artto

That's why I call them "anal ysts". It's always the wrong investment decision to sell your winners and keep your losers when things are down.

I will respectfully disagree with "The speakers and the room are the most important parts of the signal chain", at least to some extent. IMHO it starts with the recording, and ends with the room. Aside from the actual performance (difficult to turn a pig's ear into a silk purse), the recording engineer is king. It is he/she who influences the sound of the recording most. And it is the room acoustics that most influence how the speakers actually perform, especially at lower frequencies, and therefore what we hear from the recording. That being said I would say yes, this is an audiophile forum. My definition of audiophile is someone who is interested in how good or bad recorded sound sounds. This usually in the context of music reproduction but some audiophiles are more interested in one or more aspects of the "hardware" in the audio reproduction chain than in the music, although it may be tough to get them to admit it. Regardless, if you're enjoying whatever particular aspect of this that you like, then that's what's best for you. Not everyone has to "take it to the limit".

Mechanical things like switches are one of most common failure components in most things electrical. So using an alternate switch "on/off" source is not necessarily a bad idea IMO. I do this with my subwoofers. The only issue I see is in more recent (modern) equipment, particularly solid state, the component is actually left "ON" (in a low power consumption idle state) when plugged in to electrical outlet. This is done to improve internal component lifespan by not "shocking" the circuitry with current surge every time the unit is switched on. The circuitry is also kept "active" enough so that it's ready to go when you turn it "on" with no or less warm up time required.

Exact Ditto for me too.

Well, that's great to hear!!!! I'm really glad McIntosh decided to replace the whole amp for you. That's fantastic. I had a similar recent experience with NAD. I bought a new BluOS module for my NAD C390DD and couldn't get the tone controls to work. After many months of tech support correspondence via email and phone they finally admitted they couldn't fix it with a firmware update and made me a deal I couldn't refuse. They took back my 6 year old C390DD and credited the full MSRP to a new M32 plus a very nice discount on the difference. The last time I had a similar out-of-warranty experience like this was with Klipsch when they replaced a Corwall cabinet that had lifting veneer, even though I thought it might be my fault because it was an unfinished version & I had done the final sanding & finishing.

I have a modern NAD direct digital integrated amp but also plenty of tube amps if I need them. 😎

Alright. I can see this isn't going to be very popular. No problem. The point is if you remove the brand name & model from the article and insert any high-end "Luxury" brand name of today in its place you wouldn't know the difference. The article is from Stereophile, written by J. Gordon Holt in 1970. The amplifier.....................................D R U M R O L L P LE A S E ...................................................... Crown DC300 I guess I should never have bought the Crown DC300A in 1974. The DC300 was the end all to end all.

A bad transformer can certainly take out tubes. And if that's the case I would contact McIntosh directly. Be persistent. It may take months to get your way. Doesn't matter if the tubes are out of warranty if their transformer is responsible for the damage. On the bright side, don't feel too bad. Consider what happened to me. Way back I had my (3) Luxman MB3045 in storage for a few years. When I began using them again I didn't reform the power supply caps. Within about 30 minutes the power tubes started to go, one by one. Five of the six were shot by the time I caught it. FWIW, NOS 8045G output tube for those amps sell for $300 each or more. Fortunately I basically have a life-time supply but that's still a lot of $OUCH.

"I don't get why so many audiophiles people hate on Mac. They make incredible amps. Their build quality is phenomenal, made here in the USA, first rate engineering, they sound amazing but look the part (unlike so much other stuff), Mac stuff holds its value and they stand behind their products and they last forever. What's not to like??" True. But. If you're looking for absolute accuracy (as much as is possible), then the "McIntosh sound" is not the place to get it. "Musicality" IMO is a coloration, albeit a pleasant one. However, for someone like myself, that doesn't tell me what my recordings really sound like. I have a MA5300 in my possession at the moment. It's a really nice amp. midrange/treble sound great. IMO the low end gets weak the lower you go. The real deal breaker for me is the lack of connectivity. Specifically analog outputs. There aren't any. The only way to get my subs connected is to use a Y-adaptor on the preamp out, which has to be boot-strapped to the power amp in for normal operation. Can't fully connect any of my analog tape decks either. Personally, I think those pretty blue McIntosh meters should be on the controlled substance list. I swear they're addicting! The MA5300 should be an excellent match for your Cornwalls (my first Klipsch speaker, '73).

Warning: Propaganda from me 😋 You might want to take a look at what's called a direct digital feedback amp (DDFA) (not class D). To my knowledge NAD is the only one making these. The NAD C390DD has been out of production for some time now and can be had for a song. One of the best values out there. New is the NAD M32, successor to the original M3. One thing is for sure, the clarity, openness and incredible low end is probably an order of magnitude beyond anything you've heard before, tube or solid state. Whether or not you like is up to you. I had been using mostly tube amps (Luxman MB3045 and Wright 3.5 Mono) and McIntosh or Crown solid state amps for decades until I heard the C390DD in my system. I now have an NAD M32. This is as close as I've gotten to "real" from an amplifier at any price.

