Can you hear a difference in Sound between Audio Amplifiers?

[pewternhrata]

Do amps from ATI, Parasound, Anthem, McIntosh, Mark Levinson, Lexicon, Cary Audio, etc., sound better than Emotiva or Pro Crown amps or amps inside AVRs?

This got me thinking, do some amps from parasound sound better than other amps from parasound? Same as rotel vs rotel, emotiva vs emotiva, Denon vs Denon and so on...with on-board processing...yes, with different spec amps...yes.
The issue I see come up in these debates is that it's highly unlikely that people are compairing amps with the same specs. Different amps will always sound different than the other. Of course the $2k rotel will sound better than the $100 Sony out of the box. Put just the amp section of the rotel vs the sony, id put $ on the rotel, but mostly bc the rotel will (well most likely be) more efficient in delivering power. However let's take a Sony ES model up against the rotel and I'd bet I couldn't pick them apart.

 

[Art Vandelay]

The 'sound' of an amplifier is somewhat determined by the architecture, so brands that base their designs on a specific topology tend to sound more similar.

When I was doing some design work a while ago I found that altering the HF compensation method resulted in an audible alteration of the 'sound', but I was unable to measure any change in normal parameters such as frequency response and harmonic distortion etc. The change in sound mostly affected the high frequency character, but it was possible to dial up anything from a fast, dry, crisp treble to a very smooth sweet treble. After quite a bit of listening I arrived at a combination of compensation methods that resulted in a 'just right' treble that was neither too dry nor too sweet.

I do have some theories to explain what might be happening, but no solid conclusions as yet.

 

[PENG]

The 'sound' of an amplifier is somewhat determined by the architecture, so brands that base their designs on a specific topology tend to sound more similar.

When I was doing some design work a while ago I found that altering the HF compensation method resulted in an audible alteration of the 'sound', but I was unable to measure any change in normal parameters such as frequency response and harmonic distortion etc. The change in sound mostly affected the high frequency character, but it was possible to dial up anything from a fast, dry, crisp treble to a very smooth sweet treble. After quite a bit of listening I arrived at a combination of compensation methods that resulted in a 'just right' treble that was neither too dry nor too sweet.

I do have some theories to explain what might be happening, but no solid conclusions as yet.

If you are in the process of tweaking your own design piece, or for a company, then of course you could vary the sound to your liking by such tweaking, at some point during the process. Even then, in such cases, what is "just right" for you may not be right for others so if you were to sell it to the market you would want to tweak it, measure it, and finalize your tweak according to the measurements. If not, then that product won't be for people who would rather trust verifiable specs, not your personal preference.

With due respect, I must also say that if it is something that simple, manufacturers would have figured that out and done it already. I think you can only convince the objective group by passing at least some properly conducted blind comparison tests, that there is audible difference between say for example, a Byrston 4B SST, 4BSST3, McIntosh MC452, ATI1802, 8002, Halo A21, Monolith 2X200W, Emotiva XPA-2, UPA-200 and my old Denon AVR-3805, or my very old Marantz SM-7, when all used well below their clipping point even during peaks of the test sample music. The key is "used well below.....", not just "all amps sound them same.." because we already know that they don't.

 

[Art Vandelay]

If you are in the process of tweaking your own design piece, or for a company, then of course you could vary the sound to your liking by such tweaking, at some point during the process. Even then, in such cases, what is "just right" for you may not be right for others so if you were to sell it to the market you would want to tweak it, measure it, and finalize your tweak according to the measurements. If not, then that product won't be for people who would rather trust verifiable specs, not your personal preference.

With due respect, I must also say that if it is something that simple, manufacturers would have figured that out and done it already. I think you can only convince the objective group by passing at least some properly conducted blind comparison tests, that there is audible difference between say for example, a Byrston 4B SST, 4BSST3, McIntosh MC452, ATI1802, 8002, Halo A21, Monolith 2X200W, Emotiva XPA-2, UPA-200 and my old Denon AVR-3805, or my very old Marantz SM-7, when all used well below their clipping point even during peaks of the test sample music. The key is "used well below.....", not just "all amps sound them same.." because we already know that they don't.

On your first point, I agree that the subjective flavour approach is definitely a personal choice, but I would add that my ultimate objective is to not hear the amplifier, and to that end that's what my tweaking achieved for me. If it was too dry or too sweet there was an identifiable character that was apparent regardless of the recording itself, whereas the 'just right' tuning achieved the objective of no apparent signature. Of course the rest of my system can and does affect the tuning too, so I can't definitely say that the tuning is correct, but hearing many different brands of amplifiers in my system, and also hearing my own amplifier in other systems does give me some confidence.

