[Freo-1]

Good point, one can get fairly close with measurements, but I am sure we both use the ear as the final determination. That is because although measurements, such as with electronic gear may measure flat, the sound can still be bright, too full, smeary, etched etc. That has been demonstrated many times.

Excellent electronics will help one button things down. If the electronics is accurate, and is a foundation, then one has to worry about the speaker, the room and the interface right. The electronics variable is out of the way.

Take care.

I agree, up to a point. The speaker's impedance curve with respect to the frequency domain has a lot to do with the speaker's perceived voicing.  The electronics need to be up to snuff to handle the overall load.

It seems most (not all) of the speakers people agree on as top performers are a bit tough on amps.    They have some pretty wild swings over the audio spectrum. and often provide a low impedance at key points in the audio spectrum.

One of the reasons I think tube amps enjoy support are the output transformers. The ability of transformer to present a steady input to the speaker helps smooth out the sound (especially the 4 ohm nominal speakers). 

Hi Freo,

     Yes, the amp and source are variables and cannot be a "foundation" by themselves. The only way to find the best is the old fashioned method normally employed; going zigzag between source, amp, speaker, room treatments. That is about all one can do.

As mentioned earlier, only the preamp and ICs can be checked vs wire or "nothing". At least a couple of variables can be eliminated, so fewer components to match, making things easier.

Take care.

Hi Steve,

I understand your point entirely, and it is always good to get as many variables out of the equation. 

I guess what I was trying to communicate was back in the heyday of mags like "Audio" one had some idea from reading the reviews bout the equipment. They actually provided engineering data on speakers and components, so at least one could make an informed set of choices on to match up equipment.

Having some guy tell me what he thinks of a given component without any supporting data does not tell me anything.

Now, you have to Easter egg components in and out to get a feel for what's going on (I am overstating for effect, but you get the idea).

I wish someone would pick up the torch. 

Cheers,

[Steve]

"Having some guy tell me what he thinks of a given component without any supporting data does not tell me anything."

I agree. Good conversation Freo. Sometime we will have to landline.

Cheers.
Steve

[Freo-1]

"Having some guy tell me what he thinks of a given component without any supporting data does not tell me anything."

I agree. Good conversation Freo. Sometime we will have to landline.

Cheers.
Steve

I also agree, Steve. Always good to talk to informed folks like yourself.

Cheers 

[darrenyeats]

Toward the goal of assembling a top quality system, IMHO, the more strongly someone promotes the bypassing of a top quality separate analog preamp the more likely that person is to have not auditioned the advantage/benefit of same (they aren't cheap; starting price $7500).

I've heard a demo of a $100k system including an ARC Reference 3 preamp...and I thought it sounded fantastic. I don't know how that changes the argument though. And I don't even know if we disagree that much either.

A well-designed modern digital player like the Transporter has the right output impedance and sensitivity to drive a power amp or active speaker. If the player has properly implemented digital volume and sufficient SNR, when playing 16 bit a preamp has nothing to add to the party.

This is not a matter of complex engineering. It is plain common sense.

I'm quite prepared to believe the Wadia fulfills all the conditions stated above, Tonepub...that would be why it sounds better without a pre!

That a good preamp can improve systems that don't meet the conditions above, is something I'm prepared to accept.
Darren

[James Romeyn]

Darren
I'd say we're on exactly the same page.
jimbo

[doug s.]

Toward the goal of assembling a top quality system, IMHO, the more strongly someone promotes the bypassing of a top quality separate analog preamp the more likely that person is to have not auditioned the advantage/benefit of same (they aren't cheap; starting price $7500).

I've heard a demo of a $100k system including an ARC Reference 3 preamp...and I thought it sounded fantastic. I don't know how that changes the argument though. And I don't even know if we disagree that much either.

A well-designed modern digital player like the Transporter has the right output impedance and sensitivity to drive a power amp or active speaker. If the player has properly implemented digital volume and sufficient SNR, when playing 16 bit a preamp has nothing to add to the party.

This is not a matter of complex engineering. It is plain common sense.

I'm quite prepared to believe the Wadia fulfills all the conditions stated above, Tonepub...that would be why it sounds better without a pre!

That a good preamp can improve systems that don't meet the conditions above, is something I'm prepared to accept.
Darren

darren (& ro), i think you are taking tonepub's comments about the wadia, (which he owns), a bit out of context. note he also states:

"...I prefer the sound of my Naim 555 with the CJ ACT 2 over anything I've heard after quite some time..."

so, as good as the wadia may sound, when run direct to an amp w/o a pre, tonepub still prefers something else - with a pre... 

doug s.

[Housteau]

Good point, one can get fairly close with measurements, but I am sure we both use the ear as the final determination. That is because although measurements, such as with electronic gear may measure flat, the sound can still be bright, too full, smeary, etched etc. That has been demonstrated many times.

