I attend a performance of chamber music (Pražák Quartet and Zemlinksy Quartet performing in an historic theater that seats 1,078), I'll try to remember to close my eyes and try to localize instruments. For me, It's just not normally part of my enjoyment of live music to close my eyes and try to localize the instruments on stage. And "imaging" is not a criterion in my evaluation of my hi-fi systems. My main criteria are that I want to be drawn into the music, and forget I'm listening to a hi-fi, and have the illusion that I'm in the concert hall. (Except the part where someone sitting right behind me S - L - O -W - L -Y unwraps candy or a cough drop, or rustles the pages of their program.)

I can’t speak to the venue (“a large glass greenhouse”) you attended. Are the venue’s acoustics well suited for classical music? Was the venue designed as a symphony hall? Is the venue recognized as having world class acoustics for classical music? Did the orchestra perform without a sound reinforcement system? I have full season tickets to the symphony, performed in a modern world-class symphony hall that is known for excellent acoustics. And I have full season tickets to the opera, performed in a modern world-class opera house that is known for excellent acoustics. These two performance venues are described as two distinct structures, each acoustically isolated, contained within a “shell” that provides a common lobby area. Each hall was designed and built for its specific purpose. (In other words, each venue reflects unique acoustic design goals.) Neither hall uses sound reinforcement for classical concerts. (Pop concerts are a different story.) The sound quality in both is excellent. I’ll share a few observations. FWIW, I would never sit in the first few rows. My seats are mid-hall, in the first row of one of the lowest elevated sections. I can see the entire stage. The sound is amazing. I have never considered “imaging” as an important characteristic of the sound in a symphony hall or opera house. And I’ve never heard anyone state this as a design goal for a symphony hall or opera house. The thought has never occurred to me when attending a live concert to close my eyes and attempt to localize the individual musicians. I sit in the first elevated section so that I can see the musicians, and hear beautiful sound. I’ve never attempted to analyze the sound from my seat in the symphony hall – but off the top of my head I guess I’d call it beautifully balanced sound. I’m not a design expert. With that said, my understanding is that the acoustical goal for a symphony hall is for the audience to hear “blended” sound. OTOH, my understanding is that the acoustical goal for an opera house is to be able to hear and understand the singers (without microphones), and for the singers’ voices to blend appropriately with the orchestra sound. There are many other design goals, including minimizing “dead spots” in the hall, minimizing extraneous noise, optimizing what the musicians on stage are able to hear, etc. Again, I’m not an expert in acoustic design, but I’ve never heard anyone state as a goal that an audience member should be able to close their eyes and localize an instrument on stage. My perspective regarding classical music is that the “work of art” is the live performance in a hall that has world class acoustics appropriate for the music. Setting aside venues with poor acoustics, my goal for my home hi-fi system is to remind me of what I heard in the symphony hall or opera house. (Not the other way around.) When you refer to “pinpoint placement I get from some recordings at home”, are you referring to recordings that were artificially created using electronic tools (e.g., pop music), or recordings of classical music?

I don’t think that the preconditions I suggested for a hi-fi listening test are unreasonable. (Based on my perspective.) I’m saying: Let all amps compete. You’re proposing to restrict the test to amps that are “modern”, “linear”, and “are engineered for low distortion across the hearing band and maintain that low distortion while driving the speakers (let's Khorns [sic] ) to the desired volume”. While your proposed test may be of interest to academicians, I fail to see how most music lovers would care. Why should a music lover care if an amp is “linear”, if they don’t enjoy listening to music through that amp (when paired with a particular speaker)? To me – and many music lovers – it is more important that an amp/speaker pairing be “musical”, vs. an amp being “linear” (or excel at any other technical specification). If Klipschorn are used for a listening test – as you’ve suggested - this opens up the range of amps that the consumer could choose from, because Klipschorn require relatively little power. Why not allow the consumer to hear a single-ended-triode vacuum tube amp? Why not allow a single-ended-pentode amp in the test? Why not a push-pull 7189 amp? A push-pull 6L6GC amp? In addition to solid-state amps that have differing designs. What value is there for the consumer if a proposed listening test severely restricts their choices – and specifically excludes amps that many audiophiles find to be musically enjoyable? I suggested that the test should use top quality recordings. Why is that an unreasonable precondition? It seems to me that most people wouldn’t hear – and/or wouldn’t care about – differences in sound quality if poor quality recordings are used. I suggested that the test should involve “natural” music (e.g., classical music), because – as a classical music lover - I believe that the goal for a hi-fi system is to create the illusion that the listener is hearing a live performance. Those of us who listen to “natural” music know how a live performance should sound - i.e., natural instruments (e.g., violins) performing live in the intended venue, with no electronics involved. That’s why I suggested that the listening sessions should include live music (e.g., string quartet) – i.e., to remind the listener of how the “real thing” sounds. As I’ve said before, I respect the fact that different people like different music, and each consumer must define their goals for their hi-fi system. With that said, because recordings of “natural” music have a relatively clear benchmark for sound quality, I think that “natural” music is particularly well suited for listening tests for hi-fi systems. I also think that distortions are inevitable in reproduced music, and I prefer distortions to sound pleasant vs. unpleasant. During a listening test, why should the classical music fan not be able to consider whether a tube amp results in the most natural sound – and the most pleasant sound to their ears? OTOH, for a lot of popular music, there never was a live performance, and/or the sound was electronically altered – so it seems to me that the benchmark isn’t as clear for how some pop music “should” sound. It seems to me that if the listener has no benchmark for how the music should sound, they should simply pick whichever hi-fi configuration (e.g., amp/speaker combination) sounds best to them. (Which I think is perfectly OK.) During a listening test, why should the rock music fan not be able to consider whether a tube amp sounds “better” than a solid-state amp - to their ears? Regardless of music genre, I think the goal for reproduced music is a musically engaging listening experience. My goal is for the sound from my hi-fi system to be faithful to the original live classical performance. I am much less concerned about the output of the amplifier being “faithful to the original signal”. This I think defines an important point of departure: Those who want the sound from their hi-fi to sound like what they remember hearing in the symphony hall or opera house. For classical music, the “work of art” is the live performance, not the recording. Those who rely on some technical specifications and measurements to theoretically create an “accurate” playback system. Adherents to this school of thought apparently argue/hope/wish/assume that they’re hearing what the recording engineers and producers wanted them to hear. Apparently for some pop music there never was a live performance. The recording engineers and producers used hardware and software tools to create the final “song” – and therefore only the recording engineers know how the “song” sounded on their studio monitors. In this case – the “work of art” is the recording. The consumer has no basis for knowing how the electronically manipulated song is “supposed” to sound. (Were the studio monitors “flat”? If not, does the record company publish an EQ curve for each recording so that the consumer can achieve the “studio monitor sound” in their home?) Therefore, unless the consumer installs in their home the same monitors and amp used in the recording studio, the consumer is left to guess what the song is “supposed” to sound like – and left to rely on technical specs for their hi-fi system. Or, simply choose a hi-fi system that sounds “good” – which I think is the sensible approach for pop music. For at least some pop music, it seems to me that the idea of “accurate reproduction” is nonsense. Why not design a listening test that enables fans of popular music to decide which amp/speaker pair sounds good to them? My position: As I’ve said in another post, I don’t give a rat’s patootie what the recording engineers want. For the classical music I love, the recording engineers are not the artists. Their job IMO is to do as little harm as possible in faithfully capturing the sound of the live orchestra. The artists are the composer, conductor, and musicians. I want the sound from my hi-fi system to sound like a live classical performance. Is my approach perfect? No approach to sound reproduction is perfect. My memory isn’t perfect. With that said, I attend more than 20 live classical concerts each year (symphony, opera, chamber music), and I have a pretty good memory of how this music sounds when performed live in its intended venue, where no electronics are employed (i.e., no electronic instruments, and no sound reinforcement system). I want to get as close as I can to that sound via my hi-fi system, and I want inevitable distortions or colorations to sound pleasant vs. unpleasant. IME (more than 45 years as a hi-fi hobbyist and music lover) the pairing of an amp and speakers is one of the most important factors in the sound quality of a hi-fi system. I’m a Klipsch fan … however … let’s be candid … Klipsch speakers can be a bit “bright”. Pairing Klipsch speakers with an amp that is “linear” makes less sense to me, compared with pairing Klipsch with an amp that results in good sound quality. Why should the consumer care about a test that is rigged to try to show that a subset of amps (i.e., amps that are “modern” and “linear” and solid-state, etc.) sound similar? Why should a consumer care about such a subset of amps at all, if they haven’t yet discovered whether such amps are the most musically engaging for their music, using their speakers, and their ears/brain? I believe that the goal of a consumer-oriented listening test should be to equip the consumer to decide which hi-fi system sounds best to their ears. I don’t think that anyone has suggested that the differences in sound quality of amplifiers is “dramatic” (i.e., “anyone not deaf should be able to hear them”). IMO the differences in sound quality of amplifiers might not be immediately apparent – or meaningful – if listening to a crappy recording of deliberately distorted music. (Or listening in a noisy environment.) However, as someone else pointed out, subtle differences in sound quality can make the difference between being mesmerized by the music being reproduced in the home, or being left cold. As I’ve said before, this is a hobbyist discussion forum, and it’s not unreasonable that the reader might consider something other than the amps that they can buy at their local big-box store. (Different advice would be relevant for John Q. Public vs. a hobbyist.) Anyone who has read this forum (and other hi-fi forums) knows that many experienced hi-fi enthusiasts prefer the sound quality of one type of tube amp, or another. Why dismiss the wide range of options available via tube amps – particularly for Klipsch speakers? Why not let the music-lover consider all types of amps during a listening test?

