New stereo integrated amplifier.

[PENG]

What's wrong with jumpers? By adding cables, you just increase resistance.

A lot of people believe in those things and there is nothing you can do to change their mind.

 

[lovinthehd]

Like the soundstage/imaging being in the amp rather than the room/speakers?

 

[Pogre]

I'm not much good for technical stuff so much, but speaking from my experience speakers make so much more of a difference than power supplies. I've been through several avr's over the years, one close to top of the line, a few mid tier, and a couple budget series. I've always had Yamaha or Denon. I never noticed one sounding any better than the other no matter what tier I had.

If your current setup isn't offering what you want I suspect you'd find what you're looking for by auditioning a few sets if speakers, not that I have anything against Boston Acoustics. The ones I've heard sounded very nice. I recently upgraded my whole front and it sounds so much better. Placement is a biggie too. I played around with that for... much longer than I probably should have. My net results are fantastic though. It sounds so much better now.

I still have the same avr.

 

[PENG]

I'm not much good for technical stuff so much, but speaking from my experience speakers make so much more of a difference than power supplies. I've been through several avr's over the years, one close to top of the line, a few mid tier, and a couple budget series. I've always had Yamaha or Denon. I never noticed one sounding any better than the other no matter what tier I had.

If your current setup isn't offering what you want I suspect you'd find what you're looking for by auditioning a few sets if speakers, not that I have anything against Boston Acoustics. The ones I've heard sounded very nice. I recently upgraded my whole front and it sounds so much better. Placement is a biggie too. I played around with that for... much longer than I probably should have. My net results are fantastic though. It sounds so much better now.

I still have the same avr.

I assume the OP has to replace his amp for some reasons. If all he needs is a two channel low power amp with phono stage, then the ones he listed would make sense. I need an amp for my desktop speakers, after much research I figure I should get an AVR, but they are just two big. So guess what, I just ordered a NAD C326BEE, just for it's light weight and small foot print. Sometimes it is about applications, not sound quality.

 

[Verdinut]

Thanks everybody for your opinion, an AVR could be a way to go, with my budget the best I can get is a Denon AVR-X2300W, a Yamaha RX-V681 or a Onkyo TX-RZ710, I'll start to look for these too.

Going back to the main topic I see the A-S701 is a well respected piece of equipment, which kind of confirm all the good I found on this amplifier. I think paired with the Schiit Modi Multibit should reach very good results in music playing.

@Bucknekked I didn't specify what I'm using right now because I'm quite sure no one ever heard of it, the Alientek D8. It's a small FDA (Full Digital Amplifier) that sounds impudently well for its size. Out of the box it's a bit bright and edgy, but upgrading the power adapter makes wonders. Maybe you saw the FX Audio D802 on Z-Reviews, it's available on Amazon.com too, that is a very similar amplifier that uses the same STMicroelectronics chip family. The D802 has the STA326 while the D8 has the STA328, there are minor differences between the two.

If you are wondering why I'm looking for a new amplifier despite the fact I like my D8 that much it's because even if I think D-Class is getting better day after day (look at Denon PMA-50, NAD D 3020, Peachtree Nova 300, NuPrime IDA 16 and so on, just to name some) and these cheap Chinese FDA are the way to go for whoever is looking for a cheap amplification with good performance and digital inputs, I feel like AB-Class has still the edge for smoothness and musicality (all of this rigorously IMHO).

If you are still interested in purchasing an integrated amplifier, I would suggest either the Yamaha A-S701 or the A-S801 which are well built. One interesting feature is that both those units have tone controls which we often miss with an AVR. Not all recordings are processed to our liking and just with a little twist, you get what you prefer.

As for the Marantz which is no doubt also a nice performer, I don't think it has enough power for the currently available lower sensitivity speakers.

 

[ski2xblack]

edit

Well, ok, the mods are weeding out the nonsense. Hooray! (That british homeopathic ED was hilarious, though.)

 

[Bucknekked]

edit

Well, ok, the mods are weeding out the nonsense. Hooray! (That british homeopathic ED was hilarious, though.)

I missed the nonsense. I am always last to know. was it good?

 

[sharkman]

That defies physics, but that Denon 3801 may be defective. The Denon 3800 series performed very well against integrated amps that costs more, that's confirmed by more than one bench test.

I have compared my 3805 (4 years newer than the 3801 I assume) with my separate amps including my Halo A21 many times, with other people too. No clear winners, though I am sure under some scenarios (source material, very difficult to drive speakers, spl et.), one can detect some minute difference and prefer the A21, can't say that for sure though.

1) There is no spec by which one can measure stereo imaging.

2) The A21 will play what it's fed. Were you using the 3805 as preamp? I'm hoping not.

3) I've had the 3801, 3803 and currently own the 4520. I haven't done pure 2 channel much in the 4520 because it sounds so anemic. YMMV.

I'd be interested to hear your comments on the Nad C326bee, or was it someone else who has ordered it?

 

[lovinthehd]

1) There is no spec by which one can measure stereo imaging.

