All amps sound the same??? (Read Inside)

[werd]

If you had 400w of power which provides plenty of headroom how would the type of amp change the soundstage? All an amp should do is Amplify, I just feel that I am missing something because big mags like stereophile...etc have amp reviews. As long as the amp has reasonable THD characteristics and plenty of headroom, I think many pro amps can do this without any problem.

Hello

I owned a 4bsst and replaced it with a Bryston 4bsst/2. Exact amp but new model. These amps specd exact same but sounded very different. The sst was more bright and seemed to play its best at louder volumes. While the new sst/2 lost its treble glare and played very nice at all volumes. It could be made to sound much more laid back than its predecessor. The only difference between the 2 very different sounding amps was a cap change.

 

[bandphan]

Hello

I owned a 4bsst and replaced it with a Bryston 4bsst/2. Exact amp but new model. These amps specd exact same but sounded very different. The sst was more bright and seemed to play its best at louder volumes. While the new sst/2 lost its treble glare and played very nice at all volumes. It could be made to sound much more laid back than its predecessor. The only difference between the 2 very different sounding amps was a cap change.

welcome again, care to put some money on a dbt

 

[Seth=L]

I currently own:

Adcom 5503
Crown DC300A
Parasound HCA1000a
Berhinger A500
Berhinger EP2500

The Crown is the one I can pick out at louder volume levels. The top end is more irritating.

At normal levels I couldn't tell you if it was the A500/Parasound/Adcom. The Adcom really steps up with the low/low mid when stepping on the gain knob.

The Parasound and A500 are neck and neck.

The XPA3 and NAD C272 were comparable. I personally think an amp should just spit out the input as accurately as possible. I am not a fan of getting an amp for it's 'Sonic' Signature because outside of engineering compromises (that can affect sound) you have an Amp designer that took it upon themselves to play god.

Hence why I only ever owned one Carver amp (M400) and why I got rid of it.

It's interesting that the Behringer and Parasound run neck and neck. The Parasound utilizes a triple darlington output stage which is commonly found to handle huge phase curves for a class a/b design. Combined with the very large toroidal transformer and a respectable bank of capacitance (40,000uF 63v) I would imagine it would yeild impressive results.

I am confused by the Behringer though. It's not nearly as robust (in terms of parts), and weighs about 4 pounds under the Parasound's 22. Neither amplifier is particularly massive, but the Behringer seems significantly smaller in every way.

Instead of utilizing three stage outputs like the Parasound it uses a two stage (4 transistors to each channel instead of 6 like in the Parasound). The transformer is evidently smaller as well, and the total filter capacitance in the Behringer is 13,200uF 100v. The cap values being smaller are only slightly offset with the higher voltage (meaning they will recharge faster), but huge impedance swings or extreme dynamics would seriously tax this amplifier being that it is also a class a/b design.

 

[pzaur]

Hello

I owned a 4bsst and replaced it with a Bryston 4bsst/2. Exact amp but new model. These amps specd exact same but sounded very different. The sst was more bright and seemed to play its best at louder volumes. While the new sst/2 lost its treble glare and played very nice at all volumes. It could be made to sound much more laid back than its predecessor. The only difference between the 2 very different sounding amps was a cap change.

Changing from a Bears cap to a Cubs cap will make an amp sound different?

-pat

 

[tomd51]

Changing from a Bears cap to a Cubs cap will make an amp sound different?

-pat

Absolutely, it will instantly be incapable of producing any kind of offensive output... -TD

 

[Seth=L]

Hello

I owned a 4bsst and replaced it with a Bryston 4bsst/2. Exact amp but new model. These amps specd exact same but sounded very different. The sst was more bright and seemed to play its best at louder volumes. While the new sst/2 lost its treble glare and played very nice at all volumes. It could be made to sound much more laid back than its predecessor. The only difference between the 2 very different sounding amps was a cap change.

I would say that if there was a difference [audible]... then I would have to say that the capacitors must have been far undersized on one of the amplifiers, or one of the amplifiers were faulty.

Having said that, it is very unlikely that Bryston, the company that provides the longest warranty on their amplifiers in the business, would make a critical error in the design that would include capacitors of too low value or voltage. It is also not likely the amplifier is faulty.

The mind is very powerful, it can make people that aren't sick believe so strongly they are sick they will exhibit horrible symptoms of an ailment they don't have. It is by no means a stretch your mind can convince you that two sonically identical amplifiers sound entirely different.

 

[Seth=L]

Welcome to the forum and thanks for posting...

HOWEVER, aren't words like "image" and "brighter" better suited to describe the sound produced by the speaker?

While I don't want to believe that every non-malfunctioning amp operating in its specified capable range "sounds" the same... They do.

