Jump to content

Measurements / Listening Experience


mikebse2a3

Recommended Posts

Measurements in all fields of science are tools and it pays to remember they have design limitations that the user must respect or risk heading down the wrong paths and conclusions..!!!  

 

The Listening Test is also a tool we use and it pays to understand the human design limitations that the user must respect or risk heading down the wrong paths or conclusions...!!!

 

It pays to not turn a “deaf ear” to what both have to offer and acknowledge that the ultimate test that all must pass is the Listening Experience 🙂

 

Thought some might find the “Evolution of Thinking” of amplifier designer Dan D’Agostino interesting...

 

miketn

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, I think that Nelson Pass brings a little more understanding to the table in this article: https://www.passlabs.com/press/audio-distortion-and-feedback

 

It explains a lot about feedback and slew rate, and really shows why "intermodulation distortion" in amplifiers is the real issue, and the really objectionable distortions correlate to the higher order harmonics (as Geddes pointed out using masking of the human hearing system as an explanation). The focus on harmonic distortion of first and second orders isn't useful, and that's what Mr. Dan D'Agostino (above) is basically saying. 

 

I wish that we'll all spend a lot less time on 1st and 2nd order harmonics (or even 3rd or 4th order, usually the dominant ones in harmonic distortion measurements) that basically correlate poorly to listen tests, as Geddes pointed out.

 

Chris

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my thinking, all this waxing poetic about slew, current, THD, etc. aside, the most important measurement is: Can it be distinguished, while blinded, from other amps that are similarly intended to be linear to within our hearing limits.

 

To any beginners/ newbies reading this thread, consider this:  

 

To date not ONE manufacturer has ever cited how their amplifier, buoyed by all of their proprietary approaches and topology, etc. etc. is actually preferred, in blinded trials, by experienced audiophiles to other amps which are also engineered to be linear under normal operating conditions.

 

Audiophiles should be more like doctors when they talk to Drug reps.  A typical response from a wise doctor when confronted by a drug rep is usually:  "Don't bore with details about mechanism of action, or how your drug  improves a particular physiological measurement!  What I want to know first is Outcomes!!  Show me the data that indicates patients on your drug live longer or they feel better.  ..If you can show me that, then I'll be interested in the all the how's and why's..."   Otherwise, save your breath."

 

I think there's a lesson in this for audiophiles.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ODS123 said:

To my thinking, all this waxing poetic about slew, current, THD, etc. aside, the most important measurement is: Can it be distinguished, while blinded, from other amps that are similarly intended to be linear to within our hearing limits.

 

To any beginners/ newbies reading this thread, consider this:  

 

To date not ONE manufacturer has ever cited how their amplifier, buoyed by all of their proprietary approaches and topology, etc. etc. is actually preferred, in blinded trials, by experienced audiophiles to other amps which are also engineered to be linear under normal operating conditions.

 

Audiophiles should be more like doctors when they talk to Drug reps.  A typical response from a wise doctor when confronted by a drug rep is usually:  "Don't bore with details about mechanism of action, or how your drug  improves a particular physiological measurement!  What I want to know first is Outcomes!!  Show me the data that indicates patients on your drug live longer or they feel better.  ..If you can show me that, then I'll be interested in the all the how's and why's..."   Otherwise, save your breath."

 

I think there's a lesson in this for audiophiles.

 

 

 

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:
 

  1. It does NOT logically follow that all amps (or “all amps engineered to be linear under normal operating conditions”) sound the same.
  2. 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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last three posts above make me want to see a video of the three of you on a panel.  Or a podcast of same.  :unsure2: 

 

There was a time when most good amplifier spec sheets included an IM distortion figure.  Now all I usually see is THD.

 

When I first noticed the IM figures were missing, a dealer (who was also an engineer) told me, "Well, they are highly correlated."

 

A PWK Dope from Hope introduced me to TIM, so I asked around.  What I got ranged from "Whaaa?"  to "Oh, you mean Total IM?"  (I said, "No, I think the T stands for Transient") to "You don't hear that."

 

I'm not taking a position on what we (I) can hear or not hear, just noting the absence of info in the spec sheets.

