Jump to content

2000-2500 USD budget for an integrated amplifier. Do amplifiers sound the same? :)


egoquaero

Recommended Posts

 

Hey guys!

My first post here! Great community here!

I recently bought a pair of Klipsch Forte III and I’m thinking about upgrading my current budget amplifier Cambridge CXA60. My budget is around 2500 USD. I hope you guys can give me a few insights. Cheers!

 

Current setup:

  • Macbook Pro
  • Network streamer + DAC: Chord Mojo + Poly
  • Amplifier: Cambridge CXA60 (60 watt)
  • Speakers: Klipsch Forte III, 99db sensitivity
  • Subwoofer: Klipsch R-115SW
  • The room is pretty small: 4*6 meters (roughly 13*19 ft) but very well acoustically treated (I covered all the power corners with GIK acoustics bass Tritraps and Soffit + complete acoustic treatment on early reflection points

 

The Cambridge amp sounds nice with the Fortes but I feel like I’m missing out on something. I don’t know what "something" actually, since I haven’t paired the Fortes with anything yet but the Cambridge.

So the crucial question is: should I upgrade?

I’ve been considering integrated amps like the Rotel RA 1592 and the Peachtree nova300.

I know that it’s kind of an overkill to drive the Forte III with respectively 200 watts (Rotel) and 300 watts (Peachtree).

However knowing myself, I might upgrade the whole system (speakers included) in like 4-5 years or so. And it might be nice to have a capable high powered amp around (with lots of power headroom) so I won’t need to spend further capital again on a new amplifier in a few years. 

 

On the other hand, I feel like I’m wasting quite a bit of money buying a powerful integrated amplifier right now. At the end of the day the Cambridge CXA60’s got 60 watt and it is more than sufficient to drive the Forte III.

This leads to another thing that’s bugging me… The sound quality of an amplifier! People like Ethan Wiener argue in a very convincing way that when compared evenly, the sonic differences between amplifiers operated below clipping are below the audible threshold of human hearing.

This guy summarized this view here:

https://jakekuyser.wordpress.com/2016/05/23/do-hi-fi-amplifiers-sound-alike/

 

Furthermore I’ll most probably have Sonarworks room digital EQ correction toggled on all the time to remove all the equipment unwanted colorations. These colorations might sound nice, but I’m more of a "I want to hear what the artist intended" type of a listener.

(((To me Sonarworks was an eye opener when I first used it to calibrate my Sennheiser HD800.

https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/home-page/2017/8/24/headphone-shootout-sennheiser-hd800-vs-hd800s

It made me think about the extreme amount of the self delusion nature in the audiophile community. Many audiophiles rave about the alleged flat response of the HD800 when there are indisputable peaks at 5,5kHz and 11kHz, plus very very weak bass. Without correction they’re almost annoying to me and they definitely do not deliver what the artist/sound engineers intended. However, these cans are very often just described as extremely revealing, clinical, unforgiving… which eventually led to the claim that the HD800 is picky regarding the amp…)))

 

Questions:

  1. So considering that I’ll most probably have Sonarworks room digital EQ correction toggled on all the time to remove all the equipment unwanted colorations, do you guys still think that I might be able to get a "better" sound by upgrading the Cambridge to a more powerful amp, like the the Rotel RA 1592 and the Peachtree nova300?
  2. Which integrated amplifier would you suggest me to evaluate?
  3. Is it worth to spend 2000-2500 USD more for this? Or should I use this money for a better DAC or a network streamer?

 

Sorry guys for this long post!

Cheers,

Egoq

 

Edited by egoquaero
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ethan sells room treatments..... In my experience the 600$ i spent on bass traps from GIK on my back wall made the biggest difference by far in my system. Maybe your experience is the same? my room is the same size as yours. Way more of an impact than switching out amps.  That being said I love buying new amps and electronics. Its way sexier than room treatments. I haven't used a lot of solid state amps with my Klipsch but i have used a lot over the years. Then best being a first watt sit 2.  Then after getter a 300b amp in my system I never went back to the first watt.  I don't think more power = better sound. Quite the opposite, the less power the better sound.  Once i went to a 45 tube just 2 watts I never use my 300b any more.  I know I'm the minority here with 2 watts  but 8 should be plenty with a 300b. 

 

1)  i don't have experience with your amps mentioned.  but I agree with ethan, i bet you don't notice that big of a difference.

2)  I think a good dac is a must but it also would not give you a WOW factor like a nice tube integrated.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I think they can absolutely sound different. Its impossible to know if one will sound different then another if a person has no direct experience with both though.

 

My advise look local used and research ones that peak your interest. Then jump on good deals. Worst case sell for your money back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum!

