Measurements / Listening Experience

[Deang]

Don’t feed the troll. 

[ODS123]

On 12/10/2018 at 4:21 PM, robert_kc said:

 

 

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.)
 

 

I'm sorry for not replying more quickly but honestly I don't really know how to respond.  I issue a warning to beginners to be wary of claims from people who hear "huge" differences b/w amp X and Y without engaging in ANY sort of validity testing and you, in reply, offer more of the very same claims.  ..So all I can say is that I'm happy that you are able to enjoy this hobby in your own way.  

 

As for my own choice in integrated amp - the McIntosh MA6600 - as I've said before (copied from an earlier post):

 

"Although I don’t believe my Mac amp sounds different than any Of the amps I’ve had prior (NAD 375bee, Bryston 3bsst/Bp-25, PeachTree Nova, B&K 202+/Pro-10MC, or even my Onkyo AVR), there are still a great many reasons for buying it.  For starters, I love the feel, the look, the build quality and the fact that it is largely handcrafted in upstate New York.  Plus, I love the feature set, Including:  mono/stereo switch, bass/treble controls, trims to adjust the volume level for all inputs, and wattage meters that help ensure I’m not over driving my speakers.  Basically, I see owning a McIintosh amp as being roughly equivalent to owning an expensive watch: yes, it’s frivolous and unnecessary but it is satisfying and enjoyable all the same.   I am not critical of owning expensive gear,  only of believing it sounds better.   Speakers are the lone exception, imho.

 

I don’t own a motorcycle, shore house, expensive watch, boat or an expensive car. My audio system is pretty much my only extravagance ."

[ODS123]

15 hours ago, Deang said:

Don’t feed the troll. 

 

feel free to visit the other threads then.  It's amazing how threatened some are by someone trying to inject objectivity into the audio discussion.  Again, Beginners take note.

[Deang]

... and your continued baiting. 

[tube fanatic]

Since advice to beginners was brought into this discussion I need to make a comment.
 

Solid state users have the advantage of not having to deal with ludicrous claims such as "the case of our output transistors is made of @$#@# which results in much tighter bass than those made of other materials," or "our transistor pins are coated with a layer of unobtainium which makes the electrons flow faster resulting in smoother highs."

 

Tube users, on the other hand, are assaulted with ridiculous claims such as the color of the heat dissipation coating on the plate or shape/location of the getter resulting in radical changes in sound.  Then, there's the issue of claims that rectifier tubes can significantly affect sound (if they supply the correct voltage required for a particular circuit, it is impossible to differentiate one from the other).  Beginners often get sucked into spending lots of money on total tube nonsense, and the dealers certainly cash in on the mythology.  I could keep on going with this, but you get the idea.  Beware!!!

Maynard

[ODS123]

1 hour ago, tube fanatic said:

Since advice to beginners was brought into this discussion I need to make a comment.
 

Solid state users have the advantage of not having to deal with ludicrous claims such as "the case of our output transistors is made of @$#@# which results in much tighter bass than those made of other materials," or "our transistor pins are coated with a layer of unobtainium which makes the electrons flow faster resulting in smoother highs."

 

Tube users, on the other hand, are assaulted with ridiculous claims such as the color of the heat dissipation coating on the plate or shape/location of the getter resulting in radical changes in sound.  Then, there's the issue of claims that rectifier tubes can significantly affect sound (if they supply the correct voltage required for a particular circuit, it is impossible to differentiate one from the other).  Beginners often get sucked into spending lots of money on total tube nonsense, and the dealers certainly cash in on the mythology.  I could keep on going with this, but you get the idea.  Beware!!!

Maynard

Though I'm not a tube guy (I prefer linearity) I concur - a little bit of validity testing would go a lonnnngggg way.   Well, I say i'm not a tube guys, but I do dream of someday owning a new(wish) Mac MC275.  Absolutely beautiful looking bit of industrial design.  And McIntosh's newer tube amps are pretty much audibly indistinguishable from their S/S gear.  Ridiculously low THD, high S/N ratio, and excellent Channel Separation, etc. all make it so.

 

And it all just gets more and more improbable as CD Players, DACs, Cables, etc.. are brought into the mix.

[robert_kc]

10 hours ago, tube fanatic said:

Since advice to beginners was brought into this discussion I need to make a comment.
 

Solid state users have the advantage of not having to deal with ludicrous claims such as "the case of our output transistors is made of @$#@# which results in much tighter bass than those made of other materials," or "our transistor pins are coated with a layer of unobtainium which makes the electrons flow faster resulting in smoother highs."