OP: The test you are proposing might have some interest for some people - i.e., only people who are committed to using only modern solid-state amps that meet some vague criterion of being “linear”. (Which seems like an unusually restricted test to me. What about people who prefer tube amps?) Given your apparent desire to test only modern solid-state amps, then off the top of my head I think the test would only be useful if: The test should involve only natural music (i.e., no electronically produced or altered music). There is no way to determine how electronically produced and/or altered music should sound. (What’s the benchmark for how a synthesizer should sound? What’s the benchmark for intentionally distorted music?) In contrast, people who regularly attend live concerts where there is no use of electronics (i.e., no electronic instruments, and no sound reinforcement system) know how “natural instruments” should sound, such as a violin, oboe, trumpet, etc. If you want a really useful test, have a live string quartet play, and alternate with recordings. The test should employ only high-quality hi-res (e.g., Blu-ray, SACD, 24bit/192kHz) recordings. The recordings must have hi-res provenance - NOT copied CDs. And the recordings must be “as delivered” – NOT manipulated by PC software. (If music files are loaded onto a PC, you have no way of knowing whether what you are hearing is part of the recording or an artifact of the software. You have no way of knowing how much the PC software is “mucking up” a recording.) Garbage-in/garbage-out. (What’s the point of a test that’s based on poor quality recordings of music for which there is no benchmark?) The test must employ a high-quality state-of-the art universal player that can play all types of hi-res recordings. The test must employ high-quality state-of-the art full-range speakers. Presumably Klipsch. The listening venue must be quiet, and have acoustics that are appropriate for the music. There should be different listening sessions for people who listen to different genres. For example, one listening session for classical music. A separate session for jazz. A separate session for big-band. Etc. (People should not be forced to listen to music they dislike.) The tests should allow listeners to listen at length to recordings that they are familiar with. The tests should involve a relaxed environment. The test should involve music lovers who regularly attend live concerts where no electronics are used, and who describe themselves as being discerning listeners. (What would be the point of including someone who says that they don’t care about sound quality, or says that they have a “tin ear”, or damaged hearing?) The amps must be level matched. The test should include a variety of modern solid-state amps. (What’s the point of testing only amps that have similar design?) Class A, Class AB, Class D, etc. Output transformers (e.g., some McIntosh) or not Type of feedback employed Design of power supply Implementation of volume control (i.e., volume control in the digital or analog domain) Employment of distortion canceling circuitry, or not Employment of vibration dampening, or not Employment of anti-clipping circuitry, or not Quality of components Etc. (Someone who is more knowledgeable about amp design can edit the list) This list of criteria is off-the-top-of-my head. There undoubtedly are many other considerations when testing solid-state amps. However, I have little interest in such a test, because I prefer tube amps. The only blinded test I’d be interested in would involve playing hi-res classical recordings and judging which amp (tube or solid-state) I think reminds me most of live music in the symphony hall. Isn’t the point of hi-fi for people to enjoy recorded music in their home? And therefore, shouldn’t the test focus on which reproduced sound the listener prefers – i.e., which inevitable distortions and colorations they prefer? My recommendation for a listening test: Include a variety of tube amps and solid-state amps in the test and ask people which amp they think sounds most natural. Ask listeners which amp they would prefer to listen to. Alternate recorded music with classical musicians performing live, so that there is a benchmark. Bottom line, what’s the goal of the proposed test? Without significant resources and work, the test will likely be severely limited in scope, and limited in its relevance to various consumers depending on their disparate likes, needs, circumstances, etc. Because of the complexities involved in formal listening tests, most people rely on their own ears, listening to their recordings, in their home. What’s the point of having hi-fi as a hobby if you let someone else tell you how your hi-fi system sounds?

OP: This topic has been discussed in 2 other threads, including one you started: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/180796-measurements-listening-experience/& https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/180122-advice-for-beginners/&

I’m in the minority here because I listen mostly to classical music and opera. Nonetheless, I’ll share my 2 cents. Classical music lovers sometimes must decide which is more important: performance quality, or audio quality of a recording. I’m not a music scholar, and I’m not hyper-critical of a performance. However, I have no tolerance for poor audio quality. I therefore choose modern performances of classical music that were recorded in hi-res. (In contrast, some classical music fans are willing to tolerate less-than-state-of-the-art audio quality in order to enjoy what they regard as the best performance of a classical composition – which may have been recorded decades ago.) My preferences for consumer deliverables: My favorite is Blu-ray audio/video (featuring DTS-HD MA 5.0 surround-sound). (A few Ultra HD Blu-ray opera recordings are starting to become available.) High-definition audio/video is particularly relevant for ballet and opera. Additionally, I think that high-definition audio/video is very enjoyable for classical concerts. My second choice in formats are SACD and Pure Audio Blu-ray that feature surround-sound. (No video.) My third choice are 24bit/96kHz or 24bit/192kHz FLAC stereo downloads (e.g., HDTracks). In all cases provenance of the recording is critical – i.e., modern recordings that were captured and mastered as hi-res. (In a few cases high quality analog master tapes have been digitized at hi-res with fairly good results - e.g., some RCA Living Stereo.) I use Oppo UDP-205 universal players to directly drive vintage tube amps (i.e., using the Oppo’s built-in DAC, pre-amp, and bass management) for surround-sound, and stereo. My goal for the sound quality of recorded classical music played via my home hi-fi systems is to have the illusion that I’m in the symphony hall or opera house where classical music is performed live, with no electronics involved (i.e., no sound reinforcement system). I’ll clarify what I mean: Classical Symphonic Music vs. Pop Musicians Performing with Orchestra vs. Outdoor Performances My local symphony orchestra performs a Classical Series, plus a number of “pop concerts”, and a few outdoor concerts. For the Classical Series – which involves classical music performed live in the symphony hall, there is no use of a sound reinforcement system. I’ve confirmed with the symphony’s Executive Director that the microphones that can be seen hanging above the stage are used solely for recording, NOT for amplifying the sound in the symphony hall. My local symphony hall has world-class acoustics, and the natural sound is amazing. OTOH, when pop music is performed in the same hall, electronics are often used. An example is when a pop singer uses a microphone to sing. And for some pop concerts, electric guitars and/or electronic organs are sometimes used. And, of course, on the rare occasion when the symphony performs an outdoor concert (e.g., outdoor Memorial Day concert), then of course a sound reinforcement system must be used. Opera vs. Musicals One of the hallmarks of opera is that the singers do NOT use microphones. And the orchestra does NOT use a sound reinforcement system. No electronics are involved when an opera is performed by an opera company in an opera house. OTOH, musicals typically involve signers using microphones. And, of course, on the rare occasion when an opera singer performs the National Anthem at the baseball park, then they must sing into a microphone. Chamber Music Chamber music performances generally do not involve a sound reinforcement system. (I’ve been to one concert by a string quartet that used sound reinforcement because the venue had poor acoustics. I won’t attend another concert at that venue.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For classical music, the artists are the composer, the conductor, and the musicians - and IMO the “work of art” was the live performance (i.e., musicians performing together in the symphony hall). I’m using the term “work of art” in terms of what represents a benchmark for the sound quality of the recording when played via a home hi-fi system, not in terms of Intellectual Property law. (The same might be true of other genres that involve natural music performed live, such as some big-band, some jazz, some folk, etc. (I’m not knowledgeable about these genres, so I can’t say.) OTOH, reportedly some pop music is completely different – particularly if there never was a live performance, and electronic sounds were cobbled together by recording engineers.) For classical music, the role of the recording engineer IMO is to produce a recording that is as faithful as possible to the live performance. For those of us who regularly attend live classical performances (I attend more than 20 classical concerts each year), we have a pretty good memory of what a violin should sound like – independent of whether we were at a particular recording session. We have a pretty good memory of what a string quartet should sound like – and a pretty good memory of what a symphony orchestra should sound like – when performing live with no sound reinforcement system. (Recognizing some variance due to the acoustics of the venue, and the listener’s seat location. For my season tickets at the symphony and opera, I sit in the first elevated tier, front row, near center of the hall.) No recording is perfect, and no hi-fi system is perfect. And my memory isn’t perfect. Nonetheless, for classical music, my benchmark for the sound quality of music reproduced via one of my home hi-fi systems is based on my memory of the sound of classical music performed live in its intended venue. I want the inevitable imperfections in the sound from my home-hi-fi to sound pleasant vs. unpleasant. One of my priorities is for the timbre of the orchestra instruments to sound natural. (This is why I generally prefer tube amps.) And I like to achieve dynamic range that approaches the live concert experience. (This is why I like Klipsch speakers.) The good news is that when using modern hi-res classical recordings, tube amps, and Klipsch speakers, I often find that the illusion of being at a live classical concert is good enough that I’m “engaged by the music”. Here’s an example of a box set of Blu-ray audio/video discs (featuring DTS-HD MA 5.0 surround-sound) that I think is very enjoyable, and has excellent audio and video quality: Rafael Frühbeck de Burgos Danish NSO Ludwig van Beethoven: Symphonies Nos. 1–9 Joaquín Rodrigo: Concierto de Aranjuez Hector Berlioz: Symphonie fantastique, Op. 14 Richard Strauss: Eine Alpensinfonie (An Alpine Symphony), Op. 64, TrV 233 (For some reason the price of this box set varies significantly. FWIW, I paid $50 for the deluxe box set.) I just listened to (and watched) Beethoven Symphony 1 from this box set. I listened via my basement system: Front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch RF-7 II. A single rear speaker is a Klipsch RF-7. (A Y-cable from Oppo UDP-205 combines Surround L and Surround R.) Today I chose a Scott 296 for front L&R, plus a Fisher KX-200 for center and rear. (In this system I have 6 other tube amps I can select from.) Two subwoofers are connected via RCA Y cable to the Oppo: SVS SB16-Ultra, Klipsch R-115SW. Sounds excellent – to my ears. And the video looks great on my plasma HDTV. There are several other Blu-ray box sets that contain all of a composer’s symphonies (e.g., Sibelius, Brahms, Mahler, Schumann) that I can recommend if anyone is interested. Bottom line: State-of-the-art audio/video Blu-ray discs are my favorite way to enjoy recordings of classical music.