2) The A21 will play what it's fed. Were you using the 3805 as preamp? I'm hoping not.

3) I've had the 3801, 3803 and currently own the 4520. I haven't done pure 2 channel much in the 4520 because it sounds so anemic. YMMV.

I'd be interested to hear your comments on the Nad C326bee, or was it someone else who has ordered it?

Why would imaging be a result of amplification?

 

[PENG]

1) There is no spec by which one can measure stereo imaging.

2) The A21 will play what it's fed. Were you using the 3805 as preamp? I'm hoping not.

3) I've had the 3801, 3803 and currently own the 4520. I haven't done pure 2 channel much in the 4520 because it sounds so anemic. YMMV.

I'd be interested to hear your comments on the Nad C326bee, or was it someone else who has ordered it?

I used a $2000 class A preamp. Also try my OPPO HA-1 and a vintage Marantz preamp, nothing beats the Denon. Speakers used were LS50, R900, Focal 1028BE. I am not trying to convince yout, just sharing my own findings after spending a fortune over the years in this hobby.

I just hooked up the NAD, to my desktop system for now, will try it in one of my main systems later.

 

[<eargiant]

Why would imaging be a result of amplification?

I can't tell you why but I can tell you that IME it definitely plays a part in imaging, soundstage and spatial cues.

 

[sharkman]

Why would imaging be a result of amplification?

Why are you making that assumption?

I repeat, there is no spec for the quality of stereo imaging.

 

[PENG]

Why are you making that assumption?

I repeat, there is no spec for the quality of stereo imaging.

I thought he was trying to make a point. Anyway, I have an interesting article for you:

http://hometheaterhifi.com/technical/technical-reviews/why-time-alignment-is-important-for-getting-the-most-out-of-high-fidelity-audio-systems/

Without Googling the topic but just thinking logically and scientifically, I would say there are a few audio amplifier specs that affect stereo (or multi-channel) imaging. The most important one could be the component tolerances and the overall design that ensure every channels perform identically, examples: noise, distortions, power output, input/output impedance, frequency response and probably a few more I can think of right now.

Once that's achieved, the rest will be in the hands of the recording, mixing, mastering people and ultimately the speakers and the acoustic environment where the listener sits in his/her sweet spot.

Specs that affect audio amplifier's imaging performance has gotten so good that I agree with lovinthehd that one should focus much more on the speakers and room acoustics. For serious listening, I always stick with high quality recordings, that could be just CDs, or other HD formats, but the most important part is done in the recording and mastering.

By the way my first impression of the 326BEE is very good. It sounds as good as the 49 lbs, 140W Marantz SM-7 it displaced. Not a scientific comparison though because 1) speakers are clearly the bottleneck, 2) the old setup was driven by a tube headphone amp/DAC wheres with the NAD integrated I have the tube preamp bypassed. One thing for sure, the little light weight amp has all the power I need in this small room. If I have time to play with it in one of my main system, probably the LS50, I will come back with more.

 

[PENG]

3) I've had the 3801, 3803 and currently own the 4520. I haven't done pure 2 channel much in the 4520 because it sounds so anemic. YMMV.

I missed this part the first time I read your post. Have you read the bench test data I posted here before?

http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/download/reports/aug04/denonavr3805.html

I was not influenced by those results before I had no prior knowledge when I realized how good AVR can sound when used in a two channel stereo system. Just that having seen the results I can see why. If you register with them, you can view many other tests in years after 2004 including a few NAD integrated amps. You will see that the Denon AVRs compares very well with even the C275 and C375 except in dynamic output into 4/2 ohms, in that aspect the bigger NAD integrated won by up to a couple dB.

That little AVR even passed their 1 ohm test. As TLSG commented 1 ohm test has no practically meaning but it still tells that thing is practically indestructible. Now the later 3808, 4308 and your 4520 definitely have more powerful transformer and larger capacitors so I cannot understand how they your 4520 would sound "so anemic" in your system.

I guess you are right about YMMV. Still, if you still have the 4520, I may have some suggestions for you to try, otherwise we can just move on.

 

[lovinthehd]

Why are you making that assumption?

I repeat, there is no spec for the quality of stereo imaging.

I thought he was trying to make a point. Anyway, I have an interesting article for you:

http://hometheaterhifi.com/technical/technical-reviews/why-time-alignment-is-important-for-getting-the-most-out-of-high-fidelity-audio-systems/

Without Googling the topic but just thinking logically and scientifically, I would say there are a few audio amplifier specs that affect stereo (or multi-channel) imaging. The most important one could be the component tolerances and the overall design that ensure every channels perform identically, examples: noise, distortions, power output, input/output impedance, frequency response and probably a few more I can think of right now.

Once that's achieved, the rest will be in the hands of the recording, mixing, mastering people and ultimately the speakers and the acoustic environment where the listener sits in his/her sweet spot.

Specs that affect audio amplifier's imaging performance has gotten so good that I agree with lovinthehd that one should focus much more on the speakers and room acoustics. For serious listening, I always stick with high quality recordings, that could be just CDs, or other HD formats, but the most important part is done in the recording and mastering.

