Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

Bob Latham wrote:

Don't anyone ever tell me all good amps sound the same, they
simply don't, unless of course these amps are both not good.

Or one of them was good and the other wasnt.

Or the listener imagined it (you didnt say anyone else heard that, only
the listener)

All good amps will produce the *exact same* voltage pattern on their
outouts. hence if theres a different sound, at least one of the amps is
'not good'.

You are also unclear on the point of wether any other parts of the
signal path changed - did you use the same source on both amps or not?

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
Bob Latham wrote:

Don't anyone ever tell me all good amps sound the same, they
simply don't, unless of course these amps are both not good.

Or one of them was good and the other wasnt.

Or the listener imagined it (you didnt say anyone else heard that, only
the listener)

All good amps will produce the *exact same* voltage pattern on their
outouts. hence if theres a different sound, at least one of the amps is
'not good'.

You are also unclear on the point of wether any other parts of the signal
path changed - did you use the same source on both amps or not?

It would only produce the *exact same* voltage pattern, if it were the
*exact same* amp, good or otherwise.

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

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

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

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

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

In article , 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.

My recollection is that the 33 does not have a very flat response even with
the controls set as near flat as possible compared with more modern units.
FWIW my experience is that even quite small changes in overall response can
be audible.

I'd be interested to know how you measured the response in terms of the
circumstances of use. Afraid I don't know much about the other amps you
mention, but wonder about things like the levels of hum/ripple, output
impedances, etc.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

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

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

Just Askin' wrote:

It would only produce the *exact same* voltage pattern, if it were the
*exact same* amp, good or otherwise.

Yeah, and we all know you've got the mysterious Vorlon electron
recyclign machine in your back garden so that you can repeat the test
with the same electrons.

Muppet.

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

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.

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

"harrogate2" wrote in message
...
I must admit that I have never subscribed to the 'golden ear' brigade.


Believe it - they exist. I once asked my partner (musician) to stop me when
I had increased the sound from a Technics deck (with pitch sliders) by a
semitone by 'blind' listening alone - she stopped me at virtually *dead on*
+ 6%!! (On many other occasions she has been able point out subtle
differences in sounds that I hadn't heard up 'til then but which became
immediately obvious.....)

Me? - I've no idea and never trust my own hearing beyond 'liking/preferring'
or 'not liking/not preferring' a sound. Which is why I often quote the
remarks of others who claim (and seem) to have better 'listening' abilities.
Much as some here don't want to hear it, I only decide on 'improvements' (or
otherwise) over an extended listening period with a range of very familiar
music. But then I go a long way matching components to produce a similar
'house' sound anyway and will only say that, AFAIAC, an amp is only one half
of the vital and inseparable amp/speakers combination in any given listening
room, in any case...


snip

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.


Well if the 'all good amps sound the same' mantra is true (a good example of
the 'banging on' we hear so much about...) it kinda infers that at least one
of your amps isn't too good, doesn't it? Also that manufacturers using
different components, circuit topologies and architecture must, for the
greater part, be simply ****ing in the breeze if all they do is achieve
another version of exactly the same sound...??

To me it's quite simple - I definitely hear no difference between SS amps
from, say, £150 and up other than sheer volume, but I don't think any two
different valve amps will sound exactly the same and even identical models
can easily be 'tuned' to be different by swapping valves and other
components. This is a great part of the appeal for me - they allow me to
'tweak' a sound that I like and which I think sounds best or faithful
according to *my* own ideas.

What's scary is just how quickly I can accomodate to the sound of different
systems and it indicates to me that, for all the talk of 'fidelity' to
mastertapes (real or imagined) or live events (whether attended or not),
that we *all* do a lot of kidding ourselves that we have *neutral* and
'accurate' systems.....

Moreover, I don't think that one amp/speaker combination is ever likely to
be 'ideal' for *all* different types of music and prefer to run a number of
different setups (there will be 4 of them on the go, later this afternoon)
for different types of music - choirs or solo female vocals accompanied by
an acoustic guitar vs. electronic dance/trance/techno being two fairly good
examples of music that benefit from quite different setups IMO...

But then, that's just me.... :-)

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
My recollection is that the 33 does not have a very flat response even
with the controls set as near flat as possible compared with more modern
units. FWIW my experience is that even quite small changes in overall
response can be audible.

It has, of course, got a tone control bypass switch.

IIRC, the pickup preamp had distinctly marginal headroom on the 33.

--
*Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

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

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:52:37 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"harrogate2" wrote in message
...
I must admit that I have never subscribed to the 'golden ear' brigade.

