When did you last here a distinct difference between amps?

[angelaudio]

On 10/12/2021 at 2:27 AM, ClaudeJ1 said:

Truer words have never been spoken. I'd like to ad ALL HORN speakers, to the mix. They are the most revealing of good and bad recordings, just like Red Book CD's.

 

Agreed, but open baffle speakers like the Lii's in particular are equally if not, even  more revealing than horns. They're also equally as efficient as my Klipsch heritage and far less costly.  

[ClaudeJ1]

56 minutes ago, angelaudio said:

m

Agreed, but open baffle speakers like the Lii's in particular are equally if not, even  more revealing than horns. They're also equally as efficient as my Klipsch heritage and far less costly.  

After my long journey with Horns and in the last 10 years, Open Baffle speakers (like Carver Amazing Series), and DIY's using 1, 2, and 8 15" woofers, with Bolender Graebener Planar Magnetics, to line arrays of small drivers, etc. and reading the work of late, great, Siegfried Linkwitz on his Tri Amped 4-way OB system, also experiencing the Spatial Audio speakers at Axpona the same day as Sadurni Stacatto Horns with subs, I'm convinced that Open Baffle is at the top of the pile in performance, right along with Big Horns. But you have to have a room twice the size of mine to do it right. Believe me, I tried OB's several times, but ultimately Synergy Horns won out in my space.

 

OVERALL, the top 2 ways of "doing speakers" are still Big Horns, and Big Open Baffle as the very Best!

[CWelsh]

On 10/4/2021 at 4:43 PM, mdm7eb said:

This topic is always so interesting when it comes around. I tend to accept a part of my audio habit is enjoying an illusion (delusion?). But hey, people enjoy getting high or drunk for entertainment too. Listening, at least below a certain DB level, does not cause physical harm. 

 

None of us are really smart enough to scientifically test (or identify what we should be testing) to ferret out our own audio preferences. Clearly, some have made progress. The ones that get a piece of it right, PWK, for example, are geniuses that stand the test of time. Not many of those. The most solid ground I have found is that I don't know much (and neither do you). In this vein, psychoacoustics quickly becomes a pursuit of what it is like/what does it mean to exist? A twist on a classic philosophical thought experiment comes to mind -- if a tree falls in the forest how does it sound to you? To me? And if neither of us are there, does it make any sound? Like most existential questions we humans try to answer, we run out of answers fairly quickly. Best to be honest about this point. Why prolong suffering combating our own collective ignorance? You know, just enjoy the music man... 

 

The other part of this hobby is aesthetics. I found aesthetics (I am defining this term here as beauty for beauty's sake) a reasonable way to navigate purchase decisions. I will pay more for pristine engineering. I, for one, find immaculate design and engineering is art for art's sake. Whatever you feelings may be about Apple, they have seemingly found success with a version of this approach. The other point is narrative and history. Like the posts above about the relationship between PWK and Gordon Gow. That matters to me. If my living room is going to be dominated by $$$$ in stereo equipment, it should be like a high end piece of art with all the aesthetics, beauty and story you would expect with that.

 

If you invest in state of the art technology found in modern gear like McIntosh, Benchmark, and Purifi (many others qualify here for sure) you can have confidence the design/engineering expresses the limits of what we know about audio reproduction (at least from an amplification perspective). At the end of the day, gear is still an appliance and I would advise to make decisions accordingly. Purchase the most technically perfect gear you can afford. At this point, the limit of our ears and our knowledge of psychoacoustics are likely the true limiting factors.

 

I know we talk about it here sometimes, but the real conversation probably should be around room design instead of amplification (at least beyond a certain threshold). My acoustician friend with his fancy degree in acoustic engineering has convinced me of that. Music fills and interacts with a room, a room does not fill and interact with music. 