 

Here is part of a sheet that gives both  IM (but doesn't say at what power), and notes that TIM is unmeasurable, meaning, I suppose, that they tried to measure it and didn't find any.  I love that the power output is with all channels driven -- how often do you see that in an advertisement?  [From a longer Parasound spec sheet]

 

Power Output - All 5 Channels Driven
180 watts x 5, 8 Ω

 

Power measurements parameters with 120VAC:

0.05% THD, RMS continuous power,
full audio band (20 Hz - 20 kHz)

 

Total Harmonic Distortion (THD)

< 0.05 % at full power

 

IM Distortion
< 0.04 %

 

TIM
Unmeasurable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@garyrc: IIRC, the amplifier Dr. Ottala TIM figures of the 1970s involved those amplifiers having time lags in the feedback signal--which is a real killer in terms of its effects.  It's pretty easy to publish the results of a dual-tone tests using something like a Klippel R&D test setup, but the manufacturers continue to avoid doing that--even though those tests are IEC 60268-defined.  It's like they want you to buy a pig in a poke. (Imagine that...)  In other words, they don't want you to be able to compare their products, so they suppress that information.  It's not a good story for the industry--which by a few accounts is not much different than the RIAA-affiliated record companies that institutionally destroy the fidelity of music they produce, and then defend their fidelity-robbing practices jealously in the name of "commercialization". 

 

@ODS123: There is a notable case from the 1980s wherein a guy named Bob Carver separately challenged two different audio magazines to audition amplifiers of his own making that purportedly duplicated the sound of notable amplifiers of the time (those exact amplifier models were kept secret from Carver). Bob apparently won both challenges via copying the transfer function of the amplifiers using null difference testing.

 

The point is, if there were people that could pick out amplifiers (and I've personally experienced hearing real differences in amplifiers--however small those differences might be), they couldn't do it with Carver's for-purpose built amplifiers that used null difference testing to eliminate the time- and frequency-based response differences between amplifiers--even though the topologies of those compared amplifiers can be dramatically different.  There are people that can hear the differences consistently.  I admit that I can hear some of those differences via at least unsighted single blind listening trials, but most people will admit that the differences in sound are actually quite small.  By "quite small", I'm talking about differences that are almost unconsciously perceived as "adding something that they cannot really explain or verbalize" ...nothing like the subjective listening differences in ride cymbal reproduction using different full-range 2" compression drivers.

 

Apparently there are people that will pay literally tens of thousands of dollars for these small differences, but won't lift a finger to seriously improve the listening space acoustics by building a better listening room or even getting truly better loudspeakers (assuming that these people could actually pick better loudspeakers--which many of them apparently cannot do since they so often wind up buying loudspeakers that, by inspection alone, could not perform well). 

 

Whether or not the difference in sound is worth that kind of cash usually boils down to the people themselves, like preferences in automobiles and liquor that costs many times the base-level products.  They have the freedom to do that.  Some people "want it the way that they want it"--but, here's the kicker--they also "want to tell you about it" at the same time.  The last part of that, of course, is the real problem: if they kept their OCD tendencies to themselves, we probably wouldn't be talking about it here.  Most OCD-afflicted individuals usually hide their obsessions from public view.  Not these guys.  They want you to know about their obsessions--and they want to argue them as ostentatiously as they can.

 

Chris

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chris A said:

 

@ODS123: There is a notable case from the 1980s wherein a guy named Bob Carver separately challenged two different audio magazines to audition amplifiers of his own making that purportedly duplicated the sound of notable amplifiers of the time (those exact amplifier models were kept secret from Carver). Bob apparently won both challenges via copying the transfer function of the amplifiers using null difference testing.

 

 

Sounds to me like he may have actually done NOTHING to his amps or made changes that were indeed measurable but still not audible.  For ex. perhaps raising the THD of his amp to simply match that of the others.  ..So long as both were %1 or lower, THD would inaudible.  He could then say he "matched the amps".  ..Perhaps I missed it, but did he prior to this establish that people could reliably distinguish the ML from the CJ??  I think what he did is brilliant in that he uses the fact that modern amps sound pretty much the same to sell his less expensive amps.   This brings to mind an idea I actually gave serious thought to:

 

I've often thought about creating a company called AudioMax and marketing a pair of audiophile speaker wires - basically just plain 12g wire w/ techy looking insulation and anodized blueish connectors.  I would then organize a DBT comprised of audiophiles comparing my AudioMax cables to, just for example, Audioquest Dragon Zero's - which retail for $11K.  For motivation I'd offer $500 to any of the 10, 20, 40, whatever, who could reliably (> than chance) distinguish one from the other.   If my experiment plays out as expected (that they can't!), I would then sell the cables with a full page ad in Stereophile w/ the headline...   In bias-controlled DBT comprised of Stereophile-subscribed Audiophiles, My $30 Audiomax speaker cables were statistically indistinguishable from $11,000 AudioQuest Dragon Zeros!!  Order yours today for arrival by Christmas!  