 

Tube users, on the other hand, are assaulted with ridiculous claims such as the color of the heat dissipation coating on the plate or shape/location of the getter resulting in radical changes in sound.  Then, there's the issue of claims that rectifier tubes can significantly affect sound (if they supply the correct voltage required for a particular circuit, it is impossible to differentiate one from the other).  Beginners often get sucked into spending lots of money on total tube nonsense, and the dealers certainly cash in on the mythology.  I could keep on going with this, but you get the idea.  Beware!!!

Maynard

 

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.)

[robert_kc]

12 hours ago, ODS123 said:

 

I'm sorry for not replying more quickly but honestly I don't really know how to respond.  I issue a warning to beginners to be wary of claims from people who hear "huge" differences b/w amp X and Y without engaging in ANY sort of validity testing and you, in reply, offer more of the very same claims.  ..So all I can say is that I'm happy that you are able to enjoy this hobby in your own way.  

 

As for my own choice in integrated amp - the McIntosh MA6600 - as I've said before (copied from an earlier post):

 

"Although I don’t believe my Mac amp sounds different than any Of the amps I’ve had prior (NAD 375bee, Bryston 3bsst/Bp-25, PeachTree Nova, B&K 202+/Pro-10MC, or even my Onkyo AVR), there are still a great many reasons for buying it.  For starters, I love the feel, the look, the build quality and the fact that it is largely handcrafted in upstate New York.  Plus, I love the feature set, Including:  mono/stereo switch, bass/treble controls, trims to adjust the volume level for all inputs, and wattage meters that help ensure I’m not over driving my speakers.  Basically, I see owning a McIintosh amp as being roughly equivalent to owning an expensive watch: yes, it’s frivolous and unnecessary but it is satisfying and enjoyable all the same.   I am not critical of owning expensive gear,  only of believing it sounds better.   Speakers are the lone exception, imho.

 

I don’t own a motorcycle, shore house, expensive watch, boat or an expensive car. My audio system is pretty much my only extravagance ."

 

 

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?

[Khornukopia]

2 hours ago, robert_kc said:

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.

 

Yes it is useful, and your story gives your opinion a high degree of credibility to me.

[ODS123]

15 hours ago, robert_kc said:

.. 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.

 

.. 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.   

 

...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. 

 

...I understand the concept of expectation bias.  I’m not trying to deceive anyone or sell anything to anyone – including myself. What is your goal for you hi-fi system?

 

Firstly...  I LOVE your array of old gear!  While I can't zoom enough to confirm, it would appear most of your pre-amps have balance controls, tone controls, and quite likely Mono/ Stereo switch.  I very much lament that these simple but (to me) essential features have been largely vanquished by the silly notion that they disqualify a piece of gear from being truly high-end.  This nonsensical view is rooted in the belief that they somehow audibly damage a signal even when not in use to improve a poorly recorded song.  Indeed, in some ways hifi was more fun back in the day when gear had much greater adjustability.  Your gear looks awesome, appears lovingly maintained, and I'm sure is a great deal of fun to own.  I'd love to own an old Mac amp, or Marantz integrated, etc..  Even if I'd end up preferring to listen to more linear (and quieter) components, it would still be fun to own/ display, etc gear like yours.  Simply beautiful.

 

That said, I never claimed that amps (or integrated amps)  of that vintage were indistinguishable from each other,  I don't think it was true back then.  My claim was and is that MODERN gear (w/ F/R, THD, S/N ratio, channel separation, etc... all improved beyond the threshold of our hearing) sound alike when they are engineered to be linear and operated w/ in their design limits. Apart from your NAD 375bee (which I owned at one time and loved - but got rid of b/c it didn't have a mono switch), I don't think any of your gear meets this criteria.  ..That's not a criticism.  I'm sure most of those pieces represented the SOTA of their day.

 

 2nd point:  If not level matched, then it's not a valid comparison - blinded or not.  

 

3rd Point:  I have also been to a great many live orchestral performances.  As I've said before, my hearing measures well and I have a keen sense of musical nuance that has been honed by years of playing and listening to live (often unamplified) music.

 

4th Point:  Sorry but I don't think you do understand expectation bias.  That is, not if you feel it has anything to do w/ deception or if you think you can just inoculate yourself from it by sheer will.  That's not how it works.  We are all prone to it.  

 

The goal of my hifi system??  To recreate the live listening experience to the the greatest extent I can sensibly afford.  I want an integrated amp, cd-player, music server/ DAC that neither adds nor subtracts anything that audibly impacts the signal it's being fed.  Nowadays, this can be achieved quite affordably.  But I also want my amp (or pre-amp) to have some basic, functional, and harmless (when not in use) adjustability for when a song has been poorly recorded.  I personally wouldn't own a pre-amp or integrated that does not have bass/ treble, balance, and a stereo/ mono switch.   Finally, I want gear that is visually appealing and is tactically satisfying to operate. ..My Mac integrated meets this criteria, even if it doesn't sound any different than the integrated amps I had before buying it.

[tube fanatic]

"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?"

 

Yes to all of the questions above, and this is particularly true with tube amps due to variations in a significant number of parameters (circuit arrangement, presence or absence of nfb, output transformer characteristics, output impedance, etc.).  I listen to all genres and the benchmark is quite simple- am I drawn to the music to the point that I don't want to stop listening?  If that criterion is satisfied, then all is well.

 

" But I also want my amp (or pre-amp) to have some basic, functional, and harmless (when not in use) adjustability for when a song has been poorly recorded.  I personally wouldn't own a pre-amp or integrated that does not have bass/ treble, balance, and a stereo/ mono switch..."

 

I agree with this totally.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with tone shaping using tone controls (as opposed to remastering/demastering which is far too involved and time consuming for most to be bothered with).  All the audio guys I know, without exception, use tone controls.  In fact, one of the best features which I ever added to my designs is the adjustable "ear bleed" filter (basically, an adjustable low pass filter in which the corner frequency can be changed to suit the preferred high frequency characteristics).  And, I'm starting to get requests to do something similar for the bottom end.  Having some way to balance the channels is absolutely critical if one wants to experience a proper sound stage.  This is one reason why I now stay with individual mono amps (or single chassis dual-mono units), each having its own volume control.  The bottom line is that nothing is to be gained by not having these features.  While it may make purists happier, it certainly doesn't please those who want to shape the sonic attributes of their system to their own taste.

 

It's fine to achieve a totally flat in-room response using whatever treatments are required, but if it doesn't sound pleasing to the user of the system what good is it?  This brings to mind a customer I had about 50 years ago.  He was an older, retired, German ophthalmologist who had attended performances by many of the world's finest orchestras.  His system was simple- a pair of Leak tower speakers on either side of the dresser in his bedroom which were driven by a Mac amp (the models elude me as does the type of turntable/cartridge he used).  He liked to get into bed after dinner, and relax by listening to classical music.  I once asked him if his system could duplicate what he had heard in person.  And, his answer was "of course it does; I close my eyes and I'm there."

 

 

Maynard  

 

[Dave A]

On 12/11/2018 at 2:26 PM, Deang said:

Don’t feed the troll. 

100% correct. The rant against pro gear with no basis in personal experience to judge by was enough for me. The day you say you know more than Bonehead is the day I tune out.

[oldtimer]

I'm sure I know a lot more than Bonehead on certain subjects, but speaker engineering and building is definitely not one of them.  You get to be Chief for a reason.

[ODS123]

4 hours ago, Dave A said:

100% correct. The rant against pro gear with no basis in personal experience to judge by was enough for me. The day you say you know more than Bonehead is the day I tune out.

Sorry Dave but you need to go back and re-read that thread.  I didn't rant against pro gear.  ..Not at all.  More accurately, you were dismissing all speakers made from MDF as being junk.  This unsubstantiated claim struck me as ridiculous and worthy of calling out to any beginners perusing the thread. I pointed out, quite accurately, that 99% of speakers, including such exceptional designs as Vandersteen 5A Sigs, are made from MDF.  I didn't say Klipsch Consumer speakers were better, just that they were no worse than their pro speakers that are intended for use in amusement parks, train stations, etc..

 

 I did point out that Klipsch Pro speakers have limited F/R and would likely need to be supported w/ subwoofers.  If memory serves, this was met with some agreement.

[Deang]

1 hour ago, ODS123 said:

I didn't say Klipsch Consumer speakers were better, just that they were no worse than their pro speakers that are intended for use in amusement parks, train stations, etc.

 

What does that even mean?

[Deang]

1 hour ago, ODS123 said:

I did point out that Klipsch Pro speakers have limited F/R and would likely need to be supported w/ subwoofers.  If memory serves, this was met with some agreement

 

Who agreed with you? 

[jimjimbo]

4 hours ago, oldtimer said:

but speaker engineering and building is definitely not one of them.

Nor is bass fishing....let's talk bass fishing.

 

 

[Deang]

When did you become the voice of reason?

[oldtimer]

That's not fishing.  That's osterizing.

[jimjimbo]

46 minutes ago, Deang said:

When did you become the voice of reason?

When I realized I wasn't getting anywhere otherwise....