I am citing my experience based on comparisons I’ve done of the more than 2 dozen amplifiers I currently own (listed above), plus several other amps that have come and gone from my systems. All of my amps are in good working order - all vintage amps are completely electronically restored by professionals (e.g., Craig Ostby / NOS Valves, or Vintage Vacuum Audio), or by competent hobbyists. Regarding the McIntosh MC275 that you’ve expressed interest in, based on my experience with an MC275 MkV (i.e., a modern MC275 variant) in my living room system, it is a fine amp. AND, I can tell you that I also enjoy the pair of fully restored 1950s era McIntosh MC30s that are in the same system. These amps sound different. I never said that the difference in listening quality of different amps is “huge”, but it is often noticeable, and IMO the sonic subtleties can affect whether the hi-fi system as a whole is “musically engaging” when listening to modern hi-res recordings of classical music. (Perhaps this concept of “musically engaging” isn’t relevant for other music genre. I can’t say whether someone who listens to vintage classic rock recordings (for example) is concerned with the natural timbre of the musical instruments. (I respect the fact that different people like different music. I’m simply not knowledgeable about classic rock.) I do think there are different criteria for recordings and hi-fi equipment based on genre, as I’ve discussed in other posts. Here’s a pic of my TV room system. At the bottom (under the table) you can see the banana plug jack panel that enables me to connect my Klipsch Palladium speakers to whichever amp I want. Niles AXP-1 switches enable me to switch my Oppo UDP-205 universal player to whichever amp I want. My hi-fi systems in my living room, office, and basement have similar arrangements that enable me to select different amps. Switching amps is something that I do often, because it’s part of how I enjoy the hobby – i.e., achieving the most satisfying sound quality during each listening session. On one hand my listening tests are not blinded or level matched, on the other hand I have no reason to lie to myself about what I hear. I have a degree in mathematics, experience with laboratory testing (including statistical design and analysis of experiments), and many years working with complex communications technology, both hardware and software. I’m not anti-science, and while my knowledge about statistical analysis of experiments is rusty (my experience was more than 40 years ago), I’m not completely ignorant of scientific testing methodologies. I’m just more interested in the visceral response I have to the music I hear from my hi-fi systems vs. “hanging my hat on” what “experts say” or what some graph shows based on a “calibrated microphone” and some PC software. Given that all amps don’t sound the same, then who decides which is the “correct” sound? Shouldn’t it be the listener, based on his or her speakers, in their room, listening to their music, who decides how closely the sound approximates what they heard in the concert hall (or whatever their sonic goal is), and which inevitable trade-offs they choose to accept? Because I attend more than 20 live classical concerts a year (large scale symphony, chamber music, opera), I have a pretty good idea of how classical music should sound, and I rely on my own assessment of how my hi-fi systems sound. Here’s one of my benchmarks for the listening quality of my hi-fi systems: Recognizing that there is some variance in the acoustics of different symphony halls, I have a pretty good idea how a classical recording “should sound”. I understand that humans can’t remember exactly how something sounded. Because it is impracticable for me to instantly switch back and forth between a live orchestra and my hi-fi system, my memory must come into play. I attend live performances on a regular basis. I listen to my hi-fi on a regular basis. My assessment of whether or not what I’m hearing from my hi-fi system sounds like a live performance – or like a pleasant facsimile of a live performance – is far more important to me than what some electronic test equipment indicates. My long-term listening impressions are the most relevant methodology for judging how natural one of my hi-fi system sounds – to me. It seems to me that each consumer must consider a $64k question regarding their hi-hi system: What is your benchmark for the quality of sound you are hearing from your home hi-fi system? And it seems to me that the genre of music is a major factor in defining the benchmark. I make no claim that I have the best hi-fi systems in the world. And what I hear in my home cannot exactly match the symphony hall experience. But with a high-quality recording, I am able to realize a musically satisfying “simulacrum” of (or “reproduction of”) the live concert hall experience. (Particularly when playing modern hi-res surround-sound classical recordings (Blu-ray, SACD) on my basement system: Front, center, and left speakers are Klipsch RF-7 II. A single rear speaker is a Klipsch RF-7. Subwoofers: SVS SB16-Ultra, Klipsch R-115SW. That’s enough acoustic power in an average size room to deliver near-symphony-hall dynamics.) And I am able to realize a listening experience wherein the inevitable distortions are pleasant (to my ears) vs. unpleasant. (This IME is where tube amps excel.) On any given day, if I don’t find a particular amp musically engaging for the recording I’m listening to, I switch amps. IMO it’s perfectly valid to specify “enjoyment of music” as one’s goal for music reproduced via a hi-fi system, and it’s perfectly valid for the consumer to assess the quality of their home listening experience based on their ears and brain. Different people choose to fine-tune their hi-fi system via different methods, based on their circumstances, constraints, preferences, priorities, etc. For example, some people put acoustic foam panels on their walls, some hobbyists engage in tube rolling, etc. (One of my constraints is that I don’t have room for the large Klipsch Heritage speakers. I’d love to hear hi-res classical recordings via tube amps and Jubilee, but my listening rooms can only accommodate tower speakers. One of my personal preferences is to put original art on my walls vs. foam panels. People are different, and enjoy the hobby differently.) I want to be clear that I’m not saying that people who can’t hear differences in amps are wrong. (People hear differently.) And, I couldn’t care less if someone buys an inexpensive solid-state amp. I have no financial interest in these issues. However, I find it perplexing that some people insist that their understanding, perspective, and opinion are correct, and that anyone who disagrees is wrong. I understand the concept of expectation bias. I’m not trying to deceive anyone or sell anything to anyone – including myself. Let me give you an example: One of my least aesthetically appealing 6L6GC tubes consistently sounds better that my most aesthetically appealing 6L6GC tube (which has a gorgeous ST “coke bottle” shape and exhibits beautiful blue fluorescence). And the gorgeous ST tubes cost more. And the tube that consistently sounds best is marketed to guitar players - not audiophiles. Conventional wisdom would suggest that if I was experiencing expectation bias (or being bamboozled by marketing people) that I would rate higher the tube that is more expensive, more attractive, and is marketed to audiophiles vs. guitar players. And many people say that KT88 or KT150 tubes sound better – but I don’t allow that to sway me in deciding what sounds best to me. And many people say that solid state amps have lower measured distortion and therefore sound better – but I don’t allow that to sway me in deciding what sounds best to me. I own a lot of different amps – I don’t think I have a parochial view. I’ve shared my experience here because - candidly – I think someone needs to push back against what I perceive to be dismissive and overly simplistic statements that are sometimes repeated, such as “the audible differences made by amplifiers are negligible”, or “only bats can hear the difference in hi-res recordings”. I think that newbies can benefit from reading different perspectives, and more importantly – benefit from reading about different audiophiles’ real-world experiences. Most people don’t own the number of working amps that I do, so hopefully it is useful to others when I share my observations. (If they are patient enough to read my rambling posts … ) I also offer this opinion to newbies – from someone who has been involved in the hobby for more than 45 years: Just because a few people have made ridiculous marketing claims (e.g., jars of magic pebbles), doesn’t mean that the industry is “utterly bereft of any sort of honesty”. (FWIW: I don’t buy expensive cables, but I don’t denigrate people who do.) Many of us have learned from our experience. For example, in the early 1970s I chose to build a solid-state Dynaco pre-amp and power-amp from kits, vs. the “old technology” tube amp kits that Dynaco still sold, because the solid-state gear was “new and improved”. (I was young and naive.) I’d like to read about what other audiophiles have experienced, based on amplifiers you’ve spent significant time with. Can you hear differences in amps, and if so, do those differences in sound quality affect your enjoyment of recorded music? In your experience, is amp/speaker “synergy” real, and if so, does it affect whether a hi-fi system is musically satisfying? What genre of music do you listen to, and what is your benchmark for excellence in the sound quality of your hi-fi system? What is your goal for you hi-fi system?

