[SET Man]

By "trained" ears I'm referring to those with musical training, that for instance can distinguish brands of piano or by sound, appreciate the differences between violinists, know a concerto from a canon; and those with audio experience to recognize all those sorts of characteristics included in equipment reviews.

....let's face it, just learning to differentiate between poor taste and good taste, will literally physically reorient how your ears receive information. 

Hey!

    Interesting perspective on importance of audio system. But I think I'm not going to get in to this anymore.

Take care,
Buddy

[TONEPUB]

The reason the measurements don't really matter, is because in the end,
some people will enjoy the way one amplifier sounds over another and if
you tell them that amplifier a measures better than b, they don't care.

Look at the SET thing.  SET amps by and large measure terribly, but
can offer up some great sound.  I've heard a lot of awesome SET systems
that I've really enjoyed.

I think another factor that comes into play is how much time you do spend
listening.  I think it's a lot like anything.  The more time you spend listening
the higher chance you might spend more time improving your system.  If
you have a lot of available time, you may go further with it than someone
who is just a casual listener, again bringing up different priorities...

It ends up being different for everyone.

I've heard a lot of great systems in the past 20 years at all different price
points.  Many different but all fun!  And I've seen some pretty unique things
as well as some great DIY stuff.  (And a few pretty scary things too...)

Plenty of paths to nirvana.

[Geardaddy]

The reason the measurements don't really matter, is because in the end,
some people will enjoy the way one amplifier sounds over another and if
you tell them that amplifier a measures better than b, they don't care.

Look at the SET thing.  SET amps by and large measure terribly, but
can offer up some great sound.  I've heard a lot of awesome SET systems
that I've really enjoyed.

I think another factor that comes into play is how much time you do spend
listening.  I think it's a lot like anything.  The more time you spend listening
the higher chance you might spend more time improving your system.  If
you have a lot of available time, you may go further with it than someone
who is just a casual listener, again bringing up different priorities...

It ends up being different for everyone.

I've heard a lot of great systems in the past 20 years at all different price
points.  Many different but all fun!  And I've seen some pretty unique things
as well as some great DIY stuff.  (And a few pretty scary things too...)

Plenty of paths to nirvana.

Amen...if measurements really mattered, tubes and vinyl would be six feet under....

[jon_010101]

Amen...if measurements really mattered, tubes and vinyl would be six feet under....

Some tube gear measures pretty-darn-good!  Do a google for "stereophile quicksilver horn" or "stereophile music reference" to see some tube amps that measure as well as they sound.  Then, compare to the measurements of some early-generation digital amps (i.e., "stereophile ps audio hca-2"). 

[James Romeyn]

Jeff Dorgay
This question applies to all your hobby & professional experience.  System criteria: 2-ch, digital sources, those rating by your own personal scale in the top 5-10% in audio/musical performance.

The systems are divided into two groups (randomly listed):

Group 1
2. Digital source employing a fixed analog output
3. Top quality analog preamp

Group 2
1. Digital source employing (any type) variable output
2. No analog preamp
3. Source drives the power amp directly

In percent (sum total 100%) how are systems split between Group 1 & Group 2?   

Thanks.

An inquiring mind wants to know.

[darredon]

I'm in Group 2. I love the response on this topic. I posted this question on Friday at work and haven't been able to get to a computer since them but man I love all the correspondence on what each Audio Circle member feels is important in their system.  It sounds like a lot of money is going into the speakers or the source. Its funny because each of us places our hard earn money strategically in different ways with the hope to accomplish the same thing, or in least in my opinion, an attempt to get to “The Organic Experience.”  :drool:You know what I’m talking about. No pesticides in the reproduction, no coloration from any link in the system chain, just pure blissful nirvana. Does it exist? I don’t know. It’s different for everyone. What I do know is that by asking my fellow Audiophiles what’s the order of importance in an audio system has shown me that we are all still trying different strategies, and that after all these years audio gear has been around we still don’t have a full proof setup that gets us to that organic experience. Thanks everyone for you feedback it’s made for some very interesting reading tonight. Just to add to this tread, I would love to know how much each of us is in debt for our hobby.

