Pro-amps vs HT amps?

[fmw]

Before you guys post, you should REALLLY read the post properly in which you're replying to. Here, I'll put it in bold. It'll be like an audiophile pop-up book.

"Uh, no. Power is power. It doesn't matter what the amp is made off, etc etc. 200 watt home and vs 200 watt pro amp with every output spec similar = SAME SOUND."

SheepStar

The ability of the power supply to provide current to the output stage is not a figure you will normally find in output specs. Output specs are steady state measurements and don't define how the amplifier handles transients. No need to put it in bold. I got it the first time.

 

[fmw]

The only proper way to determine differences in amplifiers is by measuring the output from the speaker with each amplifier,done this way differences will show up .

But..............can you hear a difference

I don't agree entirely. While I think sighted listening tests are meaningless (actually, I know they are meaningless,) I'm comfortable with properly administered blind tests with the proper level matching etc. etc. Measurements are good but blind testing is also good. Only subjective listening tests are bad.

 

[highfihoney]

"Uh, no. Power is power. It doesn't matter what the amp is made off, etc etc. 200 watt home and vs 200 watt pro amp with every output spec similar = SAME SOUND."

SheepStar

Hi sheep, long time no talk,no power is not power,on many occasions this forum has discussed this & while many believe all like amps sound the same this is not always a truth & is easily proven,we've also went over the process for the average hobbiest to see the differences in sound between two different amplifiers using a spectrum analyzer.

An analyzer with memory will show the different signatures between two different amplifiers running the same set of speakers,then it all boils down to the good ole stand by "but can you hear a difference".

For what its worth i can take 2 like amplifiers with the same set of speakers,set up the analyzer to mic the speaker response from a fixed position,play both amps & save the readings into memory then compare the two readings,when a comparison is done differences are easy to see.

Differences may or may not be heard but they are there.

 

[highfihoney]

I don't agree entirely. While I think sighted listening tests are meaningless (actually, I know they are meaningless,) I'm comfortable with properly administered blind tests with the proper level matching etc. etc. Measurements are good but blind testing is also good. Only subjective listening tests are bad.

IMO the only thing any DBT will prove is that the human memory is crap when it comes to auditory memory,my point on DBT's & how useless they are is not to prove that one brand amp is superior to another or sounds better,i'll leave that decision up to the individual,my point is that differences in the way amplifiers will perform/sound do exist & with a little help from measuring devices they can be seen,no human memory is required.

Testing amps with dummy loads & test tones is useless in real life applications,its the speaker that will determine where & at what point each amp will not sound the same,also different (matching) gain levels on the amps will produce different results.

Two amps might very well have the same signature at a fixed level but chances are that they will not have the same signature when several different levels are matched,there will be a point where differences show up & human hearing & memory is not sufficient to show these differences.

 

[fmw]

Two amps might very well have the same signature at a fixed level but chances are that they will not have the same signature when several different levels are matched,there will be a point where differences show up & human hearing & memory is not sufficient to show these differences.

OK. We disagree. At least I have the comfort of being in the majority opinion.

 

[mike c]

OK. We disagree. At least I have the comfort of being in the majority opinion.

that would depend on which forum you are in ...

birds of a flock, feather together?

 

[wire]

Uh, no. Power is power. It doesn't matter what the amp is made off, etc etc. 200 watt home and vs 200 watt pro amp with every output spec similar = SAME SOUND.

SheepStar

I don't know ?
Compare a Bryston 4b vs a Carver TFM35 , totally different sound and both are 250 x 2 rms . Then try a Tube amp VS those 2 .
Clean Power is always a good thing and all 3 amps will do that , but are designed , sound different and made in differnt countries .

 

[fmw]

I don't know ?
Compare a Bryston 4b vs a Carver TFM35 , totally different sound and both are 250 x 2 rms . Then try a Tube amp VS those 2 .
Clean Power is always a good thing and all 3 amps will do that , but are designed , sound different and made in differnt countries .

Totally? Not subtley or maybe?

 

[Nuglets]

One plays the country western and the other plays rap. That's no subtle difference!

 

[wire]

Totally? Not subtley or maybe?

I tryed all 3 in my Bedroom , on the same speakers and same Pre (CT7) .
May personal fav is the tube amp . Love the soft soundstage and very open , perfect for my bedroom ( my girlfreind also prefers it ) .
I would like to test all 3 on my main 2 channel system ( Bryston powers it ) , the room is very large , but its alot of work and i need alot of time , the tube amp and Bryston are 50 Ibs + , the Carver is alot easier on my back to move .
By the way , the Bryston is a Pro 4b ( so it pertains to the original post )

 

[fmw]

I tryed all 3 in my Bedroom , on the same speakers and same Pre (CT7) .
May personal fav is the tube amp . Love the soft soundstage and very open , perfect for my bedroom ( my girlfreind also prefers it ) .
I would like to test all 3 on my main 2 channel system ( Bryston powers it ) , the room is very large , but its alot of work and i need alot of time , the tube amp and Bryston are 50 Ibs + , the Carver is alot easier on my back to move .
By the way , the Bryston is a Pro 4b ( so it pertains to the original post )

