Soundstage/Detail from Amp or Pre-Amp?

[mulester7]

I'mSo I hooked up the 1502 and played the same cut at the same Receiver -18 volume setting (I know this is not an accurate or scientific test of spl's). It was clearer, cleaner, and there was this tiny little cymbal like sound coming from the left rear that I didn't here before (or didn't THINK I heard before)

The M22's are really detailed speakers and the 1502 seemed to bring out that detail in spades. Of all the terms I've tried i.e. warm/bright/round/soft here's a new one that came to mind 'lovely'. So sweet and clear.

VERY noticable at volume. Where the HK got LOUD the 1502 seems to get better, and so much easier to listen to at volume. But it never seemed to get LOUD. I worry about the speakers a bit and won't push too hard.Another thing that I THINK I noticed was the imaging. Much sharper and detailed to my ears at least. As I listen now to an old Van Morrison cut, "Crazy Love" it just seems so easy to keep listening, especially for such an old recording. Nice.

.....LHawes, it sounds like you suffered an improvement from the larger pool of watts AND in the presence your ears got while in the chamber....the most noticable effect of a wider soundstage comes from the surrounds.....

 

[mulester7]

.....Peng, it's fine to level match, and sure, start out with low to moderate spl's being measured.....but....keep taking it up say 7-10 db's and compare, and at some point, probably about the second one, that big pool of watts is going to make the difference, along with the presence of a seperate pre....Guys, I would not buy a pre without listening to it....to have the option of returning would be a must if an online purchase was my only way to hear the thing....we all hear different.......

 

[PENG]

.....Peng, it's fine to level match, and sure, start out with low to moderate spl's being measured.....but....keep taking it up say 7-10 db's and compare, and at some point, probably about the second one, that big pool of watts is going to make the difference, along with the presence of a seperate pre....Guys, I would not buy a pre without listening to it....to have the option of returning would be a must if an online purchase was my only way to hear the thing....we all hear different.......

mule, I agree with you completely on this. I repeatedly stated that I only have doubt about reports such as hearing major difference even at low to moderate volume. To me, that would defy the basic principles that designers/engineers use to design and build pre/amps, and I therefore tend to believe such observations could be largely Placebo. To qualify one more time, all my comments are related to mid high level equipment only.

At a certain listening level, due to the frequent but transient nature of signals from certain source material, the pool of power you frequently mentioned, would minimize, if not completely eliminate the signals from being clipped. Distortion due to clipping would likely be audible to most people. By the way, I agree with you one should always listen to the equipment instead of relying on reading reviews and papers only. I also have geat respect for people who obviously have read tons of reviews and technical reports, and shared the source. They are contributing to this forum in a positive way.

 

[mulester7]

I repeatedly stated that I only have doubt about reports such as hearing major difference even at low to moderate volume.

I also have geat respect for people who obviously have read tons of reviews and technical reports, and shared the source. They are contributing to this forum in a positive way.

.....for the first part....Cornelius, with the Mc integrated, did you notice the 3D effect at moderate levels?....for the second part....Peng, those who have only reviews to base an opinion on, have nothing....the listening report from Cornelius meant more to me than all the reviews in the World, and I can verify his listening report....the thing that tickled me was his thinking "how can an old piece of equipment outdo this modern receiver I'm comparing it to?"....that Placette linestage pre-amp had some rave reviews, Peng, and I wouldn't have one in my house after hearing it....

 

[mulester7]

.....this thread is named Soundstage/Detail added by Amp or Pre-amp....that says presence to me first, speaker imaging second, and you're home....making a comparison listening to the wind chimes in that tornado movie with flying cows was what made it hands-down used Mc.....

 

[cornelius]

Hey mulester - The levels when I first turned the amp on were normal - I have thin walls - whenever I'm in stereo stores, I'm always turning down "the salesman levels" for a more realistic listen. I had NO idea how this amp was going to sound - I just kept an open mind.

 

[mulester7]

Hey mulester - The levels when I first turned the amp on were normal - I have thin walls - whenever I'm in stereo stores, I'm always turning down "the salesman levels" for a more realistic listen. I had NO idea how this amp was going to sound - I just kept an open mind.

