 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.107.181.155
In Reply to: RE: "giant killing" class D amps? posted by cawson@onetel.com on December 30, 2017 at 03:17:13
everything i've read about N core, in a headfi thread where a member's N cores made a tour, and in a mola mola review gives me the impression that N cores are contenders for best (as in zero coloration) amplifiers in the world.
i became a class D fan after my "silly little $15 sonic impact T amp" ran lightning fast circles around my sluggish NAD, and have a nice panasonic SA-XR in storage i'd use if it wasn't in another state.
being a class D convert already, N core is a very tempting "final system" goal and i'm considering pairing those with slagle autoformers and either a grounded grid hotrodded with the slagles or an aikido tube buffer or preamp as the "ultimate, take THAT solution/pass etc!" giant killing integrated.
BTW... if autoformers are the best volume controls, why aren't they in EVERY integrated over $2,000?
Follow Ups:
> ...gives me the impression that N cores are contenders for best (as in zero coloration) amplifiers in the world.
A good module doesn't make a good amp.
I was impressed by a fellow Avantgarde owner who was raving about his digital Benchmark AHB-2, so much so that I bought one. This was my biggest ever amplifier mistake. It is quite possibly very accurate, has no colourisation and is dead quiet, but it's also dead boring! It is an amplifier where I was inclined to turn down the volume, instead of turning it up. That's about as bad as it gets! It tended to render exciting music as dull as elevator music.
I'm not suggesting that this is the fault of the chip (THX's AAA also considered as the best by many) as it is a highly respected module, but it doesn't necessarily make a good amplifier.
Furthermore I know that many people like the Benchmark, but if you CAREFULLY read worthwhile reviews (where it's partnered with a number of speakers) you'll note that it is very speaker dependent.
FWIW, though, the AHB2 isn't a digital or a Class D amp.
It's a low-bias Class A/B NFB amp that uses feedforward to eliminate crossover distortion and lower harmonic distortion to unprecedented low levels. It also uses a regulated switching power supply and switches rails.
Which is to say, it does just about everything that high-end amplifier designers have been moving away from! Except for the feedforward, which kind of bypasses most of the issues.
I'll say this -- it's the cleanest, most neutral amplifier I've ever listened to. It doesn't seem to do as good a job with transients, e.g., piano notes as my humble A-21, though.
Whether the THX-patented AAA amp module is analogue or digital I'll not argue about. The Benchmark amp is generally described, maybe slightly inaccurately, as digital.
I have said all along that it has a lot of good points including quietness and probably "accuracy" (I have no means of measuring this, so take the word of Benchmark), but as someone has so aptly pointed out, there's some feature in this amp that "sucks the life out of music".
I'm not suggesting I know what that is, nor I'm really not interested, but that's precisely why I describe it as "boring". Far from technical I accept, but both descriptions are pretty good at putting into simple words it's unappealing sound. Peter
It's described very inaccurately as digital! It's plain ol' Class AB with a Class H rail. Its main difference with conventional amps is that it uses feedforward (distortion cancellation) in addition to feedback:
"The AHB2 is a linear amplifier that surpasses the sonic purity of all class-A amplifiers. No amplifier delivers lower noise or lower distortion. The small, passively cooled chassis, cleanly delivers 480 Watts bridged mono into 6 Ohms, with additional reserves for driving difficult speaker loads. Unlike power-hungry class-A amplifiers, the AHB2 achieves a power efficiency that rivals that of a Class D (switching) power amplifier."
https://benchmarkmedia.com/products/benchmark-ahb2-power-amplifier
In practice, it doesn't sound like the Class D amps I've heard.
Anyway, to me the question is does it really suck the life out of music? Because the absence of distortion doesn't do that for me. As someone said, live acoustical music has plenty of life into it, and no distortion whatsoever.
When I first got it, I level matched it and tried ABing it with my A-21. It seemed better in almost all respects. I've never heard such pure sound. And this was compared to a low distortion, high bias AB design that's mostly operating Class A.
So I guess the question Davey and others had (and I do too) was whether you were complaining about the absence of euphonic distortion or something else.
When I listened to piano through it, the transients and envelope of the AHB2 seemed off. The A-21 was far better (in all fairness, it's been reported to outdo even Pass in that one respect). It sounded like an actual piano, something most amps I've listened to don't do.
I asked John Siau about that at AES and he attributed the difference in sound to lower harmonic distortion, to which he says piano is very susceptible.
Anyway, the AHB was then out of my system for a while while I worked on other things and when I plugged it back in I got a rude shock because it seemed to be doing exactly what you said it did -- suck the life out of the music. What was missing were the transients. As with the piano, they seemed to be rounded off. That's why I was interested in what you wrote because you had apparently observed independently the same thing that I had.
I still have to do more listening, though. The Benchmark isn't supposed to require burn in but I hadn't used it for a while so I'd want to rule that out, and I'm using a more revealing DAC and did some major repairs on my speakers. Also the amps weren't level matched. So I want to do more long-term listening to make sure that I wasn't fooling myself.
I'm not really interested in the technology of amps, nor much their specs regarding matters beyond my low interest level! I just want the things to provide music that really excites - the nearest SENSATION to live music, whether there's a bit of distortion or not. SETs have high harmonic distortion, but they are the ones that make the sound so good.
I had my Benchmark for about 8 weeks although I was away for a couple of weeks. It was used quite a lot during that time and I listened to it exclusively before doing any comparison tests. I wrote my one and only equipment view here - http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=amp&n=205426&highlight=benchmark+ahb&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fforum%3Dgeneral%26searchtext%3DEmotiva
I presume your A-21 is a Sugden. After I returned the Benchmark, I tried many power amps including Sugden FPA-4, Accuphase A-36, GamuT D200, Quad Platinum, NAD M32, Micromega M100.