 

With all that said, what choices have I made and why? I had the privilege of inheriting a McIntosh MC240 and MX110 (that a subsequently had restored by Audio Classics). I turned these units over and replaced them with modern McIntosh gear (C41 and MC152). Could I have gotten gear as technically competent for less (i.e. Benchmark, Purifi, etc.)? Yes. However, for me, a part of this hobby is akin to art installation/aesthetics/story -- as much as it is about sound/engineering. You know, I want it all (don't we all). And for the right price, you can get a lot.

 

My new gear is more technically competent than the 60+ year old gear it replaced. Can I hear sonic differences? I don't have the skills, patience, or desire to say for sure. If I said I could hear a difference, I would have to acknowledge that it is likely attributable to my own personal audio illusion. I do know, my gear looks great (to me) and will be trouble free for decades and will hold its value. What else could I want from an artful appliance? 

 

If I was forced to make a recommendation, I should say prioritize the pre-amp. Most modern amps are technically sufficient and often times it is the preamp that is lacking. On paper, at least, that was the case with the MX110 v C41. I will also say, if I did notice a difference in sound between my modern and classic gear, swapping out the MX110 was it.

 

As always, enjoy the journey, the music, and have fun! 

 

I love this post! So much so that I just forced my wife to listen to my summation of the thesis. I just stumbled onto this thread this morning and I'm sure to spend hours over the next few days reading through it all. Thank you all for sharing your thoughts.

[billybob]

On 10/6/2021 at 2:06 PM, chn68b said:

Its been a great read, some varying opinions, and from my own experience, finally swapping amps yesterday, I've heard a pretty significant improvement.

 

Not a fair comparison by any means, but having read about low powered valve amps and Klipsch speakers I purchased a 6 watt amp and some quality KT88s a few months ago. Whilst it sounded good, it never completely satisfied me. The issue I believe to be was headroom, and whilst it sounded great with acoustic music, anything remotely more difficult generated a little distortion and more complex music sounded very muddied. An old SS 80w receiver returned and the bass had a lot more depth and control, 70s and 80s heavy rock was listenable again. 

 

I'm listening at the same volume, but I believe it was too much for the flea watt amp. The room is 20x35ft and I listen 15ft away.

 

I'm still not sure that I would hear a difference between 2 amps of the same power output though, but in time I will try.

Yes fun and joy tend to be an ultimate goal. Like a little intrique as well. If all was understood, where is the mystery,

 

mystic in that...

[ClaudeJ1]

10 minutes ago, CWelsh said:

I love this post! So much so that I just forced my wife to listen to my summation of the thesis. I just stumbled onto this thread this morning and I'm sure to spend hours over the next few days reading through it all. Thank you all for sharing your thoughts.

I listened to my "new to me" Bruce Edgar Horns whose drivers and passive crossover I'm still tweaking. However my Pre Pro's room correction flattens out the whole setup pretty well. The most 3D imaging is from open baffle speakers, and the most Micro Detail and dynamics is from Horns.

 

Just listened to Cream Live last night from Wheels of Fire on CD on Edgarhorns, driven by an $80 Chines Amp that uses the TI '55 chips. Even though it's from the 1967/68 technology of mobile recording setups, the whole IDEA of music listening is to hear every single note that is played by the musicians to the point where one could write down every one of them, with only the "feel" part of it missing. Guitar, bass, and drums create plenty of notes to listen for, and that is what I want from my reproduction system.............to hear and feel ALL of the Notes being played, or sung with my own personal ILLUSION inside my head as I imagine their location on the stage.

 

[billybob]

11 minutes ago, CWelsh said:

I love this post! So much so that I just forced my wife to listen to my summation of the thesis. I just stumbled onto this thread this morning and I'm sure to spend hours over the next few days reading through it all. Thank you all for sharing your thoughts.

Yes, was wanting to give this member a big fat...like.

[ClaudeJ1]

1 hour ago, angelaudio said:

but open baffle speakers like the Lii's in particular are equally if not, even  more revealing than horns

What are those and who makes them? DIY?

[angelaudio]

42 minutes ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

What are those and who makes them? DIY?