I agree.  I have found different systems in separate rooms to measure very closely to each other, yet sound completely different.

[miklorsmith]

Also agreed.  Anybody that knows me would never describe me as "measurements first".  However, within the context of a "good" in-room frequency response, gear swaps are easier to discern as there aren't any major anomalies to listen through.

Even more elemental, I'd argue getting this part right is MUCH more predictable and effective at achieving good sound than gear and cable swapping.

[darrenyeats]

darren (& ro), i think you are taking tonepub's comments about the wadia, (which he owns), a bit out of context. note he also states:

"...I prefer the sound of my Naim 555 with the CJ ACT 2 over anything I've heard after quite some time..."

so, as good as the wadia may sound, when run direct to an amp w/o a pre, tonepub still prefers something else - with a pre... 

Doug, we are agreeing, or at least we are making different points.
Darren

[miklorsmith]

Side One - A proper source has sufficient gain to drive most amps, rendering a preamp redundant at best.

Side Two - Preamps bring something to the table not present without them, logic be damned.

This is an old argument.  All the times I have seen it have been split, with Side One speaking theoretically and Side Two from experience.  All general rules of course.

[Occam]

........
As mentioned earlier, only the preamp and ICs can be checked vs wire or "nothing". At least a couple of variables can be eliminated, so fewer components to match, making things easier.
........

It also quite straightforward to do a REAL SBT/ABx on a passive power conditioner, at least if you're willing to do some surgery or if the conditioner is diy. All it take is 2 4pdt switches. No discontinuites in listening or changes in volume if the devices use feedback to set gain, which is pretty much everything save for real zero feedback amps.

[darrenyeats]

Side One - A proper source has sufficient gain to drive most amps, rendering a preamp redundant at best.

Side Two - Preamps bring something to the table not present without them, logic be damned.

This is an old argument.  All the times I have seen it have been split, with Side One speaking theoretically and Side Two from experience.  All general rules of course.

We're heading back to the old old debate.

FWIW the preamp thing was a throw-away comment from me. I've made my points, I've explained the qualifications involved, and to go on would be to repeat myself.

The whole issue is way down the "order of importance in a two channel audio system" IMO anyway. The distortion produced by a good preamp, or a suitable source with no pre, is so low it's hard to prove the difference is audible anyway.

As mentioned, addressing loudspeaker (and listening room) distortions is a more pressing issue.

Darren,
I live with single driver speakers, so take the driver control, coherency, and other advantages for granted.  I’m also trying to not “toot that horn” too often.

This is kind of embarrassing, but I've only now taken the time to check behind the very fixed and opaque grills of my cheapo JVC micro system (see footer). Indeed, these are single driver speakers. I've always found this little JVC to have a musical "X factor" (despite its limitations) which is why I kept it even after the CD player broke.
Darren

[TONEPUB]

"Having some guy tell me what he thinks of a given component without any supporting data does not tell me anything."

I agree. Good conversation Freo. Sometime we will have to landline.

Cheers.
Steve

Please tell me what "supporting data" will tell me how an amplifier will sound....

Most good amplifiers these days measure pretty much ruler flat from 20-20k with
no real measurable distortion, so why do ten amplifiers all sound different and why
can't I just tell by the specs which one sounds which way?

Even the guys that make the gear will ask the same questions.

I wish there were a set of measurements or specs that would tell you how an amplifier
would sound.

And for what it's worth, the only time the Wadia sounded better without a preamp
was when I substituted the McIntosh C2300 that I was using with my McIntosh MC275.
In that system, I suspect the Wadia had a better analog stage than the 2300...

The Wadia did not sound more musical (the 581i or the 521DAC) in my reference
system without my preamp. (either the ACT2, the Callisto signature or the Nagra PL-L)

Last but not least, the Naim is my FAVORITE, not the BEST.  Big difference.  The Wadia is
still a great player and by far my FAVORITE SACD player.  When you get to the big bucks
disc players, analog or digital, I think there is a lot that can be chalked up to taste.

You might come over to my house and hear them both and like the presentation of
the Wadia better.  Remember we all hear a bit different.  So much of this is about
personal preference at this level.  I wouldn't call anyone a bad guy for owning Wadia..

I still own two of them myself!!

This is always such a difficult discussion to have.  I hope it's not degenerated too far.

[James Romeyn]

Do amplifiers appear to reproduce different levels of:

Soundstage performance? 
Palpability of the sonic images?

Are there "specifications" known by the same names? 

[miklorsmith]

yes, yes, no.

[Steve]

Hi Tonepub,

"Most good amplifiers these days measure pretty much ruler flat from 20-20k with
no real measurable distortion, so why do ten amplifiers all sound different and why
can't I just tell by the specs which one sounds which way?"

A couple of comments that might answer your question.

