A Very Interesting Perspective

[Mark of Cenla]

I really like this article.

https://numeralnine.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/a-brief-guide-to-audio-for-the-skeptical-consumer/


What do you think?

Peace and goodwill.

 

[MrBoat]

I agree with it or, it would do me no good to disagree with it. Most of the things outside of practicality or common sense I don't care about anyway.

I should be one of the people that thinks tubes sound better than transistors just for being one who tends to resist change. But then, I have to be honest with myself. Turns out that I ended up knowing just enough about electronics that I would feel stupid with such a claim. Especially with those I know who really know a lot about electronics. Also, I have enough time at this hobby to have it come down to more of a preference of the actual speakers than anything else. Speakers, and a 'well built' amp with enough power that won't burn up two days after it's warranty runs out.

Vinyl vs. digital? I remember the first time I heard a CD. I had 3 large cardboard boxes of LPs, a record cleaner, and not a fingerprint on any of them. I was so happy not to hear dust pops or worry about the wear on the stylus or the little dust bunny that would sometimes appear at it's leading edge, regardless of how careful I was. As far as the nostalgic exercise of handling the LP compared to a CD? I thought they were about the same. I still don't let just anyone paw my CDs.

Cables. Again, all common knowledge with electricity applies. As long as the jacket doesn't rot off, like that which is used on most modern power tools does, I'm good.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

1. Exotic cables, interconnects, or power cords don’t make your system sound better. Not even a little bit. And bi-wiring simply doesn’t make sense.

2. It is unlikely that expensive CD players or DACs improve sound quality. Many of the claims these manufacturers make do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

3. Under normal conditions, virtually all audio amplifiers/receivers sound the same (sans EQ). They do not have their own sonic signature that must be carefully paired with speakers.

4. “Burn in” factor—the idea that speakers or electronics sound better after X hours of use—is likely a delusion.

5. Expensive vacuum tube electronics may add “character” (i.e. distortion) to your system, but if clarity (less distortion) and reliability is what you’re after, stick with transistors.

6. The look and feel of CDs or computers can’t compete with vinyl, which can sound amazing for what it is. But there is no music lost “between the bits.” High quality digital formats are sonically superior to vinyl in every measurable way.

7. “Audiophile” hi-res audio formats are not likely to offer audible improvements over compact disc 16 bit/44.1 kHz quality.

This guy must be an Audioholics member.

It could be me or anyone of us writing that.

 

[ski2xblack]

A few mistakes on how tubes misbehave, but otherwise spot on. Re: tubes, only single ended devices lop off only one side when they begin to clip resulting in even order harmonics; pp output clips symmetrically, resulting in odd harmonics; in both cases, they are low order, thus involve tonal coloration, and are tolerated in much higher amounts than high, odd order harmonics; and none of this is really relevant unless you're picking an amp for gigs vs. practice)

 

[Audiot]

Pretty much. That said, I like fine amplifiers.

 

[KenM10759]

Pretty much. That said, I like fine speakers.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[PENG]

1. Exotic cables, interconnects, or power cords don’t make your system sound better. Not even a little bit. And bi-wiring simply doesn’t make sense.

2. It is unlikely that expensive CD players or DACs improve sound quality. Many of the claims these manufacturers make do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

3. Under normal conditions, virtually all audio amplifiers/receivers sound the same (sans EQ). They do not have their own sonic signature that must be carefully paired with speakers.

4. “Burn in” factor—the idea that speakers or electronics sound better after X hours of use—is likely a delusion.

5. Expensive vacuum tube electronics may add “character” (i.e. distortion) to your system, but if clarity (less distortion) and reliability is what you’re after, stick with transistors.

6. The look and feel of CDs or computers can’t compete with vinyl, which can sound amazing for what it is. But there is no music lost “between the bits.” High quality digital formats are sonically superior to vinyl in every measurable way.

7. “Audiophile” hi-res audio formats are not likely to offer audible improvements over compact disc 16 bit/44.1 kHz quality.

This guy must be an Audioholics member.

It could be me or anyone of us writing that.

Not sure about "anyone", I can name at least one or two who couldn't..

 

[PENG]

Pretty much. That said, I like fine amplifiers.

Who doesn't?

 

[Pogre]

Pretty much. That said, I like fine amplifiers.

Me too! But since I can't really afford the high end amps it's comforting to know I'm getting the same sq out of my receiver (obviously missing some headroom, but it gets plenty loud for me and sounds awesome). I'd love a fine amplifier, it's just not in the cards for me right now.

 

[DD66000]

High cost cables is the worse of it. Anyone who believes spending say, $200/ft for cables and needing to elevate them above the floor makes the sound better is delusional.

And most certainly the quality of the speakers is the most important piece of the chain. It is the design of speakers that produce, or do not produce, the width, depth, height, layered complexity of the soundstage...along with proper placement within the room.