 

Caintick makes the baffles or one could use butcher block countertops at 1.5" thick and cut some holes. Drivers are listed here. Regarding the OP, I think open baffle work particularly well with solid state because they are so revealing. IMO, SS is not very revealing so the two balance eachother out yet you get the driver speed and chest pounding bass with the 15" and 18". My video is here. In tandem they do draw more of the amp but still highly efficient.

https://www.lii-audio.com/shop/

 

Here's my video with them in tandem.

 

[Last Lemming]

On 10/7/2021 at 8:24 PM, Signals said:

 

This is a great thread as I recently discovered a difference myself. Some background first: I'm 54 years old and dabbled in HiFi in the early eighties, but nothing too serious or expensive.  Forward to 2018 and I decided to get back into the game, albeit slowly.  For reference, I played drums for many years and am well aware of the upgrade bug -- having owned 30+ new kits.  ....and don't even get me started on cymbals and snare drums.  So, I wanted to proceed cautiously when buying audio gear. Anyhow....back to 2018:  I purchased an Outlaw RR2160 because of its bang-for-the-buck price.  I soon added a Marantz CD6006 and then Klipsch RP280 speakers.  Once I heard the Klipsch I fell in love with the sound, but I wanted MORE.  So, I was getting ready to purchase a set of Forte IIIs when all of a sudden, the Forte IVs came out, so I bought those instead (thanks Paducah!)  I ran the Forte IV's with the RR2160 for quite some time, but I thought that perhaps I wasn't doing the speakers justice, so I demoed the Technics SU-G700 with them.   I didn't know much about the amp other than that it was digital, and I liked Technics back in the day, so why not. I proceeded to A/B the Technics against the Outlaw and could immediately hear a considerable difference.  Actually, it was almost a religious experience, lol.  I don't know all the audiophile terms, but I would describe the sound from the Technics as cleaner, fuller and much more massive -- and there was definitely a difference in the overall sound. I even let my 18-year-old daughter (and her boyfriend) listen, and they whole heartedly agreed.  Afterwards, I purchased the matching CD player and haven't looked back since (Yes, I even heard a difference between the CD players!).  Now don't get me wrong, I LOVED the Outlaw and highly recommend it, its just that I preferred the sound of the Technics. Well, that's it!

 

Oh wait, one more thing.  I feel funny even mentioning this because I'm aware that it's a volatile topic, but here it goes:  For the first three years of owning my new setup I used Crutchfield cables, because as most of you know, expensive cables are nothing but snake oil. Well....a few weeks ago I decide to change my cables, just for fun, so I purchased something a bit more expensive.  Not high end by any means, but a bit more costly than what I had.  ....and...I heard an immediate difference.  I know, I know, but I'm just telling you my experience.  They really did make a difference.  I still can't believe it, but it is what it is. lol

 

Oh, one last thing.  When I returned to audio in 2018 I was STUNNED to learn that tone controls were out of fashion.  I was like "really?"  Thank God that the Technics unit has bass, treble and MID adjustments, although I hardly use them now.  Go figure! (Their LAPC correction is the real deal!)

I just purchased the Technics SU-G700. It replaced a vintage Audio Research Tube amp. I agree with the above. It just has a big full smooth sound that seems limitless in power and clarity. Soundstage is there too though the Tube amp probably has an edge in it there, but only slightly. But where the technics trumps the AR is in the dead silent backgrounds. Zero hiss or noise unless the music has it. Music is soooo clear and nuanced without etch. You’d never know it was a digital amp. 
 

I’ve also used a Decware integrated amp and it just doesn’t have the big authoritative sound the Technic commands. 

[the real Duke Spinner]

On 11/4/2021 at 10:03 AM, angelaudio said:

 

Agreed, but open baffle speakers like the Lii's in particular are equally if not, even  more revealing than horns. They're also equally as efficient as my Klipsch heritage and far less costly.  