Believe it - they exist. I once asked my partner (musician) to stop me when
I had increased the sound from a Technics deck (with pitch sliders) by a
semitone by 'blind' listening alone - she stopped me at virtually *dead on*
+ 6%!! (On many other occasions she has been able point out subtle
differences in sounds that I hadn't heard up 'til then but which became
immediately obvious.....)

Many people are blessed/cursed with perfect pitch. That doesn't
actually make them any better at distinguishing tonal differences in
reproduction gear. Note that, once your attention had been drawn to
subtle differences, you too could hear them. This is a matter of
concentration and experience, not hearing acuity.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:
My recollection is that the 33 does not have a very flat response even
with the controls set as near flat as possible compared with more
modern units. FWIW my experience is that even quite small changes in
overall response can be audible.

It has, of course, got a tone control bypass switch.

You are correct. :-) Must admit I'd forgotten that the 'cancel' button
defeated the tone controls as well as the HF filter.

However I am not sure that it also bypasses the LF filter that has a set
rolloff, nor the tendency for the preamp to roll away at HF. The 'flat'
specs I have for it say +/-0.5 dB from 30Hz to 20kHz. However I'd tend to
suspect that this would allow for a response that was audibly different
from +/- 0.1 dB 20Hz to 20kHz, albiet quite a modest change compared with
something like a speaker. Certainly my recollection is that this is the
case with the 33, but I haven't listened to or measured one for many years.

IIRC, the pickup preamp had distinctly marginal headroom on the 33.

Depends upon the settings on the 'hoovermatic' card I guess. :-) The specs
I have say only 40mV overload for the 2mV sensitivity MM input, and 120mV
for the 5.6mV sensitivity, but does not indicate how this may vary with
frequency.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:52:37 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"harrogate2" wrote in message
...
I must admit that I have never subscribed to the 'golden ear' brigade.

Believe it - they exist. I once asked my partner (musician) to stop me
when
I had increased the sound from a Technics deck (with pitch sliders) by a
semitone by 'blind' listening alone - she stopped me at virtually *dead
on*
+ 6%!! (On many other occasions she has been able point out subtle
differences in sounds that I hadn't heard up 'til then but which became
immediately obvious.....)

Many people are blessed/cursed with perfect pitch. That doesn't
actually make them any better at distinguishing tonal differences in
reproduction gear. Note that, once your attention had been drawn to
subtle differences, you too could hear them. This is a matter of
concentration and experience, not hearing acuity.


Swim doesn't have perfect pitch (I asked) she says she could not sing a
given note with any geat accuracy, she says what she can do better than most
is detect tiny amounts of sharp and flatness from a given note....

I've just asked her to name the amp and speakers on a piece of music just
now - see:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...akerlineup.jpg

(no way she could tell what the speakers were being used and was outside the
room in any case) - she said 'Tommy Triode' and the 'Thinnies' (2A3 amp and
JM-Lab Chorus 715s - a very good combination)...

Er, no, it was/is the new Chinese amp on the Wharfedale Diamond 8.2s playing
a CD (Agram) on a Pioneer DVDP!!!! (*Blistering* performance!!!) Good start
to my 'experimentations if not a complete show-stopper, first time out,
dammit!!! :-)



Note to Fleetie - This little bugger is STAGGERINGLY good in its own right,
never mind the price....

Note to Mike - I've peeked in the ventilation slots underneath and it's all
PCB but the wiring looks quite superb - rows of *perfectly* aligned/stood
off resistors with lovely-looking solder for example and the PT is quite
massive but, sorry, but there's no way I'm pulling this to bits! (Might
photograph the innards tho', once the novelty has worn off!)

Note to Phil North - don't **** about, grab that one off eBay for £213 while
you can - I've already had a 'Question from eBay Member' from someone asking
about them!

Note to Nick - It *is* superb, but we're talking 'hard-arsed digital' here -
it is *not* my triode/vinyl sound!! ;-)

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

Keith G wrote:

Swim doesn't have perfect pitch (I asked) she says she could not sing
a given note with any geat accuracy, she says what she can do better
than most is detect tiny amounts of sharp and flatness from a given
note....

Yup, what you described wasn't perfect pitch, but being able to tell the
interval between one note and another.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

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)

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:35:19 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

Er, no, it was/is the new Chinese amp on the Wharfedale Diamond 8.2s playing
a CD (Agram) on a Pioneer DVDP!!!! (*Blistering* performance!!!) Good start
to my 'experimentations if not a complete show-stopper, first time out,
dammit!!! :-)

Ain't life a bitch?! :-)

Note to Fleetie - This little bugger is STAGGERINGLY good in its own right,
never mind the price....