For me it’s been like this:

First system $600
Second system $2800
Third system $5000

Current system $14,275

GamuT Audio CDP $6000
VAC Avatar Super $4800 aa
Von Schweikert VR-1 & VR-S/1 Subwoofer $1000/$1200
Speaker Wire $Xindak FS2 $100
Interconnects Aural Symphonics AS-One $400
Nite II & Acoustic Revive power cords $275/$500
Coming soon a Turntable $TBD

And a couple arguments with the wife why I keep spending money on this stuff. I’m glad she still loves me.


What’s your audio hobby costing you?

If you live in San Diego check out our Audio Club we'd love to have you at the next meeting.

http://opaudioclub.info/

[JLM]

Jeff makes a good points regarding system synergy and balance.

Your individual sensitivities to different types of distortion should lead to emphasize one component over another.  For instance, I'm a speaker guy, so I've invested more time/money into speakers than the rest of the system combined.  However I've heard a $5,000 pre/power amp combo make $10 speakers sound "incredible decent" (not good, but rather amazing never the less).  Obviously common sense prevails to provide better balance (or resource allocation) in the systems any of us would suggest.

Synergy has gotten to be an overused term in audio, but as I posted early on here, is the mainly the responsibility of the pre/power amp as standing mid-ground between speakers and source.  Optimal input voltages and output wattage being the primary example.  The point made above relating the difficulty of the task to the importance of a given piece is a good way to think about the various component tasks at hand.

Hopefully we keep in mind that the methods for measuring most forms of distortion were developed about 50 years ago, when distortions were big enough to be measured in whole percentages.  Its a miracle that those parameters still have any meaning left (or that we still use them).  And as Steve points out, its sad how crappy the quality is of some of the individual electronic components (and why for instance we spend hundreds/thousands on boutique cabling when the internal wiring is cheapy whatever).

[darrenyeats]

re: using something like a transporter in a computer-based digital rig, all i can say is i would still rather have it run thru an excellent preamp, partly for reasons stated by steve sammit

What reasons were they? I thought we thrashed out that a TP doesn't need a pre and can only sound the same or worse with a pre.

, and partly because, of the three sources i listen to, my digital source is the one that gets used third-most.   

Now that's fair enough.

regarding the comment that adding something to the audio chain can never make it sound better, i respectfully beg to differ.  because recorded music is trying to sound like real music, whether that occurred live or in a recording studio.  sometimes, adding a component will make it sound more like music, & less like a recording, even tho it may technically be less "accurate".  after all, if it were perfectly accurate, perhaps it would sound more like a recording & less like real three-dimensional music?   

I don't know where the three-dimensionality "lives". I'd wager it is somewhere within the electric signal. A signal is a signal and the more accurate it is the more original information is retained. That includes 3d-ness, chocolateyness, passion, spangly-ness, aroma or any other label a human would apply to that signal. It's all in that electricity flowing down the cable. I don't see how a distortion of that signal is going to make the result sound more real and less like audio equipment. Of course, if some other parts of the system are distorted then some distortion on the signal might cancel that out. But if you're talking about making it inherently better, yes we differ on that view!

Can I repeat the importance of loudspeakers (and amps) with respect to active vs passive. It's disappointing no-one else has picked up on this. Especially considering many people have recognised that loudspeakers are a distortion "hot-spot". Yesterday I was at a show and heard the Aurousal A1 Mk2 stand-mounter single-driver speaker. It changed my outlook on single-driver speakers somewhat - they have their place certainly, probably in a second system. Of course single driver speakers, just like active speakers, don't have a passive crossover network sitting between the amplifier and drivers. This increases driver control and lowers distortion. They had a speed, clarity and cleanliness shared with good active speakers. Also these little stand-mounters were very listenable and unfatiguing. My friend and I went back and settled in the room for a while. (BTW they were using a cheapo DVD player to play red book CDs, and a cheap, old Cambridge Audio integrated. Interesting isn't it?!)

