Which gives the system it's particular sound, the pre amp or the amp?

[PENG]

I should also add that it is possible to make a linear solid state amp sound like a non-linear tube amp with tone controls or, better, multiband equalizers. If you want less agressive symbols cut the frequencies around 5000hz a little. While I don't use one myself, I think the multiband equalizer is the best way to tailor sound to your preference.

I agree, audio/electronics engineers should be able to design (as Bob Carver might have done so already to certain extent) a solid state amp that mimics the sound characteristics of one of Wire's tube amp without the use of an external equalizer.

By the way, thanks to your posts, I may consider settling for a pair of 803D and then focus on enjoying my reference CDs and vinyl records. While I do believe my preamp/amps are good enough, on the speaker side, I still think the Diamond tweeter has a better chance to lower the distortions for frequencies>5 KHz to the level where I cannot detect. It will still be tough for me to give up that weird but beautiful looking Marlan head mid range drivers.

 

[mike c]

I may consider settling for a pair of 803D ... It will still be tough for me to give up that weird but beautiful looking Marlan head mid range drivers.

that's like setting yourself up for some super buyer's remorse.

803 ... 802 ... that's one digit. go for the 802.

 

[PENG]

that's like setting yourself up for some super buyer's remorse.

803 ... 802 ... that's one digit. go for it.

Thanks for reminding me, I'll keep that in mind though.

 

[fmw]

I did read the Axiom one long time ago but not Ian Masters, I mean not until now. Thanks!

As you know I cannot understand why people can hear those day and nigh type of difference between well made (and reasonably high price) preamp/amps. I do understand the Placebo effect that fmw talked about, but hard to imagine that factor alone can explain those claims.

It explains it completely. Very few audiophiles subject themselves to blind testing. They are told by TAS and Stereophile that blind tests are flawed. Actually it is TAS and Stereophile that are flawed.

I remember reading an article in Stereophile describing their reaction to some blind tests administered by the publisher to the reviewers. In effect it said that blind testing must be flawed because most of the audible differences disappeared during the tests. Since the audible differences were audible to the reviewers without blind testing then the blind testing must be flawed. You see what I mean? Trust your ears, they say. But the truth is you can only trust your ears when your brain is unaware of what you are comparing. Personal preferences take over when we know what we are comparing.

Those audiphiles who do experience a blind test almost always become converted. The blind testing really does eliminate perceived audible differences. Hearing is believing, say the audiophiles. Get yourself involved in some blind testing and you will also believe. Blind testing would put the entire high end audio industry out of business if it were a common practice. It isn't a common practice, however, much to the delight of the high end manufacturers and magazine writers.

 

[fmw]

Please understand, by the way, that, as a recovering audiophile myself, I have no problem with lusting over and buying 150lb Class A amplifiers and tube components. We should buy what we like. It is our money and we should spend it on what we want. I'm just trying to explain that improvements in system performance aren't always reasonable justifications for it. I like it, it sounds great to me, I can afford, so there. Works for me. That justifies it just fine for me.

 

[mazersteven]

I'll tell you a story.

I did a blind test for members of a local audiophile club in the late 1990's. I set up a simple integrated amp, CD player and a less-than-$1000 Boston Sub Sat speaker system in my bedroom. My bedroom is long and narrow and has very nice acoustics. I was able to set up the speakers about 6 feet from the back wall and still allow another 6 feet of space behind the listening chair. In a small, square dead bedroom of my house I set up a $40,000 high end audio system with a pair of B&W Matrix 802 speakers which cost nearly 10 times as much as the Boston system in the other room.

I took each audiophile (9 of them) into each room blindfolded and played two cuts from a reference CD on each system.

Guess which one they preferred? You guessed it. They all preferred the bedroom system with the Boston speakers - all 9 of them.

I would have loved to have been there for this. Because to tell you the truth, I just don't believe it.

I do agree that "the room" does have a effect. I do agree that acoustic panels and treatments are important.

