Who here uses a pro amp to drive his speakers ?

[Don Richard]

If one listens to live blues, R&B, jazz, rock, techno, rap, or hip-hop, you are listening to amplified instruments and sound reinforced acoustic instruments. You are listening to loudspeakers. Loudspeakers that do not and cannot accurately reproduce 20khz much less anything higher.

I forgot C&W.

Don

Honk if you love Horns

[Guest srobak]

I used an Alesis RA-100 to run the JBL 4408's. Worked out really nicely too. At least... until the ProMedia 2.1 came along

[kev313]

 So putting a link in the audio chain that can recreate a square wave, or any waveform with a similarly steep rise time, just before a loudspeaker that has absolutely no chance of reproducing that waveform is superfluous.

And you can't hear it anyway.

People who operate, design, and manufacture professional audio equipment know all of this. That is why pro sound gear is bandwidth limited. These folks won't waste their time or money on things that make no difference in audible sound quality.

 

 

QUOTE:  "Given the existence of musical-instrument energy above 20 kilohertz, it is natural to ask whether the energy matters to human perception or music recording. The common view is that energy above 20 kHz does not matter, but AES preprint 3207 by Oohashi et al. claims that reproduced sound above 26 kHz "induces activation of alpha-EEG (electroencephalogram) rhythms that persist in the absence of high frequency stimulation, and can affect perception of sound quality." [4]

END QUOTE

Here's the study: http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

In short, the author shows musical instruments with SUBSTANTIAL energy out to 100khz. And, in the secondary analysis he quotes the Oohashi paper to support the idea that people can and do process this information in the brain, and know when it is "missing."

Secondly, there is an alternative and much more logical explanation for why PA amps are bandwidth limited: lower cost and high reliability, the twin towers of pro design. So good engineering practice would dictate the LOWEST and SLOWEST that would be tolerated in the application. For PA work, that is really slow, and really low. 

 

Just because there is a quote and a study doesn't mean the whole premise studied and reported is not utter quackery.  I believe you found a quack.  It seems these people congregate wherever there are masses yearning for improvement.  I especially love the medical ones that claim "The cure for cancer the government does not want you to know."

Seems the last I knew, there were some very, very, very rich musicians - capable of purchasing the most expensive equipment available - buying up and using all this professional - LOW and SLOW - equipment.  Sorry, but this is horsepuckey.

Perhaps there are some substantial sonic differences between these two classes of equipment - whatever they might be.  But, I can assure you most of the time, you will find, regardless of the category, that there is plenty of junk in each and plenty of great stuff in each. 

I don't think you can slap a broad brush argument against these amps based on an over-simplified categorization as has been attempted.  Ten-to-one, I bet once you've spent $2,000 (cost new) on an amp, you'd find the odds of a person discerning which is which to be slim-to-none.  If you A-B'd them back and forth about 10-20 times, you might be able to pick up some very, very fine distinctions.  Before that, the distinctions were almost discardible, but now that an "afficionado" knows they are there, they become all so important.  It's strange that way.  Much like a $300 bottle of wine, when Beringer is a really good buy for the money.

 

 

Awesome. Pro amps are good this week.

[mike stehr]

I like a cold, hard, grainy and brittle tasting wine......

[Jeff Matthews]

I like a cold, hard, grainy and brittle tasting wine......

Then, keep that $300/bottle stuff and stay away from Beringer.

[mike stehr]

I kinda pondered buying this amp for my subwoofers for a dirt cheap alternative to what I have. I dunno....after reading up on it, it's kind of a cheap unit build wise. Mostly plastic except the heatsink.....and I dunno if the thing could push a pair of first generation SVS 16/46 subwoofers without getting taxed.

It may have decent sound quality......IIRC, the information with regards to SQ I scrounged up seem to say not geat sound quality but not that bad either.....

It don't really matter now....I need to use the 200 bucks towards refurbing this Altec 345A power amplifier.....

http://www.guitarcenter.com/Behringer-A500-500W-Reference-Class-Studio-Power-Amplifier-480780-i1145440.gc

[Jeff Matthews]

Just because there is a quote and a study doesn't mean the whole premise studied and reported is not utter quackery. I believe you found a quack. It seems these people congregate wherever there are masses yearning for improvement. I especially love the medical ones that claim "The cure for cancer the government does not want you to know."

Seems the last I knew, there were some very, very, very rich musicians - capable of purchasing the most expensive equipment available - buying up and using all this professional - LOW and SLOW - equipment. Sorry, but this is horsepuckey.

Perhaps there are some substantial sonic differences between these two classes of equipment - whatever they might be. But, I can assure you most of the time, you will find, regardless of the category, that there is plenty of junk in each and plenty of great stuff in each.

I don't think you can slap a broad brush argument against these amps based on an over-simplified categorization as has been attempted. Ten-to-one, I bet once you've spent $2,000 (cost new) on an amp, you'd find the odds of a person discerning which is which to be slim-to-none. If you A-B'd them back and forth about 10-20 times, you might be able to pick up some very, very fine distinctions. Before that, the distinctions were almost discardible, but now that an "afficionado" knows they are there, they become all so important. It's strange that way. Much like a $300 bottle of wine, when Beringer is a really good buy for the money.