YMMV.
Darren

[doug s.]

while i think source is extremely important, this does not mean big dollars always equate to best sound.  when it comes to digital, it's my experience that spending any more than $1k, either for a dcp-based system, or a computer-based system is wasting money that could be better spent anywhere else in your equipment chain.  when you can get 98% or better out of the best degital has to offer for under $1k, why spend more?  the law of diminishing returns is especially extreme, when it comes to digital.

while i am a bit fan of the modded art di/o, i recently read on the yahoo di/o forum that another cheap dac - the modded zhaolu 2.5 - may have finally supplanted the di/o.  (if it has, it seems it cannot be by much, imo.)  a participant there posted a comparison that was held between a modded zhaolu 2.5 & remyo cdp777.  please allow me to cut-n-paste the entire post made on the forum:

"...I Finally got a chance to put my modded Zhaolu 2.5C up against some
strong competition. This DAC has been modded per post #303 and a few
others here recommended by Kevin. It has the CD DAC chip in it and
the 4562 op amps in the output stage.

I also replaced the power supply filtering with a "Felix" power
conditioner, as described by Paul Kap on many threads at
www.audiocircle.com. In fact, Paul was at this showdown and brought
his Zhaolu 2.0 DAC along to compare also.

So, what did we put it up against? A Remyo CDP-777. We used this as
the transport and just flicked back and forth between the 777 and the
Zhaolu - a very easy compare. Here's a link to a 6-Moons review of
this $17,000 CD player, which some reviewers think may be one of the
best in the world:


http://6moons.com/audioreviews/combak2/cdp_3.html

So how did it fare? There were subtle differences, but in a nutshell
I believe we all agreed that if we walked out of the room and back in
again we wouldn't be able to tell which player was playing.

So, what were the subtle differences?
- There was a slightly better inner dynamic on the Reimyo, like the
difference between f and ff or p and pp.
- The broad dynamics were pretty close with the Reimo having a better
bass, which is where it manifested mostly. The Zhaolu was ever so
slightly light sounding in the midbass and lower midrange, but that
could also be the op-amps I chose, and so can be adjusted.
- There was a very slight veiling on the Zhaolu's. The leading "ting"
of cymbals was not quite as sharp and pronounced.
- Also, the Reimyo had better decay of notes, letting them fade away
more naturally.

Am I picking nits here? Yes, the differences were very subtle and
probably not noticeable at all except that we had a direct A-B
compare via a switch.

The bottom line, this DAC, which I have maybe $300 into, stood up
incredibly well against a state of the art $17,000 player. Not bad
for this little champ.

The difference between the 2.0 and 2.5C was even more subtle, with a
bit more detail and transparency going to the 2.5C, but I'm sure Paul
will be addressing this in his unit to bring them closer together.

All in all, both of us were very happy with the outcome, and the
owner of the Reimyo was glad that there were differences, but with a
$16,700 difference in price I think I'll stick with the Zhaolu for
now.

How does it compare to the DI/O? Well, I think the DI/O has been
beaten finally in the inexpensive giant killer category. There is
more detail and imaging and soundstaging and dynamics and just about
everything else. So the Zhaolu is now my reference.

Next discussion topic, are high $$$ digital players one of the
biggest scams in audio?..."

so, while, for me, source represents the second thing i need to nail down 100%, right after preamp, dollar-wise, one of my sources - the digital portion - doesn't come close to commanding top dollar.  actually, i can say the same for my fave source - the fm tuna - the same is true re: law of diminishing returns.  (except you can't find any decent tunas over $5k, the latest $9k m-d offering possibly being an exception.)  while my ~$3k modded & refurb'd sansui tu-x1 is the bees knees, i am listening now to a cheap creek cas3140 that i yust picked up, & it's wery close.  and, i have a few $200-$500 tunas that are even closer.

ymmv,

doug s.

...It sounds like a lot of money is going into the speakers or the source...

[doug s.]

What reasons were they? I thought we thrashed out that a TP doesn't need a pre and can only sound the same or worse with a pre.

i think you need to re-read what steve sammit said about the transporter, starting on page 6.  but, regardless of what i read, my ears tell me it sounds better w/a preamp.     digital is yust too sterile sounding w/o an excellent quality tubed preamp, imo.

doug s.

[darrenyeats]

Hey Doug,
Steve didn't write about the Transporter in particular. Rather he dissed the analogue stage of every player and DAC in existence. Then he suggested a method of by-passing analogue stages by taking a signal direct from the DAC chip into a pre.