I would have loved to find the Accuphase in particular provided the sound I wanted. It is Class A and so beautifully built, with very good controls and facilities. It was certainly a step up compared with the Class A Sugden, but not such that I'd keep it in favour of my old 845-based SET monoblocs.
The Quad was a big disappointment, but the Gamut was wonderful. For a while I was using this D200 fed by NAD M12 digital preamp and was very happy. When I home demo'd a NAD M50.2 CD player / CD ripper / hard drive music store / streamer I was offered the loan of a NAD M32 integrated amp. To my surprise this equals the much more costly M12 + D200 combo. Now this arguably a digital amp, although not so according to NAD's white paper attached - the M32 uses an updated version of the M2's processor. It's effectively a "DAC that can power speakers". Whatever its technology, it really is an excellent amp and FAR more enjoyable than the Benchmark. It's considerably better than the Quad and Sugden (and Red Wine) and marginally better than the Accuphase. It's advantage over the M12 + D200 combination is solely cost and reduction of cables.
I love it and the M50.2 that I bought recently. That's all I need. I now need no CD player as the M50.2 plays CDs, no PC to rip CDs, no NAS to store files, no radio and no streamer, as the M50.2 does all of these things. I have one digital AES/EBU cable and one pair of speakers - that's it! Peter
A-21 is a Parasound. Nice amp overall, high bias class A smoothness and free of most bipolar grain, but it has some flaws, namely flabby midbass (which actually sounds quite nice), less definition and soundstage precision than some of the very best, and highs that aren't the last word in cleanliness.
I confess I'm not personally fond of amps that add harmonic distortion. They sound syrupy or grainy to me, and I find both effects fatiguing (the latter far more than the former). What I love about the old tube stuff is that it was usually so free of unpleasant distortion. Yes, it rounded off the sound, but it lacked the harsh distortion one so often hears from solid state and for me that meant a much better listening experience.
So really, I prefer the absence of unpleasant distortion to the presence of pleasant distortion, and that for me accounts for a lot of the difference, not the presence of the euphonic coloration which is a drawback. I was listening to a 1950's mono recording of Duke Ellington mentioned in TAS the other day and it was wonderful. So much closer, despite the limitations of the technology, to what one actually hears at a live performance than the typical commercial release. Not I think because of the euphonic colorations, but because of the absence of non-euphonic ones!
For me, the Benchmark does that beautifully. For example, high notes like triangles are pure and bell like, while the same notes listened to through the A-21 sound more like a chuff of noise. And it does it without any syrupy coloration. It's the purest amp I've ever heard.
It's the dynamics that bother me, and I'm still not entirely sure about that -- as I said, I have to do more listening. But that for me is what robs the music of life.
Add in no to very little jump and mine would shut off on high dynamic passages ....
Really? Protection circuits? I haven't had that happen yet, thankfully.
I was operating them on a low-z load. never had it happen on 4 ohm maggies, they did on the 2/3 ohm Diva's.
Regards
Edits: 01/24/18
Heh, yes, I can see that happening. At AES, John Siau told me how delighted he is with how reliable the AHB has been in the field. It seems they've got a microprocessor in there monitoring everything from output current to what you ate for lunch. But I guess that rules out of seat-of-the-pants scenarios . . . good to know, since it means I can't drive my 2 ohm ribbon without the resistor in series . . . I have a feeling that when I triamp, the AHB2 is going to live on the ribbon, since its highs are so stunningly pure.
I think we're on the same wavelength on this. I possibly dwell less on the technology and just get on with listening to the sound I hear. To me (as you'll notice if you read my review), I was inclined to turn down the volume and maybe forward to the next track with the Benchmark, but to turn up the volume with the valve amps. To me that's a pretty useful pointer as to one's enjoyment of what one's hearing! At that time I had no other SS amps apart from the unsatisfying Red Wine.Since Sugden have been selling various versions of their well regarded A21 23 watt Class A amp, I rather assumed you were using Sugden. The Parasound is a much more powerful AB amp (first 7.5 walls Class A?) and I know nothing of it apart from what I see on their website.
My speakers are 102dB so I really only need a handful of watts, but I've found that more powerful high quality amps add significantly to the depth and control of bass. I noticed this most with the Gamut D200 - an old design with single MOSFET per channel. The NAD offers as good performance and I'd recommend you try to get a home demo of the M32.
Since your profile has no system details (I wish everyone would include these details) I don't know what speakers you use or what you feed your amp. The M32 has a DAC built in and has the option of a streamer card allowing access to NAS, PC, Tidal, Qobuz, radio, etc as well as being an integrated amp.
Edits: 01/21/18
You'll have to forgive me, as an old engineer, from being interested in the technical aspects. :-)
The Parasound is IIRC 10 watts of Class A. Which really covers most listening. A well-regarded John Curl design that many consider the beginning of high end amplification and a very popular amp because its economical. I know that I could happily listen to it forever, but it falls short of the very best and more expensive and often less practical (higher power Class A). I think if I could experiment with any amp now it would be a John Curl Class A design but I'm triamping so limited in what I can spend and how much heat and power usage I can tolerate! (Not to mention that my back isn't what it used to be . . . )
I've always been curious about the NAD amps. Would be fun to try. My problem is that there's no dealer here, so I usually hear things only at shows where everything sounds subpar or I have to buy them used or new and try them here, a slow and frustrating process. I bought the A-21 used and the AHB2 new. Most of the used amps I'm interested in checking out now seem to be in short supply, I've been watching the listings.