Note to Mike - I've peeked in the ventilation slots underneath and it's all
PCB but the wiring looks quite superb - rows of *perfectly* aligned/stood
off resistors with lovely-looking solder for example and the PT is quite
massive but, sorry, but there's no way I'm pulling this to bits! (Might
photograph the innards tho', once the novelty has worn off!)

Note to Phil North - don't **** about, grab that one off eBay for £213 while
you can - I've already had a 'Question from eBay Member' from someone asking
about them!

Note to Nick - It *is* superb, but we're talking 'hard-arsed digital' here -
it is *not* my triode/vinyl sound!! ;-)

Hmmmm, could be quite a decent amp, then! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

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.

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

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

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

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.

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

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


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:



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.

Ah, so the Apogees were a significant improvement over the Maggies then?
I would like to listen to the MMG (retail: US$500) but Magnepan doesn't
seem to have an Australian distributor.

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.

"TV sound system"? What did we do in the days before DVD and home
theatre, eh?

Or is analogue TV reception in the UK that good? I am assuming you did
the amp shootout in the days before digital TV transmission.

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

she says what she can do better
than most is detect tiny amounts of sharp and flatness from a given
note....

Yup, what you described wasn't perfect pitch, but being able to tell the
interval between one note and another.

That's relative pitch, and in memory experiments with dummy keyboards musicians
with excellent relative pitch did almost as well as those with perfect pitch.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

In article ,
Tat Chan wrote:
Or is analogue TV reception in the UK that good? I am assuming you did
the amp shootout in the days before digital TV transmission.

Analogue reception will vary according to local conditions - as will
terrestrial digital. But the vast majority of the population can easily
get excellent reception. Not so in some rural mountainous areas, sadly.

If you mean the system, we have mono FM sound which is the equal of FM
radio - assuming a good receiver - and NICAM digital stereo on a separate
carrier. The distribution to the various transmitters is also digital.

It's capable of giving very satisfactory results - if the material fed
into it is of high quality. Unfortunately, with the universal trend to low
dynamics and heavy processing, this is getting rather rare.

I've never quite worked out why, given that the average TV set has rather
better sound than was once the case, the programme controllers think we
all listen on two inch speakers in a noisy environment...

--
*If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for you *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

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

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:12:58 +1000, Tat Chan
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

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


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:



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.

Ah, so the Apogees were a significant improvement over the Maggies then?

Yes, a massive improvement, although to be fair, they were also *much*
more expensive. A better competitor would have been the Maggie IIIC,
with the classic ribbon tweeter. Comparing those two, I thought the
Apogee was sweeter and more coherent through the wide midband (where
most of the music lies), and had noticeably deeper bass. The high
treble of the Maggie however, remains as good as it gets.

I would like to listen to the MMG (retail: US$500) but Magnepan doesn't
seem to have an Australian distributor.

A great value speaker, but as with most large planar dipoles, you do
need a lot of space around it, to make it work properly

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.

"TV sound system"? What did we do in the days before DVD and home
theatre, eh?

I remain surprised by just how good a well-mixed Dolby 2.0 track can
be, at generating ambience well outside the speaker plane. Until I get
a front projector, I'm unlikely to go for a full 7.1 system, since I
find room-sized sound and a relatively tiny picture *very*
distracting, preventing as good involvement with the film as I get
from 2-channel.

Or is analogue TV reception in the UK that good? I am assuming you did
the amp shootout in the days before digital TV transmission.

Yes, I was using only TV, VCR and CD sources at that time, although
subsequent DVD use did not reveal any weaknesses in the sound system.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

Tat Chan wrote:

"TV sound system"? What did we do in the days before DVD and home
theatre, eh?

We watched/listened to "Simulcasts" with the television moved
in front of the fireplace and the 'hi-fi' tuned to BBC Radio 3.

Some of us put an isolating transformer on the speaker output
of the live-chassis television and fed the signal through
a phase-shifter into the 'hi-fi' to give a sort of pseudo-stereo effect.

--
Eiron.

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

Swim doesn't have perfect pitch (I asked) she says she could not sing
a given note with any geat accuracy, she says what she can do better
than most is detect tiny amounts of sharp and flatness from a given
note....

Yup, what you described wasn't perfect pitch, but being able to tell the
interval between one note and another.


Which should be trivial to a musician.