Exactly, those are acoustic characteristics. Amplifiers aren't acoustic devices, they are electrical device that are not directly involved with acoustic output and room response.

 

[jinjuku]

It's interesting that the Behringer and Parasound run neck and neck. The Parasound utilizes a triple darlington output stage which is commonly found to handle huge phase curves for a class a/b design. Combined with the very large toroidal transformer and a respectable bank of capacitance (40,000uF 63v) I would imagine it would yeild impressive results.

I am confused by the Behringer though. It's not nearly as robust (in terms of parts), and weighs about 4 pounds under the Parasound's 22. Neither amplifier is particularly massive, but the Behringer seems significantly smaller in every way.

Instead of utilizing three stage outputs like the Parasound it uses a two stage (4 transistors to each channel instead of 6 like in the Parasound). The transformer is evidently smaller as well, and the total filter capacitance in the Behringer is 13,200uF 100v. The cap values being smaller are only slightly offset with the higher voltage (meaning they will recharge faster), but huge impedance swings or extreme dynamics would seriously tax this amplifier being that it is also a class a/b design.

Anyone can over design a bridge to carry a huge amount of weight, only an engineer can design a bridge to barely carry it's intended load.

Bottom line is both the A500 and Parasound are neck and neck. There simply isn't a huge delta in the Sound Stage width or depth nor slew rate/dampening etc. Their measured specs are more than enough to handle program material at even more than comfortable listening levels.

I would be happy to have you over and listen to both and tell me which one you think is which. BTW I am not saying the Behringer is a better amp. It isn't from a build standpoint. It is however clean and 'good enough'.

Yep the Berhinger is 18lbs, the 1000A is 22lbs and they both weigh enough. I never heard any one grump about a 55lb 5 channel amp vs a 70lb. I mean I am looking at a Peavey IPR that weighs 10lbs, has no where near the capacitance reserve but is 2000 watts. What gives?

I hate it when people try to compare amps on certain metrics. The difference in topologies is enough to make it a non-sequitur.

 

[ski2xblack]

...aren't words like "image" and "brighter" better suited to describe the sound produced by the speaker?

While I don't want to believe that every non-malfunctioning amp operating in its specified capable range "sounds" the same... They do.

I could be wrong, but high 2nd order harmonics play tricks on my brain's perception in favorable ways; it gives an exaggerated sense of space, and seems to flesh out the various parts which compose the sonic image. An amp designed to produce distortion which emphasizes the second harmonic and has otherwise non-objectionable distortion spectra could indeed image differently that your average mainstream amp with better specs. Using the First Watt mentioned before, in the same room, with the same source, speakers, and layout, changing the amps did indeed change the imaging; subjectively, more depth-of-field, noticably more 3-D. It was distinct and unmistakable, if not night and day, and the only difference was the distortion characteristics of the amps. [Now cue the discussion about wheather such devices qualify as amplifiers, or are merely expensive sound processors.]

Unfortunately (or, if you're evil, fortunately) most of the gear that behaves like this is audio-jewelry class expensive, and you're stuck with the particular sonic taste of the designer of the amp, rather than accurate, linear reproduction. But this gear is out there, and some folks really dig their distortion.

But aside from amps specifically designed to imprint their own sonic signature, what you say is absolutely correct.

 

[Seth=L]

Yep the Berhinger is 18lbs, the 1000A is 22lbs and they both weigh enough. I never heard any one grump about a 55lb 5 channel amp vs a 70lb. I mean I am looking at a Peavey IPR that weighs 10lbs, has no where near the capacitance reserve but is 2000 watts. What gives?

The Peavy is a switching amplifier, Class D. That more than explains its light weight especially with Tripath technology making its way into many high power applications.

I hate it when people try to compare amps on certain metrics. The difference in topologies is enough to make it a non-sequitur.

However the Parasound and Behringer are like topologies. While I'm not an EE, and do know both of these amplifiers are Class A/B (push pull) designs which would put them more in line with each other than the Peavey or even the EP2500 which is Class H.

 

[jinjuku]

The Peavy is a switching amplifier, Class D. That more than explains its light weight especially with Tripath technology making its way into many high power applications.

However the Parasound and Behringer are like topologies. While I'm not an EE, and do know both of these amplifiers are Class A/B (push pull) designs which would put them more in line with each other than the Peavey or even the EP2500 which is Class H.

I understand. But they are differing in their designs (one is on the 63volt tap, another on 100v tap). I am not sure how the math works out on bandwidth at that rate given both the difference in capacitance and their rate at which they are generated.

What I do know is that at 79dB at my sweet spot both amps perform and you would be hard pressed to tell me which is which.

If we are about talking about differences the A500 has balanced inputs... I would say given the #'s the 1000a would be a better sub amp.