Apologies for the lack of a profile! My system has been in flux as I rebuilt it after a period with nothing and then a temporary system while we were renovating the house. I really should get around to it.
But basically, it consists of a pair of Tympani IVA's that I bought used and have been fixing up (delamination now repaired, I still have to do some work on the connector panels). I also have 16 Neo-8 planar drivers that I'm going to use to replace the Magnepan midrange, Satie here came up with that mod and by all accounts it's a dramatic upgrade to the old Maggies.
So anyway my plan is to tri-amp but I have to at least bi amp because as you can see in the photo my small listening room and the projection screen require me to move the two mid-tweeter panels in front of the four bass panels, so I have to delay them so everything will be in time:
To do the delay, I got a MiniDSP OpenDRC DA-8, which has SPDIF in and eight channels out. That will also let me experiment with FIR filters and phase and frequency compensation and room EQ. But I'm not sure I'm happy with the sound of the MiniDSP, I have to do more comparisons but in the brief ones I did it didn't equal my other converters.
For my source, I built an HTPC that's both silent and powerful -- fanless power supply and graphics card, SSD's, sound damping case, humongous and therefore quiet fan on the processor:
:-) I've been delighted with the results, you can't even tell it's on from more than a foot away and yet it uses a fast processor that will do any processing I want (I have a projector and my room does double duty for home theater so I couldn't go with a minimal configuration). Running JRiver for audio and video and Tidal's app for streaming. I have a Dragonfly Red that I've been using to experiment with MQA since I don't have a real MQA DAC.
Anyway, I needed a solid source of SPDIF for the MiniDSP and everything I read put the Lynx E22 at the top of the heap so I got one on Ebay. Since then, though, I've been experimenting with the analog outputs of the Lynx and they sound better than the Mini DSP. So if the MiniDSP doesn't prove out sonically, I think I'll have to get a multichannel converter. I was thinking either of the ExaSound e28, which has been replaced by the e38, or a pro rack like the Lynx Aurora 8 (which has also been replaced), but as usual have no way to compare.
In the meantime, I've been using the converter on the Lynx card for analog out to the power amp, and I'm finding that as its reputation suggests it's a very capable converter, if not quite the equal of what's available today.
Also have to do some work on acoustics, I have a couple of GIK QRD diffusers but need some absorption and deal with a cavity resonance (which will probably mean building a cabinet in the cavity).
So as you can see, a work in progress! But really sounding quite excellent even as is, with the Lynx feeding the A-21 and driving the Tympanis full range.
So basically I need a couple of small sweet amps for the mid-tweeter panels (the Neo 8's are more efficient than the woofer panels and of course the tweeter doesn't require a huge amount of power) and I can leave the larger A-21 doing bass duty.
Nice .....
Thanks.
Thanks for the background information.
My present attempts at system upgrade were prompted by my move from a London flat with an acoustically excellent 5-sided room with 10 ft ceilings to my present room of 975 sq ft and 7'7 ceilings. It's less the size than the shape and materials that present problems. It's parabolic in shape (pointed end of an egg-shaped building) with floor-to-ceiling glass on most of the curved wall. Not ideal! The speakers are either side of a central support column facing across the room.
The photo is rather cluttered with test amps and a pair of demo Quadral speakers
My initial thoughts were to look for a better amp and I've described my quest.
Now I'm also looking at possible alternative speakers. I posted something on the Planar section and was contacted by a Quad 2905 owner who lives a few miles away. We exchanged home visits and I was impressed enough to buy a used pair of Quads. They were doomed to be re-sold as these "barn doors" are aesthetically unacceptable in the middle of the room. Maggies would be even worse! So my likely choice is Martin Logan 13A, despite the ridiculous trans-Atlantic mark-up. They are £18.000 here - about $23,500 including taxes.
I'd really like to hear these too - http://blanko.nu/?lang=en - another see-through design but active with tube amps! I'll visit them when in Holland later this year.
Don't Crutchfield offer a free home trial on NAD? If they or someone else did, you may end up buying them - or looking for a used M32 as I did! Peter
Beautiful room! I an see that the acoustics would be a challenge, though.
I wouldn't be surprised if those Blankos sound better than the Logans, assuming of course that they did a good job with the design. The Logans look cool, but they suffer from the hybrid woofers with a high crossover.
Have you considered the Scaenas? I'm thinking that narrow line sources might work aesthetically.
As intriguing as it is, the M32 is more than I want to spend on an amplifier at this point. I may well have to spend $2k on a new DAC before this is done and have dental expenses next month so I was thinking of something in the $1500 range. If my budget were $3K, I'd probably try a Pass XA30.5 next. I've never heard anything less than love expressed towards those amplifiers and it isn't so big that heat, weight, and power consumption become an issue. I think I could get away with the Pass on the midrange because the Neodynium magnet BG line source is a good deal more efficient than the Maggie woofers, and because the Pass is really an AB amp with a super high bias (Class A to 30 watts, which would be 60 watts into 4 ohms, then about 160 watts Class B, and single-ended at low levels).
> A good module doesn't make a good amp.
Maybe not, but a good commercially produced module makes a possibility for a good amplifier at a much lower price than otherwise.
"It is quite possibly very accurate, has no colourisation and is dead quiet, but it's also dead boring!"
Exactly what an amplifier should be.
Dave.
An amp shouldn't render all recordings to sound "boring" like a dead hand was placed on the dynamics. This is a common high feedback amp design coloration that doesn't appear on static measurements because it is something going wrong with dynamic relationships and or time/phase relationships.