Roy.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

In article ,
Eiron wrote:
Some of us put an isolating transformer on the speaker output
of the live-chassis television and fed the signal through
a phase-shifter into the 'hi-fi' to give a sort of pseudo-stereo effect.

And some of us took the output from rather a better place via a buffer amp
and rep coil.

--
*"I am " is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Tat Chan wrote:

"TV sound system"? What did we do in the days before DVD and home
theatre, eh?

We watched/listened to "Simulcasts" with the television moved
in front of the fireplace and the 'hi-fi' tuned to BBC Radio 3.

Some of us put an isolating transformer on the speaker output
of the live-chassis television and fed the signal through
a phase-shifter into the 'hi-fi' to give a sort of pseudo-stereo effect.

--
Eiron.

Ah the good old days of Simulcasts when sound and vision were in sync and
latency wasn't in most folks vocabulary....

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

snip


I remain surprised by just how good a well-mixed Dolby 2.0 track can
be, at generating ambience well outside the speaker plane.


What, like a valve amp....??

:-)


Until I get
a front projector,


If you're thinking DLP (incredible technology) wait for the the three
chip/prism models to come out and go down in price. (The wheel's been
'reinvented'....!! ;-)


I'm unlikely to go for a full 7.1 system, since I
find room-sized sound and a relatively tiny picture *very*
distracting, preventing as good involvement with the film as I get
from 2-channel.


Yep, it's a simple equation: Big picture = big sound, anything else is a
waste of time.....

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:35:19 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

Er, no, it was/is the new Chinese amp on the Wharfedale Diamond 8.2s
playing
a CD (Agram) on a Pioneer DVDP!!!! (*Blistering* performance!!!) Good
start
to my 'experimentations if not a complete show-stopper, first time out,
dammit!!! :-)

Ain't life a bitch?! :-)

Note to Fleetie - This little bugger is STAGGERINGLY good in its own
right,
never mind the price....

Note to Mike - I've peeked in the ventilation slots underneath and it's
all
PCB but the wiring looks quite superb - rows of *perfectly* aligned/stood
off resistors with lovely-looking solder for example and the PT is quite
massive but, sorry, but there's no way I'm pulling this to bits! (Might
photograph the innards tho', once the novelty has worn off!)

Note to Phil North - don't **** about, grab that one off eBay for £213
while
you can - I've already had a 'Question from eBay Member' from someone
asking
about them!

Note to Nick - It *is* superb, but we're talking 'hard-arsed digital'
here -
it is *not* my triode/vinyl sound!! ;-)

Hmmmm, could be quite a decent amp, then! :-)


I think so - I've just bought another one!! ;-)

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:52:37 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

"harrogate2" wrote in message
...
I must admit that I have never subscribed to the 'golden ear' brigade.

Believe it - they exist. I once asked my partner (musician) to stop me
when
I had increased the sound from a Technics deck (with pitch sliders) by a
semitone by 'blind' listening alone - she stopped me at virtually *dead
on*
+ 6%!! (On many other occasions she has been able point out subtle
differences in sounds that I hadn't heard up 'til then but which became
immediately obvious.....)

Many people are blessed/cursed with perfect pitch. That doesn't
actually make them any better at distinguishing tonal differences in
reproduction gear. Note that, once your attention had been drawn to
subtle differences, you too could hear them. This is a matter of
concentration and experience, not hearing acuity.


Swim doesn't have perfect pitch (I asked) she says she could not sing a
given note with any geat accuracy, she says what she can do better than
most is detect tiny amounts of sharp and flatness from a given note....

I've just asked her to name the amp and speakers on a piece of music just
now - see:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/keit...akerlineup.jpg

(no way she could tell what the speakers were being used and was outside
the room in any case) - she said 'Tommy Triode' and the 'Thinnies' (2A3
amp and JM-Lab Chorus 715s - a very good combination)...

Er, no, it was/is the new Chinese amp on the Wharfedale Diamond 8.2s
playing a CD (Agram) on a Pioneer DVDP!!!! (*Blistering* performance!!!)
Good start to my 'experimentations if not a complete show-stopper, first
time out, dammit!!! :-)



Note to Fleetie - This little bugger is STAGGERINGLY good in its own
right, never mind the price....

Note to Mike - I've peeked in the ventilation slots underneath and it's
all PCB but the wiring looks quite superb - rows of *perfectly*
aligned/stood off resistors with lovely-looking solder for example and the
PT is quite massive but, sorry, but there's no way I'm pulling this to
bits! (Might photograph the innards tho', once the novelty has worn off!)