.....ok, Cornelius, so you heard the 3D effect in the sound quality at moderate levels, and you usually listen at moderate levels....Cornelius, one more question....what did the sound quality presence of the Mc integrated say to your ears at reference levels?....don't say you haven't cranked it somewhat, either, it's what we do, at least occassionally....

 

[mulester7]

.....and Peng, I want you to notice Cornelius' integrated amp, which is a tuner short of a being a receiver, but on steroids....his source signal arrives at his speakers with only McIntosh having got in the way....I'll say this, I suspect there are other amps out there that are quality, that take Mc's approach toward adding really clean ambiance in the highs for them to rolloff into, for live presence, but I don't know........with my 2105 leaving for the shop for cleaning about a month ago, I found myself with only two channels of Mc with an MC2200 which of course went on the main's....I had to use a K2 on the surrounds, and I could hear the presence-change walking back and forth from mains to surrounds....it just went a degree less live-sounding, on which any is a lot, and took a move toward thick and so much more less descriptive....I only got 4 speakers at this point....but hand's down, I liked Mc on my surrounds MUCH more than the K2 when the MC2120 showed up, simply because I heard the transparency and presence come together....and what I was hearing had MUCH more live presence....I now have four channels of the MC126 paralled for the main's getting 275 spec watts probably 310 actual, with the last two channels of the 126 on the surrounds at 80 probably 100....the MC2200 is on the high small cannons sitting beside, inside, of a floor-stander main on top of a mini-barn....the Behringer's are my hold-up....and I can't wait for the mid small cannons, and the single mono low small cannon 15....all sealed....the mini-barns spike the football....or will....some of you ain't washin' behind your ears....see to it....if you don't have any soap, get a job as a freight conductor, and stay in away-terminal motels.....

 

[cornelius]

During the daytime, I have tried the system at louder levels for fun. I found the Mac amp kept asking to play louder. It is only 15 Watts a side more than the latest Arcam I had, but for some reason, at loud levels the sound didn't compress like on the Arcams. Also, at the louder level is when I really noticed the "black background" that so many reviewers talk about. Don't know if that's why the Mac has so much more detail than the Arcam, even though the Mac is a "smooth sounding" amp. In other words, when I first heard the lower powered Arcam that I bought, it sounded a lot brighter than the old Yamaha receiver that it replaced. The Mac doesn't rely on hyped frequency extremes to dig up more detail (also a problem that bugs me with most speakers today - boom/sizzle...). I guess in general, the Mac amp has a certain ease to it, even at loud levels which in my mind sounds pretty natural.

 

[mulester7]

During the daytime, I have tried the system at louder levels for fun. I found the Mac amp kept asking to play louder. It is only 15 Watts a side more than the latest Arcam I had, but for some reason, at loud levels the sound didn't compress like on the Arcams. Also, at the louder level is when I really noticed the "black background" that so many reviewers talk about. Don't know if that's why the Mac has so much more detail than the Arcam, even though the Mac is a "smooth sounding" amp. In other words, when I first heard the lower powered Arcam that I bought, it sounded a lot brighter than the old Yamaha receiver that it replaced. The Mac doesn't rely on hyped frequency extremes to dig up more detail (also a problem that bugs me with most speakers today - boom/sizzle...). I guess in general, the Mac amp has a certain ease to it, even at loud levels which in my mind sounds pretty natural.

.....all that from a 20 year old wore-out McIntosh integrated boat-anchor????.......

 

[PENG]

Don't know if that's why the Mac has so much more detail than the Arcam, even though the Mac is a "smooth sounding" amp. In other words, when I first heard the lower powered Arcam that I bought, it sounded a lot brighter than the old Yamaha receiver that it replaced. The Mac doesn't rely on hyped frequency extremes to dig up more detail (also a problem that bugs me with most speakers today - boom/sizzle...). I guess in general, the Mac amp has a certain ease to it, even at loud levels which in my mind sounds pretty natural.

When are the Arcam fans/owners going to chime in?

About a year and a half ago I was shopping for speakers. After listening to many speakers including the Paradigm Signature series, I auditioned the Energy Veritas 2.3Vi powered by an AVR300. It sounded absolutely detailed but sweet, and without being bright. I ended up buying the Veritas. Hard to believe an old McIntosh can be that much better than any Arcam amps. Sooner or later I will try one, or two of their amp/preamp.