By the way my first impression of the 326BEE is very good. It sounds as good as the 49 lbs, 140W Marantz SM-7 it displaced. Not a scientific comparison though because 1) speakers are clearly the bottleneck, 2) the old setup was driven by a tube headphone amp/DAC wheres with the NAD integrated I have the tube preamp bypassed. One thing for sure, the little light weight amp has all the power I need in this small room. If I have time to play with it in one of my main system, probably the LS50, I will come back with more.

Thanks, Peng. Yes, my experience is the amp plays virtually no role in imaging, especially compared to speakers and room acoustics (let alone the original recording). I have a 4520 and don't consider it anemic either. I was hoping for some sort of explanation otherwise other than "there are no specs" which wasn't even the question. Sounds more like nonsense gleaned from reading TAS or some other silly reviews.

 

[sharkman]

I was not specifically referring to the amp as the culprit. Reread my previous posts, and note that I was talking about an integrated amp, the HK PM625. These are units that have a preamp and amp in one chassis. Again though, there are no specs that measure imaging capability.

The problem with threads like this is that people either don't comprehend the entire post, or they mash two separate thoughts together. Like the comment about not considering the 4520 anemic. Context is everything. I never said nor inferred that the 4520 was overall anemic. I listed one specific mode in which it was anemic.

I can see that the usual group think still exists here, so I'll bow out and let the usual suspects put things "right".

 

[Bucknekked]

I can see that the usual group think still exists here, so I'll bow out and let the usual suspects put things "right".

sharkman
I have a fair amount of life experience working in small and medium groups for a living. That gives me the ability to say I understand what "group think" is.

Where it exists, it can be a real institutional killer. New ideas get scuttled. Correct or optimal solutions get dumped in favor of some solution that's favored by group leaders or members but doesn't really hold much value. In short, it stifles what a group can accomplish by discouraging new or optimal solutions from getting their fair share of consideration.

The other place you hear the term used is as an insult when a member of a group puts forth a thought or consideration that doesn't get adopted or accepted. As an insult, it only stings if its true. In this case, I think it misses the mark.

On this forum if I have observed much of anything, its that there are a wide variety opinions or ways to put a solution together. As far as I can tell, there is no monolithic block of thought that says or supports a singular point of view. Threads get derailed and misread, that's entirely true. Some folks only read a couple of posts and then weigh in with an incomplete understanding, that's true too. But group think? Other than a general revulsion around audiophoolery and exotic cables, I don't think that's a valid insult here.

Just my opinion.

 

[lovinthehd]

I can't tell you why but I can tell you that IME it definitely plays a part in imaging, soundstage and spatial cues.

So how do you determine "imaging" from one amp to another?

 

[lovinthehd]

I was not specifically referring to the amp as the culprit. Reread my previous posts, and note that I was talking about an integrated amp, the HK PM625. These are units that have a preamp and amp in one chassis. Again though, there are no specs that measure imaging capability.

The problem with threads like this is that people either don't comprehend the entire post, or they mash two separate thoughts together. Like the comment about not considering the 4520 anemic. Context is everything. I never said nor inferred that the 4520 was overall anemic. I listed one specific mode in which it was anemic.

I can see that the usual group think still exists here, so I'll bow out and let the usual suspects put things "right".

I reread your previous posts. So explain why your integrated amp is different from another integrated amp (which is all an avr is really, just with the integration of an onboard source). The 4520 was just an observation I disagree with; the imaging is fine on things I play thru the 4520, pure direct or no. Maybe it isn't imaging you're describing, could be a gain difference from the little detail you've provided how you determine this in one unit vs another.

What was the specific example with Krall with your example of spatial cue differences? I can hold up for a song or two of examples before I fall asleep.

 

[PENG]

Why are you making that assumption?

I repeat, there is no spec for the quality of stereo imaging.

You are literally correct, but the same can be say about any subjective description of audio quality, that there are no specs. There are only specs for the design and manufacture of hifi gear. Objectively though, all the manufacturers can do is to make sure both channels perform the same on the bench in all measurable ways. If that's done and the variations between the channels are negligibly low, that is well below human capability, then the amps should not be the cause of imaging related issues. Quality control of electronic components are so good nowadays, I rarely see labs even bother to measure (or measure but not published individually) all the parameters of each channel. There are some old bench tests that do provide some measurements for each channel, and I provided you with the link to such lab tests in my earlier post. If you look at those test results you will see that imaging shouldn't be an issue for pretty much any amps tested there.

So again, you are right literally speaking, but in reality there are in fact specs that are measurable, and that directly affect stereo imaging. Since such specs are measurable, based on most test results, stereo imaging quality is mostly determined by the speakers and the acoustic environment they are in, given that the source media is not the problem to begin with. As an example, if an amp is tested to show left channel is even 0.25 to 1 db louder/or quieter and irregular over the audio band, and/or the distortions of one channel is 0.5% higher, the amp is not going to image well, but if both channels yield identical results in all measurable, then there is no reason for it to cause imaging problem. I hope that's clear.