The point here, is that Steve isn't talking about a stock Transporter or a stock anything. With a stock player or DAC you use the RCA or balanced outs, and Steve is talking about skipping those (a novel approach I've never read before).

So, if we're talking about a stock Transporter...it's better without a pre. I mean "better" as in a more faithful and lower-distortion signal arrives at the power amp. However, if you find it sounds better in your system with a pre, I say live and let live. My point is slightly different to that.
Darren

[miklorsmith]

I'm with Doug on the preamp - a good one makes all the difference.

However - DaygloDenny offered up what I think is the wisest summary of this topic - the room/speaker interface makes or breaks whatever else might be possible.  Imagine three scenarios - 1)  Perfectly tuned system where nothing stands out or seems to be missing, all elements of musical bliss perfectly served; 2)  Double the size of the room; and 3)  Cut the size of the room in half.

What are the predicted outcomes of Scenarios 2 and 3?  My guess is #2 will sound terribly deficient in the bass regions and bright.  3 will sound overblown, boomy, and indistinct.  This is all with the same gear mind you, but believe it - no source, amp, preamp, cable, or anything else is going to get you anywhere near Scenario 1.

If you have a close match between speakers and room, treatments will narrow remaining mismatches further.

Of course it helps to "prefer" the sound of these speakers and there is tremendous variety in personality of speakers as well as the rooms they work best in.

If you have a good, perceived and maybe even measured in-room response, choosing an amp will become easier because whether SET or mega space-heater you won't be worrying about the other camp.  Proper room/speaker tuning will make hearing the differences easier to hear too.

This opinion is informed by about 3 years of in-room bass tuning from 120 hz down.  I can simulate a typical ported speaker by giving a nudge in the port tune area.  I can make the sound bloomy and tubey with a broad bump in the midbass region.  And, recessing overall bass response creates a lean and precise sound that really does sound bright.

People complain about bass all the time in the context of their speakers but usually as an isolated cause, as in "these speakers just don't sound right in the bass".  Really, the speakers probably would fill a different space much better and the interface is most likely the problem.  If speakers were more tuneable in the bass a lot of swapping would become unnecessary but sadly this has not caught on.

Another great reason to sweat speakers first is that trading them out is a way bigger hassle than everything else.

Man oh man do I love my Def. 2s.

[darrenyeats]

I'm with Doug on the preamp - a good one makes all the difference.

I am not really against Doug. I am making the case for the Transporter or similar-performing player with digital volume control. Pretty specific.
Darren

[miklorsmith]

That comment wasn't against you in particular Darren, there is definitely a division in the thread.  I was just explaining my preference.  Theoretically, I agree - preamps are superfluous.  However, I have never preferred that in any of my setups so I vote that way.

If a particular source/amp "fits" perfectly, excellent!  Money saved.

[Steve]

Hi Gents,

     When one investigates how a system operates, one finds that a certain amount of gain is necessary to achieve the maximum output power of an amplifier for a given source signal. The question then becomes how to achieve that gain. A preamp gainstage is always incorporated, but it just depends on where it is placed and the name called.

1) CD player with internal analog gainstage (preamp). Another similar way is transport, dac with analog gainstage (preamp). The problem is that the internal gainstage, whether SS or tube requires lots of physical room to due it justice and often uses cheap parts/design. (Notice as well that a gainstage has not been eliminated (no preamp), just relocated in the player.)

2) Use the analog stage in the player, and add extra gain to the amplifier. Over the decades this description has been called an integrated amplifier. Again there are problems with physical space, but this could be solved if a large enough chassis is used. Huge gain, too much gain with this scenario as extra gainstages have been incorporated.
(Again, no gainstage has been eliminated, just relocated and renamed.)

3) CD player without the internal analog gainstage, and use a superior external preamplifier and conventional amplifier, not integrated. Gainstages are removed, improving fidelity while gains is just right. 

With examples 1 and 2 at least one extra preamp gainstage has been used, not eliminated,   but just renamed as it was simply enclosed in another part of the system. Separate the gainstage from the player and we have an external preamp. Separate the gainstage from the amplifier and we have a preamplifier.

