integrated amplifier advice needed, please!

[PENG]

If you really take the time to listed to a decent integrated, and compare it directly to an AV receiver operating in "pure direct" stereo mode... I have no doubt whatsoever that the integrated will trounce 90% of the AV receivers on the market.

I agree most of the time we all express our opinion only, but the above quoted is an example of what could appear to be a little stronger than just an opinion. Case in point, I have done similar comparisons (not integrated, but power amp) and was surprised by how well the AV receiver stood its ground. This is not my opinion, it is my own listening experience and I must emphasized that others experience may be entirely different so I am not going to tell anyone they will or will not hear a difference. I will not bet on either outcome neither.

IMHO, whether one can hear the difference in sound between integrated amps, separate amps, and receivers, may depend on the individual's listening environment (room acoustics), quality of the source CD/recording, CD player, loudspeakers, and his/her sense of hearing, or others, the list can go on and on.............

Sorry The13Gryphon, I was just picking an example, I guess I could have picked one from my own as well.

 

[The13thGryphon]

I agree most of the time we all express our opinion only, but the above quoted is an example of what could appear to be a little stronger than just an opinion.

I will have to admit that I could have been a bit more careful in that particular post; especially when taken alone. However, taken in context with my prior posts in this thread, where I began my very first sentence with IMHO, and did use phrases like "in my opinion" and "would tend to"; and further asked the readers to look at, and listen to, specific items themselves instead of taking my word on the issue, I think it's pretty clear that such comments are my personal opinion... my own experience... my individual belief... and nothing more.

Thanks for the moderate tone of your criticism. I'll try even harder to assure that my opinions are stated as such.

 

[PENG]

I will have to admit that I could have been a bit more careful in that particular post; especially when taken alone. However, taken in context with my prior posts in this thread, where I began my very first sentence with IMHO, and did use phrases like "in my opinion" and "would tend to"; and further asked the readers to look at, and listen to, specific items themselves instead of taking my word on the issue, I think it's pretty clear that such comments are my personal opinion... my own experience... my individual belief... and nothing more.

Thanks for the moderate tone of your criticism. I'll try even harder to assure that my opinions are stated as such.

Please note that when I said I was sorry I meant it. I did pay attention to all your posts in this thread as well as the one about the effect of break-in so I know exactly where you are coming from. I picked that out of context statement of yours simply because I was too lazy to look for a more appropriate one.

By the way, it was not easy for me to admit I could not hear too much of a difference between my receiver and my amps. I have to face the reality that it may mean my hearing is bad, although it was comforting to know that I could hear difference between speakers within the same price range, and that at least I thought I heard a subtle difference between my two amps when a preamp was used instead of the receiver. And one more excuse, may be my speakers (Veritas V2.3i) are not good enough.

 

[mtrycrafts]

.
Do me a favor and climb down off your high horse and follow your own advice. You’re statements are simply your opinions (unless and until you provide documented scientific analysis to the contrary), as are mine.

There has been many posts with a number of citations to journal papers about psychoacoustics, limitations of hearing, analysis of components, audio mags doing DBT, an on it goes. Maybe that occasion will come to post some more or repeat of those posted. Perhaps you will take the time to get them and read them, one day.
You did try hard to show your long years of connection to audio, with this experience and that one. Sure sounded like trying to show authority behind these opinions, no? And, yes, everyone has opinions. Some are better than others though. No one is immune from bias, no matter how many years of exposure they may have. I also don't see anything wrong with pointing out where ones opinion, experience may be weak or unreliable.

 

[The13thGryphon]

Please note that when I said I was sorry I meant it. I did pay attention to all your posts in this thread as well as the one about the effect of break-in so I know exactly where you are coming from. I picked that out of context statement of yours simply because I was too lazy to look for a more appropriate one.

By the way, it was not easy for me to admit I could not hear too much of a difference between my receiver and my amps. I have to face the reality that it may mean my hearing is bad, although it was comforting to know that I could hear difference between speakers within the same price range, and that at least I thought I heard a subtle difference between my two amps when a preamp was used instead of the receiver. And one more excuse, may be my speakers (Veritas V2.3i) are not good enough.