Hi Jeff--

Your argument is simple:

1. Calling the study "quackery" and "horsehockey" doesn't make it so, and you offer nothing of substantive rebuttal. Not much of an argument, just an accusation really. Accusations are cheap. (and not really effective).

2. I've never known "rich people" to be significantly important arbiters of either good taste or good sound. Having money doesn't impart any talent that I am aware of whatsoever, musical or otherwise.

3. Your tastes are more easily satisfied than some other people. Fine, enjoy the Beringer wine and let others prefer their Opus One. Just because YOU don't care about subtle differences in wine, does it negate that they exist? That others may want to experience the difference?

4. When I say the Crown is "low and slow" - - that's not an opinion, that is a measured fact. Not only that, but they even DESCRIBE THEMSELVES how they "slew rate limit" the amplifiers they make. So, there's no dispute about them being low and slow, they are by design and intent made that way. Your protest reminds me of people who object when I call them "PA amplifiers" - which is precisely what the maker calls them!!

Keep in mind, I am referring specifically here to some of the Crown amps in current production. THere are all kinds of amps on the fringes from other makers, other periods and with other purposes and topologies that may not fit my portrait, but I've said that many times already.

1. Quackery because the studies that show people's hearing limits to be maxed at 20khz (on the high end) are much more prevalent and likely, much more peer-reviewed and time-tested. You asked me to disprove it, but I won't waste my time that way.

2. Having money imparts the ability to buy expensive things, and for the most part, a rich musician, with lots of support staff, who makes a living producing albums probably knows what sounds good. Just a guess, though.

3. I admitted there might be a difference, but it is so subtle to the average person, yet so distinct to the more crazy (that's to mean "eccentric" if you can afford it).

4. Slew rate limiting equals slow? Okay, so what is an acceptable minimum slew rate? Just for curiosity's sake, I wonder what kind of amp Neal Peart uses in live concerts. Do you think he mics his drums through a MacIntosh?

5. I take no offense at calling them PA amps. That is what they are.

If the quack study was as important to stereophonic music as was suggested, I could just see us sitting together to a nice jam, going "Did you hear that? Hear what? That! That what? That! No, but did you hear that? Hear what?"

I still submit the differences - whatever they might be - are far too subtle. Can you imagine a slew rate that is so slow that Neal Peart appears to be lagging behind Geddy Lee?

Finally, I will agree that a guy who feels good about his $300/bottle wine should not be ridiculed, except for once in a while, there are studies conducted that show the pleasure is derived from actually affording the wine and not drinking it.

Take the 60-Minutes program comparing Grey Goose to Smirnoff. Smirnoff won among people who began by labeling themselves as Vodka connoisseurs who tout the more expensive Grey Goose, using all sorts of artistic descriptions, but later, in a blind test, picked Smirnoff, believing it to be Grey Goose - and actually using derogatory adjectives to describe the Grey Goose they were blindly tasting.

The human mind...... what a beautiful thing it is.

Edit: 20/20, not 60-minutes:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3201973&page=2

[Don Richard]

Fine, enjoy the Beringer wine and let others prefer their Opus One.

Opus One is good. Silver Oak, also. Whenever I drink a lot of either I think I can hear 40khz.

Don

Honk if you love Horns

[Jeff Matthews]

Opus One is good. Silver Oak, also. Whenever I drink a lot of either I think I can hear 40khz.

Don

Honk if you love Horns

Actually, sober people have conducted studies, and that "buzzing/airy" sound you hear after drinking is really only 19.2 kHz. If THC is involved, it peaks at 24.2 kHz.

[Jeff Matthews]

Mark, that last paragraph was about as well-written and thought-out as could be. You've hit the nail on the head. Here are the two points:

1. The differences are subtle, yet the above-average connoisseur can discern them as being inferior and superior, and thus, they are very material.

2. The differences are subtle, and the "connoiseur" thinks he/she is above-average and can appreciate them, when a blind test will show he/she cannot.

Once you get up above $1000 on an amp, I begin to think proposition 1 is taken over by proposition 2.

[Duke Spinner]

Uh-Oh ..

Rudy's ... in Jail ...[:|]

What ...??

did he buy an XTi ..?? []

[Jeff Matthews]

"2. Having money imparts the ability to buy expensive things, and for the most part, a rich musician, with lots of support staff, who makes a living producing albums probably knows what sounds good. Just a guess, though. "

============

If ANY of that were even partly true at all, we wouldn't have tons and tons and tons and tons of GARBAGE CDs and RECORDS made by all these "rich musicians." That argument is proven false by the "pudding." Just try, if you can bear it, to listen to the latest CD from your "rich" musicians! What a laugh!!!!!!!!