I have seen scenario 1,2 used as a marketing tactic in another forum, "a passive preamp volume control".

As far as room size, there are problems associated with any size room. A small room has problems with early reflections that cause the sound to be smeared. Besides that, a small room can have problems reproducing very lower frequencies unless one is very close to the drivers. A room with hard smooth walls can sound bright as well, regardless of dimensions.

A large room (depending on size) has reflections occurring later, which the ear can often differentiate, so clarity can be much better, but with an echo. Reproducing deep bass can be better, cleaner, but the catch is that a larger woofer, or more smaller woofers may be needed.

But again, without the best electronics (or what one can afford), the task of matching the speaker can lead to choosing a poorer speaker.

Cheers.

[darrenyeats]

Steve,
I think I understood your point a few pages back. My point is when people add a pre they are adding an additional gain stage even though, as you pointed out ably, they have one already. Whether the one they have already is any good is something I am sure you can talk more about.

And regarding my point about digital attenuation of 16 bit material in a player of sufficient SNR: it's digital attenuation. By all means I am happy for engineers to suggest better, lower-distortion methods of introducing the gain stage. I'd still prefer to control a TP's volume digitally and leave out a physical volume control, thanks.
Darren

[Steve]

Steve,
I think I understood your point a few pages back. My point is when people add a pre they are adding an additional gain stage even though, as you pointed out ably, they have one already. Whether the one they have already is any good is something I am sure you can talk more about.

And regarding my point about digital attenuation of 16 bit material in a player of sufficient SNR: it's digital attenuation. By all means I am happy for engineers to suggest better, lower-distortion methods of introducing the gain stage. I'd still prefer to control a TP's volume digitally and leave out a physical volume control, thanks.
Darren

Hi Darren,

I think I understand your point, correct me if I am wrong. Why have two volume controls? Good question if I assume correctly. I guess the question still revolves around the analog gainstage incorporated (I assume your player has analog outs.) If you are a lover of SS, then it may not matter, although I think there are some separate ss preamps that are of better quality.

One of the first points concerning the incorporated analog stage (in the player) is the electrolytic power supply capacitors. They tend to grundge, even brighten the sound as they have high DA factors and often become inductive at just a few kilohertz. I use them but isolate their "sound" as much as possible from the active gain circuitry. They usually are quite large in value as well, up to several hundred microfarads (ufd) is common. I used to hate CD players, but after working with the players, I am beginning to wonder if some of the associated sonic problems is simply the analog stage.

Of course, making changes is time consuming and can be expensive, so the budget is a concern.

Take care.
Steve

[James Romeyn]

..."...I Finally got a chance to put my modded Zhaolu 2.5C up against some
strong competition. This DAC has been modded per post #303 and a few
others here recommended by Kevin. It has the CD DAC chip in it and
the 4562 op amps in the output stage.

I also replaced the power supply filtering with a "Felix" power
conditioner, as described by Paul Kap on many threads at
www.audiocircle.com. In fact, Paul was at this showdown and brought
his Zhaolu 2.0 DAC along to compare also.

So, what did we put it up against? A Remyo CDP-777. We used this as
the transport and just flicked back and forth between the 777 and the
Zhaolu - a very easy compare. Here's a link to a 6-Moons review of
this $17,000 CD player, which some reviewers think may be one of the
best in the world:


http://6moons.com/audioreviews/combak2/cdp_3.html

So how did it fare? There were subtle differences, but in a nutshell
I believe we all agreed that if we walked out of the room and back in
again we wouldn't be able to tell which player was playing.

So, what were the subtle differences?
- There was a slightly better inner dynamic on the Reimyo, like the
difference between f and ff or p and pp.
- The broad dynamics were pretty close with the Reimo having a better
bass, which is where it manifested mostly. The Zhaolu was ever so
slightly light sounding in the midbass and lower midrange, but that
could also be the op-amps I chose, and so can be adjusted.
- There was a very slight veiling on the Zhaolu's. The leading "ting"
of cymbals was not quite as sharp and pronounced.
- Also, the Reimyo had better decay of notes, letting them fade away
more naturally.

Am I picking nits here? Yes, the differences were very subtle and
probably not noticeable at all except that we had a direct A-B
compare via a switch.