 

[Pyrrho]

I could be wrong, but high 2nd order harmonics play tricks on my brain's perception in favorable ways; it gives an exaggerated sense of space, and seems to flesh out the various parts which compose the sonic image. An amp designed to produce distortion which emphasizes the second harmonic and has otherwise non-objectionable distortion spectra could indeed image differently that your average mainstream amp with better specs. Using the First Watt mentioned before, in the same room, with the same source, speakers, and layout, changing the amps did indeed change the imaging; subjectively, more depth-of-field, noticably more 3-D. It was distinct and unmistakable, if not night and day, and the only difference was the distortion characteristics of the amps. [Now cue the discussion about wheather such devices qualify as amplifiers, or are merely expensive sound processors.]

Unfortunately (or, if you're evil, fortunately) most of the gear that behaves like this is audio-jewelry class expensive, and you're stuck with the particular sonic taste of the designer of the amp, rather than accurate, linear reproduction. But this gear is out there, and some folks really dig their distortion.

But aside from amps specifically designed to imprint their own sonic signature, what you say is absolutely correct.

Back in the olden days, before solid state, it was very common to have high levels of distortion at pretty much every price point. This explains why some people will pay top dollar for almost any old tube junk. I remember owning an old tube system that made everything have a "smooth" and "mellow" quality, making Jimi Hendrix sound like Mozart (not literally, but I hope you get my meaning). It distorted everything in a manner that was not unpleasant, but it was anything but accurate reproduction of the signal input.

 

[Seth=L]

What I do know is that at 79dB at my sweet spot both amps perform and you would be hard pressed to tell me which is which.

Well hell, my Teac CR-H220 should be indistinguishable from those two at those levels.

 

[jinjuku]

Well hell, my Teac CR-H220 should be indistinguishable from those two at those levels.

Which I believe is my point. Neither the A500 or the HCA1000a can keep up with my Adcom when getting on the volume.

The amp that clips first loses. The amp that is driven into distortion first loses. 79dB is not an unreasonable listening level

 

[Seth=L]

Which I believe is my point. Neither the A500 or the HCA1000a can keep up with my Adcom when getting on the volume.

The amp that clips first loses. The amp that is driven into distortion first loses. 79dB is not an unreasonable listening level

I was confused I guess, I thought you where saying the Behringer and Parasound were besting all the other amps on your list. Sorry for the misconception.

 

[ski2xblack]

Back in the olden days, before solid state, it was very common to have high levels of distortion at pretty much every price point. This explains why some people will pay top dollar for almost any old tube junk. I remember owning an old tube system that made everything have a "smooth" and "mellow" quality, making Jimi Hendrix sound like Mozart (not literally, but I hope you get my meaning). It distorted everything in a manner that was not unpleasant, but it was anything but accurate reproduction of the signal input.

Yeah, I hear you, but given my own weakness for 2nd harmonic trickery, I am not convinced that 'accurate reproduction' equals the most 'convincingly real' reproduction. Once you get used to that prominent 2nd harmonic sweetness, amps that lack it can sound boring, lifeless.

 

[Pyrrho]

Yeah, I hear you, but given my own weakness for 2nd harmonic trickery, I am not convinced that 'accurate reproduction' equals the most 'convincingly real' reproduction. Once you get used to that prominent 2nd harmonic sweetness, amps that lack it can sound boring, lifeless.

Making Jimi Hendrix sound like Mozart is about as far from "convincingly real" as one can get. Now, if that is what you like, that is fine, but let us not fool ourselves into thinking that it is more real that way.

 

[adwilk]

Somebody had to do it...

 

[templemaners]

Somebody had to do it...

With as much as this horse has been beaten, I'm surprised there's anything left

 

[werd]

I would say that if there was a difference [audible]... then I would have to say that the capacitors must have been far undersized on one of the amplifiers, or one of the amplifiers were faulty.

Having said that, it is very unlikely that Bryston, the company that provides the longest warranty on their amplifiers in the business, would make a critical error in the design that would include capacitors of too low value or voltage. It is also not likely the amplifier is faulty.

The mind is very powerful, it can make people that aren't sick believe so strongly they are sick they will exhibit horrible symptoms of an ailment they don't have. It is by no means a stretch your mind can convince you that two sonically identical amplifiers sound entirely different.

Hello

They are identical in spec but not in sonics. The new square series amps were built and entirely influenced by the their top amp....28B. The build philosphy was to incorporate their "first to last watt" philosphy in playback.
This has changed the tone of the new 4B's considerably compared to the sst series.

It won't let me link but this all can be found on the Bryston website.

Some people prefer the sst series over the new amps. Its just their taste between to amps that basically spec the same but have different internals.