Brad,,
That kind of sound Has nothing to do with feedback , feedback is just one part of a very complex audio amp loop of variable structure ..
PSU
Amp bias
Output stage topology
Gain
Feedback
Driver stage
Beta droop
Z" load
Bias drift (SOA )
Open loop bandwidth and stability
Et al ,
On and on ,
Feedback amount , local or global is but another in the "loop" .... :)
Regards
Ok, but I have heard this problem, primarily, with amps that had a high amount of negative feedback. Whatever their other flaws, I have rarely heard that issue from no feedback amps.
Putzy amplfiers or class D in general , at least the ones i have heard sound far from dead , as a matter of fact with an unheard use of large amounts of negative feedback dead is not how i would describe class-D sound. IMO, they have issues with timbre , instrument size ,finesse and lack a proper soundscape for the illusion of realism.
Dead they are not , good class-D have good jump , better than a lot of class a/ab amplifiers but they bring other issues that may or maynot be offensive to those using them .
The big advantage of Class-D IMO, is the access to high affordable power , this usually eliminates clipping , making music sound more dynamic to those living with clipping for years via under powered Amplfiers ..
Regards
I don't agree about ncore sound. It has an unnatural sheen to the sound...a lot less like delta/sigma digital. True, it is not as dead sounding as high feedback Class AB but when a 30 watt tube amp can out dynamic it on normal (90db) speakers then I would not consider it terribly dynamic. Power is not to be a good indicator for this "Flattening" of the dynamic envelope.
Brad,
"Boring" is a totally subjective term used in this context.
You say a "dead hand placed on dynamics," but that's a meaningless conclusion/comment.
In my way of thinking, "boring" probably means an amplifier that is very close to the "straight wire with gain" that many used to talk about. An amplifier that adds (or subtracts) nothing from the sound, but simply provides the necessary voltage gain and current requirement.
Dave.
I'm not so sure in this case. I've been puzzled by the same phenomenon in my AHB2. It's the cleanest amp I've ever heard, precisely as one would expect given its vanishingly low distortion and in particular its feedforward compensation for crossover distortion. But I have the impression that the transient reproduction doesn't isn't right. I have no idea why from a technical perspective -- I can think of many possibilities, given the design -- but the transients seem rounded off, and that sucks the life out of the music. I don't think we're talking the absence of distortion here.
If transient production isn't right, and transients are rounded off, that's distortion Josh. :) (Whether it's measureable or not is another task.)
Stirring the pot with these guys, I was purposely talking with diffuse and not concise language. :) It's always some subjective aspect of the performance they hang their hat on. I have no problem with that, but you can't have it both ways.
Dave.
You have a point. :-)
For what it's worth, and speaking personally rather than technically, I prefer "straight wire with gain" accuracy. I find that euphonic coloration becomes cloying and annoying after a while and I don't think that distortion adds something to recordings of acoustical instruments, which in real life have a gusto and purity that makes our efforts sound pathetic, and so no lack of impact!
Speaking technically, I'm really curious about this issue of dynamic distortion. Clearly we're missing something because this doesn't seem to show up on steady state measurements of the harmonic spectrum or IMD, which I find normally correlate pretty well with the way a good amplifier sounds in its linear range for reasons that anyone who has ever played with additive synthesis and noted the effect of harmonic spectrum on timbre will understand. And it doesn't seem to show up on conventional dynamic measurements, either, we've known how to deal with TIM for years. The main candidates I can think of are feedback loop issues, power supply impedance/sagging, and the way the amplifier/feedback loop responds to back EMF, which could explain some of the long time constant stuff I hear on piano ADSR. But the AHB2 is a complicated beast, what with its feedforward amp (if I understand correctly) and rail switching, so I can see other possibilities -- assuming I'm not imagining things!
I think most hear understand 1) what boring means and 2) understand when all recordings are exhibiting this trait then the signal transmission cannot be as pure as the measurements claim...unless you think accurate reproduction of recordings should sound boring. Doesn't show much faith in those making the recordings...
Well, I disagree on both points.
I think "boring" might have a different meaning to many listeners....and certainly depending upon the context.
AND when all recordings are exhibiting a particular trait, that's NOT boring....Something is wrong.
This is a perfect example of how the "language" of audio subjective evaluation has become so vague and meaningless.
If we're going to hang our hat on this type of language, we have to live with the pesky questions that come with it.
Example, and one you might appreciate: A guy returned one of my Apogee active crossovers many years ago and told me it didn't have any "jump." I told him on the phone it's not supposed to have "jump." Silence on the other end.
I sent that same crossover on to another fella with Diva's and he replied "it's very dynamic, I haven't heard my Diva's exhibit that amount of dynamics, ever."
It's very tricky to make conclusions based on insufficient information.
Dave.
I think I was the first person to use the word "boring" on this thread to describe one particular amp.
The amp in question is the Benchmark AHB-2. Yes it's boring to listen to, but yes, it's probably very accurate if its output is analysed on the test bench.
I described this amp's sound as such that one tends to want to turn down the volume and maybe to forward on to the next track. An exciting amp will have the reverse - the temptation is to turn up the volume.
Most valve amps have considerable distortion, but often sound better than SS amps with many speakers. They add excitement to the music and I don't care if it has poor results on the test bench - all I want from an amp is to enjoy my music with as near as possible as the enjoyment at a live venue. Would you not agree?
I certainly understand you premise that a power amplifier should add distortion, or whatever, to add excitement to the music. That's not a new premise. It's decades old.
I have a few friends who've listened to the Benchmark amp extensively (I had a limited exposure) and they don't describe it as "boring." I also have read the reviews on the amp in Stereophile, etc. None of these have mentioned a "boring" presentation either. So, it's my opinion that your boring subjective evaluation is flawed.
