New receiver or new power amp?

[wire]

It surely has an intelligently designed power supply. I read the user's manual for the Cinema Grand 7. It seems like a very well design amp, light weight yet extremely powerful. It has a unique feature, a current source output that apparently will give a tube like sound. Have you tried that yet? Does yours have that Joules meter on the front panel? If it does, you can see how many joules your amp is consuming at any moment. That's is a lovely feature, great looking too, just like a McIntosh.

I think I am going to check out one of their Signature 600~2 stereo amplifier before settling on the much more expensive Krell or Classe.

Bob Carver still Rocks .

 

[PENG]

If i had a choice between seeing & hearing a peice of music being performed live certianly i would chose the peice over my or any hifi rig but comparing an orchestra to a live amplified concert is not a fair comparison,were talking about 2 different types of live music,i was speaking of amplified live music which is mostly garbage for sq & that is not the sound im striving for.

I hope you dont think im delusional about my rig being able to compete with the likes of great orchestras or ensambles because it cant & never will but it's sq will best any amplified live event ive ever heard.

I understood, that's why I mentioned live orchestras.

 

[PENG]

Bob Carver still Rocks .

Well, he's a physicist.

 

[Seth=L]

Well, he's a physicist.

I wish I still had my Carver.

 

[cfrizz]

I'm amazed at how they managed to build such powerful amps & yet make them so lightweight! As for the current source output, probably not, I just have the IC's plugged into the non balanced plugs. Yes I have the Joules meter, but you will be disappointed to learn that when off it is all the way over to the left. when on it moves all the way over to the right & stays there!
It's not meant to bounce around.

It surely has an intelligently designed power supply. I read the user's manual for the Cinema Grand 7. It seems like a very well design amp, light weight yet extremely powerful. It has a unique feature, a current source output that apparently will give a tube like sound. Have you tried that yet? Does yours have that Joules meter on the front panel? If it does, you can see how many joules your amp is consuming at any moment. That's is a lovely feature, great looking too, just like a McIntosh.

I think I am going to check out one of their Signature 600~2 stereo amplifier before settling on the much more expensive Krell or Classe.

 

[mtrycrafts]

'in all my years of reading reviews and testimonials, and listining to people talk about of audio equipment, no one to my knowledge had said, or wrote that a reciever sounded better than a stand alone power amp'
.

That is not surprising at all. Most likely all were biased observations. And testimonials, what would you expect from them?
Did any say they couldn't tell a difference when operated withing their design limits? I bet that didn't happen either.
Besides, the question is audible differences, not one sounding better or worse than the other. That has to happen first.

 

[cfrizz]

I am constantly swinging back & forth on this very subject. There is nothing wrong with my Denon & sounds great. I don't know how much difference going to a prepro will make to justify the cost of one. So I waffle back & forth on the idea!

You ever think about upgrading to a Sunfire III Processor or higher . I hear from the Carver forum , the new digital hologram is outstanding .
I run Sonic Holigram on 2 of my systems and SDA on the other .

 

[Nick250]

I am constantly swinging back & forth on this very subject. There is nothing wrong with my Denon & sounds great. I don't know how much difference going to a prepro will make to justify the cost of one. So I waffle back & forth on the idea!

The only justification for the upgrade is "toy factor" or "hobby factor" IMNSHO, not SQ. I have no problem with toys, I have many myself. For many years I blew so much money on motorcycles that it bogles the mind. BTW, have I given you my room treatment lecture yet?

Nick

 

[RickT]

... Sorry RickT, but most of us have had the opportunity to try out some different equipment and to be completely honest with you I was quite disappointed when I got my new amp for $600 a few years back and didn't notice any difference in the sound ...

The reality is that EVERY component between the source and the speakers inclusive has an effect on SQ i.e. CD player or whatever, interconnects, pre-pro, more interconnects, amp, speaker wire & speakers ...

No print article or scope is going to prove or disprove that too you or anyone else, only your ears can tell you whether or not there is a difference. IMHO having a decent amp is important, but in the situation you describe the cause of not hearing anything BETTER as opposed to being able to turn it up LOUDER may be the result of the fact that the amp in question was no better quality then the amp section in the receiver it replaced ... or ... the problem may stem from the fact that the amp wasn't the weakest link in the chain. SQ reaching the ears can be held back by the weakest link in the chain and improving other components may have little or no effect until the weakest link is replaced. Additionally, different components work differently together. For example some particular interconnects or speaker wire may work well with some pre-pro, amp and speakers or they may add nothing at all i.e. there is a synergistic effect between components or a lack thereof.

 

[highfihoney]

The reality is that EVERY component between the source and the speakers inclusive has an effect on SQ i.e. CD player or whatever, interconnects, pre-pro, more interconnects, amp, speaker wire & speakers ...

No print article or scope is going to prove or disprove that too you or anyone else, only your ears can tell you whether or not there is a difference

Actually the differences between equipment can be seen using scopes & such the trick here is to get the no differences can be heard followers to use such equipment alongside with the dbt durring such testing,as far as im concerned measuring equipment should always be used when comparing any component weather it be speakers,source or amplifiers,ears are decieving not only in hearing differences but also when not hearing differences.If a difference in any component can be seen & measured in alot of cases it can be heard & will have an effect on overall sound.