 

[mulester7]

Sooner or later I will try one, or two of their amp/preamp.

.....Peng, I've had to go to chest-waders from whizzin' down both legs when I crank it.....

 

[mulester7]

.....an amp in the upper cost amounts most likely "won't" sound bad to you at all at first hearing....but something will tell you it's a different sound from what you are used to, but you don't know what is different....hey, just use it for a week or so, and then go back to the first one....you'll probably have a statement to offer at that point....amps are different, but in the higher end, none sounds bad....at first....think presence, at moderate to upper-moderate levels....does it sound like the group is right there at you, live?....a friend from the past had a McIntosh pushed system with two cornerhorns and a bell in the middle....he had three 300 watt-a-side McIntosh amps strapped to push the three speakers, and there went his live presence from strapped power compression through ohmage change for authority and halfing of the damping factor....the system sounded like the group was 50 yards away....the fault was the speakers anyway....they were tough in their era, but man hath sought bucks since, and the modern stuff is the best....imo, of course.....

.....I could make suggestions toward purchases, but noooooooo....that concept of "black background" was cool....it surely means there's simply nothing there to conflict with a pfat signal by lower damping factor, hello imaging.....I've never read long reviews for my 40 years in this hobby, and then I go and read some reviews that burned me the last couple of years....but thank goodness, I can use one of the purchases....and when the Placette performed for all of five seconds, I knew I was going to try to send it to California in swap for a set of mains....there's your reviews at their finest....I can appreciate those who do read reviews, but if it's obvious they took them as law, instead of food-for-thought, instead of letting their ears lead them, they don't really have any opinion-by-comparison, do they?....I didn't realize what I had back in '86....I thought, yeah, but there are still others out there that cost more, that true audiophiles use....again, I didn't realize what I had back in '86....probably 80-90% of the presence comes from the pre-amp....amps ring truer with some claims, but they're still different....it will come to you as you compare which amp is best for you over a little time....if you're wanting to upgrade, it could be that something in the sound quality and content has possibly offended you, maybe unknowingly, to the point it doesn't sound to you like it did at one time....and for me, it has always been in the upper section of 20-20K.........MtryCrafts, your mind evidently can seem to be a schematic analyzing hook-up problems....I appreciate and respect you as a fellow member....but swap out the two boomboxes......

 

[PENG]

.....MtryCrafts, your mind evidently can seem to be a schematic analyzing hook-up problems....I appreciate and respect you as a fellow member....but swap out the two boomboxes......

I hate to agree with mule, but with all the knowledge mtry has, he really should swap out those boomboxes and then tell people if he could hear a difference.

 

[cornelius]

Hey Peng - I still like Arcam! They have some nice amps and CD players right now. However, they are like many of the other companies out there that don't keep models consistantly in the line up for very long - improvements are great, but I don't want my gear goin' out of style in a year anymore. The Mac amp I have was in their catalogue from '78-'91... The value on this amp is rising, the Arcam's is not.

 

[mulester7]

Hey Peng - I still like Arcam! They have some nice amps and CD players right now. However, they are like many of the other companies out there that don't keep models consistantly in the line up for very long - improvements are great, but I don't want my gear goin' out of style in a year anymore. The Mac amp I have was in their catalogue from '78-'91... The value on this amp is rising, the Arcam's is not.

.....Cornelius, is there anything I've said about the Mc equipment you don't agree with?....hey, let it rip, we're after the truth here, and science can't measure how components SOUND, can it?....science can only measure electricity and movements....Cornelius, is there "anything" you'd like to add?....I'm throwin' ya' in the grease, Son, haha.....a real breakthrough in posting I've been told, is when you could not be more calm as you post....you don't fear any responses at all....you've handled many....then you try to act your age, don't think it don't come through on some of you young Guys, and respond calmly, attempting to take the conversation to a higher level if need be....hey, we want to laugh some while we're here too....yay, Clint and Gene.....

.....to those who just read here and are not members....if you never crack a post one, I ask you to help Gene and Clint be as well-armed as possible when they have a meeting with a perspective sponsor, and join here at Audioholics.com....we could use the help on the counters too, while we stay in the Steam Vent disCUSSIN' sparky......

.....I know I've been talking too much lately....between Memorial Day and the ides of December, I don't work too much....will try to slim it down......