Thank you for your honesty. I do know that there are folks who do not hear differences between different amps/receivers/integrateds. Unfortunately for me, I'm not one of them. I often think that I'd be much happier if that were the case.

However, over two and a half decades of involvement with audio equipment - first selling it and later as a consumer and enthusiast - I can indeed hear differences. I'd be happy to relate a couple such experiences if anyone is interested.

Be that as it may, it is sometimes frustrating to discourse with those who hear no such differences. I have on occasion wondered whether I was in fact deluding myself... but there have been enough occasions, and several of them when my knowledge of the amp in use was "blind", and one in particular when no one in the room knew that an amp had been changed... yet I noted the difference even though the amp I believed we were listening to was sitting right there in plain sight, power indicator glowing.

Anyway, if you can't hear such differences your choices in audio gear will be much simpler, and you won't be left longing for that amp you really can't afford. Enjoy the music PENG.

 

[The13thGryphon]

There has been many posts with a number of citations to journal papers about psychoacoustics, limitations of hearing, analysis of components, audio mags doing DBT, an on it goes. Maybe that occasion will come to post some more or repeat of those posted. Perhaps you will take the time to get them and read them, one day.
You did try hard to show your long years of connection to audio, with this experience and that one. Sure sounded like trying to show authority behind these opinions, no? And, yes, everyone has opinions. Some are better than others though. No one is immune from bias, no matter how many years of exposure they may have. I also don't see anything wrong with pointing out where ones opinion, experience may be weak or unreliable.

Believe me, I have read about psychoacoustics, and about the limitations of human hearing, and about single-blind and double-blind testing. I know how falible human perceptions may be.

Yet at the same time I know that I am in fact hearing differences between amps or between integrated amps... even when I don't know which amp I'm listening to... even when my expectation is that I'm listening to a particular amp, but in reality wasn't. Even under that circumstance, where I believed I was listening to an amp I'd previously heard and very much liked, and when the person runing the demo had no idea that someone else had switched the speaker cables to a different amp... I heard something different than what I had expected to hear. The amp I'd been very impressed with earlier in the day just wasn't doing it for me! The room was the same, the speakers were the same and in the same place, the source and preamp were the same, the IC's and cables were the same... but I wasn't hearing the same quality of sound as I had just a couple hours previous.

When we investigated further the amp we thought we were listening to was not connected to the speakers... another amp was. How can I explain this other than to believe that I could/can indeed discern an audible difference?

When we switched it back there was a very discernable difference in sound. I again liked what I heard. You can argue that this switch was biased by my expectations that I would indeed like the amp I had previously chosen... but how do you explain why I was able to pick up on the fact that something was wrong... that something had changed?

There it is. I believe! Take it or leave it... but please don't tell me what I did not or could not hear.


(Edited for typo)

 

[PENG]

There it is. I believe! Take it or leave it... but please don't tell me what I did not or could not hear.

I absolutely agree with you on this one. Off the topic, I am curious how much difference do you hear between speakers. For example, I wonder if you could hear a US$4,000 worth of difference between the B&W 802D and 803D. I thought I heard enough difference myself that I am saving up for the the 802D. Edit: you may not like the B&W at all, but I am really interested in knowing if you hear a bigger difference between speakers.

 

[The13thGryphon]

I absolutely agree with you on this one. Off the topic, I am curious how much difference do you hear between speakers. For example, I wonder if you could hear a US$4,000 worth of difference between the B&W 802D and 803D. I thought I heard enough difference myself that I am saving up for the the 802D. Edit: you may not like the B&W at all, but I am really interested in knowing if you hear a bigger difference between speakers.