 

I would of course provide at the bottom of the page  all the details of the listening trials (including the $500 award), just like a Pharmaceutical company details their Bias Controlled Clinical Trials in their Prescription Insert.

 

This seems similar to what Bob Carver did.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, robert_kc said:

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.

 

That is of course fine.  You are certainly free to pursue this hobby any way you chose.  And I hope you do it in good health.  ..That said, I'm not trying to change your mind.  I'm trying to point out to the newbies who visit this site that this hobby is utterly bereft of any sort of honesty or validity testing.  Which is something that may not concern you but it probably would someone new to this hobby who wants to decide how to apportion their spending across Speakers, Amplifier, Cables, CD Player, etc.. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the people at Stereophile magazine (after J. Gordon Holt had sold it to investors) could reliably hear the differences in blind testing between their chosen amplifier (Conrad-Johnson) and other amplifiers, since they did their own blind trials to make sure that they could.  Otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to the challenge. 

 

The fact that you deny that they could makes me think that you might personally have an inability to hear these small differences (and please excuse the apparent shift to ad hominem discussion, but I can assure you that this is not a rhetorical ad hominem argument, but one that is unavoidable in these type of discussions) .  I know many, many others having similar inability to hear those small differences--even within our Klipsch community...people that consider themselves "audio aficionados".   I find that hearing, like other human senses, is not created equal in all people, and it is also subject to training--like that of many very highly trained and gifted musicians.  It is this training and screening of audio listeners--like Harman/JBL does at their Northridge facility--that usually separates out the best auditioners.  In a way, you may be blessed with not having the ability to hear these very small differences.  It means that you are also not plagued with infinitesimally small changes that are audible, which usually become a liability to many audio enthusiasts. 

 

I've personally witnessed Roy Delgado being able to dial in loudspeakers using only his ears using really small changes in in-room EQ in a way that would amaze anyone watching/listening closely to what he's doing.  I'm aware that he's not the only one that can do this at his place of business.   This is a form of expertise that one can develop, but it takes a great deal of time and patience.  I certainly don't have those kinds of skills to balance loudspeakers in-room without some sort of measurement help, but I can say that after dialing everything in and doing very small tweaks based on listening only, the setup sounds like no other that I've heard.  It means to me that the measurements and the hand tweaking do produce audible improvements. 

 

My hearing abilities have gotten much better after demastering my CD collection of over 1500 CDs with over 18K tracks total--about 15K of which are demastered.  I'm still not sure that I could be a JBL-certified volunteer listener (i.e., I've never taken their on-line test), even though I have spent many hours listening and training my ears to hear small differences--many thousands of listening hours in point of fact.  I've heard some of these small differences in amplifiers, etc. but most of those differences are not worth me spending money on. 

 

But I can say that the financial investment in Jubilees with TAD TD-4002 drivers more than 10 years ago--and my persistence in getting them dialed-in has been an investment that has paid off immeasurably for me.  It has enabled the demastering learning curve that I've experienced over the past 4 years, and a learning curve from which I'm still learning.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

 

My assertion was, and continues, that modern day amps that are engineered to be linear will be indistinguishable when operated within their design limits.  

 

You disagree and cite how some 35 years ago a few handfuls of people were able to distinguish a sold-state amp from a tube amp.  This fails to meet the criteria oI either modern or "engineered to be linear".  

 

As for Roy Delgato, I never said differences b/w speakers were inaudible.  Indeed, I believe that is pretty much where ALL the differences lie, apart from the all-important listening environment and, perhaps, a turntable in an analog rig which is highly mechanical and subject to poor alignment (cartridge) and other such issues.

 

As for challenging my hearing, I don't take offense at all.  In reply I can only offer that my hearing measures well, and I have a keen sense of musical nuance honed from years of playing and listening to live (often unamplified) music.   Since I've never de-mastered music they way you have I of course can't say for certain that I would be able to hear what you are hearing during that process.

 

But all of this serves to make my point that if there is even a debate regarding the audibility of differences b/w modern day amplifiers, then just how important can these difference be!?   Plus, establishing the existence of these differences is only part of the equation.  Of even greater importance: If Amp A is audibly different from amp B, then the next question is, which one is reliably found to sound more like music??  No one has even begun to take that on.

 

So, again, to beginners I say.  Buy an integrated amp or receiver (2-ch or multi) that has enough power to drive your speaker to desired levels and offers the features you want (eg., tone controls, input level matching, mono switch, built-in DAC, etc..) and be done with it. ..In most cases this can be accomplished for $500 or less.    ..Spend the vast majority of $$ on your speakers and maximizing your listening environment.  

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you feel that entry level amps are good enough (or up to the task at hand) then that is good for you, you have saved yourself a lot of time/money and you can be happy. For myself though I do not agree. I am not attempt to convince you of anything simply sharing my view. Everyone's perception/appreciation is different. Each to his own as the saying goes. I do think that debate is good and that it is helpful to all. Thanks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2018 at 1:30 PM, ODS123 said:

Audiophiles should be more like doctors when they talk to Drug reps.  

 

Pharmaceutical sales representative visits to doctors, known as “detailing,” is the most prominent form of pharmaceutical company marketing. Detailing often involves small gifts for physicians and their staff, such as meals. Pharmaceutical companies incur far greater expenditures on detailing visits than they do on direct-to-consumer marketing, or even on research and development of new drugs. Despite the prevalence of detailing and the numerous programs to regulate detailing, little was known about how practice-level detailing restrictions affect physician prescribing

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, robert_kc said:

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.

 

Yes, to each their own.  ..As I've repeatedly said, I'm not trying to change the minds of committed audiophiles such as yourself.   Only trying to give the newbies who come here some food for thought.    And I never said use the cheapest amp you can buy.  ..That is a straw man argument.  I said buy an amp that has the features you want (such as but not limited to:  tone controls, stereo/mono mode, input level matching, built-in DAC, etc..) AND can drive your speakers to desired levels without distorting.   I said this can usually be accomplished for $500 or less, but clearly some will find reason to spend more (like yours truly - my McIntosh MA6600 was considerably more expensive than this).

 

You have a fondness for tube amps which is fine.  ..But newbies should be aware that such amps do not allow more of the music to shine through (as often claimed by it's fans) but rather tubes add distortion that was not in the original recording.  If one finds this sort of added distortion appealing, then buy a tube amp or buy a S/S amp and an external device to add this distortion if and when one wants it.  ...I think generally speaking, people would be more inclined to buy electronics that don't add colorations.  Hence, a modern day amp that is engineered to be linear under normal operating conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dirtmudd said:

 

Pharmaceutical sales representative visits to doctors, known as “detailing,” is the most prominent form of pharmaceutical company marketing. Detailing often involves small gifts for physicians and their staff, such as meals. Pharmaceutical companies incur far greater expenditures on detailing visits than they do on direct-to-consumer marketing, or even on research and development of new drugs. Despite the prevalence of detailing and the numerous programs to regulate detailing, little was known about how practice-level detailing restrictions affect physician prescribing

 

But how is this relevant?  I said that wise doctors are persuaded by outcome data (ie., do patients live longer and or feel better?) and NOT by details about the biochemistry of what the drug does.   I suspect you believe you have presented some sort of a "gotcha" fact but I don't follow.

 

BTW, it's not necessarily true that Pharma companies spend more on Sales Rep expenses than they do on R&D.  For one, not all drug companies even have drug reps, plus those that do have R&D pipelines (ie., drugs in development, inc. various stages of clinical trials) that range from quite huge to non-existent..  Plus, the statement above is quickly becoming outdated.  Gifts (such as pens, notepads, etc..) have not been allowed (by law) for years.  As for meals, today less than half of doctors offices allow drug reps to bring meals into the office.  And an increasing number of offices (mostly those that are part of major health networks like Penn Medicine) don't allow drug reps (with few exceptions) to step onto the premises.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ODS123 said:

 I said that wise doctors

Then name a wise doctor... That would save a dying person for free...

 

It also might be the case.. With subjective studies....

 

or with electronic gear...

 

It is up to the consumer.... On how wise.. They spend their $$$...

 

On which components...either based

On reviews of own personal experience....

 

What I or others might hear or not hear...

 

Then studies should report on your own hearing... To many variables on either side of the spectrum....