That said, no, I don't agree that an amplifier should attempt to create the enjoyment of a live venue. That's not its job. I'm not sure why that's such a difficult concept to grasp.
Dave.
> I have a few friends who've listened to the Benchmark amp extensively (I had a limited exposure) and they don't describe it as "boring." I also have read the reviews on the amp in Stereophile, etc. None of these have mentioned a "boring" presentation either.
Firstly, I think you should re-read my definintion of "boring" in my description of the Benchmark. I defined it as the urge to turn down the volume control (you don't want elevator music playing loudly) as opposed to exciting amps where the urge is to turn it up.
That said, please also re-read part of Stereophiles's review, in particular the paragraphs under "Listening in the Country". Expressions such as these crop up:
"the sound was somewhat hard and thin"
"robbed of some of its warmth and resonance"
"sounded strange. Both voices were higher, not in pitch but in tonal range, as if they'd been transformed from mezzo-sopranos"
"her voice was robbed of its bell-like richness by the AHB2"
These are an indication that this amp is very speaker dependent regarding performance, although (as I previously mentioned) their review is GENERALLY very favourable.
The Absolute Sound reviews says:
"I'm not sure I can in good conscience recommend this amplifier to them [audiophiles] as I am not sure they are in search of what it offers: a precision instrument designed to perform the precisely defined task of reproducing music and sound accurately"
HiFi Plus concludes:
"It seems fussier about speaker partnering than usual, however, and I would recommend trying it with your speakers before purchase"
Remember, when I bought my Benchmark there were no worthwhile reviews for me to read. I was influenced by an Avantgarde owner who thought it was the best amp in the world. After the very disappointing sound it offered through my AG speakers, I found a couple of reviews had been recently published. Of course I was looking for hints in these reviews that all was not as rosy as a quick read would suggest. Reviewers are never outright critical of the products they review, so I find that "reading between the lines" of a good review is most important in deciding whether a product should be bought.
Many people will be delighted with their Benchmarks as part of their system, but I found that most of the 8 or 10 other amps I've tried since were far better in my system than the Benchmark -
Hope this explains why I found the Benchmark "boring" and was pleased to get rid of it. I now have 5 alternative amps that are considerably preferable to listen to than the Benchmark. These by NAD, Accuphase, Gamut, Consonance (tube) and Micromega. Incidentally Red Wine and Quad together with the Benchmark were the most unsatisfactory.
of the whole Halcro 'lowest distortion amps ever' of maybe 15 years ago. Everybody loved them at the time, heard comments about their attack and possibly thinness (didn't pay a whole lot of attention because waaay beyond my price range) and, in just a few years, they were gone.
For the best amps ever, they sure disappeared quickly. Too much heroic effect to remove distortion, just like the Benchmark? I certainly don't know...
Ha-ha. Yes, but there is a place for very accurate amplifiers - and for that matter speakers. Recording studios need them. I have had both the Benchmark amp and ACT 50 Active speakers, both designed primarily for studio use, and was hugely disappointed by both. They are best left in recording studios where the engineers need them as an accurate tool in the work, rather than for audiophiles who want their music to offer excitement and enjoyment, even at the cost of a little inaccuracy.
Good clarification...not that anyone other than Davey seemed to need it. The only thing that puzzles me is why you are still trying SS amps with AG speakers? I have heard AGs owns SS Integrated with several models and the sound is always hard and too forward. The best AG demo I heard was with Audiopax electronic, a Lampizator GG DAC and Sound Galleries music server.
For many years I used tube amps with the Avantgardes. These were all power amps fed by the output from a Mark Levinson 390S - a CD player with variable (analogue) output and 2 digital inputs, one used for DAB tuner.
These amps included Art Audio PX-25, Art Audio Carissa (845 based), Graaf GM-20 (6C33C based), Audio Note 300B and Consonance Cyber 845 monos. Of these, my favourites were the AA ones and the Cyber 845. The Graaf (OTL design) was physically noisy (it buzzed constantly) and the AN was dreary.
A year or so ago I decided to look for a suitable SS design for a number of reasons - I'd spend more time listening to it, AG themselves build only SS amps, etc.
I certainly don't regret switching to SS and have no plans for returning to tubes, although I still have the Cyber 845s.
I've tried several amps with the best being NAD M12 with Gamut D200 and NAD M32 integrated.
I know where you are coming from with the tube vs SS , SET requires good design and the right speakers load to deliver , in other words "effort " where SS is much easier and plug and play for the most part with very little effort and little to no maintenance ..
Regards
> I know where you are coming from with the tube vs SS , SET requires good design and the right speakers load to deliver , in other words "effort " where SS is much easier and plug and play for the most part with very little effort and little to no maintenance ..
No, that's not really the situation, at least as far as my system is concerned.
My speakers are unfussy in as much as all amps can be used without horrors. When I bought the Avantgardes, many people said that horns and SETs were the made-in-heaven combination, so I acquired a good SET. My circumstances at the time allowed me to try other SETs for prolonged periods of time and I loved them all - except the buzzing Graaf and the dreary AN.
It was only after 10+ years that I thought that there surely must be a SS amp that sounded at least as good as the SETs. After all there are thousands to choose from compared with the "cottage industry" of SET builders - good as they are.
You will see from my other posts that my search for an equally exciting SS amp took quite a while and included some serious disappointments. However I feel I've achieved what I set out to do - find a SS amp that allows my horns to sing as beautifully as the SETs.