I agree. I never buy expensive tubes. Based on quite a bit of experience with tube rolling, I often find that new production Russian tubes, and military surplus (USA and Russia) tubes can sound great. For example, I think that the Russian military surplus 6P3S-E is a great sounding 6L6GC variant, and they are available from USA-based sellers (as a tested and matched quad) for a very reasonable price. And I like the new-production Tung-Sol 12AX7, and they’re reasonably priced. (I have some highly-sought-after vintage tubes that came with some of my amps, and they can sound good, but I wouldn’t pay an outrageous price for them.)

(mikebse2A3 responded while I was drafting the following verbiage while off-line. Some of my comments are redundant to his. I agree with mikebse2A3’s last several posts.) What newbies need to understand – IMO - is that all amps distort the sound, and the consumer must choose the distortion that suits them best. The problem is that technologists haven't figured out how to measure every facet of an amp's performance that affects sound quality. For example, what measurement explains why some solid-state amps sound "dry"? (I’m talking about “dry” compared with the sound of a live orchestra in a world-class symphony hall. Whereas, IME tube amps sound more like the live music. What is this form of solid-state distortion, and can it be measured?) How do explain the fact that different amps that measure the same often sound different? Clearly, for most consumers (John Q. Public), a modern solid-state amp is the best choice. As I said in another post, I recently coached a friend to buy an open-box Onkyo stereo network AVR that met his needs and his budget, and he's satisfied for the $300 he spent. At the same time, when he and his wife come to my house and listen to classical music via my tube amps, they comment about how much they like the sound quality. This is a forum for people with at least some interest in hi-fi as a hobby, and therefore I think that discussion of "hobbyist oriented" products like vintage tube amps is appropriate. Could I live with my NAD C375BEE solid-state amp in my TV room system as my only amp? Yes. But my enjoyment is greater when listening to classical music via the tube amps in this system: Scott 399, McIntosh MC225, Fisher 800B, Fisher X-1000, Scott 299C, McIntosh MC240. Could I live with my NAD pre-amp and Acurus A250 power-amp in my living room system as my only amp? Yes. But my enjoyment is greater when listening to classical music via the tube amps in this system: a pair of McIntosh MC30s, Scott 296, McIntosh MX110Z / McIntosh MC275, a pair of Pilot HF-56 mono receivers. (This system also has a McIntosh 2155 solid-state amp driving speakers in the kitchen and dining room.) Could I live with the NAD D 3020 solid-state Class D amp in my office system as my only amp? Yes. But my enjoyment is greater when listening to classical music via the tube amps in this system: Fisher 500C, Scott 299B, Altec 353A. In my basement surround-sound system, I got rid of my solid-state amp, and have only tube amps: Scott 272, Inspire “Fire Bottle” SE Stereo Tube Amplifier HO, Scott 222C, McIntosh MX110Z tuner/preamp, Fisher KX-200, Scott 296, Pilot SA-260, Scott LK150. I attend more than 20 live classical concerts a year, where the sound is 100% natural (i.e., no sound reinforcement (aka PA) system). When listening to hi-res recordings (SACD, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Blu-ray, 24bit/192kHz FLAC download) of classical music via my hi-fi systems, I find that tube amps generally deliver more natural sound – i.e., more like what I remember hearing in the symphony hall or opera house. And the distortions that are introduced by a tube amp are more pleasant (to my ears) than the distortions introduced by solid-state amps. Can vintage tube amps be a PITA? Yes, 50+ year-old amps sometimes have problems. But they can be repaired, due to discrete components and point-to-point wiring. And they have established resale value. If a newbie tries a vintage tube amp and decides it’s not their cup of tea, they can resell it on eBay and likely recoup their money. Based on many hours listening to, and comparing, a wide variety of tube amps and solid-state amps, I disagree with the assertion that solid-state amps “allow more of the music to shine through” – at least for the classical music I love, when reproduced via high-quality hi-res recordings. IME, tube amps generally do a better job recreating the sound I remember hearing in the symphony hall – and that’s my primary criteria for evaluating the sound of a hi-fi system. Stated differently, tube amps generally are more “musically engaging” for classical music. (I don’t listen to pop music or rock music. IMO these genres are fundamentally different from classical music, because often natural instruments aren’t used, and in many cases there never was a live performance of the music - and therefore (it seems to me that) there is no benchmark for how the music “should” sound. The concept of reproducing the “natural timbre” of music isn’t relevant for electronically produced or altered music, and therefore it seems to me that tube vs. solid-state might be less of a factor.) Stated simply, a violin generally sounds more like a violin when reproduced via a tube amp vs. solid-state, and a quartet sounds more like a quartet, and a symphony orchestra sounds more like a symphony orchestra. My experience - based on the amps you see listed above, plus many other amps that have come and gone over the course of more than 45 years – is that classical music, hi-res recordings, tube amps, and Klipsch speakers can be a great match. I say “can be” because matching a specific amp and speaker is important (often referred to as “synergy”). Yes – synergy between an amp and speakers is real, and it’s an important factor in achieving excellent sound quality. (I’ll take it a step further: I often enjoy a particular amp with a particular recording.) Here’s what I think newbies need to consider: Not everyone agrees with the assertion that the standard for amplifier sound quality is a “modern day amp that is engineered to be linear under normal operating conditions”. Saying that an amp is “linear” does not fully define its sound quality. And not everyone agrees that such an amp will always sound the best. P.S. After drafting this post I decided to try a quick test. Because my NAD D 3020 solid-state Class D amp in my office system is on the top shelf, and easily uninstalled, and I can easily carry it with one hand, I carried it into my TV room system and compared it with my NAD C375BEE solid-state amp. I assume that both amps meet your criteria of being a “modern day amp that is engineered to be linear under normal operating conditions”. My test was brief, not level matched, and not blind. I disabled the Bass Boost in the NAD D 3020, and activated the tone control defeat in the NAD C375BEE – so both would be “flat”. I could hear a subtle difference in sound quality (when reproducing violins) of these 2 amps via the Klipsch Palladium P-37F. When playing a 24bit/96kHz FLAC download (modern hi-res recording) of the second movement of Beethoven Symphony 9, I liked the NAD D 3020 least (i.e., I preferred the NAD C375BEE). I then activated the tone controls on the NAD C375BEE (which were set by my ears, with slight treble attenuation, and slight bass boost), and I liked this sound better (i.e., more like what I remember hearing in the symphony hall). I then connected my Scott 299C (7591 output tubes), and I liked that sound the best. Here’s what I think is interesting, and important: when I connected the Scott vintage tube amp, I sat there and listened for a while – which I didn’t do with the solid-state amps. In other words, the tube amp drew me into the music – i.e., was more musically engaging. I then carried the NAD D 3020 to my basement and played the same recording via Klipsch RF-7II. (Both systems have an Oppo UDP-205 universal disc player.) The NAD D 3020 sounded better on the RF-7II than it did on the Palladium – which I think proves the point about the importance of synergy between an amp and speakers. I then played the same music via a Scott 296 (6L6GC output tubes), and I think the sound was more “musical” – i.e., I liked it better. Then I changed recordings to a Blu-ray disc (featuring DTS-HD MA 5.0), and added a Fisher KX-200 to power the center channel (another RF-7II) and a single rear channel (RF-7). Obviously, this is not apples-to-apples comparison, because it’s a difference recording of Beethoven 9, but the surround-sound – with tube amps - was by far my favorite. Again, these were just quick listening impressions, not double-blind level-matched tests. But this supports countless comparisons that I’ve done over the years (involving much longer listening sessions) with the many amps that I own (and have owned in the past). I generally prefer tube amps with my Klipsch speakers. Which tube amp depends on which Klipsch speaker, the recording, my mood, etc. But with tube amps I consistently feel that what I’m hearing from my hi-fi system is more like the live symphony concert hall experience. I find tube amps to be more musically engaging, more pleasant, and I can listen for hours without listener fatigue. P.P.S. I’m curious: Do you think that your McIntosh MA-6600, which employs auto-transformers, sounds the same as solid-state amps that don’t employ output transformers? I have no experience with the MA-6600. I have the older McIntosh MC 2155 solid-state amp that employs auto-transformers, but it may not fit your specification of being “modern”. (Sold from 1981-1986.) FWIW, I can tell you that the MC 2155 sounds noticeably different from every other solid-state amp I’ve owned. (Not bad, but different.)