But it was a good story.

 

[fmw]

I would have loved to have been there for this. Because to tell you the truth, I just don't believe it.

I do agree that "the room" does have a effect. I do agree that acoustic panels and treatments are important.

But it was a good story.

If you happen to be in Northern Indiana, drop by and I'll put together a demonstration for you.

I'm not much of a user of room treatments. In my experience what really matters in a listening room is its shape and where the speakers and listener are located relative to the walls. The equipment we use to reproduce recorded sound is fairly accurate to one extent or another. Not identical from system to system but accurate for the most part. It is the reverberations those sounds take as they travel from speaker to ear that have the greatest effect on the overall sound quality. Nothing else comes close in comparison. In order to experience this for yourself you need some very different rooms in which to do your blind testing. Try it for yourself. You may amaze yourself. I've been through enough room comparisons that I don't get surprised by it at all any more.

There are books available in the library on the subject of room acoustics and architectural design for optimal acoustics. One time, after a local symphony orchestra performance I was talking with the concertmaster (mistress actually.) I mentioned that I had been sitting in the balcony. I thought the sound from the brass and woodwinds at the back of the stage were more pronounced than they should be and that the strings up front were getting short shrift. She mentioned that they had recently installed some treatments at the back of the stage to help boost the level of those instruments in the balcony. At the next concert I was in the balcony again and noticed that the angled baffles were gone. The orchestra sounded noticeably different and better to me. It wasn't a subtle difference at all and it had nothing to do with speakers. It was all in the way sound reverberated from the instruments to the ear.

Room acoustics aren't just an important factor in sound reproduction. They are the difference between success and failure.

 

[no. 5]

I remember reading an article in Stereophile describing their reaction to some blind tests administered by the publisher to the reviewers. In effect it said that blind testing must be flawed because most of the audible differences disappeared during the tests. Since the audible differences were audible to the reviewers without blind testing then the blind testing must be flawed.

Only sick people take pills, therefor if I don't take my pills, I'm not sick! Backward logic is fun, isn't it?

 

[fmw]

Isn't it something? I tend to be hard on Stereophile because they had an economic impact in our area. Crown, a maker of pro audio amplifiers in our area, once built a wonderful power amp for the high end market. It was big and heavy and strong. Gobs of current. The measurements were as clean as whistle. But Stereophile panned it and destroyed the product. No audiophiles would buy it after that. Crown withdrew from the high end consumer market entirely. They still make great amplifiers, they just don't let Stereophile get their hands on any of them. I've always taken that a little personally.

 

[cornelius]

fmw - I love Epos speakers! I remember going to a HT show, and the creek/epos room was one my favorites.

I agree that the placebo effect has a lot to do with perception. But, it's not the only factor when switching out a component. Some magazines and designers do rely on blind testing. One designer in particular has echoed experiences that I've had. I've often been surprised - I'll hear a difference, but not the one that I was expecting. Then of course there the many times when I don't hear a difference, especially cables...

Yes, room treatments are as important as fmv has said. My speakers are easy to place in a room, as long as that room is not overly live.

 

[mtrycrafts]

....but hard to imagine that factor alone can explain those claims.

Yes, it certainly is. But then a couple of suggestions. Experimenters have discovered that when the same item, be it an audio component, food item, or most anything else in consumer land, and presented it over and over under blind conditions, same item, absolutely nothing changing, people still identify differences, at a rather high rate. How come?
We are wired, the brain is, to look for differences and the brain has a hard time when it is asked to decide if there is a difference, it picks one instead of saying no difference.
Why do listeners pick one brand of speakers in sighted tests and the other one under bias controlled testing? Toole has shown this as probably has others.

As an anecdote from the past by another poster who did a sighted, single blind experiment on his family with salsa, I believe. Two plates with salsa, two different bottles in front of the plates, or rather behind it. Asked th efamily which tasted better. Certainly they picked one over the other. They were the same salsa on the two plates.