Peter
Mike over on the Shark runs his AG with toobs, i did hear them with the Toobs but he has also run them with SS and liked the extra grunt and control. With very low distortion amps the Pre-amp dictates sonics immensely, that's not to say it's not so otherwise, but very much so with very low distortion amplifiers.
Not unusual to see many SS amps being driven by tooby pre-amps ....
Regards
Edits: 01/04/18
So, you don't accept that an amplifier can have distortions that would result in a boring sound? I have heard just this effect with a number of amplifiers even including some rather expensive ones like the McIntosh MC501 monos. Your claim they are just being neutral doesn't hold water with real music experience, where live almost never sounds boring. Your premise that the other amps that sound more "alive" are sounding this way due to distortion makes little sense as distortion will invariably degrade a performance not enhance it. Also, your premise implies that nearly all recordings are somehow badly missing the core dynamics of the performance and we should just accept far from an alive sound because that is what was actually recorded. My own experience with recording live performances and possession of "direct to disk" recordings shows your implication to be wrong. Many recordings are far better than the gear allows you to hear them.
If there is a dullness or as we have been saying boring sound with all recordings then how can this be right compared to an amp that shows a wide contrast in dynamics and liveliness from recording to recording?? Maximum contrast between recordings is more likely to be correct rather than a uniform "neutral" sound...this is just another form of distortion. Of course you have to believe the original premise from th OP that the benchmark amp renders the sound boring...I know I got that feeling with the benchmark DAC.
One would have thought this an easy Process to understand , I guess not .... :)
Edits: 01/03/18
It is an easy process to understand. Do you need some help with the basic concept??I believe that a power amplifier should be (as close as possible to) a straight wire with gain. How difficult is that to grasp?
I assume you disagree. That's totally fine.
My goodness.
Dave.
Edits: 01/03/18
Well you seem to know so much you are even making up my responses .. :)
The "perfect" amplifier is a straight wire with gain, Big foot is considered pretty fast and gainly ,
which have you seen ... :???
Regards
Edits: 01/04/18
I'm not sure why you're still adding your two cents in this portion of the thread.
Brad is a fella that outlines his thinking rather well. I may agree or disagree with it, but it certainly warrants reading his posts carefully. In other words, I know where he's coming from.
You, OTOH seem incapable of anything but pedantic and juvenile replies.
If you don't mind, please don't respond to any further posts I make in this thread. Thanks much.
Dave.
Excuse me for trying to communicate at your level ... :)
I had lost you way back when you couldn't grasp how loudspeaker imp/ phase affects the sound of amplfiers, why Brad wastes his time with your circular nonsense is beyond me, being a research scientist , i guess he loves the chase ...
Regards
Well, I'm not sure what the juvenile insults are all about, but you've illustrated my point perfectly.
I really don't have a clue who you are, or if you have any expertise in the audio field since you don't have the courtesy to identify yourself or even sign your postings.
And (not unexpectedly) you don't accept offline communication.
I asked you nicely previously, but I'll try again with an expanded request and ask you to no longer respond to any of my posts, anywhere.
I hope you can heed that request.
Dave.
My premise was very simply and clear.
Your post is total speculation on various other "premises" that I didn't state.
Dave.
You stated distortion is improving apparent dynamics to make the sound less boring...now THAT is really some speculation with not a shred of proof.
No I didn't. Read my previous post again.
I said I understood the premise that some folks think a power amplifier should perform that function.
You need to actually read my posts more carefully and not read between the lines. I know that's difficult for you. You had issues with that on the old Apogee forum too.
I've stated one, and only one, premise in this series of posts. If you choose to read it, then you can agree or disagree with it, that's your prerogative.
Dave.
No one has to read between the lines with your claims of "straight wire with gain" and if it doesn't sound interesting then it must be that the other amps are adding "excitement" distortion. Hogwash.
You have your credo plastered all over this thread. You are ignoring completely the listening aspect of the whole thing for essentially a view of "if it measures great and sounds boring then there is something wrong with the listener who can't handle the truth".
How is it possible for you to understand someone who thinks a power amplifier should add excitement? I don't understand this even though I think reproduced music should often not sound boring (there are of course some boring recordings...often with way too much compression). Audible distortion, either tonally or temporally, is to be avoided. The key word there is audible. If an amp sounds boring with most of a persons record collection there is likely something wrong temporally that is caused by some aspect of that product's design. Why is that premise so hard for you to accept? Because you worship the static measurements? Read some research into the validity of those measurements by Cheever, Geddes and way back Crowhurst.
You seem to fail to realize that the listener is supreme not the oscilloscope and that low measured distortion does not guarantee good sound or "true" replication of the original signal. There have been several studies showing this can easily be the case. Geddes even found a slightly negative correlation between THD and listener preference. HOW you get rid of distortion matters just as much (or more) than the distortion itself. Your understanding of these things is very superficial.
I think it was Richard Heyser who said " "Perhaps more than any other discipline, audio engineering involves not only purely objective characterization but also subjective interpretations. It is the listening experience, that personal and most private sensation, which is the intended result of our labors in audio engineering. No technical measurement, however glorified with mathematics, can escape that fact."
The "straight wire with gain" is an abstract concept. I didn't make it up, but it is (or has been) an objective for some amplifier designers to try and achieve. Certainly there are intangibles, engineering hurdles, etc, etc, that crop up along the process in producing a final (real) product. Whether those intangibles (distortions) produce a more realistic (live, boring, whatever you want to call it) audible result is open for discussion. Nevertheless, the original objective remains.....at least for some designers.
If you think the "straight wire with gain", or my belief that it is the correct objective for power amplifier design is "hogwash", then so be it.