When the average consumer is purchasing a product that they have little interest in (e.g., a washing machine), they often are content to rely on advice from experts, or reviews by other consumers. For some consumers (John Q. Public), a stereo system or home theater system falls in this category. (“As long as I’m at the big-box store buying a washing machine, why don’t I pick up a home-theater / hi-fi system.”) OTOH, some music lovers (and hi-fi enthusiasts) want to make their own assessment of the quality of the sound they’re hearing from a hi-fi system – vs. simply accepting the results of what other people reported during a trial - and vs. simply relying on technical measurements. I think it’s important to point out that “blinded tests” relating to audio quality are fraught with problems. (This is a complicated discussion that I won’t delve into here. There’s lots of discussion on the internet for anyone interested.) There clearly IS a spirited debate about the audibility of differences in hi-fi amplifiers, on this forum and other hi-fi forums. Moreover, there is a difference of opinion regarding whether the debate should be limited to comparing amps that are “modern” and “linear”, considering that some of us find that tube amps are often more “musical” for the natural music (e.g., classical) we listen to. I reject as false logic the suggestion that “because there is a debate, the differences must not be important”. Not only is this false logic, it doesn’t match the experience of many audiophiles. Let’s dissect the claim that “all amps sound the same”. Is someone asserting that ALL amps sound the same, including tube amps and solid state? Is someone asserting that all solid-state amps sound the same, or only all “modern” solid-state amps? Is someone asserting that all modern solid-state amps sound the same, or only solid-state amps bought at a “big box” store (i.e., excluding “boutique amps”)? Is someone asserting that all modern solid-state amps that have certain performance characteristics (e.g., flat frequency response) sound the same? I’m not an expert on amp design – so perhaps someone more knowledgeable can jump in – but my understanding is that all modern solid-state amps are NOT designed or built the same. Is someone asserting that all modern solid-state amps sound the same, regardless of Class A, Class AB, Class D, output transformers (e.g., some McIntosh) or not, type of feedback, design of power supply, quality of components, etc.? If someone attempts to restrict the types of amps being compared (e.g., only modern solid-state amps that exhibit certain performance attributes), then how is this relevant for someone who wishes to approach the hobby of hi-fi with an open mind regarding the types of amps they might want to choose from? For example, many Klipsch owners report that they have tried many amps, and for the music they like - in their room - they prefer single-ended-triode tube amps. (And some prefer a specific output tube.) On what basis would you dismiss their real-world observations? Are you dismissing the real-world experience of anyone who doesn’t buy a solid-state amp from a big-box store? If you insist on framing the debate so narrowly that only a subset of amplifiers are considered, what relevance does the debate have for the hi-fi hobbyist who is open-minded and wants to consider all types of amps available? (Which is, of course, different from John Q. Public, who will likely choose from the AVRs available at their local big-box store.) Why not have an open debate wherein all amps are considered, rather than a rigged debate? Hi-fi systems are like every other creation of mankind – i.e., imperfect. Moreover, different people have different sensitivities to various facets of audio quality. I think that any assertion that science currently understands every facet of human hearing and how it relates to the enjoyment of music, is naïve (or arrogant). And different people listen to different types of music, which involve different criteria for judging the quality of reproduced sound. (E.g., classical music vs. pop or rock music.) And different people have different goals and priorities for their hi-fi system. And some amps interact better than others with certain speakers. As a result of all of these considerations, subjectivity is an unavoidable element in the evaluation of the sound quality of a hi-fi system. For each individual, there are inevitable trade-offs in selecting components for a hi-fi system. Some consumers (who we might call “enthusiasts”) want to choose the trade-offs that suit them best, based on their goals for their hi-fi system, and based on how their ears/brain work, and based on their budget, and based on their preferences, and based on the music they like. This is a hi-fi forum, and I therefore assume that most readers have more than casual interest in high-fidelity sound reproduction. Here’s an excerpt from one of my posts on the thread “Advice for Beginners …” that I think is relevant to this discussion: Either you’re moved by the music being reproduced by your hi-fi system, or not. IME, technical specifications (or plotted graphs) can’t completely predict or explain your visceral response to what you hear. (FWIW, I have a science and technology background – for more than 45 years – so I’m NOT anti-science.) Science is, of course, essential in the development and testing of electronic equipment. However, IMO, acceptable technical specs represent a necessary though not sufficient condition for good sound quality from a hi-fi system. IME, part of achieving excellent sound quality from a hi-fi system involves some “seat of the pants” judgements and decisions vs. relying strictly on instrumentation. IMO some components of a hi-fi system generally have more of an impact than others on the sound quality (assuming reasonably good quality components, all in proper working condition). IME, loudspeakers and the recording generally have more impact than a disc player or amp. (Genre of music determines the relevance (and availability) of modern hi-res recordings. And, genre of music determines whether there is a clear benchmark for reproduced sound. And therefore, genre of music significantly affects how much impact the recording has on the sound quality of reproduced music.) With that said, many people who have been involved in the hobby for many years, and who have owned many amps, report that different amps sound different. And many audiophiles report that these (sometimes subtle) differences in amps can materially affect their enjoyment of music. (Audiophiles will sometimes describe their experience when listening to a high-quality hi-fi system as “being drawn into the music”, or “forgetting about the equipment, and getting lost in the music”, or “forgetting about time and listening for hours”, or “feeling like I’m in the symphony hall”, etc.) Two other excerpts from my post on “Advice for Beginners …” that I think are relevant to this discussion: Recognize fallacious arguments, such as “hasty-generalizations” and “straw-man arguments”. If you decide that you can hear a difference in a component, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re an “audiophool”, or that you’ve been duped by a “snake oil salesman”, or that you’re guilty of expectation bias. Listen with your own ears. Here’s my complete post that provides my “Advice for Beginners …”: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/180122-advice-for-beginners/&do=findComment&comment=2324328 I say “to each their own” if a consumer chooses to drive a pair of Klipschorn with the cheapest amp they can buy, based on the argument “that no manufacturer has made the claim that their amplifier is preferred, in blinded trials, by experienced audiophiles to other amps which are also engineered to be linear under normal operating conditions”. AND – at the same time - I suggest that we should respect the fact that some audiophiles choose to listen and think for themselves. I suggest that we should respect the fact that some audiophiles have concluded that tube amps reliably sound more like a live performance of natural music (such as classical, opera, some big-band, some jazz, some folk, etc.). And I suggest that we should respect the fact that some are content with an AVR from a big-box store.

At the risk of rehashing an old argument, I’ll comment briefly. For argument’s sake, let’s assume that you are correct, “that no manufacturer has made the claim that their amplifier is preferred, in blinded trials, by experienced audiophiles to other amps which are also engineered to be linear under normal operating conditions”. (I don’t study marketing claims, so I don’t know if it is true that no manufacturer has made such a claim.) Two observations: It does NOT logically follow that all amps (or “all amps engineered to be linear under normal operating conditions”) sound the same. Why should an audiophile be concerned with an amp being “linear”, vs. sounding good in their hi-fi system? Your assertion in your thread titled “Advice for Beginners …” that “the audible differences made by (the) rest of your components, including amplifier cd player, DAC, cables/ power cords, power conditioner, etc.. are negligible” was debated last month, and not everyone agrees with your assertion that amplifiers have negligible impact on the sound quality of a hi-fi system: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/180122-advice-for-beginners/& One of my posts that I think is relevant: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/180122-advice-for-beginners/&do=findComment&comment=2324994 I have a clear benchmark for how my home hi-fi system should sound (i.e., a live performance of classical music), as discussed here: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/180122-advice-for-beginners/&do=findComment&comment=2325763 and here https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/180122-advice-for-beginners/&do=findComment&comment=2326157 Bottom line, I’m concerned with MY assessment of how my hi-fi system sounds relative to a live classical performance. As I discussed in one of my posts referenced above, four of my hi-fi systems are equipped with multiple amps (totaling more than two dozen different amps of various types), and I’ve conducted my own amplifier comparison tests on many occasions, and I generally prefer tube amps for classical music. Your assertion that “blinded trials” haven’t been conducted by amplifier manufacturers has no relevance to my enjoyment of classical music via my home hi-fi systems, and has no relevance to my enjoyment of the hobby of hi-fi.

I understand that some people may quarrel with my use of the term “electronic music”. (And I’ve sometimes loosely used the term “pop music”.) I’m not meaning to be disrespectful of someone else’s choice of music. And I recognize that some music is what I’ll loosely call “hybrid” (i.e., some natural instruments, and some electronically amplified instruments). The problem - from my perspective - is that for the purpose of this discussion I need to use convenient terms for two types of music: Music performed by natural instruments (e.g., violins, trumpets) in the intended venue (e.g., symphony hall), where no sound reinforcement system is used. No electronics are employed in the performance of the music. And the music is not deliberately distorted (e.g., via a DAW) during mastering. Classical music is an example. Some forms of big band, jazz, folk, etc may fall in this category. For convenience, I’ll call this “natural music”. For other music, which involves electronics in some form when the music is performed, or created (e.g. using a DAW), I’ll refer to as “music that is not 100% natural”. (I’m not an expert in these types of music.) This distinction is relevant IMO to the question: What is your benchmark for “true ‘high-fidelity’ reproduction” of recorded music in the home? As a classical music lover, my benchmark is the live performance of classical music in its intended venue. Granted there are differences in the acoustics of one symphony hall vs. another, but I have a pretty good idea of how a large-scale orchestra sounds in a symphony hall, when no sound reinforcement system is used (which is the norm). I have a pretty good idea how opera sounds in an opera house, when no sound reinforcement system is used. (This is completely different from musicals, for which body mics and sound reinforcement is common.) I have a pretty good idea how chamber music sounds when performed in a venue when no sound reinforcement system is used. I recognize that a problem with my approach is that it relies on my memory. However, I attend live classical concerts more than 20 times a year, and I’m content with relying on my ears and my memory to assess the sound quality of my hi-fi systems. For “music that is not 100% natural” (i.e., music that is created or altered by electronics), how do you know how the music is “supposed to” sound, unless (as I said in my earlier post) you were in the control room when it was created, or you have installed in your home the same speakers, amp, and acoustic treatment that were in the control booth when the recording was mastered? It seems to me that for music largely created by synthesizers, and when distortion is deliberately introduced, it is impossible to define “high fidelity reproduction”, because the consumer doesn’t know how the music is “supposed to” sound. It seems to me that the “original sound” is what the producers heard on the studio monitors when they used electronic tools to create the sound, whereas the consumer’s speakers probably sound different from the studio monitors. Am I wrong? OTOH, let’s consider music that doesn’t use synthesizers or deliberate distortion, but involves (for example) electric guitars, or a classic electric organ. I’m interested in opinions from people who listen to (or perform, or record) such music. I’m not knowledgeable about electric guitars. Do some electric guitar aficionados know how a particular guitar (e.g., Stratocaster) sounds when played through a particular amp (e.g., British vs. US amp)? Does a particular guitar player have a “signature sound” based on which tubes are in the amp? If so, and the music is not deliberately distorted, would an aficionado be confident that they know how the original performance was “supposed to” sound, and is such an aficionado therefore able to assess whether what they’re hearing in their home is “faithful to” the original performance – i.e., “high-fidelity reproduction”? (What if a wah-wah pedal is used to “distort” the guitar? Are there a few classic wah-wah pedals that an aficionado would recognize?) What about a classic Hammond electric organ? I want to be clear, I think it’s perfectly OK to have as a goal for a hi-fi system to “sound good”. But some people are suggesting terms like “accurate” reproduction, or “true high fidelity”, and I’m trying to understand what they are implying that these terms mean, depending on the type of music involved. And, I think this is relevant to this thread’s topic, because this issue IMO should be important to a newbie. In my first post to this thread I suggested to a newbie: “You must define the goals for your home hi-fi system.” Bottom line, it seems to me that the meaning (or lack of meaning) of “accuracy” and “true high-fidelity” for in-home audio reproduction is dependent on the genre. How do you define “imagined differences vs. real differences” for the music you love? Are you satisfied with letting some “expert” tell you that your hi-fi system is “accurate”, or are you concerned with how the music that you love sounds to you when played via your home hi-fi? Your thoughts?

