I must admit that I have never subscribed to the 'golden ear' brigade.
However I have used a Quad 33 as a pre-amp, later replaced with a
Cambridge C70 (A1 without the power amps) and now a NAD 3120 as a
pre-amp only.

I have to say that after getting used to the Quad, when I replaced it
with the Cambridge the sound was totally different - much more solid -
perhaps what some would describe as warmer - and with a noticable loss
of higher frequencies. The Quad by comparison would be described as
polite and laid back with a distinct lack of dynamics. Comparing their
outputs on a network analyser shows them to have a similar frequency
and phase response - certainly nothing that would account for the
audio difference.

The change to the NAD was more subtle but still noticable. Certainly
the top end was more detailed (cymbals and triangles show things up
remarkably well) and the bass was noticably deeper but not so 'in your
face' (I like classical organ music.) Again however the frequency
response and phase responses were almost identical to the other two.

Anyone any polite suggestions as to cause? Even my wife and children
(then teenagers) noticed the difference without asking or prompting.


--
Woody

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 06:59:39 GMT, "harrogate2"
wrote:

I must admit that I have never subscribed to the 'golden ear' brigade.
However I have used a Quad 33 as a pre-amp, later replaced with a
Cambridge C70 (A1 without the power amps) and now a NAD 3120 as a
pre-amp only.

I have to say that after getting used to the Quad, when I replaced it
with the Cambridge the sound was totally different - much more solid -
perhaps what some would describe as warmer - and with a noticable loss
of higher frequencies. The Quad by comparison would be described as
polite and laid back with a distinct lack of dynamics. Comparing their
outputs on a network analyser shows them to have a similar frequency
and phase response - certainly nothing that would account for the
audio difference.

The change to the NAD was more subtle but still noticable. Certainly
the top end was more detailed (cymbals and triangles show things up
remarkably well) and the bass was noticably deeper but not so 'in your
face' (I like classical organ music.) Again however the frequency
response and phase responses were almost identical to the other two.

Anyone any polite suggestions as to cause? Even my wife and children
(then teenagers) noticed the difference without asking or prompting.

Sure - try it again under level-matched DBT conditions. Been there,
done that many times. Without LMDBT, it don't mean a thing.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

The other explanation is that the device you used for comparing the
frequency response and phase responses was not sufficiently resolving to see
the differences. I note you say almost identical so there was a difference
?
I note Stewart has pointed out that you cannot test without LMDBT. It is
most important that levels are exactly matched but I do not agree on the
merits of DBT. From memory Stewart has a Krell amp, if all "good" amps
sound the same does he think that it is not until you get to Krell territory
that amps sound "good" or was it their robust build quality that justified
the additional outlay ?
Regards Richard
"harrogate2" wrote in message
...
I must admit that I have never subscribed to the 'golden ear' brigade.
However I have used a Quad 33 as a pre-amp, later replaced with a
Cambridge C70 (A1 without the power amps) and now a NAD 3120 as a
pre-amp only.

I have to say that after getting used to the Quad, when I replaced it
with the Cambridge the sound was totally different - much more solid -
perhaps what some would describe as warmer - and with a noticable loss
of higher frequencies. The Quad by comparison would be described as
polite and laid back with a distinct lack of dynamics. Comparing their
outputs on a network analyser shows them to have a similar frequency
and phase response - certainly nothing that would account for the
audio difference.

The change to the NAD was more subtle but still noticable. Certainly
the top end was more detailed (cymbals and triangles show things up
remarkably well) and the bass was noticably deeper but not so 'in your
face' (I like classical organ music.) Again however the frequency
response and phase responses were almost identical to the other two.

Anyone any polite suggestions as to cause? Even my wife and children
(then teenagers) noticed the difference without asking or prompting.


--
Woody

Richard Wall wrote:
The other explanation is that the device you used for comparing the
frequency response and phase responses was not sufficiently resolving to see
the differences. I note you say almost identical so there was a difference
?
I note Stewart has pointed out that you cannot test without LMDBT. It is
most important that levels are exactly matched but I do not agree on the
merits of DBT.

I dont see how you can fail to agree on the merits of DBT - it removes
both the testers AND the subjects bias.

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:14:19 +0100, "Richard Wall"
wrote:

The other explanation is that the device you used for comparing the
frequency response and phase responses was not sufficiently resolving to see
the differences. I note you say almost identical so there was a difference
?
I note Stewart has pointed out that you cannot test without LMDBT. It is
most important that levels are exactly matched but I do not agree on the
merits of DBT.