On your second point, firstly I wouldn't say that it's "simple", but would add that most if not all designers who are also audiophiles have some sort of end result in mind. Mostly it's the same as mine but often a designer wants a slight signature in line with his personal preference, so that his amplifiers are identifiable and appreciated by discerning ears. Of course this is sometimes done purely for marketing purposes too. Fwiw, Dan D'Agostino likes his amps to be slightly on the warm side of neutral, while most others I've spoken to prefer absolute neutrality.

Blind testing isn't always necessary. I've had quite a few people sit and listen to my amplifiers while I've switched in and out the various changes and without failure they hear the same as I hear, and thus far have all preferred the same end result as me too.

Fwiw, all of my amplifier designs are very low in harmonic and IM distortion. Typically below 0.001% from dc to >10kHz at all power levels below clipping, although anything below 0.01% is really not audible at any confidence level in my experience.

 

[3db]

[QUOTE="Art Vandelay, post: 1224815, member: ]

Blind testing isn't always necessary. I've had quite a few people sit and listen to my amplifiers while I've switched in and out the various changes and without failure they hear the same as I hear, and thus far have all preferred the same end result as me too.
[/QUOTE]
Listening tests that are sighted are filled with subjective influences that determines what we hear. To deny this is saying your not human. I put no value behind sighted listening tests when it comes to amplifiers and digital sources because even my moods influence what I hear. To this point, there are times when listening to mysic that things sound off. A few days later, I can listen to my system with the same source and am totally blown back at what I'm hearing. The only difference between the two times was my mood.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

"So you feel "perfect hearing" is required to discern audio component Sound Quality? I disagree." At no point did I suggest this, so therefore we are actually, in fact, in agreement.

Which Studio/location is used, the mike you use, which type, where it is positioned, which pre amp, if necessary you use, which desk and monitors you use, which take you select, the storage medium, sample rate and bit depth, are just some of the many, many choices which have a bearing on the "dry" mix and no it is not the same as you "being in the room" and simply listening. You are not an impartial listener, but neither is the captured result, since it is the consequences of dozens pre-arranged choices. What you do after the initial capture, splicing multiple takes, clipping, editing, re-pitching, Eq-ing, filtering, etc also has an impact taking it further from the origin. The exact same process is also true in video/film production. None of which concludes that the "original" is the best/superior result of the outcome, simply a base from which to start.

Whilst we endeavor for a semblance of consistency by selecting from a limiting selection and controlling what is controllable, no two takes will ever be the same. The final result we actually consume is in part, selected by our bias of other peoples numerous choices/bias which we find pleasing/appropriate. Similarly our homes are filled with the hardware/Software which are other peoples choices that we find pleasing and obviously could afford.

I do not feel perfect hearing is required for anything, or for that matter perfect vision. All judgments are inherently subjective and "perfect" is an aspiration not a criteria for enjoyment or consumption. Preferring A over B is simply a choice/bias and in no way precludes an alternative view. My cat has better hearing than either of us but he doesn't get the credit card when a new toy is in the offing

Yamaha ns10, famously panned, incredibly bad hifi speakers, pretty much universally used in mixing studios for decades, says a lot... "The thing is if it sounded good on those monitors, then it was going to sound good on most things," Alan Moulder

The question was addressed to another poster, so I'm not sure why you replied that "at no point did I suggest this".

RE: Yamaha NS10's

The were used as a "check mix" to insure the product would sound good on mid-fi systems. Similarly studios also checked the mix with a pair of Auratone speakers ... a $79 single box that mimicked the sonics of tabletop radios and cheap portables. Neither were used as primary monitors in any serious commercial-quality studio.

Auratone specs:
+/- 3dB 200~12,5KHz
89db 2.83v/1m
8ohms 400Hz
5" paper cone in a 6.5" cube

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

This got me thinking, do some amps from parasound sound better than other amps from parasound? Same as rotel vs rotel, emotiva vs emotiva, Denon vs Denon and so on...with on-board processing...yes, with different spec amps...yes.
The issue I see come up in these debates is that it's highly unlikely that people are compairing amps with the same specs. Different amps will always sound different than the other. Of course the $2k rotel will sound better than the $100 Sony out of the box. Put just the amp section of the rotel vs the sony, id put $ on the rotel, but mostly bc the rotel will (well most likely be) more efficient in delivering power. However let's take a Sony ES model up against the rotel and I'd bet I couldn't pick them apart.

One thing a lot of guys (especially newbies) don’t realize is that even within the same brand, not all the amps have the same voltage gain.

So one model (Brand 1, Model A) may have a voltage gain of 28dB, while another model (Brand 1, Model B) may have a gain of 32-34dB.

Also a lot of dedicated amps have a gain of 32dB, while a lot of AVR have a gain of 28dB.