Well, I had hoped you would not compare every musician capable of putting out a CD with distinguished musicians who've produced top quality material over many years. So, tell me... Does Neal Peart, in fact, amplify his drums with a MacIntosh and not one of those slow professional amps?

[Jeff Matthews]

I hear you, Mark, and I am open to suggestions because I think your "converse theory" argument has a point somewhere. However, it is not because pro amps are "too slow." That much, I know. It is also not because pro-amps can't reproduce inaudible sounds. That too, I know. You are just having trouble giving a convincing argument as to what exactly it is.

[Duke Spinner]

Welcome back, ...DefJeff ...

PS

you're gonna lose this Argument ...[*-)]

[Jeff Matthews]

Hey, Mr. Spinster.... Now, tell me. Why's that? Have you begun to appreciate the inaudible or something?

[Duke Spinner]

well, no, Jeff ..

but visit the thread on the D45, for some Elucidation ..[]

[Clipped and Shorn]

Uh-Oh ..

Rudy's ... in Jail ...

What ...??

did he buy an XTi ..??

Those who know Rudy do get it! I definitely got a chuckle from this.

C&S

[Erik Mandaville]

Mark:

"Jeff---who cares about "average" people in this context? I fail to see your point at all. OF COURSE average people don't hear differences, that is why they have Bose speakers or little boomboxes for stereos. Jeff---who cares about "average" people in this context? I fail to see your point at all. OF COURSE average people don't hear differences, that is why they have Bose speakers or little boomboxes for stereos. "Average" people do not own Klipschorns or Jubilees or even KG4s, nor do they argue about it on forums! "Average" people could care less about any of this. I fail to see your point at all. OF COURSE average people don't hear differences, that is why they have Bose speakers or little boomboxes for stereos. "Average" people do not own Klipschorns or Jubilees or even KG4s, nor do they argue about it on forums! "Average" people could care less about any of this.or even KG4s, nor do they argue about it on forums! "Average" people could care less about any of this."

But many average people also enjoy the more easily available speaker models from Klipsch, and yes, Bose (those Bose jabs are handy, aren't they?). Nor, as you said, do they spend time arguing about it audio forums. I've said in the past that some of the most insightful impressions of how music sounded here, from preamps and amps I have built, or from the La Scalas, Klipschorns, Heresies, Lowthers, or DIY speakers -- have come from AVERAGE people. And you're right, people who could care less about whether a crossover or coupling capacitor costs $.50 or $100. Average people listen to music, not the latest resistor, op amp, or inductor upgrade (which, based on the price paid, better be good!) Or whether an amplifier, according to one person's measurement machinery, wasn't worthy of a life spent in someone's home audio rack.

A good friend once said to me, "When are you going to start listening to music again for the sake of music appreciation -- the composition, rhythm, harmony, and other elements -- the thing as a whole?" "Sometimes it seems that you use it (music) as just another test for the latest experiment or so-called 'upgrade.' "

I submit 'average' listeners might have something valuable to offer.

And you also observed "Average" people do not own Klipschorns or Jubilees..." That's probably, true, but there are quite a few people in the so-called 'hi-end' that consider horn speakers in general, and Klipsch Heritage in particular, horribly colored, harsh, tinny, ear-bleedingly bright, and so forth. Very unflattering. Even a few of our more illustrious forum fellows had in years past said the same thing about the Heritage line. I remember listening to a pair of RF-7s a few years back, and I found them bass heavy and slightly dull compared to the La Scalas and Heresies. What was one of the design objectives for the La Scalas? Correct me if my history is wrong, but I thought good-quality PA use was one of them. And the Jubilees? Was the currently available model intended primarily for home use (I honestly don't know the question to this answer!) Based on appearances alone, which I admit can often be totally misleading, the Jubilees I've seen on the forum have a much more Pro-Audio or cinema sort of look than one expected to blend well in the......average person's home.

"Who cares about average people in this context" (?)

I do. Here's why: The average music listener is most often NOT someone who is worried about whether the capacitors in her crossover (or his crossover) has the word 'mylar' or 'mundorf' written on it. What matters is composition, artistic proficiency of performance, and so forth. They don't sit and worry about whether they should possibly consider NOT liking their new preamplifier because someone is doing measurements on it that might turn out to be not very good. LOL!

Were I an audio engineer, which I am not, I would keep a very careful ear to average people who really like to listen to music.

Erik

[Speedball]

So what is the Klipsch congregation opinion of the LaScala ll ?

Personally I would love them. Heck, any Klipsch LaScalas would be very much appreciated here !

[TheEAR]

Then I will have to go for LaScala for mains. []

Harsh,they will be tamed with tube power.

I see I got you Klipschers going...pro amps VS dedicated high-end amps. Good to see the spirit is alive and kicking. [] I have them all, capable pro amps,over the top pro amps,and all up to tube OTL's. It is all good, each amp is great for a given application.

I only use high power pro amps for HT and mostly subwoofer duty.Here they knock the transistors out of the "high end fluff". And do not tell me explosions are less refined,they are more...explosive. []