The bottom line, this DAC, which I have maybe $300 into, stood up
incredibly well against a state of the art $17,000 player. Not bad
for this little champ.

The difference between the 2.0 and 2.5C was even more subtle, with a
bit more detail and transparency going to the 2.5C, but I'm sure Paul
will be addressing this in his unit to bring them closer together.

All in all, both of us were very happy with the outcome, and the
owner of the Reimyo was glad that there were differences, but with a
$16,700 difference in price I think I'll stick with the Zhaolu for
now.

How does it compare to the DI/O? Well, I think the DI/O has been
beaten finally in the inexpensive giant killer category. There is
more detail and imaging and soundstaging and dynamics and just about
everything else. So the Zhaolu is now my reference.

Next discussion topic, are high $$$ digital players one of the
biggest scams in audio?..."

Doug
Would very much appreciate your listing the rest of the system.  What was the room like?  Was an active analog preamp employed or no?  Was the sum total difference using the Reimyo as a stand-alone vs. the DAC being inserted between the Reimyo digital output & the next component?  Absolutely NO other changes?  Digital connector brand/model?  Exact same outputs: Reimyo analog output vs. DAC output?  My personal experience esp at the highest quality levels is that a thoroughly burned-in stereo input can sound better than another previously unused input on the same preamp.   

The above comparison requires some notes, such as: How much of the overall sound quality of the outboard DAC-based system was determined by the $18k Reimyo being employed as a xport?  The comparison seems major flawed IMO because of this factor.  The DAC-based system absolutely should have employed whatever the poster eventually used for his own transport.  My experience is that xports make a considerable difference (incidentally my two favorite digital systems are one-box).  The whole point of the poster's comparison was to determine, by spending LESS, how did the outboard-DAC-based system perform vs. the Reimyo one-box?  A system adding an outboard DAC to the Reimyo (used as a transport) ADDS cost to the Reimyo one-box system; the outboard DAC system costs more than the Reimyo standalone yet the conclusion is that money was saved.  Is this not a major contradiction?  Does it not completely nullify the whole exercise & prove absolutely nothing useful but rather that the poster produced very slightly worse sound by adding complexity & increasing cost?

The "scam" note seams innapropriate too.  The cost/value of the extra digital connector & the mod is unnacounted for.  I'd imagine no professional performs the mod for a fee & must be DIY only.  Any mod performed by pros for a fee including warranty is COSTLY, has limited warranty & virtually no resale value.  The Reimyo has factory backing & has a listed resale value (though admittedly hugely devalued vs. new). 
 

[Sonny]

sorry to join the thread late...seems like there's a lot of philosophies out there regarding this...but I've always thought that, TO ME...
The most important is the SPEAKERS!!!  no matter how good your source, pre and amps are, if you have a speakers that is not transparent, etc...How will you know what the sound of those components are????

[James Romeyn]

sorry to join the thread late...seems like there's a lot of philosophies out there regarding this...but I've always thought that, TO ME...
The most important is the SPEAKERS!!!  no matter how good your source, pre and amps are, if you have a speakers that is not transparent, etc...How will you know what the sound of those components are????

Let's invert your thought: plug SOTA speakers into a very cheap reciever & the sound will make you run from the room.  In this case you will hear EXACTLY "...what is the sound of those components..." & you will not like it one bit.   

Assemble a top quality front end w/ good but moderate quality speakers & decent sound can be had. 

An automotive analogy: Plug 8" wide GP racing wheels & slicks onto a '59 Beetle w/ stock suspension.  The first hard corner at speed causes the Beetle's suspension to virtually disintigrate (if not immediately flip the car) from being fed about 300x as much energy than it was designed for.

Plug new OEM '59 Beetle wheels/tires onto a GP race car; the tires never grip, the car slips all over the place, no harm no foul (as long as no contact) & it actualy could be loads of fun, even for a novice driver.  (On a similar note, I've heard that in colder climes, fuel consumption may increase when it snows because of the fun factor with tires slipping 'round turns...only in empty/clear parking lots when it's completely safe of course.  Have also heard that four-wheel drift is fun w/ the xfer case locked in 4WD & the traction control disabled.  So I've heard.)