I'm not sure why that amplifier design premise should be so difficult for you to grasp.
It's not just mine.....it's been the design premise of numerous audio amplifier designers through the decades.
Dave.
I am at a loss as to why you think I don't grasp such a basic concept and it is widely known that you didn't come up with it. Whether it is a worthy goal or not in the abstract is not much in debate...all amps should strive for the max linearity...according to the listeners. This is not as subjective as you think as there have reasonable attempts to correlate listener preference with distortion. It turns out to not be what most meter readers expect. The reason being the typical strategy for lowering distortion seems to introduce other issues, the most obvious being reduction of low order harmonics at the expense of making many more, sonically damaging high order harmonics. In other words the PATH to lower distortion is arguably more important than magnitude of the reduction. The impact is highly non-linear.
Linearity according to the scope is not weighted for the impact of those residual distortions on the listeners. Cheever and Geddes both came up with exponential weighting with increasing harmonic order. Once accounted for there is a big change in ranking for sonic "straight wire".
"all amps should strive for the max linearity...according to the listeners."
That's an interesting statement. I hope you're not speaking for most listeners. :)
I believe many listeners don't give a hoot about linearity, or distortion performance, or any other objective evaluation characteristic of power amplifiers.
I think you are, at least somewhat, in that camp as well, yes?
Your treatise on why nearly all audio amplifiers are incorrectly designed establishes your baseline on this topic. Unless you've pulled back on your premise regarding this???
Dave.
They may not care on a technical level but many of them care about it sounding more realistic. Correlating what they find more realistic with measurements IS interesting or at least should be to every audio designer... not just a demonstration of design complexity chops.
I walk the walk, having only SET at home. Linearity within the SET domain though is of interest to me, which is why I go with amps from Aries Cerat. Ultra stable and quiet power supplies and using the most linear tubes and design techniques.
Yes, unfortunately walking the walk to Aries Cerat land is extremely expensive.
Very interesting power amplifier products nonetheless, but not an example of what the audio industry should be producing nowadays. IMHO.
Dave.
Your last sentence is rather odd. Why would AC gear not be what the audio industry should be producing? Because of what? Heat? Weight? Price? The "industry" should produce the best sounding gear possible, IMO. AC represents one company's vision of what it takes to do that.
Cost, of course.
Dave.
Just the last one .... ? :)
You should request a list of acceptable amplifier designs and forward it to AC... BTW you need to give the name of at least one giant killer Class D , best of the best ...
Regards
Edits: 01/05/18 01/05/18
Actually if you look at the Milliwat to 1 watt distortion on tooby amps distortion is very low , this is the RMS sweet spot when listening domestically on 90db/w/m speakers ..,
Regards
Davey,We are obviously discussing in absolute terms and i know you know this , so why the silly retorts.
All Situations are, but not limited to , impedance mismatch , power cables , IC, pre-amp drive, setup experience rah ,rah ,rah , has to be taken into account and dealt with before commenting, many obvious reasons why novice type mistakes can account for varying results as you experienced with your active xover sale ..
Your Thesis ,One thought it dead no jump , you , it's not suppose to have Jump. Another thought it dynamic, well , adding the ying and yang content its not suppose to sound dynamic, right ..?
:)
Edits: 01/02/18
I thought I was talking to Brad here. I guess not.
Dave.
Such an amp will not sound Boring , as it will render recordings without interference , dead low DR recordings will sound as such , lively high DR recordings will sound as such .
When all recordings have the same presentation is when this becomes an issue ..
Some years ago, An amp designer I'm friendly with had an amplfier like that , not boring , the opposite, lots of jump on all recordings , adding its own flavor, this added feature was obvious when we played our own studio recordings where one in particular had an added 50hz boom put in for massive kick drum effect , his amp squashed it , tighten the bass with so much grip the boom disappeared into the back ground and was not pronnouced at all, so what most were praising as controlled , accurate tight bass was not ..
This kind of coloration and to be more precise "distortion" is not obvious on the bench as the amp measured exemplary ...
Regards
So a straight wire with gain is NOT "boring." I got it. Whew!
But hold on now.......you said "Boring." What's the difference between "boring" and "Boring"??Seems like you've made a conclusion on your friends amp with little facts to support it. If the amp measured exemplary on the bench, then clearly the measurements were not sufficient and/or your subjective evaluation had some other explanation.
The immediate knee-jerking to a position that bench testing is inherently insufficient to identify subjective performance is just the easy way out and indicates a lack of intellectual curiosity. I submit that a more rigorous testing scheme probably would have identified the "issue" you noted. Or at least given you some further insight.Dave.
Edits: 01/02/18
Seems you misunderstood what i wrote , please read again , i gave enuff factors to support my position , so much so the issue was addressed by the designer ..
Regards
Edits: 01/02/18
A romper room Prose ,,,,, how the mighty has fallen ,...
Regards
> "It is quite possibly very accurate, has no colourisation and is dead quiet, but it's also dead boring!"
> Exactly what an amplifier should be.
If I have to choose between an accurate, uncoloured but dead boring amp and one that offers excitement to my listening (with a little inaccuracy if fed into an oscilloscope), I know which I'd choose!
In my view an amplifier should try to offer a similar excitement factor to a live performance - I care much less what the computer analysis says.
Peter
Hi, Peter,
I agree that some coloration can be a good thing if it makes the music come alive and sound more realistic and natural in astereo"high fidelity" system. But this can be done with a preamp as well as a power amp. Or both, depending on components. In my case I use a sweet sounding preamp with a "boring" amp to get the sound I'm after with my system.