Yowser

Better investigate your Claims of efficiency. 🙄

[OO1]

6 hours ago, Last Lemming said:

 Music is soooo clear and nuanced without etch. You’d never know it was a digital amp

tx for the feedback

[Islander]

7 hours ago, Last Lemming said:

I just purchased the Technics SU-G700. It replaced a vintage Audio Research Tube amp. I agree with the above. It just has a big full smooth sound that seems limitless in power and clarity. Soundstage is there too though the Tube amp probably has an edge in it there, but only slightly. But where the technics trumps the AR is in the dead silent backgrounds. Zero hiss or noise unless the music has it. Music is soooo clear and nuanced without etch. You’d never know it was a digital amp. 
 

I’ve also used a Decware integrated amp and it just doesn’t have the big authoritative sound the Technic commands. 

 

Is your amp actually digital or just Class D?  The two get conflated at times.  Class D amps are analogue devices.

[henry4841]

4 hours ago, the real Duke Spinner said:

Yowser

Better investigate your Claims of efficiency. 🙄

I have a pair of open baffle speakers and the efficiency is high on mine 95db if memory is correct but I know of no open baffle speaker that can match the efficiency of a pair of heritage Klipsch speakers. Does not mean that there possibly could be some but I am not aware of any. Does not really matter that much though, even with 95db speaker, I had plenty of power using 2 watt SET tube amplifiers and they got plenty loud. 

 

What I missed in my open baffle setup is the detail that my LaScala's produce. That and the quickness of horns. I prefer horns myself but with sound it is so subjective so there will always be disagreements. 

[Shakeydeal]

OB speakers can be very good. The ones I have heard aren’t as good as the best of what horns do. That said, I would love to hear a pair of Pure Audio Project speakers with the horn midrange driver. That might prove to be the best of both worlds.

[OO1]

7 hours ago, Islander said:

 

Is your amp actually digital or just Class D?  The two get conflated at times.  Class D amps are analogue devices.

the Technics SU amps do not belong to a Class ,  they call it a full Digital amplifier  , it does not have an internet port but it does have USB connectivity and it can be calibrated  , basically a  HIFI computerised Smart amplifier  .

[Last Lemming]

Technics says is digital, not class-d. But honestly, not sure what that means with regards to how it actually works. 

[henry4841]

Reading this review the amp uses a type of mosfet transistor on the output stage. https://twitteringmachines.com/review-technics-stereo-integrated-amplifier-su-r1000/  The transistors used are called Gallium nitride field effect transistor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium_nitride#:~:text=These transistors are built by,superior electrical performance of GaN. Another way of making a field effect transistor, mosfet. One would have to see a schematic to comment further but my thinking calling it digital is an advertising marketing tool. Perhaps they mean the stages in front of the output stage being digital. Schematic would tell the truth. 

[henry4841]

If I had to guess reading about the output transistors used in the Technic I would say the output stage is a form of a class A/B PP circuit judging by the power rating. The front end appears from what is stated as being digital much like your computer or DAC. 

[82 Cornwalls]

50 minutes ago, henry4841 said:

If I had to guess reading about the output transistors used in the Technic I would say the output stage is a form of a class A/B PP circuit judging by the power rating. The front end appears from what is stated as being digital much like your computer or DAC. 

 

JA in Stereophile measurements: "and as the amplifier has an output stage that resembles class-D, I inserted an Audio Precision AUX-0025 passive low-pass filter between the test load and the analyzer."

 

No need to insert a low pass filter with an A/B output.

[henry4841]

3 hours ago, 83 LSIs said:

 

JA in Stereophile measurements: "and as the amplifier has an output stage that resembles class-D, I inserted an Audio Precision AUX-0025 passive low-pass filter between the test load and the analyzer."

 

No need to insert a low pass filter with an A/B output.

Interesting, but I fail to see how those GaN field effect transistors would be used in a class D amplifier. But many new things are happening in electronics continuously so it would not surprise me for the Technic to be class D amplification. All the class D amplifiers I have seen are built around the chip without the need for power transistors. Be nice to see how those GaN mosfets are being utilized in the circuit if class D. I have failed to find a service manual with schematic on that amplifier on the net. The are keeping it a secret.