Why not? What's your alternative?

From memory Stewart has a Krell amp, if all "good" amps
sound the same does he think that it is not until you get to Krell territory
that amps sound "good" or was it their robust build quality that justified
the additional outlay ?

This old warhorse gets dragged out regularly. I use insensitive 3-ohm
speakers, and while my Audiolab (and several other amps) sounds just
like the Krell, it gets *very* hot after half an hour or so at high
SPLs. Hence, the Krell is there because it drives the speakers with
ease, not because it sounds different.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:14:19 +0100, "Richard Wall"
wrote:



From memory Stewart has a Krell amp, if all "good" amps
sound the same does he think that it is not until you get to Krell territory
that amps sound "good" or was it their robust build quality that justified
the additional outlay ?


This old warhorse gets dragged out regularly. I use insensitive 3-ohm
speakers, and while my Audiolab (and several other amps) sounds just
like the Krell, it gets *very* hot after half an hour or so at high
SPLs. Hence, the Krell is there because it drives the speakers with
ease, not because it sounds different.


so did you get the Krell or the Apogees first?
And what speakers were you using before the Apogees?

Hmmmm, I don't like the chances of running your Apogees through my 8000S
.... my amp gets really hot in the Australian summer just driving a
nomimal 8 Ohm pair of speakers ...

(of course, it could be because my room gets the afternoon sun and the
amp could probably do with more clearance in the rack for ventilation)

Tat Chan wrote:


... my amp gets really hot in the Australian summer just driving a
nomimal 8 Ohm pair of speakers ...

(of course, it could be because my room gets the afternoon sun and the
amp could probably do with more clearance in the rack for ventilation)

The Ozzie speaker makers like their 'difficult loads'.
perhaps they were in league with a certain Ozzie (ex) amp maker. :-)

--
Eiron.

Eiron wrote:

Tat Chan wrote:


... my amp gets really hot in the Australian summer just driving a
nomimal 8 Ohm pair of speakers ...

(of course, it could be because my room gets the afternoon sun and the
amp could probably do with more clearance in the rack for ventilation)


The Ozzie speaker makers like their 'difficult loads'.
perhaps they were in league with a certain Ozzie (ex) amp maker. :-)


Not too familiar with Australian speakers having difficult loads. I had
a look at the basic specs for several speakers from various
manufacturers and they seem to have a nominal impedance of 8 Ohms.

I don't have an Australian pair of speakers, though my next speaker
purchase/upgrade will probably be Australian as they seem to offer the
most bang for the buck over here.

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:08:20 +1000, Tat Chan
wrote:

Eiron wrote:

Tat Chan wrote:


... my amp gets really hot in the Australian summer just driving a
nomimal 8 Ohm pair of speakers ...

(of course, it could be because my room gets the afternoon sun and the
amp could probably do with more clearance in the rack for ventilation)


The Ozzie speaker makers like their 'difficult loads'.
perhaps they were in league with a certain Ozzie (ex) amp maker. :-)

Not too familiar with Australian speakers having difficult loads. I had
a look at the basic specs for several speakers from various
manufacturers and they seem to have a nominal impedance of 8 Ohms.

I think he's having go at Trevor Wilson, our resident zero global
feedback fan, who always drags out a particularly vicious speaker
curve when amp capabilities are mentioned. IIRC, the speaker in
question was however a US-made Infinity model, which dipped to below 1
ohm at high frequencies.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 14:13:44 +1000, Tat Chan
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 10:14:19 +0100, "Richard Wall"
wrote:

From memory Stewart has a Krell amp, if all "good" amps
sound the same does he think that it is not until you get to Krell territory
that amps sound "good" or was it their robust build quality that justified
the additional outlay ?

This old warhorse gets dragged out regularly. I use insensitive 3-ohm
speakers, and while my Audiolab (and several other amps) sounds just
like the Krell, it gets *very* hot after half an hour or so at high
SPLs. Hence, the Krell is there because it drives the speakers with
ease, not because it sounds different.

so did you get the Krell or the Apogees first?
And what speakers were you using before the Apogees?

I got them at the same time, and Maggie 1Cs, which my older Audiolab
8000P drove quite happily. I should have kept that amp, since I ended
up buying another one when I did my own 'amplifier shootout' while
setting up my TV sound system.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering