Source or Amplification???

[Jason Lopez]

Here's my 2 channel set up: Apple Tv (as a music server), Cambridge Audio DAC Magic, Nad C352 integrated amp, and Phase Tech PC 9.1 towers (4 ohm, 92db sensitive).
Which would have the greatest impact on sound quality? A better DAC (like the Bryston BDA-1), or a better integrated amp (like a NAD M3, Musical Fidelity, Krell, etc. Around $2000 to $3000)?

 

[Seth=L]

Speakers, room acoustics. The Integrated amplifier and DAC are fine and it's unlikely you will be able to discern from many others of higher cost or supposed "esoteric" stuff.

I'm going to assume that your speakers are pretty nice, although I have no personal experience with that brand, but I believe your best bet is to experiment with placement and add acoustic treatment to the room where it's needed. If bass is lacking I suggest a subwoofer, not more/better amplification or more expensive DACs. From experience I can tell you that changing front end to output gear around does little to affect the overall performance of my sound system. Speakers, placement, and in my current situation lack of acoustic treatments are the most influential parts of my sound system.

 

[walter duque]

Here's my 2 channel set up: Apple Tv (as a music server), Cambridge Audio DAC Magic, Nad C352 integrated amp, and Phase Tech PC 9.1 towers (4 ohm, 92db sensitive).
Which would have the greatest impact on sound quality? A better DAC (like the Bryston BDA-1), or a better integrated amp (like a NAD M3, Musical Fidelity, Krell, etc. Around $2000 to $3000)?

A friend of mine has the Phase Tech with the PC 9.1 Towers in his HT. These speaker amazed me. I had to admit that they sounded that good, which I hate to do. He uses a Mcintosh Pre-Pro and a Cinepro 3K6Mk3 350 wattsX6. I would say get more power. Try to borrow a poweramp and see what happens.

 

[WmAx]

More power would be useful. Exotic gear is a complete waste of money unless you personally want the 'look' that such gear provides. I've been through that phase and I'm done with it.

Speakers, placement and room acoustics make a huge difference, however. This is where to put all efforts.

-Chris

 

[mtrycrafts]

Here's my 2 channel set up: Apple Tv (as a music server), Cambridge Audio DAC Magic, Nad C352 integrated amp, and Phase Tech PC 9.1 towers (4 ohm, 92db sensitive).
Which would have the greatest impact on sound quality? A better DAC (like the Bryston BDA-1), or a better integrated amp (like a NAD M3, Musical Fidelity, Krell, etc. Around $2000 to $3000)?

Yes, agreed with WmAx. If that speaker is 4 ohms, you need a good amp for that. How is that sensitivity measure? 2.83V or 2V? One delivers 2 watts of power, the other is 1 watt

 

[Jason Lopez]

Yes, agreed with WmAx. If that speaker is 4 ohms, you need a good amp for that. How is that sensitivity measure? 2.83V or 2V? One delivers 2 watts of power, the other is 1 watt

It doesn't say in the owner's manual. It recommends that if you're going to upgrade your amplifier...to purchase as much power as your budget permits. That it's better to buy more power than to buy a reciever/amplifier that's loaded with features with a less power rating...which could potentially damage your speakers. DUH!

 

[3db]

Here's my 2 channel set up: Apple Tv (as a music server), Cambridge Audio DAC Magic, Nad C352 integrated amp, and Phase Tech PC 9.1 towers (4 ohm, 92db sensitive).
Which would have the greatest impact on sound quality? A better DAC (like the Bryston BDA-1), or a better integrated amp (like a NAD M3, Musical Fidelity, Krell, etc. Around $2000 to $3000)?

I'm with Seth on this one. Your NAD has enough grunt to power these speakers expscially given such a high sensitivity on these. It won't take much power to make em sing loud. I think room acoustic treatments are the way to go first. Room acoustics play almost as big a role in the sound of a speaker as the speaker themselves.

 

[Jason Lopez]

I'm with Seth on this one. Your NAD has enough grunt to power these speakers expscially given such a high sensitivity on these. It won't take much power to make em sing loud. I think room acoustic treatments are the way to go first. Room acoustics play almost as big a role in the sound of a speaker as the speaker themselves.

Yeah...makes sense. I live in AZ. The homes out here are wood framed with stucco and drywall. Energy efficient. My house is all tile floors. 10 foot ceilings. A great room (one giant room that is the kitchen, nook, and living room). No symetrical shape what so ever! CRAZY!

 

[Seth=L]

An acoustic nightmare.

 

[Robof83]

I admit, I fell into the hype of "upgrading" my amplification to improve sound quality. At first I was very happy and thought that I could hear a very distinct difference in sound quality between my old amplification source and my new one. I was very disappointed when neither I nor my friends could discern any differences between the two when we were blind-folded.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... I was very disappointed when neither I nor my friends could discern any differences between the two when we were blind-folded.

Well, you discovered the power of human subconscious bias.
Now you will be on your guard for silliness in audio as there are so much makes you get a migraine. Keep a case of Tylenol handy

 

[Jason Lopez]

Well, you discovered the power of human subconscious bias.
Now you will be on your guard for silliness in audio as there are so much makes you get a migraine. Keep a case of Tylenol handy

My personal experience has been different. Years ago when i was more into hometheater...I had a Yamaha RX-V1. At the the time it was their $3000 flagship receiver. 110 watts X 7, blah, blah, blah. Anyway, I bought a Rotel RMB 1095 as an outboard amp. 200 watts X 5. About $1500 at the time. This thing was a BEAST! 10 inches tall, 80 pounds, it had coaster wheels on the back under the amp so you could wheel it into the rack. Anyway...it made a significant difference. My speakers sounded totally different. I was hearing things i had never heard before with the yamaha amps.

 

[mtrycrafts]

My personal experience has been different. Years ago when i was more into hometheater...I had a Yamaha RX-V1. At the the time it was their $3000 flagship receiver. 110 watts X 7, blah, blah, blah. Anyway, I bought a Rotel RMB 1095 as an outboard amp. 200 watts X 5. About $1500 at the time. This thing was a BEAST! 10 inches tall, 80 pounds, it had coaster wheels on the back under the amp so you could wheel it into the rack. Anyway...it made a significant difference. My speakers sounded totally different. I was hearing things i had never heard before with the yamaha amps.

Yes, but then, you didn't compare it blind, did you? Levels matched? To do it by memory is totally unreliable.

 

[Jason Lopez]

Yes, but then, you didn't compare it blind, did you? Levels matched? To do it by memory is totally unreliable.

So...what's your baseline? At what level do YOU say...anything beyond this point is not better sound quality?

 

[lsiberian]

So...what's your baseline? At what level do YOU say...anything beyond this point is not better sound quality?

The point is it's a mental difference not a measurable difference in most cases.

You're talking about 2 solid state amps for crying out loud. The only difference between them was the slight improvement in volume.

Level matched and direct their is no difference between most amps. In fact many companies use the same amps in their receivers. Double blind tests have shown this to be the case.

If you want an external amp I suggest you use an EQ with it otherwise you are wasting your energy and time. With an EQ you can make a better sound though.

 

[WmAx]

This thing was a BEAST! 10 inches tall, 80 pounds, it had coaster wheels on the back under the amp so you could wheel it into the rack. Anyway...it made a significant difference. My speakers sounded totally different. I was hearing things i had never heard before with the yamaha amps.

Bingo. You just made a strong case that you were psychologically conditioned to 'perceive' a difference; your brain was going to 'hear' a difference even if it did not exist in order to fulfill the impression/excitement you had for the unit. It is a common human response. I can't even trust myself to be bias free - everyone has to use level matched double blinded testing if they want an accurate evaluation. And if you do reliably score a difference in sound under these conditions - then it will be easily measurable and correlated to known perceptual research papers that outline human detectability ranges of measurable signal differences. The most common difference in amplifiers when they can actually be differentiated blinded is frequency response difference. That's right: an EQ curve. Tube amps especially, commonly have audible frequency response aberrations (non flat response).

-Chris

 

[Mika75]

Sean Olive blogspot April 9, 2009: Dishonesty of sighted audio product

The psychological biases in the sighted tests were sufficiently strong that listeners were largely unresponsive to real changes in sound quality caused by acoustical interactions between the loudspeaker, its position in the room, and the program material. In other words, if you want to obtain an accurate and reliable measure of how the audio product truly sounds, the listening test must be done blind.

 

[ErinH]

IMO, nothing makes a difference like a good set of speakers and some good ol' raw power.

I'm not going to say you can't and won't hear a difference in source, but IMO, the money is much better spent on headroom power (for dynamics) and a solid set of speakers that carry the characteristics you like (neutral, warm, natural, in your face, whatever).

 

[Jason Lopez]

Bingo. You just made a strong case that you were psychologically conditioned to 'perceive' a difference; your brain was going to 'hear' a difference even if it did not exist in order to fulfill the impression/excitement you had for the unit. It is a common human response. I can't even trust myself to be bias free - everyone has to use level matched double blinded testing if they want an accurate evaluation. And if you do reliably score a difference in sound under these conditions - then it will be easily measurable and correlated to known perceptual research papers that outline human detectability ranges of measurable signal differences. The most common difference in amplifiers when they can actually be differentiated blinded is frequency response difference. That's right: an EQ curve. Tube amps especially, commonly have audible frequency response aberrations (non flat response).

-Chris

I'm not trying to be smart. This is a valid question. How have so many high end manufacturers been able to stay in business for 10, 20, 30 years...if their mega dollar products don't sound any better than $500 or $600 products?

 

[bandphan]

I'm not trying to be smart. This is a valid question. How have so many high end manufacturers been able to stay in business for 10, 20, 30 years...if their mega dollar products don't sound any better than $500 or $600 products?

not better sound, but better build quality, parts (that last longer), and more room for dynamics. Level matched the amps in my yamaha and pioneer are indistinguishable in sound form those of in my mcintosh. Does the mac have more advantages over the other two, yes; but its sound isnt (it is transparent)one of them. Sound isnt the reason for the additional cost in more expensive amps.