So the Amps may sound 4dB louder than the AVR with the same Master Volume!

So do they sound “better” only because they sound louder and seem more “Dynamic” and “Open”?

 

[M Code]

A clever, experienced amplifier designer can make an amplifier sound differently...
Here is an interesting read about Bob Carver..

https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge

Just my $0.02..

 

[Art Vandelay]

Listening tests that are sighted are filled with subjective influences that determines what we hear. To deny this is saying your not human. I put no value behind sighted listening tests when it comes to amplifiers and digital sources because even my moods influence what I hear. To this point, there are times when listening to mysic that things sound off. A few days later, I can listen to my system with the same source and am totally blown back at what I'm hearing. The only difference between the two times was my mood.

You've misunderstood what I was saying, which was that other people have assessed and heard the same as me without me indicating to them in any way what I heard or what they should be hearing. I'm not disputing that mood and / or visual stimulus can affect our perception, but my test specifically kept those variables constant, so they could not have contaminated the result.

 

[mtrycrafts]

The 'sound' of an amplifier is somewhat determined by the architecture, so brands that base their designs on a specific topology tend to sound more similar.

...

"Topological Analysis of Consumer Audio Electronics: Another Approach to Show that MOdern Audio Electronics are Acoustically Transparent", Rich, David and Aczel, Peter, 99 AES Convention, 1995, Print #405
Dr David Rich would certainly disagree with you on that premise.

 

[mtrycrafts]

You've misunderstood what I was saying, which was that other people have assessed and heard the same as me without me indicating to them in any way what I heard or what they should be hearing. I'm not disputing that mood and / or visual stimulus can affect our perception, but my test specifically kept those variables constant, so they could not have contaminated the result.

Yes, but your test protocol was flawed to begin with so the feedback from your guests is meaningless.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
So the Amps may sound 4dB louder than the AVR with the same Master Volume!

...

Oh, but that is not how a proper comparison works.
And historical published DBts would show them all sounding differently then; they don't show that.

 

[mtrycrafts]

[QUOTE="Art Vandelay, post: 1224815, member: ]
.... A few days later, I can listen to my system with the same source and am totally blown back at what I'm hearing. The only difference between the two times was my mood.

And time and perhaps the brain tricks play.

 

[3db]

And time and perhaps the brain tricks play.

Most definitely, my brain was playing tricks. I thought for sure I had that implied.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Most definitely, my brain was playing tricks. I thought for sure I had that implied.

Well, perhaps. I would put mood into a conscious state of event. But, I am not a shrink or a psych.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Yes, but your test protocol was flawed to begin with so the feedback from your guests is meaningless.

Not to me it isn't. If my guests all reliably tell me that config 1 is drier and brighter than config 2 (for example) but don't know that's what I'm hearing too, then as far as I'm concerned it validates what I'm hearing.

"Topological Analysis of Consumer Audio Electronics: Another Approach to Show that MOdern Audio Electronics are Acoustically Transparent", Rich, David and Aczel, Peter, 99 AES Convention, 1995, Print #405
Dr David Rich would certainly disagree with you on that premise.

Or maybe not, because I don't disagree with him.

Unless of course his definition of 'transparent' is perfection.

 

[PENG]

Not to me it isn't. If my guests all reliably tell me that config 1 is drier and brighter than config 2 (for example) but don't know that's what I'm hearing too, then as far as I'm concerned it validates what I'm hearing.



Or maybe not, because I don't disagree with him.

Unless of course his definition of 'transparent' is perfection.

The thread is getting too long now people often forgot what was said in earlier posts. In your case it is believable because your were the architect and designed yours in such way that you could make them sound different, like Bob Carver.

However, if your design is really good, once you finished adjusting everything to make the dut as transparent as the best out there (in terms of transparency), then it should sound the same as the example amps that I listed when used well below it's limits.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The thread is getting too long now people often forgot what was said in earlier posts.

It perpetually goes around and around.

Each side says the same thing over and over again- sometimes slightly altering the verbiage and sometimes verbatim.

This thread may still be around 20 years from now.

 

[PENG]

It perpetually goes around and around.

Each side says the same thing over and over again- sometimes slightly altering the verbiage and sometimes verbatim.

This thread may still be around 20 years from now.

Just like some tax bill debate..

 

[jsrtheta]

A clever, experienced amplifier designer can make an amplifier sound differently...
Here is an interesting read about Bob Carver..

https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge

Just my $0.02..

There's a lot to that story that Stereophile won't tell you. Carver's amps sounded like all others, except those he tweaked to sound different. But he did that to show it could be done, not because he thought deviating from good design was desirable, nor that he thoughts well-designed amps do, or should, sound different from each other.