Yes indeed. Differences between speakers are very often quite easy to discern in my opinion. In my search for audio nirvana I've looked long and hard at speakers, and at siblings within a given speaker line. I.E., Vienna Acoustics Mozart and Beethoven, Martin Logan Aerius and Ascent, Paradigm Reference Studio 80 and Studio 100, Joseph Audio 22i and 25i, Definitive Technology 2000 and 2002, Soliloquy 5.3 and 6.3, Monitor Audio Silver 7 and Silver 9, and Magnepan 1.6QR and 3.6R.

Please pardon the long list. It is not exhaustive by any means... but I did want to make the point that I'm not speaking from one or two experiences.

I've not listened to the B&W line in the last two years, but they were high on my list of possibilities up until then. I was very carefully listening to and looking at the B&W Nautilus 802's and 803's at that time.

I really felt that there was a substantial difference between the two. In fact, I even liked the 802's better than the 801's. I like lots of bass, but I like it tight, fast, and controlled. The single large woofer of the 801's was certainly powerful, but too loose and sloppy for my taste. In my opinion, the 802's and 803's were very close in the mids and highs; given the similarity of the drivers they should be. However, the 803's seemed just a bit brighter. I attributed that to their lack of bass weight, as compared to the 802's.

I think the 802's had better low frequency extension, definition, and were tonally more accurate in the lower regions. They also had more "impact". The 803's, by comparison, seemed more lightweight in the low registers, more cluttered in the upper bass / lower mids, and again, a tiny bit brighter in the upper mids and highs. To my ears, the 802's were simply the better balanced and more musically accurate speakers.

In fact, the 802's were a part of one of the more musical and enjoyable combinations I recall from that time. The B&W 802's, biamped by a pair of Conrad-Johnson amps; a solid state MF2500 (I believe) on the bass, and a tubed MV60 on the mids and highs, were quite simply amazing. WOW!! What a wonderful combination.

Only you can say whether the difference you hear is worth a given price. Me... I would have wanted the 802's without question. You? Only you can decide.

Good hunting.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I can indeed hear differences. I'd be happy to relate a couple such experiences if anyone is interested.

Interesting claim, indeed. Yet to be demonstrated. Perhaps you have some such experience under credible DBT protocol, levels matched to 0.1dB spl, and statistically significant outcome, that can be verified by 3rd parties of credible nature, then bring it on, please. Otherwise, it is just a testimonial. I see plenty of them; not very convincing to me.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I know how falible human perceptions may be.

Yet at the same time I know that I am in fact hearing differences between amps or between integrated amps..

Well, unless you were comparing euphonic components, and didn't meet this for amps

all amplifiers having high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, and low noise floor sound exactly the same when operated at matched levels and not clipped.

historical evidence is against you:

David Rich and Peter Aczel, 'Topological Analysis of Consumer Audio Electronics: Another Approach to Show that Modern Audio Electronics are Acoustically Transparent,' 99 AES Convention, 1995, Print #4053.

Tom Nousaine, ' The Great Debate: Is Anyone Winning?' Proceedings of the AES, 8th International Conference, 1990.

Just to name a couple of references. There are more.


How can I explain this other than to believe that I could/can indeed discern an audible difference?

Well, this certainly sounds like an absolute to me!
Unless those amps didn't meet this.
all amplifiers having high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, and low noise floor sound exactly the same when operated at matched levels and not clipped.



Or, the protocol was useless as most likely it was.

There it is. I believe! Take it or leave it... but please don't tell me what I did not or could not hear.



I have no idea what you can hear or not. But, we know that your protocol was lacking from what you wrote. We have no evidence of what you can hear, especially under level matched, DBt protocols. Easy to claim, more difficult to demonstrate. I hear lots of stories, lots of claims, yet, known evidence over the past 30+ years tells us a different story:

all amplifiers having high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, and low noise floor sound exactly the same when operated at matched levels and not clipped.

Just make sure YOU can support your claims. After all, you are making claims here and evidence is, well, lacking.

 

[The13thGryphon]

all amplifiers having high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion, and low noise floor sound exactly the same when operated at matched levels and not clipped.

mtrycrafts, you sound like a broken record dude!