 

Even though I haven't heard it, I'm sure the Forte III is a marvelous speaker.  It was redesigned by Roy Delgado, the Klipsch chief engineer, who worked with Paul W. Klipsch for years.    The original Forte got one of the best reviews in the history of High Fidelity magazine when it first came out.   

 

As far as general sonic qualities below clipping are concerned, only your ears can tell if there is a difference between amps.  Preferably your ears under controlled conditions, which is next to impossible to do.  At least, arrange with your dealer to be able audition the amp in your home, in your room (obviously), with the Forte III.  I would expect the differences between amps to be minor, as long as you stay well below clipping.  60 honest watts in your room would probably be enough to reach the THX Reference level peaks of 105 dB through the Forte IIIs, but if you want to get what PWK called "the blood stirring levels of a full symphony orchestra,"  you would need -- for just a moment -- "115 dB peaks at your ears," which would require 10 times the power, for just those milleseconds, of 600 watts.  Really good amplifiers are reputed to produce that much more for those very, very, very brief peaks, but you won't see that on any spec sheets.  Usually you will see that the amp will provide about 3 dB over rated power for somewhat longer peaks.  So, call me OCD, but you might like more than 60 watts, if, and only if, you like it as loud as "live."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to everybody for your insights!!

One clarification: I'm not claiming that all the amps sound the same. From my understanding, amps do sound different. However different doesn't mean better. Given certain circumstances (for instance, a sufficient wattage, no distortion, flat response, etc.) many many amps sound RIGHT/CORRECT for a certain set of speakers. And furthermore we need to consider my intention of using digital EQ room correction which will probably reduce the difference between amps even more. So here's the heart of my concern:

  1. Does it make sense to spend 2500 USD for a sound that's slightly different (and not necessarily better) switching from a "right/correct" Cambridge CXA60 sound to another "right/correct" Rotel RA 1592 or Hegel H160 sound? I honestly think that might not be totally worth it. And hence my decisional process of getting an overkill amplifier for my current Forte III, so that this amp will be futureproof as well. Does this thinking make sense to you?
  2. I noticed that many of you suggested me to get a tube amplifier. I'm not sure if this would be what I need most. I don't doubt that tube amplifiers might be more ear pleasing. But… Me and my brother produce music. He's got a set of studio monitors but often we need to check our work on this Klipsch Forte III hifi system. So it'd be good for us to have a system with the lowest distortion and flattest response possible. So considering this, should I still keep tube amplifiers in my evaluation?

Ethan Wiener claims tube amplifiers have higher distortions:

"Myth: Amplifiers based on vacuum tubes sound better than solid state designs, and a good tube preamp can even restore clarity and warmth that has been lost in the digital recording process.

Fact: Both types of amplifiers can have a frequency response flat enough for audio reproduction. But modern solid state amplifiers have measurably lower distortion than any tube-based design. Most tube-based power amplifiers also require an output transformer, which increases distortion - especially at the frequency extremes. Further, solid state power amps always have a better damping factor"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, garyrc said:

 

but if you want to get what PWK called "the blood stirring levels of a full symphony orchestra,"  you would need -- for just a moment -- "115 dB peaks at your ears," 

 

True. However when PWK said that, far less was known about psycho-acoustics and sound perception. Back then there was nothing known about room gain, or even mention of room acoustical overload, or the contribution that early reflections and room reverberation adds to the perceived sound level in our relatively small acoustic spaces (as compared to the places we usually experience live music).

 

Producing 115dB peaks even in a large listening room (20'x30') will sound much louder than 115dB in a concert hall. Generally, you can reduce that peak level by at least -10dB in rooms the size we use. There's a lot more reflected sound mixing with direct sound from the speakers compared to the reflected sound in a concert hall combining with direct sound from say, a symphony orchestra.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far amplifiers go, my suggestion is to check out a NAD direct digital amp. The NAD C390DD has been out of production for several years. It's the same amplifier design found in their current M32. The C390DD can be had for a song right now, probably around $1K.

 

I had been using tube amps (push pull triode and SET) for decades, as well as some Crown and McIntosh solid state. When I first auditioned the C390DD it blew all of them away. They all sounded dull, opaque and grainy (even the tube amps) by comparison. I'm now using the NAD M32 (while also having a McIntosh MA5300 in my system for comparison). M32 wins hands down IMO and has way more connectivity, both digital and analog. And with the BluOS MDC module you can turn it into a Hi-Res streaming player too.

 

EDIT: BTW C390DD also has on-board digital EQ. The M32 does not but I suspect NAD will make DIRAC available for it soon as they are doing for some of their other amps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Do amplifiers sound the same? :)

 

No. No they do not. And the first time you read a post by anyone on this site (or any other) that states that all amplifiers sound the same, you can pretty much dismiss anything they have to contribute after that..........