 

[Tod]

Question - I can see the argument that for unprocessed, audiophile 2 channel stuff there may be no audible difference in sound from well-built components. What about when you include processing/multi-channel/movies? Should all pre-pros having the same decoding software render it all exactly the same?

???????

 

[wire]

There are two possibilities here. One is that you prefer its sound because you like it, not because it sound any different (placebo effect.) Warm glowing things are always pleasant in a listening room. The other possibility is that it was designed to produce a non linear frequency response on purpose to give you the valleys in the treble to which you refer. But understand that tube amplifiers don't sound any different from solid state amplifiers if they are designed with the same distortion, frequency linearity and noise floor.

In my audiophile days I owned an expensive tube amp made by Audio Research. It sounded exactly the same as similarly spec'd solid state amps in blind tests. It was very well designed and made and quite accurate. The fact that it cost 10 times as much, glowed in the dark and required occasional maintenance didn't change its sound at all thanks to some competent design work.

I cantbe the Warm glo of the tubes , i can barely see them . But the sharpness , is gone . I love the symbols and voice with the Tube Amp , even with the Carver and having that chip , it just doesnt sound the same .

 

[mazersteven]

In my experience what really matters in a listening room is its shape and where the speakers and listener are located relative to the walls.

It is the reverberations those sounds take as they travel from speaker to ear that have the greatest effect on the overall sound quality. Nothing else comes close in comparison.

I think it all has to do with the speaker cable.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Question - I can see the argument that for unprocessed, audiophile 2 channel stuff there may be no audible difference in sound from well-built components. What about when you include processing/multi-channel/movies? Should all pre-pros having the same decoding software render it all exactly the same?

???????

Not sure I follow your question here. Probably my shortcoming.

Are you asking about processors in the various components giving such results as well?

 

[fmw]

Question - I can see the argument that for unprocessed, audiophile 2 channel stuff there may be no audible difference in sound from well-built components. What about when you include processing/multi-channel/movies? Should all pre-pros having the same decoding software render it all exactly the same?

???????

That is a question I can't answer because I don't have enough experience with digital decoders. I've always believed that what surround sound decoders do is defined by the decoding chip itself from DTS or Dolby. I have no reason to think that one processor will decode the information meaningfully differently than another.

 

[AbyssalLoris]

Hey fmw, some very good information/opinions there. I am aware of the Placebo effect as scientifically proven and am prepared to believe how it could affect listeners/audiophiles.

You have put it very well indeed and if nothing, I'm not very likely to buy a pre-pro, at least not an expensive one any longer. It's not that I did not know/suspect these things, but that I would have indulged myself inspite of it. Now that I see someone who has been through audiophilia and has managed to let calm reasoning and lack of prejudice dictate his actions, I feel emboldened to do the same.

Some things (like the need for a power amp that can drive low impedance loads) are scientifically justifiable and I'm only likely to go for those in the future. At least, having the advantage of a reasonable knowledge of electronics, I should be able to fend off high end gear lust. Again, as you said, if it is driven by other factors such as cosmetics or build quality, I would find it excusable (in myself).

What most of us are plagued with is the desire to buy and own more stuff and that is often an end in itself. To justify this we find specialized reasons. It's no more than that. We're all just dying to spend some money .

 

[fmw]

That sounds pretty human to me.

 

[mtrycrafts]

What most of us are plagued with is the desire to buy and own more stuff and that is often an end in itself. To justify this we find specialized reasons. It's no more than that. We're all just dying to spend some money .

You said a mouthful here
The marketeers know this. After all, they do lots of research what makes us tick and spend more $$$

 

[indcrimdefense]

wow, don't check the internet over the weekend & you miss alot. of course, this issue has been debated to death, & further discussion on the issue will doubtfully dissuade anyone from their particular view on the subject. my only point is that from my own experience at times different components can sound different from one another, and at other times they do not, & the only reliable way i have found is to demo components before i made a purchase.