I’m not knowledgeable about audio recording, so perhaps someone who has experience can help me understand the following issues. For those who listen to electronic music (or electronically altered or amplified music), am I correct that if you have installed in your home the same large speakers (JBL?) shown in this picture of the control room of the recording studio, and the same amp that was used to drive these speakers, and your listening room has acoustics similar to the control booth where the music was mixed, then you can reasonably assume that you’re hearing what the producers heard when they mixed and mastered the popular music recording? (In this case the “producer” of electronic music presumably is a music business executive who determines (perhaps in collaboration with the musicians) how the final recording should sound - by adjusting various hardware and software electronic tools, such as the pictured console that appears to have 1,000 slider adjustments, or software plug-ins for a DAW.) OTOH, if the consumer doesn’t own the same speakers and amp used during mixing, then how does the consumer know how this electronic music is “supposed” to sound? (If you’re listening to a decades-old rock or pop recording, are your speakers and amp anything like the equipment used in the control booth decades ago?) Or, has someone figured out multiple EQ curves that will replicate the sound of these large studio monitors - based on the recording studio for each pop recording – such that if that “pop music EQ curve” is overlaid onto a home hi-fi system that has “flat” in-room frequency response – then the sound will replicate what the producers heard in the control booth when they created the music? For music that is electronically produced, and/or electronically modified (i.e., deliberately distorted), and/or amplified, what is the meaning and relevance of “accurate” sound reproduction via a home hi-fi system? Accurate compared with what benchmark? As I said earlier, I respect the fact that different people like different music. I’m just trying to understand whether having your home hi-fi system adjusted via DSPs to “flat” in-room frequency response has any relevance to what the producers of electronic music heard when they created the recording in the control booth. (I have no experience with recording – so I’m probably not saying this correctly.) In simple terms: Do your speakers sound like their speakers? OTOH, it seems to me that for classical music, the “producer” isn’t someone sitting at a mixing console or DAW. For classical music, the “producer” is a conductor leading an orchestra that is playing natural instruments in a venue designed for classical music (i.e., symphony hall or opera house). For classical music, the musicians perform together live (i.e., no mixing of instruments recorded at different times and places). For classical music, there are no electronics used to amplify, alter or deliberately distort the music. For me the benchmark for the reproduction of classical music via a home hi-fi system is straightforward – i.e., the benchmark is the live performance. When my home hi-fi system falls short of this goal, I want what I hear from my hi-fi system to be a pleasant simulacrum of the live performance. As a classical music lover, I don’t care what the recording engineers heard on their studio monitors. I want the sound on my home hi-fi system to sound like the live performance. For classical music, it seems to me that if your home hi-fi system is adjusted via DSPs to “flat” in-room frequency response, then that might be a good starting point for tuning your hi-fi system so that it recreates the live sound. However, I certainly would not blindly accept that the sound that I’m hearing from a “calibrated” hi-fi system is “accurate”. Rather, I’m going to assess whether the sound from my hi-fi system reminds me of the countless live classical performances that I’ve attended. If I have to manually adjust tone controls, or choose a different amp/speaker combination, or different tubes in order to recreate the original classical concert - so be it. I’m trying to understand the relevance of “flat in-room frequency response” to the reproduction of any type of music. As I said in an earlier post, I think that a newbie needs to decide for themselves what “accurate” sound reproduction means, and what “true high fidelity” means.

Let’s dissect the claim that all amps sound the same. Is someone asserting that ALL amps sound the same, including tube amps and solid state? Is someone asserting that all solid-state amps sound the same, or only all “modern” solid-state amps? Is someone asserting that all modern solid-state amps sound the same, or only solid-state amps bought at a “big box” store? I’m not an expert on amp design – so perhaps someone more knowledgeable can jump in – but my understanding is that not all modern solid-state amps are designed or built the same. Is someone asserting that all modern solid-state amps sound the same, regardless of Class A, Class AB, Class D, output transformers (e.g., some McIntosh) or not, type of feedback, design of power supply, quality of components, etc.? The average consumer will undoubtedly buy an AVR from a big-box store and be content. That makes sense. Someone who watches Hollywood movies, and/or listens to electronic music, and/or listens to poor-quality recordings, will likely be content with an AVR from a big-box store. Someone who listens to music only in the background will likely be content with an AVR from a big-box store. For the newbie, listen for yourself and decide for yourself. If you want an AVR that’s totally cool. A good friend of mine needed a new receiver and Blu-ray player. Stereo (maybe a subwoofer later). Movies and music. Limited budget for this expenditure. He had been satisfied with his old Onkyo stereo receiver. I coached him to buy a new “open box” Onkyo TX-8270 for $300 (free shipping). This is a state-of-the-art 2.1 network AVR with 4K HDMI switching. I’m glad he’s satisfied with his purchase. At the same time, when he and his wife come to my home, they comment on how much they like the sound of my tube amps when listening to classical music. If a newbie listens to music that involves natural instruments (e.g., classical, and some big-band, folk, jazz, etc), and you intend to engage in serious listening, and you intend to buy high-end Klipsch speakers, then I suggest that you listen to high-quality recordings via Klipsch speakers driven by tube amps. And if possible, listen to different tube amps, with different output tubes. And if possible, when auditioning equipment, listen to your favorite music for a long period of time, in a relaxed environment. If after an hour of listening you have no listener fatigue, and you’ve completely forgotten about the equipment test because you’re totally mesmerized by the music, and you have a huge smile on your face – you’ve probably found the right equipment for you. If a newbie has heard tube amps, and is intrigued, the good news is that the newbie can experiment, and it won’t necessarily cost them a lot of money. Unlike an AVR, vintage tube amps have established resale value. In other words, you could buy a vintage tube amp, and if you decide to sell you will probably recoup your investment by selling on eBay. I am certain that my hi-fi systems are not the best in the world. With that said, every time someone comes to my home they comment about the excellent sound quality of my hi-fi systems, and they ask if the sound quality is because of hi-res recordings, or tube amps, or the speakers. My answer is “yes”. Regarding the proposed $10k amp test - I’ve conducted my own version countless times. I have 5 hi-fi systems. Four are equipped with multiple amps. For example, here’s the equipment in my TV room. My modern solid-state NAD C375BEE amp sounds good. For serious listening to classical music and opera, I find the tube amps more musically engaging – more enjoyable – more like what I remember hearing in the symphony hall. I’ve switched between these amps countless times, and I always prefer the tube amps for classical music. Which amp I prefer depends on the recording. (Is someone going to mail me a check for $10k? ☺️ ) Same situation and results in my office system and living room system – each has multiple amps (including one solid-state amp and multiple tube amps). In my basement system I’ve gotten rid of the solid-state amps and have only tube amps. I mostly use the solid-state amps for summertime, Hollywood movies, and background listening. Could I live with one of my solid-state amps if I had to? Yes. But I’m a hobbyist, and I enjoy being able to listen to different amps – specifically tube amps. And when I settle in on a cold winter day to listen to classical music, it’s going to be via one of my tube amps.