 

Oh, and welcome to the forum 🙂

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the OP, Ethan Weiner has a wealth of knowledge and experience. I concur with Mr. Weiner myself. His excerpt below says a lot, yet a few here will tell you otherwise. They know better....

 

" Analog tape compresses dynamics and adds distortion, which can be a pleasing effect for many people (including me). But for pure faithfulness to the original signal, modern pro-quality digital wins hands down every time. It is true that when digital audio is recorded at too low a level, the result can sound grainy. This distortion is in addition to the hiss that an analog recording also has, and it is caused by using an insufficient number of bits. That is, recording at too low a level on a 16-bit system is similar to recording at a normal level on an 8-bit system."

 

Ditto old school vinyl recordings versus today's quality digital files/recordings.

 

Sort of like the long winded speaker wire discussions which pop up frequently here. Some will tell you using zip wire or lamp cord is crazy inferior, but many still use it, and Paul Klipsch himself advocated zip wire. Some state oxygen free is a must but i published a link to an article written by a man who manufactures speaker wire (along with wire for the aerospace industry) who stated otherwise. One poster here advocates 8 gauge speaker wire.

 

Do your own research and listen to other's input too. But in the end, make your own informed and educated decision. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, egoquaero said:

 

 

Furthermore I’ll most probably have Sonarworks room digital EQ correction toggled on all the time to remove all the equipment unwanted colorations. These colorations might sound nice, but I’m more of a "I want to hear what the artist intended" type of a listener.

 

(((To me Sonarworks was an eye opener when I first used it to calibrate my Sennheiser HD800.

https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/home-page/2017/8/24/headphone-shootout-sennheiser-hd800-vs-hd800s

It made me think about the extreme amount of the self delusion nature in the audiophile community. Many audiophiles rave about the alleged flat response of the HD800 when there are indisputable peaks at 5,5kHz and 11kHz, plus very very weak bass. Without correction they’re almost annoying to me and they definitely do not deliver what the artist/sound engineers intended. However, these cans are very often just described as extremely revealing, clinical, unforgiving… which eventually led to the claim that the HD800 is picky regarding the amp…)))

 

Questions:

  1. So considering that I’ll most probably have Sonarworks room digital EQ correction toggled on all the time to remove all the equipment unwanted colorations, do you guys still think that I might be able to get a "better" sound by upgrading the Cambridge to a more powerful amp, like the the Rotel RA 1592 and the Peachtree nova300?
  2. Which integrated amplifier would you suggest me to evaluate?
  3. Is it worth to spend 2000-2500 USD more for this? Or should I use this money for a better DAC or a network streamer?

 

 

EQ correction, be it analog or digital will do little to remove coloration's from hardware. It's used more to alter the effects of how the room proportions & properties interact with the speakers and the listening position. And even then it's really only good for one location. And it can even make things worse when one moves slightly out of that "best" location. On top of that it has less and less effect the larger the space is. The differences get smaller and smaller as the frequency wavelengths get shorter (higher frequencies).

 

As far as more powerful amps go, remember, doubling power only gives you an additional 3dB. 10dB sounds twice as loud.

 

So if you need a max of 1 watt,  in order for you to play the system twice as loud you'll need at least +3dB + 3dB + 3dB = 9dB

 

 (+3dB) 1wattx2=2, (add another +3dB = 6dB louder) which is 2wattsx2=4, (another +3dB = 9dB louder) which is 2x8=16.

 

It multiplies out very quickly which is why most low sensitivity speakers don't cut it for me. They typically can't even absorb enough power to produce the required output faithfully to life-like levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2019 at 2:13 PM, egoquaero said:

 

 

Is it worth to spend 2000-2500 USD more for this? Or should I use this money for a better DAC or a network streamer?

 

Sorry guys for this long post!

Cheers,

Egoq

 

 

Again, (yeah I'm being a little biased here) NAD has amplifiers well in your budget that have everything you're considering in one nice neat package, including DAC and network streamer.

 

After my recent experiences with streaming Hi-Res content from Tidal, especially Tidal Masters and MQA, IMO this is the best source material I've ever heard. And I arguably have some of the best analog LP and tape equipment ever made as well as 30+ years of my own recordings both analog and digital. This what I've been waiting for, and quite frankly, what I expected when CD was first introduced 35 years ago.

 

If you want to hear what the artist intended then MQA, IMO, is the first real step in that direction. It's delivered to you doorstep (player) bit perfect. In the case of a NAD direct digital amp with MQA encoding, the amplifier IS the media player, eliminating another component in the signal chain as well as the interconnecting cables and breaks in the signal path

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, artto said:

(+3dB) 1wattx2=2, (add another +3dB = 6dB louder) which is 2wattsx2=4, (another +3dB = 9dB louder) which is 2x8=16.

?

9dB is x8 power not 16 but yes most would say a 10 dB rise is double the volume and 10db requires 10 times the power.

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...