 

And sorry for the hijack....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ODS123 said:

You have a fondness for tube amps which is fine.  ..But newbies should be aware that such amps do not allow more of the music to shine through (as often claimed by it's fans) but rather tubes add distortion that was not in the original recording.  If one finds this sort of added distortion appealing, then buy a tube amp or buy a S/S amp and an external device to add this distortion if and when one wants it.  ...I think generally speaking, people would be more inclined to buy electronics that don't add colorations.  Hence, a modern day amp that is engineered to be linear under normal operating conditions.

 

All amplifiers add distortion so it’s more a matter of which has distortion that’s more psychoacoustically imperceptible or acceptable versus other types of distortion of known or unknown types to the individual IMHO. Yes some tube amplifiers (single ended tube or SS types for example) will interact with the loudspeaker impedance and the result is often a max of 1db to 2db shift in portions of the frequency response of the combined amplifier + loudspeaker equating to a small but perceivable change in the tonal balance. This type of distortion is often very benign and is much more acceptable versus for example many SS amplifiers that can sometimes exhibit an edgy type of distortion in the higher frequencies often perceived as excess sibilance of “S”, “T” and “Z” type sounds and this causes a lack of clarity also versus amplifiers that do not exhibit this type of distortion.  I have heard this edgy type of distortion in both Tube and SS Type amplifiers also so a blanket declaration of any general type of amplifier is misleading and wrong wether it be SS, Tube, Class A, Class A/B, Class G , Digital, Single Ended or Push Pull.

 

Also when one says “Linear” it often doesn’t actually cover all aspect of performance when you see test published of amplifiers which are rarely performed under signal and load conditions that they have to perform with when reproducing music so linear is a very relative term and thus limited in describing the performance of an amplifier at the present time we live in.

 

One other thing that has in recent times been spread (ie: Carver) about Tube Amplifiers (without adequate test/proof) is their ability or weakness of by way of the Speaker acting like a microphone and this back emf signal(Room Sound) then being amplified by the amplifier after some delay. To date with the test I have performed this “Room Echo Sound” if it even exist would be psychoacoustically imperceptible in any normal listening room by any typical amplifier design Tube or SS. If Carver is manipulating/ exaggerating this in some form it is only in his designs IMO.

 

 

miketn

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record I don’t believe in any amplifier type being the best because I currently own examples of Single Ended Tube, Single Ended SS, Class A P/P Tube, Class A/B SS and Class G and all these amplifiers perform excellent with my Jubs/K402/TAD4002 systems.

 

So my advice is use your ears as the main guide in what amplifier has the best synergy with your system, room and your personal taste in sound reproduction that you desire. 

 

Like anything we humans adapt and refine our taste and desire over time and it will be and should be a part of the journey for any newby to audio. Experience as much as possible while keeping an open mind and pay attention to the details along the way because they can and will  alter your experiences especially if not controlled and accounted for.

 

miketn

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, robert_kc said:

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.

 

I enjoy this hobby from both the musical as well as technical aspects and have always done this for about 50 years now🙂.... and I have come to the same conclusion that while we desire perfection we must also accept it’s not possible and thus ultimately our systems must allow the music to move us or why bother..???

 

miketn

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2018 at 7:18 AM, ODS123 said:

 

Yes, to each their own.  ..As I've repeatedly said, I'm not trying to change the minds of committed audiophiles such as yourself.   Only trying to give the newbies who come here some food for thought.    And I never said use the cheapest amp you can buy.  ..That is a straw man argument.  I said buy an amp that has the features you want (such as but not limited to:  tone controls, stereo/mono mode, input level matching, built-in DAC, etc..) AND can drive your speakers to desired levels without distorting.   I said this can usually be accomplished for $500 or less, but clearly some will find reason to spend more (like yours truly - my McIntosh MA6600 was considerably more expensive than this).

 

You have a fondness for tube amps which is fine.  ..But newbies should be aware that such amps do not allow more of the music to shine through (as often claimed by it's fans) but rather tubes add distortion that was not in the original recording.  If one finds this sort of added distortion appealing, then buy a tube amp or buy a S/S amp and an external device to add this distortion if and when one wants it.  ...I think generally speaking, people would be more inclined to buy electronics that don't add colorations.  Hence, a modern day amp that is engineered to be linear under normal operating conditions.

 

(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.)
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...