If the amp you are describing was the proverbial "straight wire with gain" I would agree with your statement. However, no two amps are laid out, wired, or constructed exactly alike. Amps have differing input impedances, differing output impedances, varying degrees of deviation in the audible frequency range, different levels of Total Harmonic Distortion, and differing harmonic distortion components (1st order, 2nd order, 3rd order, etc.), different signal to noise ratios, differing degrees of adherence to a linear phase response (or lack thereof) and different levels of mechanical noise.

The circuit topology of one amp differs from another. Designers make different trade-offs based upon what they believe to be important, or upon what they think is allowable within the price point they are shooting for. Component parts selected for use in circuits for a particular amp are different from others used in another similar circuit in a different brand.

Yet you are trying to tell us that all of these differences will add up to no difference in the sound that comes out of this complex circuit? Are you crazy???

But I forgot... Messers Rich, Aczel, and Nousaine are your anointed prophets. They speak, and their word is law! Do I find it difficult to believe that you would cite dissertations from people who believe the same thing you do? Of course not! They are obviously more credible... at least in your eyes.

However, their claims are no more valid for me than mine are for you.

 

[123ng]

I used to own a pair of Klipsch Forte speakers, and although I loved them dearly, they can be a tad bright... especially when driven by an amp that adds a little sizzle or glare in the high frequencies. Take it from a former Forte owner, and go with NAD, Marantz, or Arcam. You will want something musical and smooth. Detail, yes indeed... but no added emphasis in the upper regions. Therefore, although Rotel is indeed a very good brand, and will work very nicely with many speaker lines... Rotel and Klipsch are not a good match in my opinion. Also, don't worry too much about the power rating. The Forte is a 96 dB efficient speaker, it doesn't take much power to make them jump up and boogie. Especially with the NAD line, which seems to have more ability than their official power ratings would indicate.

Take a look at the NAD C372, or even the C352 (which is raking in all kinds of fantastic reviews and awards). It was just What Hi-Fi's "Product of the Year". I'll have to own up to being a bit biased toward the C352. If you read my sig below you'll note that I own one myself.

The Marantz PM7200 is discontinued, but you can still find them here and there for a great price. The newer PM7001 is just hitting the streets, and good things are already being said about it also.

As j_garcia indicated previously, Arcam is also a very nice sounding line. However, they are rather more expensive that either the Marantz or NAD, at least here in the States.

Good hunting!

The13thGryphon,

Which amp and preamp in NAD line that you would recommend?

Thank you.

 

[skrivis]

Somehow I don't think that the room made the speaker have more depth to the midrange.

That is actually one of the things that could very well be due to the listening room.

There's a basic principle of experimentation - you only change one variable at a time. Otherwise you don't know what exactly caused an observed change.

 

[skrivis]

I don't think anyone was saying that you were lying. It's just that, given the conditions, it's hard to say _what_ produced the differences you heard.

 

[skrivis]

I think what Mtry is getting to here is that people go around posting their personal experience and parading it as fact. There's nothing wrong with sharing opinions or listening experiences, but it should be very obvious as so. When trying to make any claim about "better" without a true scientific test, then all you've gotta do is say "I think" or "I believe" or "To my ears". The problem is, too many people simply post an opinion without noting it as so, and then it ends up becoming fact down the line, and that's just bad information (portrayed as such). Most people here will value another person's opinion on audio gear, so long as it stated as an opinion and not as a "fact".

I agree with this.

But there is also a problem with subjective, sighted listening tests in that it is not only the sound of the device under test that affects the outcome of the test.

It has also been shown that, under controlled test conditions, listeners cannot reliably detect differences between some kinds of components. You can speculate (John Atkinson does this) that not hearing any difference means that the test procedure is somehow flawed, but applying Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is that _there is no_ difference between the devices under test.