Come on guys.................name that amplifier!!!! OK, how about taking a stab at when this was written?

" i understand that the Zeplinlin tapes aren't/weren't digital and that's my point, The tapes would have been digitised and cleaned of noise in the remastering process, so now to be honest they're about as digital as it gets" Wrong. They are analog recordings made from analog tape. The dynamic range of whatever analog tape recorders (and actual tape) they used on the original recording is the limitation of dynamic range. That is the difference between the loudest usable gain that could be recorded on that analog tape compared to the noise floor of the tape/tape recorder. And the dynamic range of that analog tape system used to record Led Zeppelin is no where near the dynamic range available on CD. "so why have they not accounted for the gain in the remstereing/digitising process. would it of made the original recordings to noisy?" Yes, it could be that the original recordings were too noisy. Digital Signal Processing can be a wonderful thing but like everything it has its own limitations. There is no free lunch in this. Taking away noise also takes away something else, or creates new artifacts in the process. When mastering digital recordings there is a process called “normalization”. Normalization allows the mastering engineer to bring the peak or RMS average recording level up to the absolute maximum level allowed by the digital system (in this case PCM/CD quality dynamic range). Early CD mastering (mid 80’s) did not have this capability that I know of. Therefore those CD will in general, probably not have as much gain as more recent “re-mastered” issues, which most likely have been Normalized. There isn’t any Normalization “standard”. It’s up to the mastering engineer’s discretion. They can max it out or they can back it off a bit for a little margin of safety. In the case of Led Zeppelin, a hugely popular band over a long span of time, there are many, many issues/reissues. If you really want to get a good idea of how many versions were released take a look at Discogs.com https://www.discogs.com/artist/34278-Led-Zeppelin On Discogs the first Led Zeppelin album shows 491 versions. Led Zeppelin II shows 565 versions. It’s anybody’s guess what releases were made from what masters or re-masters or copies of copies of masters, etc. And to make matters worse I’d be willing bet much of that documentation is missing, incomplete or wrong, so in general it will be very difficult to know what came from where and what was done or not done to it until you give it a good listen and decide for yourself whether or not it's up to your standards.

Sorry, but Led Zeppelin remasters are not as digital as it gets. Those are not digital recordings. The original masters are analog. 50 year old analog tape masters.

"Tube watts" tend to sound louder, because tube amps by their very nature have more distortion and distortion makes things sound louder. Tube amps also tend to emphasize the even, pleasant sounding harmonic distortion, while solid state tends to emphasize more odd harmonics, albeit at much lower distortion levels. Tube amps also tend to provide a more natural compression as they approach or exceed their performance limits where as solid state amps tend to clip more cleanly, but abruptly, which can sound quite unpleasant. So with solid state it's usually good to go with a little more power. 75 watts verses 35 watts is only a 3dB increase in sound level. 3dB = 2x. -3db = 1/2 the power. 10dB increase sounds twice as loud to the ear.

I'm not a tube fan anymore. Back in the 70's, 80's and even early/mid 90's, yes, tubes. But those older solid state amps is what they were being compared to. Yes, there were exceptions (Levisnon ML-2) but by and large, tubes have a more "musical" friendly sound, per se'. But today things have changed. Even the guys who design the most expensive amps on the planet almost universally admit that they personally prefer their solid state designs. And then of course, now there's digital. And I don't mean class D. IMO the best of both worlds and then some.

It looks white background to me. What is "amplifier" Name the amp game based on the very old TV show What's My Line guessing what the guest did for a living.

What you are describing used to be an issue, long ago, especially during the early years of Compact Disc introduction. That's not the case anymore. I understand the renewed interest in turntables/vinyl LP but I also surmise that these same people have never heard a reproduction chain with true all digital throughput with absolutely no analog components in the signal chain until right up to the speaker outputs. There are many younger folks of the newer generations that grew up in a digital world, but unfortunately grew up with digital at its worst (MP3, CD made from masters intended for LP, etc). So for them the sound of an LP on a decent system is probably quite a revelation.

I don’t actually use any cassette for recording anymore. But when I did it was for live on-site in-concert recordings using very high quality “mastering” cassettes, or just cheap ones I’d use for a couple of songs to promote bands I played in. But I still keep all my good stuff around, for posterity sake, as well as to play recordings I’ve recorded my self or from radio (10+ hours of live 1990 Knebworth Festival comes to mind). I mean like how likely is it I’m going to come across a live recording of something like Pink Floyd playing at the Cavern Club in the 60’s? So that’s why I still have cassette tape, analog & digital. Nakamici Dragon, Sony A7 DAT, Tascam CC-222