OK, I'll take your answer as maybe. Amplifiers don't have a soundstage. Rooms do and speaker placements within rooms do. "openness" is a term that doesn't describe anything meaningful to me. To me the term would tend to imply a frequency response peak in the midrange and a measurement might show just that. The tube amp is very likely a higher distorter than the solid state amps. It also may reduce the amplitude of high frequencies giving it a "warm sound." When I was into high end audio, I fooled around with tubes a lot. In fact I sold tubes for audio on the internet for a few years.

I had one tube amp (made by Audio Research) that was very accurate. It was really well designed. It had an amazingly flat frequency response for a tube amp and distortion was way below audibility. The problem was that, in blind listening tests, it sounded the same as solid state amps. That isn't a bad thing. However, the idea of having a tube amp is to have "tube amp sound" and the Audio Research didn't have it. It was plain old accurate. I've listened to all kinds of lesser tube amps that displayed audible distortion and frquency response curves that curved. They certainly sounded different from accurate solid state amps and that sound was easily explained with the measurements.

I would be willing to bet that, if you conducted properly administered blind listening tests between the two solid state amps, they would prove to sound the same since they are both well made units with good specifications. Not totally different. Not subtley different. Not different at all. I would also bet that, based on my interpretation of your description, your tube amp would have a mid range bulge in the frequency response curve. In other words, I would bet that it isn't accurate. You may like the sound but you can get that sound any number of other ways such as with an equalizer. It doesn't take tubes to give you tube sound.

 

[Sheep]

I tryed all 3 in my Bedroom , on the same speakers and same Pre (CT7) .
May personal fav is the tube amp . Love the soft soundstage and very open , perfect for my bedroom ( my girlfreind also prefers it ) .
I would like to test all 3 on my main 2 channel system ( Bryston powers it ) , the room is very large , but its alot of work and i need alot of time , the tube amp and Bryston are 50 Ibs + , the Carver is alot easier on my back to move .
By the way , the Bryston is a Pro 4b ( so it pertains to the original post )

Did you do this blind? You're taking my previous statement and skewing it. All of you. The Behringer A500 is a perfect example. Just because it's a pro amp, does not mean it is inferior to a similar home amp with similar build and specifications. I really don't know why I'm arguing.. you guys can go blow your money on fluff.

SheepStar

 

[wire]

OK, I'll take your answer as maybe. Amplifiers don't have a soundstage. Rooms do and speaker placements within rooms do. "openness" is a term that doesn't describe anything meaningful to me. To me the term would tend to imply a frequency response peak in the midrange and a measurement might show just that. The tube amp is very likely a higher distorter than the solid state amps. It also may reduce the amplitude of high frequencies giving it a "warm sound." When I was into high end audio, I fooled around with tubes a lot. In fact I sold tubes for audio on the internet for a few years.

I had one tube amp (made by Audio Research) that was very accurate. It was really well designed. It had an amazingly flat frequency response for a tube amp and distortion was way below audibility. The problem was that, in blind listening tests, it sounded the same as solid state amps. That isn't a bad thing. However, the idea of having a tube amp is to have "tube amp sound" and the Audio Research didn't have it. It was plain old accurate. I've listened to all kinds of lesser tube amps that displayed audible distortion and frquency response curves that curved. They certainly sounded different from accurate solid state amps and that sound was easily explained with the measurements.

I would be willing to bet that, if you conducted properly administered blind listening tests between the two solid state amps, they would prove to sound the same since they are both well made units with good specifications. Not totally different. Not subtley different. Not different at all. I would also bet that, based on my interpretation of your description, your tube amp would have a mid range bulge in the frequency response curve. In other words, I would bet that it isn't accurate. You may like the sound but you can get that sound any number of other ways such as with an equalizer. It doesn't take tubes to give you tube sound.

The upper midrange in the tube and high end is much different than the Bryston , The bryston is a lively sound to it , the voice seems to go deep in the soundstage and very distant compared to the tube amp , the Tube amp the Voice is seems more smooth and with Jazz the symbols and horns not as harsh at lower volumes ( i love it ) , much nicer sound ( im a Salsa dancer and listin to alot of that type of music , but do various ballroom also and play , I also go to Cuba alot and listin to alot of live music , the tube seems to mimic the sound much better at lower volumes , the Bryston at higher volumes wins ) .
For Rock like Iron Maiden , the Bryston is where its at . I was never a believer in tubes until lately and won this tube amp . Now i know what the fuss was about .
The Carver seems to be in between the 2 . I know about that little chip Bob Carver uses in the newer Sunfires and older Carver amps . Its a softer amp than the Bryston , but the Bryston has more Pop to it in the low end and the highend in Carver is a totally diferent animal closer to the tube amp .
I like all 3 amps and lucky enough to have the equipment i have , but the Carver got Banished into my HT system as a Center channel .
I have a old M240 Carver amp in my truck , Wow , cleanest car amp ive ever heard and lots of power to boot . I listen to music almost 24/7 .