To my mind, a big problem with subjective testing is that it can sometimes apply only to the person who did the testing and maybe it will only apply to that person and their state of mind at the time of the test. (Or, since expectations can color the results, you may hear exactly what they did since they told you that's what they heard.) You just don't know what was going on, so the results aren't very useful when it comes time to go shopping on you own.

I participated in some tests with a few friends. When the testing was sighted, a big, expensive Mark Levinson amp sounded better than a Hafler amp. When the testing was blind, some people thought that the Hafler was better and some thought the Levinson was better. We didn't carefully match levels, and the test wasn't double blind, so take the results with a grain of salt. But what it did tell me is that our expectations can influence what we hear.

 

[skrivis]

my speakers first, before I spend more money on amps. The reason is simple, I have no trouble hearing the difference between speakers, and I know which one sounds better. The B&W 802D comes to mind, time to dream..............

Frank Van Alstine recently searched for a pair of reference loudspeakers to replace his aging B&W 801s. He listened to some of the new B&W speakers and felt that they were not worth the price. He settled on a pair of Salk HT-3s. http://www.salksound.com/ht3.html

Frank has been in the business for a lot of years. He has a good set of ears, and he's pretty sensitive to value for money. If he says that a US$4000 pair of speakers is better than a US$20000 pair, I tend to believe him.

 

[skrivis]

mtrycrafts, you sound like a broken record dude!

If the amp you are describing was the proverbial "straight wire with gain" I would agree with your statement. However, no two amps are laid out, wired, or constructed exactly alike. Amps have differing input impedances, differing output impedances, varying degrees of deviation in the audible frequency range, different levels of Total Harmonic Distortion, and differing harmonic distortion components (1st order, 2nd order, 3rd order, etc.), different signal to noise ratios, differing degrees of adherence to a linear phase response (or lack thereof) and different levels of mechanical noise.

The circuit topology of one amp differs from another. Designers make different trade-offs based upon what they believe to be important, or upon what they think is allowable within the price point they are shooting for. Component parts selected for use in circuits for a particular amp are different from others used in another similar circuit in a different brand.

Yet you are trying to tell us that all of these differences will add up to no difference in the sound that comes out of this complex circuit? Are you crazy???

But I forgot... Messers Rich, Aczel, and Nousaine are your anointed prophets. They speak, and their word is law! Do I find it difficult to believe that you would cite dissertations from people who believe the same thing you do? Of course not! They are obviously more credible... at least in your eyes.

However, their claims are no more valid for me than mine are for you.

One would think that all of these difference would produce a difference in the sound of the components.

However, careful tests have shown that there is no perceived difference. It's pretty hard to argue with that.

Personally, I prefer electronics from a certain maker, based partly on the maker's stated design philosophy, partly on my trust of the maker, and partly on my experiences with the maker's equipment. However, I have not done any proper controlled testing of this, and it's simply my opinion that the equipment sounds good. I think I can make a case for this equipment being fairly inexpensive (although this is still relative), being built well, and lasting a long time.

But without a bona fide DBT, we're left with opinion as to how it sounds and whether it actually sounds different or not.

 

[j_garcia]

While good discussion is never a bad thing, as always with threads like this it seems to remain a stalemate. I don't expect to convince anyone to understand what I hear, nor take it as law, and I also don't care to feel as though I have to defend myself for having an opinion. Think of it this way - you "DBT/numbers" guys are about as convincing to me as I am to you.

 

[Nick250]

Well it seems to me you would not have to defend yourself all if you did not make controversial statements such as room acoustics would not be the likely explanation of Studio 20s sounding different in two different rooms in two different houses but different amps/receivers would be the real explanation it instead. Maybe I maybe wrong but I think there are a number of folks on both sides of the subjective/objective fence who would question that conclusion to some degree.

 

[j_garcia]

I don't disagree that room is a factor, but I can still go to shops and listen to speakers and tell if the midrange is any good. By your reasoning, neither you nor I can ever go listen to speakers in a shop because it tells us absolutely nothing. In fact, his room and mine have more similarities than most auditioning rooms in the local high end shops, so I do believe our impressions were completely reasonable.