This is an excerpt from a well known audio magazine. What is the amplifier? If we had been asked some time ago to describe our "dream amplifier," chances are we would have described the ___________. We thought we had heard virtual perfection in power amplifiers before. The for instance, produced such beautifully lucid, effortless sound that we honestly believed further improvement would be superfluous. It isn't. By comparison, the ______ is a shade more lucid, tighter at the low end, sweeter at the top, and considerably more effortless when reproducing at high levels. Make no mistake, the difference is audible, even at low listening levels. And when we compare the ________ with other available power amps, the difference is almost beyond belief. In most cases, it as though a subtle (or unsubtle, occasionally) veil has been lifted, allowing one to listen to the music instead of at it. Of particular interest is the effect of the ________ on low-end performance. We found that, in some cases, switching from any other amplifier to the _________ tightened up the entire low end to a degree that was downright dramatic. Loose, wooly, somewhat boomy low end suddenly became detailed, controlled, and well-defined. In other cases, the improvement was so subtle as to be almost inaudible. The difference, as it turned out, was a function of the particular loudspeakers the ______ was used with. Systems which normally tended to be rather heavy and ill-controlled at the low end were most conspicuously improved, while ones that normally—that is, with most other amplifiers—yield a tight, detailed low end showed the least improvement there when driven by the _________. There's not really much more to be said about its sound, because the _________ appears to be entirely without any sound of its own. And if we have ever said this about any other previous power amplifier, it is only because we had never heard the _________. But it does raise a question which we are not sure we want to try to answer just yet. Namely: Have we been doing some sort of a disservice to some loudspeakers we tested in the past, by not testing them with the ________? Would some systems that were faulted for booqy bass have sounded satisfactory with the _________? Certainly, we can justify our mistaken (?) judgments on the basis that there was no _________ until relatively recently, so we had to judge them on the basis of what amplifiers were around. And we might be excused for taking the attitude that nobody in his right mind is going to spend almost $$$ for an amplifier to drive two $ loudspeakers.

My question was absolutely NOT rhetorical. Many Forum veterans are well aware of my "credentials". While I've never intended to make a living at this, I have plenty of "professional" experience, as a musician and recording. And I wouldn't just post it here on the Forum for listening. I would distribute the real thing as I have done for a few Forum friends. Or, of course you could purchase it directly from my client's website. The experimental stuff is in my personal possession and would need to be listened to in my listening room. There is more to playing recorded music than vinyl. There is so much wrong with the "phonograph" record I could write a book about it. If we had only stuck with Edison's cylinder phonograph, using today's technology we would have a truly wonderful analog sound reproducer, albeit with all of analog's drawbacks such as easily damaged (and not repairable), continuous degradation with every play, it's lousy signal to noise ratio (dynamic range), degradation over time from simply "sitting there". The list goes on and on and on. Seriously, even if you were lucky enough to get the very first vinyl pressing of a recording, between the original analog tapes, the mixing and mastered tapes and the LP production process itself, you are at BEST, 8 to 10 generations away from the "original". In the analog world every successive copy carries with it the cumulative distortions and noise from the preceding copies. Vinyl? LOL. Vinyl was always considered the "poor man's HiFi". Back in the day no self respecting "audiophile" was without a reel to reel tape deck. And what do you think you're going to get from vinyl using the 4000th pressing from the same stamper? The 50,000th? The 1,000,000th? (yes, the major record companies would produce that many copies from one stamper)

So, are you moving from a 2-channel "stereo" to multi-channel? Is this going to be primarily for music or home theater?

I have to ask, how many of you have any experience recording live music and/or natural sounds? And how often have you done this? How many of you have recorded the same source, in analog and digital simultaneously? How many of you have recorded live music, and played it back in the same room, and fooled everyone upon playback? (in other words it was the recording playing, not the live performer) You know, in live verses recorded demonstrations, the recorded sound is what the majority of listeners consistently identify as the one they think is "live". It's been that way for decades.

The universe is made of all kinds of tiny bits of things. We are bits. Rivers are bits. The planets are made of bits. Even your precious vinyl is made of bits, but mostly space. So, what universe are you from? (it doesn't have to be parallel)

AXPONA is held just a few miles from me. I'm sure someone there will have a BluOS equipped M32 for me to report back on. By then the 60 day free Tidal trial will have expired and the BluOS returned to Crutchfield. I definitely won't upgrade if this is a problem on the M32 too. But I can tell you this. Several recordings that I'm extremely familiar with, when streamed from Tidal directly into the C390DD/BluOS, definitely have better resolution/definition than playing the same (ripped from CD) from the laptop/JRiver via USB or HDMI to the C390. And these were CD quality streams, not 96/24, 192/24 or MQA encoding. OTOH there were a number of 96/24 and 192/24 MQA titles that needed some adjustment in the bass department. So, as usual, the recording engineer is king. And what (equipment) he's listening to, and the room he's listening in, as well as personal preference is still influencing the final result.

I'm using a C390DD with a recently installed BluOS. The BluOS module (nor it's app) appear to not be functioning properly. NAD says it is. But no bass treble or balance controls like all the other sources. I'm not upgrading to a M32 without knowing if the same will happen. No dealers around the Chicago area have M32 available for comparison.