 

[wire]

Did you do this blind? You're taking my previous statement and skewing it. All of you. The Behringer A500 is a perfect example. Just because it's a pro amp, does not mean it is inferior to a similar home amp with similar build and specifications. I really don't know why I'm arguing.. you guys can go blow your money on fluff.

SheepStar

Im not saying my Bryston is inferior , this thing is a work horse and ive owned it for over 20 years with out a problem ( and i ran it hard in it's early years ) . The Bryston is Powerful and a great sounding amp . I don't think there is any difference between the Bryston 4b Pro and the home version built in the year mine was ( except the RCA's on the home version and XLR's in the Pro version ) .
I would recommend this amp to anyone , it run almost any speaker out ther and run the speaker to its full potential and full sound with out a hickup . To boot its built in Canada , not in China , maybe thats why they last so long .

 

[wire]

Did you do this blind? You're taking my previous statement and skewing it. All of you. The Behringer A500 is a perfect example. Just because it's a pro amp, does not mean it is inferior to a similar home amp with similar build and specifications. I really don't know why I'm arguing.. you guys can go blow your money on fluff.

SheepStar

Bryston amps are not Fluff , there resale will tell you there not a Behringer .

 

[Ron Temple]

I own a Carver TFM35, a Luxman M117, am trying out an Adcom GFA555 and last weekend got to listen to various great speakers on 3 tube pres, 3 different DACs and a 60w tube amp.

The tube amp had a feedback control which modulated the sound. All the amps are very appealing...I'm with wire and fmw, though they have somewhat opposing viewpoints.

The Carver is transfer modified to sound like the Carver Silver 7 tube monos, a rolled off top end that takes the edge of treble and midrange and sounds very smooth and powerful. The Luxman also features a tubelike top end and speaks about it in it's manual, but the midrange is more accentuated with a stronger bass presence. This widens and deepens the perceived soundstage. With my SDAs this images in a more 3D quality. The Adcom is probably the most accurate of the 3 amps...great detail and subtlety from top to bottom. The soundstage doesn't seem as wide, but it's pretty deep.

I really like each amp, but these are not subtle differences. Just different design and sound quality goals. I prefer each with different kinds of music. I'm timbre matched, so when experimenting with the Carver on my fronts and the Adcom on the surrounds...it was just too disconcerting having the surrounds brighter than my fronts...put the Adcom on the 1Cs and the Carver on the CRS+ and it was better. However, since I prefer the mellower top end. The Luxman will take over front duties when the Adcom goes.

All great used amps though.

 

[fmw]

I really like each amp, but these are not subtle differences. Just different design and sound quality goals. .

I doubt it. I'm sure what they strive for is a flat frequency response with low distortion - in other words what audiophiles call "transparency" and the rest of us might describe as neutrality. I'm willing to bet all three of them were fairly successful at it.

 

[mike c]

I doubt it. I'm sure what they strive for is a flat frequency response with low distortion - in other words what audiophiles call "transparency" and the rest of us might describe as neutrality. I'm willing to bet all three of them were fairly successful at it.

do tube amp manufacturers aim for a flat frequency response?
if they do, do tubes achieve that?
do you have freq. response measurements of different tube amps? (have you seen measurements?)
I'm curious myself.

 

[fmw]

do tube amp manufacturers aim for a flat frequency response?
if they do, do tubes achieve that?
do you have freq. response measurements of different tube amps? (have you seen measurements?)
I'm curious myself.

I think they aim for it. Not all of them achieve it. I once had a very high quality tube amp made by Audio Research. It had a frequency response curve that was quite flat and distortion specs way below audibility. It was expensive. In one of our blind tests we put it up against several high quality solid state amps. Results were random. In other words, it sounded the same as the solid state amps, on average, to the group.

I've heard tube amps with a midrange bloom and weak highs. They obviously didn't have flat frequency response curves but I don't recall that I actually saw printed curves. I just measured the inaccuracies with a sound pressure meter and signal generator - accurate enough for the purpose.

I encountered a pair of expensive interconnect cables once that had a lot of reactance. They acted like a tone control and stifled high frequencies. If I remember right 10 khz was down 6 db. The cables caused a warm sound just like turning down the treble control on a preamp would do. That's an example of someone trying to design a product for something other than accuracy and neutrality. In other words, the cable was incompetently designed. It was one of 15 pairs of cables we blind tested. The other 14 all "sounded" the same as each other. Just one black sheep in the family.

Audio products should be designed for neutrality. The owner can always adjust away from neutrality with tone controls or equalizers as they see fit. But it makes sense to start with a foundation of accuracy.