My opinion on hearing differences in components & dbt's & the printed articles on them is that without taking measurements & posting the data alongside with listener reports is that all findings are incomplete & invalid no matter weather differences are heard or not,the sound that is being heard by our ears should always be measured in order for a fair evaluation.

 

[RickT]

While I don't disagree that some differences can be SEEN using totally objective equipment to measure what is or is not there ... I am not a believer that every difference that can be HEARD can also necessarilly be seen i.e. measured. I'm also not convinced that everything that can be measured is necessarilly better.

Frankly the only differences I really care about are the ones that I can hear when I A/B equipment ... preferably in conditions where I don't actually know which flavor of some particular component I'm listening too. It is simple enough for enthusiasts ( no I'll never be an audiophile ) to get together and perform their own blind tests, independantly record the results and then compare notes. IMO it's fun and educational as well.

Everyone has to get off the train where it makes sense to them personally either from an SQ, dollars and cents, WAF or whatever point of view. For lots of folks it's sufficient to ride that train to their local brick and mortar store, pick up a receiver and a couple of "cubes" and be done with it. In some ways I envy those who are satisfied to quit there. For others it's a life time journey with lots of frequent stops along the way and no real destination and while I do change equipment from time to time I don't really belong in this latter classification either.

 

[RickT]

Besides, the question is audible differences, not one sounding better or worse than the other.

 

[mtrycrafts]

While I don't disagree that some differences can be SEEN using totally objective equipment to measure what is or is not there ... I am not a believer that every difference that can be HEARD can also necessarilly be seen i.e. measured. .

Do you mean that you or some can hear what cannot be measured?

 

[mtrycrafts]

The reality is that EVERY component between the source and the speakers inclusive has an effect on SQ i.e. CD player or whatever, interconnects, pre-pro, more interconnects, amp, speaker wire & speakers ...
.

The real issue is whether the ear and the brain is sensitive enough to hear the small differences that components have.
In reality, the ear/brain has real limitations of its capability and many audiophiles think it is practically unlimited. Modern, well designed components are transparent.

 

[mtrycrafts]

It cannot sound better or worse if there is no audible differences, right?
So, first, one must establish that fact.

 

[RickT]

First ? ... why ? ... by what means ? ... some other piece of electronic gear ? ... If so then how do I interpret a difference in some small wiggle on a scope for one piece of gear versus another and is that some how going to tell me which one is better ? ...

If it shows differently on the scope but I can't hear a difference then it makes no difference to me ... If there's no discernable difference on a scope but I can still hear a difference then it does ...

If you want to select gear based on what a scope tells you ought to be able to be heard then by all means do so ... Personally I have no interest in going that route ... The reasons as stated above are self evident.

 

[highfihoney]

If you want to select gear based on what a scope tells you ought to be able to be heard then by all means do so ... Personally I have no interest in going that route ... The reasons as stated above are self evident.

Ok rick you may have missed my point, im not one that clings to dbt's or the belief that all modern gear that is not malfunctioning sounds the same in fact im the polar oposite & i do believe that most gear sounds different with some sounding extremely different,i also dont measure gear to determine what gear i'll keep & what i'll sell but since i have gear that can show differences i like to use it sometimes.

My point about measuring gear is for the people who would have you believe that what your hearing is some sighted trick of the mind & that your findings are invalid because you did not test the gear in a way they see fit which is allmost exclusively a dbt,i also pointed out taking measurements for those who have tried different gear & have heard nothing,without any testing neither side to this subject has more of a valid point than the other & dbt's done without measurements being taken in the room are not only unscientific but invalid.

How can any report of no differences to be heard be valid without some kind of evidence to back it up,dbt's are not evidence only the end result of a faulty testing method.

 

[mtrycrafts]

If so then how do I interpret a difference in some small wiggle on a scope for one piece of gear versus another and is that some how going to tell me which one is better ? ...

That small wiggle tells you that it has a wiggle, not that it is audibly different compared to that other component.

... If there's no discernable difference on a scope but I can still hear a difference then it does ...

Maybe the scope is looking at the wrong issue? Maybe and most likely your protocol is flawed, hence the unreliable perception.
Trust your ears too much and you will be chasing that pot of non-existing put of gold. But, that is also allowed. I rather not do that.

 

[no. 5]

as Jamie Hyneman once said "when will the fun ever stop"

That is not surprising at all. Most likely all were biased observations. And testimonials, what would you expect from them?
Did any say they couldn't tell a difference when operated withing their design limits? I bet that didn't happen either.

ok, mtrycrafts; post #76 (http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=228980&postcount=76) was just my two cents, I have not done enough DBT's to give my personal impression if all amplifiers sound the same or not (but I'm gussing you have).

for the record, I think that one well desined and manufactured amplifier will sound transparent, and even identical to another good amp, however, I think there are elements of an amplifiers design that can make one sound diffrent than another, and whether or not one amp sounds defrent than another amp is up to the designer.

refrences:
ABX Double Blind Test Results: Power Amplifiers
Amplifier Sound - What Are The Influences?

Besides, the question is audible differences, not one sounding better or worse than the other.

isn't sounding better or worse an audible difference?

 

[zumbo]

The reality is that EVERY component between the source and the speakers inclusive has an effect on SQ i.e. interconnects, more interconnects, speaker wire.

Anyone? I mean, anyone? Does it have to be me?