1) Parts and design will make a sonic difference even though a scoped sinewave will show no differences. I believe that dynamic and wide bandwidth conditions are different than sinewave, narrow bandwidth measurements.

2) The general frequency response (fr) is one measurement of electronics that does provide me with valuable info. I do see some amps and preamps that do not measure flat from 20 to 20khz.

Hope this helps.
Steve

[Freo-1]

"Having some guy tell me what he thinks of a given component without any supporting data does not tell me anything."

I agree. Good conversation Freo. Sometime we will have to landline.

Cheers.
Steve

Please tell me what "supporting data" will tell me how an amplifier will sound....

Most good amplifiers these days measure pretty much ruler flat from 20-20k with
no real measurable distortion, so why do ten amplifiers all sound different and why
can't I just tell by the specs which one sounds which way?

Even the guys that make the gear will ask the same questions.

I wish there were a set of measurements or specs that would tell you how an amplifier
would sound.

And for what it's worth, the only time the Wadia sounded better without a preamp
was when I substituted the McIntosh C2300 that I was using with my McIntosh MC275.
In that system, I suspect the Wadia had a better analog stage than the 2300...

The Wadia did not sound more musical (the 581i or the 521DAC) in my reference
system without my preamp. (either the ACT2, the Callisto signature or the Nagra PL-L)

Last but not least, the Naim is my FAVORITE, not the BEST.  Big difference.  The Wadia is
still a great player and by far my FAVORITE SACD player.  When you get to the big bucks
disc players, analog or digital, I think there is a lot that can be chalked up to taste.

You might come over to my house and hear them both and like the presentation of
the Wadia better.  Remember we all hear a bit different.  So much of this is about
personal preference at this level.  I wouldn't call anyone a bad guy for owning Wadia..

I still own two of them myself!!

This is always such a difficult discussion to have.  I hope it's not degenerated too far.

Let's try this from a slightly different angle. The fact that a given amplifier measures flat at 8 ohms (resistive load) does not mean that it will work flat connected to a given set of speakers.  Amplifiers have to deal with a real world load of impedance curves from perhaps 2 ohms or less to upwards of 30/40 ohms or more when reproducing music, as well as varying capacitance (not to mention the specific amount of current/voltage needed to reproduce a set SPL level).

What this means in practical terms is simply that no two amplifiers will react quite the same when reproducing music with a given speaker.  Someone who understands this very well is Bob Carver. That's why he made the claim back in the day that he could make one of his solid state amps sound like a Conrad Johnson Premier 5 (I think it was a CJ-5). Bob calls this the amplifier's transfer function.  (By the way, Bob pulled it off, with the "Golden Ears".

Reviewers of yesteryear would provide much more technical data, which provided some frame of reference from which to make judgments.  It seems today that many of the reviews are entirely subjective, thus, not really useful.

[*Scotty*]

A well designed solid state amplifier with a low output impedance will measure flat into real world speaker loads. The Carver tube sound can be emulated by putting a resistor in series with the speaker that is the same value as a typical tube amplifier output impedance. About 1.5ohms in series with the speaker would get the job done.
Scotty

[Freo-1]

A well designed solid state amplifier with a low output impedance will measure flat into real world speaker loads. The Carver tube sound can be emulated by putting a resistor in series with the speaker that is the same value as a typical tube amplifier output impedance. About 1.5ohms in series with the speaker would get the job done.
Scotty

I do not think that is what (all) he did. He also emulated a Mark Levinson ML-2 (a solid state unit).  Besides, if the amp behavior was truly flat, changing out amplifiers would result in no sound difference (but there IS a difference). This is more noticeable with speakers where the impedance curve varies significantly over the audio spectrum. (especially with lower impedance points).   

All amps are not exactly alike within a given power range, so it is reasonable that the sonic transfer signature will vary (albeit slightly, in most well designed units).  Additionally, as Steve pointed out earlier, not all amplifiers measure flat with an 8 ohm load to begin with, never mind a real word speaker load (where the XLR deltas do vary the transfer function).  There are also the distortion characteristics to take into account, which do vary with speaker load.

I have experienced situations where the subjective distortion herd from a tube power amp/speaker combo seemed less than a well designed solid state amplifier of higher wattage (and lowered mesaured distortion into a flat load).

This is a hard subject to nail down. 

[Steve]

For clarification, my above post was kept simple, just generalizations.

To delve deeper, even if the amplifier's output Z were zero (with unlimited high  damping factor) the design and parts used would still reflect varying sound quality. This is because:

1) the output stage could use a variety of output devices, each with strengths and weaknesses.

2) Manufacturer's measurements usually use sinewaves, steady state conditions, to create their specifications. I suppose there are exceptions though.

3) similarly, because of a particular designer's philosophy and education, preceding stages could and most are a compromise vs the ideal.

Cheers.