But I do believe that there can be and are differences between DACs.
And even though most amps will sound the same, it does not mean all sound the same.
As for vinyl or digital, I like listening to both.
Having in my collection 16/44.1, 24/96, 24/192...I can not hear any improvements from the "hi res audio" over 16/44.1.
I think listening to say FLAC, AIFF, AAC are improvements that are much more important than the sample rate or bit rate.

 

[PENG]

(obviously missing some headroom, but it gets plenty loud for me and sounds awesome).

Obviously? Don't be so sure. You would be missing some headroom only if you actually need that much headroom. So you may or may not be missing some headroom, all depends on how loud you listen in your room from you sitting position.

 

[PENG]

And even though most amps will sound the same, it does not mean all sound the same.

I agree with you on that, but I have yet to hear/read anyone on this forum who said all amps sound the same. Some get upset because somehow they got the impression that lots of members on this forum have been telling people all amps sound the same when in fact no one (I might have missed one or two) has ever made such blanket statements. Most of the time people would say something like what you are saying now, or with other specified conditions such as what was provided in the linked article.

 

[Pogre]

Obviously? Don't be so sure. You would be missing some headroom only if you actually need that much headroom. So you may or may not be missing some headroom, all depends on how loud you listen in your room from you sitting position.

I like it pretty loud, but I am a lot more careful with my hearing than I used to be. What I have now is sufficient, but I want overkill!

Every once in a while I like to take my receiver (85wpc/8ohm/2ch) to the edge. I have a huge room and aren't always in the mlp.

 

[Audiot]

Fixed that for ya.

Can't argue I like it all!

 

[Audiot]

Who doesn't?

Meaning that strictly for me, the arguments about if amplifiers can be distinguished in double bind testing is irrelevant. It may not be so for everyone, but I think the long term ownership experience is enhanced by well designed, full featured and robust amplification. That's often argued here to be a less cost effective solution than lesser products that spec similarly. I'm not sure it is if you take the total user experience into account.

 

[Audiot]

I agree with you on that, but I have yet to hear/read anyone on this forum who said all amps sound the same.

I don't know. It seems to me that it's frequently implied here and elsewhere. Usual (and good) advice is always to consider the transducers first. After that, amp differences are frequently consigned to the basement as largely irrelevant as long as you have enough suds. This may be true or not depending on demonstrable properties of the load an amp is being asked to handle. Amps will of course distinguish themselves down the road if they're being asked to run near rated output (or sometimes more so at 1/3 rated output) on a routine basis. Problematic loads, impedance dips and that sort of thing will stress the differences later in life. Now, let me deflect potential criticism by saying that amplifiers of equal quality driving realistic loads always sound very similar if not indistinguishable to me. That is, hearing or identifying any differences in routine testing can be a Pyrrhic exercise to say the least.


Bob Carver's transfer function amplifiers and his famous challenge to the high end make the point that while amplifiers can be handily made to sound indistinguishable, there are also differences that appear in null tests. Right? Wrong? Who knows?

Sorry about the "double links" here. I'm not sure how to edit that out within the forum format.

 

[ski2xblack]

Ideally, an amp will have low output impedance, low distortion, flat response, and adequate power into the load presented so as to achieve desired listening levels without clipping. There is significant evidence out there that such amps tend to be indistinguishable in bias controlled tests.

Bob Carver manipulated those very conditions for transparency when partaking in the infamous amp challenge. You raise the output impedance, alter the circuit to produce more low order harmonics, and voila, it sounds like a tube amp. (I don't want to trivialize what he did with the 'voila' term, after all it took Bob an entire weekend of measurements and messing with the feedback loop and whatever else to achieve what he did.)

 

[PENG]

I don't know. It seems to me that it's frequently implied here and elsewhere.

May be I am just not as sensitive. I thought most of the time people do quality their claims by adding something like:

"well designed amps, when use well within their limits, level matched, all processing disabled/pure direct etc." Anyway, no one needs to convince me one way or another, I have more than my fair shares of avrs, integrated and separates. I like them all, and may go for more, including diy hopefully in the not too distant future.

 

[MrBoat]

I have multiple amps as well. My speakers do not care. The Denon 3805 in Pure Direct mode sounds as good as anything I have hooked up to them except without worry of dirty faders and pots. I can tell subtle differences via adjustments of a graphic EQ with a personal tonal preference that has been consistent for 40+ years.

The Adcom, and the cheap Scott amp needed no EQ via my preference. A cheaper Fisher amp from the 80's needs a little enhancement in the midrange and a slight bump on the 3 lowest frequency bands. The Denon, in Pure Direct, a slight boost in the lower frequencies, though while in Stereo Mode, EQ was allover the place, comparatively. The addition of the subwoofer with it's own DSP, tends to mitigate this to more of a 'mood' or genre specific preference.

What it comes down to here is, my space that I listen in. In order for a "finer" amp to really be worth the added cost, it seems everything else would need to be perfected as well. I've exceeded the acoustic capabilities of my listening environment because I cannot find anything else I am missing. I've been to homes with "finer" amps. One of which seems to be hanging by a thread, sound quality wise, yet he has many more thousands of dollars invested.