Regards,
Tom
Hi TomI don't think accurate amplifiers need to be boring. It's just that some are - in the same way some studio monitor speakers (designed to be accurate) sound horrid in the home.
I see you have a NAD M22. I'm not sure that would be boring. In fact, the reason I bought my (boring) Benchmark amp was because a fellow Avantgarde owner was waxing lyrical about his new Benchmark that he considered marginally better than his M22. In the event, I established that his No 1 priority was to have dead silence from his 107dB speakers and the Benchmark is probably the quietest amp on the market. I was SO disappointed with it, but after trying many other amps with or without my M12 preamp, I choose a NAD M32 integrated steamer/preamp/DAC/power amp. I'd not describe it as in the least boring, but I believe it to be pretty accurate. I'm well pleased with it, but now have a selection of very nice tried and tested amps for sale as the M32 beats or matches them all. These include Accuphase A-36, Gamut D200 Mk III, Red Wine Signature 30-2, Consonance Cyber 845 and NAD M12 preamp.
Peter
Edits: 01/01/18
I auditioned the M12/M22 pairing and while it was very dynamic, it seemed a bit analytical, lacking the bloom and reverberation that I enjoy. I much preferred the M22 with a tube preamp; it has the dynamics and power that make music come alive, with the harmonics and body that keep it sounding natural. The M12 might have sounded good with a tube amp but I'm not interested in using power tubes so didn't bother listening to that match up. It would be interesting though, to hear the differences between the M12/M22 pairing and the M32 integrated.
Tom
> It would be interesting though, to hear the differences between the M12/M22 pairing and the M32 integrated.
That's a comparison I'd be interested in too. However I wouldn't be interested in changing from the M32 which for me has plenty of the excitement factor we all want from our music. Whether it can be described as more "tube-like" than the M12/M22 I don't know but I prefer its sound to the M12 with 845-based mono power amps.
Peter
When is it coloration and how are we determining no coloration , Measurements or when it sounds boring .. ?
Any amp that renders recordings boring has distortion but not necessarily in tonality. There are also temporal distortions and those could be more serious to negatively impacting the realism of reproduction.
Any amp that renders recordings boring has distortion but not necessarily in tonality. There are also temporal distortions and those could be more serious to negatively impacting the realism of reproduction.
You Alive ..!! :)When are you going to fill us in on your new wares, heard Wisnon heard your setup ........
Regards
Edits: 01/02/18
He only heard my small system...not the big one. I am waiting for my Aries Cerat Genus Integrated amp to go with the Kassandra Dac.
Weren't you using them at the Show ? heard speakers there sounded good ...
Edits: 01/02/18
Which show?
Swiss
Ah yes. I was reading your post wrong thinking you heard the setup at the show that is why i was wondering where. We managed a very good show sound. Like cooking it is hard to screw up when you use the best ingredients.
Hi, A.Wayne,
I'm not really sure what "boring" sounds like. I was responding to cawson@onetel's comment that an accurate amp was "boring". Otherwise, I consider transparency to be what's important if I'm trying to let the signature of a component, the coloration I like, to pass through to the speakers.
In the case of my preamp, it's signature is measured as having plenty of second harmonic distortion which is described as "fattening" up the sound. To my ears that euphonic distortion provides a richness of tone and sweetens the sound without creating a lush, syrupy mess. And why it's important that the power amp I use with that preamp doesn't add much of it's own coloration; it needs to be transparent. The result is that I hear wonderfully pleasing and realistic music played from four different sources.
I don't believe it's possible to have an absolutely perfect sound system without spending a whole lot of money on components and an acoustically engineered listening room. I also don't think it's possible to know exactly what the recording, mastering, and/or mixing engineer(s) heard so whether a stereo component is "accurate" is somewhat moot. In my opinion.
Regards,
Tom
That's (more or less) the standard answer that folks have posting for years. I get it. It's so cliche' at this point, that it's boring.
My post was to highlight how the "baseline" for audio equipment performance has skewed through the years. "High Fidelity" didn't used to be a subjective label and marketing term.
Dave.
If it sounds dead it is and really not accurate at all and this will show when on the test bench doing Measurements ..
Regards
You didn't read his post.
He used the the words "dead quiet" and "dead boring" but also the words "very accurate" and "no colourisation."
So, your post doesn't make any sense...in this context.
Dave.
Because of the way he wrote it, I think. It's a remarkably pure sounding amplifier. It's transients that seem to have issues. I don't think enough work has been done in this area. John Curl as I recall pointed to an interesting paper on FM distortion in feedback loops, but even he doesn't know what the story is here. The issue just hasn't been fully analyzed from an engineering perspective. But I hear it again and again when I AB level-matched amps.
Responding to your conclusion , about being "boring " , not his ....
> "High Fidelity" didn't used to be a subjective label and marketing term.
Interestingly (or not) the expression High Fidelity is used in UK in the way Stereo is used in US. I prefer the UK expression as it purports to describe the quality of sound rather than a technical expression for 2 channel music!
I'm quite pleased that my description of what I want from my Hi-Fi (stereo) is recognised as "standard". Maybe I'm less odd than I thought!
HNY
To be clear, I was referring to the term "high fidelity" in a much broader context......not just audio.
Usage in that larger context (excluding audio) it would have a literal meaning and not the squishy meaning it does in the audio industry.
We're putting quote marks around the word "standard" now? Classic. :)
Dave.
> We're putting quote marks around the word "standard" now? Classic. :)
Haha - Did you not notice that I was quoting you? Quotes deserve quote marks. ;-)
I do keep trying myself and have not found one to my liking as yet ......
perfect opportunity for me to chime in.
I use N core, very happy, best sound I've heard.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