My recommendation to beginner audiophiles coming to this forum for advice. Summary Be prepared to read (and hopefully consider with an open mind) significantly different opinions. You must define the goals for your home hi-fi system. (No one else can do this for you.) Understand the concept of garbage-in / garbage-out. Think about your priorities and constraints. (No one else can define these for you.) Think about whether you wish to have hi-fi as a hobby. (Some people don’t – they just want to enjoy music.) My Advice: Listen with your own ears. Details Be prepared to read significantly different opinions. Here’s an example where opinions differ: I disagree with the assertion that amplifiers don’t matter. I own 24 tube amps (all restored and in good working condition), plus several solid-state amps, and they all sound different. (And many more amps have come and gone from my systems over the last 45 years – and they all sounded different.) Let me hasten to add that undoubtedly speakers make the biggest difference in the sound quality of a hi-fi system (assuming good quality recordings and electronics). However, I disagree that speakers account for 99.9% of the sound quality of a home hi-fi system – I think this is an exaggeration. (I’m amazed that some people who spend significant time and money in this hobby refuse to consider high-quality hi-res recordings. More on this later in the section titled: “Understand the concept of garbage-in / garbage-out”.) IME “synergy” between amps and speakers is real – not “audiophoolery”. (Even if technologists can’t explain why.) It seems to me that this synergy is particularly important for Klipsch speakers, when it’s sometimes necessary to “tame” the high frequencies. For me the concept of “module independence from other modules” sounds somewhat interesting, but I’m more interested in the final sound – and synergy between amps and speakers IME cannot be denied. View the youtube videos about “audiophools” with a healthy dose of skepticism. (The smirks on some of the panelists’ faces – and their glee at tricking people with contrived tests - reveal their lack of objectivity, and their lack of professionalism. IMO.) There have been many debates about these videos which I won’t rehash. Suffice it to say that many people disagree with some of what is said in these videos. $64k question: Do you think (and listen) for yourself, or do you tend to believe “experts” who claim to have all the answers? If testing methodologies (such as double-blind listening tests) interest you, then I suggest that you educate yourself. (FYI, developing and administering “objective” audio listening tests is much more complicated than a newbie might imagine. This endeavor is fraught with problems.) Recognize that people have different sensitivities to different aspects of sound. (Some people are sensitive to spatial presentation. Some focus on reproducing the natural timbre of a violin, or other natural instrument. I’ve heard people talk about the “rhythm” of a hi-fi system. I’ve heard people whose main criteria was how a brush sounds on a cymbal. Some want the full dynamics of a large-scale orchestra. Some want the deepest pedal notes of a pipe organ. Some want extremely loud rock music, with little regard for audio quality.) And, people have different priorities. (More regarding priorities below.) Disagreement is common is this field, and disagreements sometimes involve fundamental (and IMO interesting) conflicts between subjectivity and objectivity. Recognize fallacious arguments, such as “hasty-generalizations” and “straw-man arguments”. If you decide that you can hear a difference in a component, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re an “audiophool”, or that you’ve been duped by a “snake oil salesman”, or that you’re guilty of expectation bias. I suggest that one component (e.g., speakers) cannot deliver top-quality in-home reproduction of music, without all components being reasonably high-quality – including electronics – and particularly including the recording. (This does not necessarily mean the most expensive.) Bottom line regarding “differing opinions”: You must decide what’s best for you. Each person must define the goals for their home hi-fi system. Would a new hi-fi system be used for listening to music, and/or watching movies? What is your relationship to music? What types of music do you listen to? Will you use the hi-fi system for background listening at a low level? Will you use the hi-fi system for serious listening (i.e., sitting down and intently listening) to music? How loud do you like to listen? How large is your listening room? Is your goal to reproduce the natural timbre of orchestral instruments at reasonable sound levels in an average size room? For a string quartet? For Mahler’s Symphony No. 2? Do you want to reproduce the lowest pedal notes of a pipe organ? Or, is your goal to put a “heavy metal” band in your living room playing at levels that might cause hearing damage? Achieve sound reproduction that is so natural sounding that you’re drawn into the music? Or, recreate a buffalo stampede in your listening room? “Rattle the windows” while showing off your system to your friends? For classical music, there is a clear benchmark for audio quality. I want what I’m hearing from my hi-fi system to sound like what I heard in the symphony hall or opera house - where no electronics are used – no sound reinforcement – the sound is 100% natural. FWIW, I attend more than 20 live classical music concerts a year – ranging from chamber music to large-scale orchestra and opera – and this forms the basis for how I evaluate the sound of my hi-fi systems. (In other words, this is how my ears are “calibrated”.) And, I want any deviations from a live performance to sound pleasant vs. unpleasant. I don’t care very much about what technical specifications or graphs say. IMO a few technical specs don’t directly correlate to enjoyable reproduced music - at least for the classical music that I love. I regard my hi-fi systems as being “dialed in” when I completely forget about the equipment, and lose track of time, and become completely engrossed in the music, and I can listen for hours without “listener fatigue”. I regard my hi-fi systems as being “dialed in” when I feel like I’m in the symphony hall, or opera house (or other venue for chamber music, such as a church) - which involve 100% natural sound - no sound reinforcement system – no electronics – no sound board operator to “muck up” the music. OTOH, for at least some pop music there is no such benchmark. For some pop music there never was a live performance (i.e., sound was produced by different musicians performing in different studios at different times and was electronically cobbled together). Some pop music involves electronically generated sounds and/or electronically altered sounds. Many pop recordings are severely compressed, so that they can be heard in noisy environments (like a car), and so that they stand out on the radio. It seems to me that the concept of “high fidelity” reproduction has little meaning for such recordings. How do you “faithfully reproduce” sounds that were electronically cobbled together, unless you were at the mixing console or DAW (I’m not an expert) when the pop recording was electronically created, and you remember what the studio monitors sounded like? What does “accuracy” mean for such pop music? If you tune your speakers/room to “flat” frequency response, what relevance does this have to what the producers heard through their studio monitors when mastering a pop recording? Were their studio monitors “flat”? If you want to hear what the producers heard, wouldn’t you need an EQ profile for the specific recording studio that produced the pop recording? (I suppose that if you own the same studio monitors that were used during mastering, and the same amp, and your room’s acoustics are very similar to the room where the recording was mastered, you could argue that you are hearing what the producers heard when they mixed and mastered the pop recording.) In other words, for many genres of popular music it may be difficult to pin down what the music was “supposed to” sound like to begin with. (Do you know what a particular electronic synthesizer is “supposed” to sound like? Do you know what pop music is “supposed to” sound like if it’s been deliberately distorted and compressed? What is the “real sound” of such music, and what is the meaning of “high fidelity” reproduction of such recordings in the home?) IMO, for some pop music, the concept of “accurate reproduction” is meaningless – and you might as well choose whatever recordings and home hi-fi configuration sounds good to you. I want to be clear – I respect the fact that different people like different music. With that said, if your goal is to blast vintage heavy-metal music or EDM (I had to google that one), then I’d imagine that the quality of the electronics probably won’t matter much. How can you determine if the sound you’re hearing in your home is how it’s “supposed to sound”? To each their own. OTOH, for someone who wants to build a hi-fi system to play recorded music that involves natural instruments that perform music live in a real space (e.g., classical, opera, some jazz, some big-band, some folk music, some blues, etc.), then that involves different challenges. For example, the challenge of reproducing the timbre of natural instruments. We know what a violin sounds like. We know how a trumpet sounds. We know how an oboe sounds. We know how a double bass sounds. Some of these natural instruments have complex sounds – and when many such instruments play together in an orchestra – the sound is extremely complex. Moreover, someone who has never heard a large-scale orchestra perform classical music in a symphony hall might be amazed at the power and the dynamic range. Bottom line: We know what a string quartet sounds like - and we know what a symphony orchestra sounds like (recognizing some variance in hall acoustics). For a classical music lover (and people who listen to other music that involves natural instruments), there is a clear benchmark for how recorded music should sound when reproduced in our home. Consider these questions: What is meant by “accuracy” in sound reproduction? What is meant by “true high-fidelity audio”? (I have several late 1930’s TOTL tube radios that are “High Fidelity”. It says so right on the front.) What is meant by the suggestion that there is a difference between something that you “imagine” that you hear vs. something that is “real”? Does science currently understand every aspect of human hearing as it relates to the enjoyment of music? (I don’t think so.) Do technologists have tests and specs that define every aspect of human enjoyment of music? (I don’t think so.) And most importantly: What is your benchmark for the quality of sound you are hearing from your home hi-fi system? (Someone else’s benchmark may not be relevant to the music you listen to, and may not be relevant based on your priorities.) Ask yourself: For the recorded music you will listen to via your home hi-fi system, are you concerned with achieving sound quality that is “musical”, or are you concerned with a theoretical definition of “accurate”? Does someone else’s definition of “accurate” make sense to you? Once you’ve defined your goal, how do you achieve your goal? Do you rely on your ears or do you rely on PC software and graphs? (Various approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive.) Understand the concept of garbage-in / garbage-out The availability of true hi-res (e.g., 24bit/192kHz PCM, or DSD) recordings varies by genre. By “true hi-res” I mean recordings with hi-res provenance, i.e., originally recorded and mastered in hi-res - NOT Redbook CD (16bit/44.1kHz) converted to a FLAC file. Because I like classical music, opera, and occasionally ballet, then SACD, Blu-ray, Pure Audio Blu-ray, Ultra HD Blu-ray, plus downloaded hi-res (24bit/192kHz) FLAC, and DSD are all relevant. New performances of these genres are routinely captured and offered in hi-res formats, usually featuring multi-channel (5.0 or 5.1), and sometimes featuring audio/video. Your hi-fi system will never sound good if you use low quality recordings (e.g., highly compressed digital downloads, and/or poorly made recordings). CDs can sound good. Whether hi-res is worthwhile for you is something only you can decide. I suggest that a newbie consider this question: Why spend a large amount of money on hi-fi gear if you’ll be playing poor quality recordings? Think about your priorities and constraints. Money: Some people can’t afford to spend any money, and are looking for discarded equipment, or donations from family or friends. For some people, it’s all about the “thrill of the hunt” (e.g., when they “score” used equipment at a yard sale or the local thrift store). OTOH, some people spend more than $100,000 on their hi-fi system. Like many consumer products, there are dramatically diminishing returns beyond the price point associated with a high-value good-quality product. You must decide how much money you are willing to spend. Time: How much time are you willing to invest in the process of defining your needs, learning, researching products and services, shopping (possibly including driving to brick-and-mortar stores and auditioning systems), installing, fine-tuning, maintaining, etc. Architecture / home decorating / aesthetics Do you want all equipment built-in or hidden (e.g., speakers, amps)? Can you conveniently run wires? Are you willing to have large floor-standing speakers? How large? (I wish I had room for Jubilee or Klischorn, but I don’t. Tower speakers fit my living spaces. I own Palladium, RF-7II, and other tower speakers.) Are you willing to install acoustical panels on walls and/or ceilings and/or corners? (Rugs might benefit a room that has “live” acoustics because of hard floors.) It depends on your priorities. Some people put foam panels on the walls of their listening room. Other people put paintings or family photos on their walls. Equipment aesthetics are a personal choice. Some guys put flat-black painted speakers in their “man cave”. Some people want traditional style speakers with only the finest furniture-grade veneers. Some people want contemporary style. Have you seen equipment (e.g., turntable, amp, or speakers) that you think looks cool? (E.g., the glow of vacuum tubes in a darkened listening room. Or ,“blue eyes” meters on a McIntosh amp. Or the look of a vintage “silver faced” receiver with numerous knobs and buttons.) Think about whether you wish to have hi-fi as a hobby. To me, there are potentially 2 fundamental facets to hi-fi: enjoying music, and tinkering around with hi-fi. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive. For people who enjoy tinkering around with hi-fi, there are many ways to enjoy the hobby (many sub-facets), including, but not limited to: Some spend many hours focusing on LPs, or reel-to-reel tapes. Some enjoy cataloging and editing metadata for huge collections of digitized music, and seeking the most beautiful GUI interface, and building playlists, etc. Some are into digital networking, accessing all their music throughout their home by using their smartphone, and accessing their music from anywhere in the world. Some people are interested in vacuum tube technology, and enjoy tube rolling. Some people enjoy using calibrated microphones to measure and plot the sound in their room, and use DSP based gizmos to adjust frequency and delay, and use separate amps for each driver. Some people are interested in DIY (e.g., building your own speakers based on on-line plans, or building an amplifier from a kit, or restoring old gear). Etc. Some people aren’t only looking for the most efficient or effective means to increase their sound quality. They’re also looking to have fun in the process. My Advice: Listen with your own ears. My opinion: Don’t rely on “experts” to tell you what is best for you. Rely on your ears and your brain. Either you’re moved by the music being reproduced by your hi-fi system, or not. IME, technical specifications (or plotted graphs) can’t completely predict or explain your visceral response to what you hear. (FWIW, I have a science and technology background – for more than 45 years – so I’m NOT anti-science.) Science is, of course, essential in the development and testing of electronic equipment. However, IMO, acceptable technical specs represent a necessary though not sufficient condition for good sound quality from a hi-fi system. IME, part of achieving excellent sound quality from a hi-fi system involves some “seat of the pants” judgements and decisions vs. relying strictly on instrumentation. One of the most challenging aspects of the hobby of hi-fi these days is the limited number of retail showrooms where you can listen to equipment. If you are respectful and professional in your postings on a forum such as this, another forum member with similar interests might invite you into their home to hear their equipment. (I’ve done this once. I was glad to have a husband and wife – both classical musicians – come to my home and listen to a variety of speakers and amps and recordings (including hi-res and CDs) – and I think it was useful to them.) Final Thoughts I suggest that you ask for recommendations for speakers and amps from people with similar tastes in music, who have similar room size, similar listening preferences, and similar budget. However, you must listen for yourself. Only one opinion matters regarding sound quality: yours. The debate about what different people hear in reproduced music will never be settled. Pick the system that sounds best to you, and when you must make compromises, then choose the trade-offs that suit you best. My experience: Klipsch speakers and tube amps go together like peanut butter and jelly. (Except that IMO sometimes a solid-state amp does a better job of delivering the sharp attack of a grand piano.) Each audiophile must decide if a tube amp or solid-state is best for them. On one hand, a tube amp with point-to-point wiring is repairable, OTOH occasionally tubes may need to be replaced. Each audiophile must decide if hi-res recordings, and/or CDs, and/or LPs suit them. Here’s some specific examples: When I listen in my TV room to my Klipsch Palladium P-37F and P-312W via my NAD C375BEE solid-state amp, my reaction is generally “that sounds good”. OTOH, when I listen to these same Klipsch speakers via my McIntosh MC225 tube amp (directly connected to my Oppo UDP-205 playing hi-res classical recordings – i.e., no pre-amp or pre-processor), I am more likely to be “drawn into the music”, and I’m more likely to “get lost in the music”. This configuration (Oppo UDP-205 direct to tube power amp) is a nice “minimalist system” – i.e., with the minimal amount of DSP “mucking around” with the music I love. Do I agree that “DSP is the devil”? I’ll say this: DTS Neo:6 Mode in my UDP-205 is switched OFF. My attitude generally is “keep your stinkin’ DSPs and PC software away from the classical music that I love”. Is this naïve? Were DSPs used during the mastering of some classical recordings? I don’t know. I do know that for some classical recordings, the producers claim that no DPSs were involved. I believe in keeping things as simple as possible. For hi-res digital recordings, IMO my Oppo UDP-205 directly connected to a tube power amp is as simple as possible. As I type this I’m listening to a hi-res recording (24bit/192kHz FLAC download) in my office of Beethoven Late String Quartets. I began my listening via my NAD D 3020 Class D solid-state amp, and then switched to my Fisher 500C tube receiver, and then my Scott 299B tube amp. I prefer the sound of the tube amps. (On this particular recording, I preferred the Scott 299B and its 7189 output tubes. However, on different music my choice in amps might be different.) When listening to classical music I sometimes find that solid-state amps sound “dry” compared to tube amps, and more importantly compared with what I remember hearing in the symphony hall. And, IMO the “dry” sound of some solid-state amps is a form of distortion that is less appealing – and less musical – compared with the distortions introduced by my tube amps. IMO all hi-fi equipment is like all creations of mankind – i.e., imperfect. My advice: Choose the imperfections that suit you. I’m unconcerned with whether technologists can explain why a solid-state amp sounds “dry”. I’m concerned with what sounds best to my ears, when listening to music that I like. Regarding surround-sound audio/video, in my basement system I use an Oppo UDP-205 for surround-sound Blu-ray (some audio-only, some audio/video), and for SACD recordings of classical music and opera. (There are many audio/video Blu-rays available for opera, ballet, and classical concerts that feature surround-sound. There are some Pure Audio Blu-ray (i.e., audio only) discs that feature surround-sound. And there are many multi-channel SACDs for classical music.) I use tube amps to drive RF-7IIs for a 4.2 configuration (i.e., 2 powered subwoofers) in my basement system. This system can deliver the full power – and natural sound – of what I remember hearing in the symphony hall. IMO, one thing is certain: Your approach to hi-fi will likely vary based on the music you like, based on your goals, and based on your priorities and constraints.

What types of music do you listen to?

I checked mine. No Problem.

Here's my 2 cents: Terminate the speaker cables with banana plugs. Wire the amplifiers' speaker connections to one of these: https://www.vadcon.com/pp/pps8-bbgs.html https://www.vadcon.com/pp/pps16-bbgs.html https://www.amazon.com/Monoprice-Binding-Two-Piece-Coupler-Speakers/dp/B075CV2GD5/ref=pd_day0_hl_23_6?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B075CV2GD5&pd_rd_r=54165784-b317-11e8-8742-1712fd196554&pd_rd_w=kBCQt&pd_rd_wg=AeLrp&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=ad07871c-e646-4161-82c7-5ed0d4c85b07&pf_rd_r=QEC02WSKSZDS43KEGQ26&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=QEC02WSKSZDS43KEGQ26 With the amplifiers powered off, you simply plug whichever speakers you want into whichever amp you want. Use something like a Niles AXP-1 to switch the RCA output (e.g., from CD player) between the amps. This can serve many amps, and many speakers, and has no amp power limitations, and no concerns about frying an amp because of what's going in inside a box. I have this installed in several systems. Works great.

Blaupunkt? Is it tube or solid state? If tube, definitely restore it - i.e., preserve it for what it is. Even if it's solid state, and it works, I'd preserve it.

The question "how much amp power is adequate" cannot be answered without knowing: The sensitivity rating of your speakers. (Sensitivity is rated on a logarithmic scale. As a result, different speakers can need significantly differing amounts of amplifier power.) The size of your listening room The types of music you listen to Whether you listen to modern "hi-res" recordings that can have relatively high dynamic range (depending on genre) Whether you use a powered subwoofer with crossover before the main amp, thereby off-loading the main amp and speakers How loud you like to listen FYI, many people who use high-sensitivity Klipsch speakers use tube amps with less than 10wpc. (Because of different clipping characteristics, solid state amps generally need significantly more power than tube amps in order to perform satisfactorily.)