Just like they used to make 'em here in the days of hand assembly. Buy all
you can from China because at this quality it'll go the way of Japan and
Korea i.e. not long prices rise, maybe then workers afforded a better
standard of living. Just been looking at my Sansui Model 2000 (earlyish
Japanese days) and it came with a full workshop manual packed with
schematics, component id photographs and a complete parts list down to the
last nut & washer & a comprehensive user manual.
......sing along 'Those were the days my friend'


Note to Phil North - don't **** about, grab that one off eBay for £213
while you can - I've already had a 'Question from eBay Member' from
someone asking about them!

Note to Nick - It *is* superb, but we're talking 'hard-arsed digital'
here - it is *not* my triode/vinyl sound!! ;-)

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

Mike Gilmour wrote:

Ah the good old days of Simulcasts when sound and vision were in sync and
latency wasn't in most folks vocabulary....

Not that old - even I remember them...

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tat Chan wrote:

Or is analogue TV reception in the UK that good? I am assuming you did
the amp shootout in the days before digital TV transmission.


Analogue reception will vary according to local conditions - as will
terrestrial digital. But the vast majority of the population can easily
get excellent reception. Not so in some rural mountainous areas, sadly.

If you mean the system, we have mono FM sound which is the equal of FM
radio - assuming a good receiver - and NICAM digital stereo on a separate
carrier. The distribution to the various transmitters is also digital.

I was thinking of the quality that BBC radio broadcasts are meant to be
famous for and wondered if it was the same for TV broadcasts.

Have heard good things about NICAM, and I have only just realised that
Oz uses German stereo and not NICAM (though my Sony TV supports NICAM).


It's capable of giving very satisfactory results - if the material fed
into it is of high quality. Unfortunately, with the universal trend to low
dynamics and heavy processing, this is getting rather rare.

I've never quite worked out why, given that the average TV set has rather
better sound than was once the case, the programme controllers think we
all listen on two inch speakers in a noisy environment...


I use my TV speakers for the majority of shows I watch and find them
good enough for the task.

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

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.

Is that the same graph TW always drags out?
Btw, he has been rather quiet lately ... and my news server doesn't seem
to pick up his posts anymore, I only saw his latest post when other
people quoted it!

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:12:58 +1000, Tat Chan
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


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



Stewart Pinkerton wrote:



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.

Ah, so the Apogees were a significant improvement over the Maggies then?


Yes, a massive improvement, although to be fair, they were also *much*
more expensive. A better competitor would have been the Maggie IIIC,
with the classic ribbon tweeter. Comparing those two, I thought the
Apogee was sweeter and more coherent through the wide midband (where
most of the music lies), and had noticeably deeper bass. The high
treble of the Maggie however, remains as good as it gets.


and the bass on your Apogees is good enough to warrant not having a
subwoofer?


I would like to listen to the MMG (retail: US$500) but Magnepan doesn't
seem to have an Australian distributor.


A great value speaker, but as with most large planar dipoles, you do
need a lot of space around it, to make it work properly

Which is a problem in my current listening environment, so that speaker
upgrade will have to be placed on the back burner. Or I can stick to box
speakers (which is what most, if not all Australian speaker
manufacturers make).



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.

"TV sound system"? What did we do in the days before DVD and home
theatre, eh?


I remain surprised by just how good a well-mixed Dolby 2.0 track can
be, at generating ambience well outside the speaker plane. Until I get
a front projector, I'm unlikely to go for a full 7.1 system, since I
find room-sized sound and a relatively tiny picture *very*
distracting, preventing as good involvement with the film as I get
from 2-channel.

I would have thought that a 30 inch widescreen CRT TV would be good
enough for most purposes! Anyway, I have 2 channel sound from my DVD
player, and the recent addition of a sub has made movies more enjoyable,
even in "2.1" mode!

I thought most DVDs would be Dolby 5.1, and not Dolby 2.0. Or are you
refering to digital TV transmissions?



Or is analogue TV reception in the UK that good? I am assuming you did
the amp shootout in the days before digital TV transmission.


Yes, I was using only TV, VCR and CD sources at that time, although
subsequent DVD use did not reveal any weaknesses in the sound system.

I rarely watch TV with the sound from the stereo system. Somehow or
rather, the sound I get from TV transmission (Oz uses German and not
NICAM stereo) seems "flat, lifeless, dull" (note subjective description
of sound!). I remember my partner watching "Pride and Prejudice" (the
version with Colin Firth in it) with sound from the stereo system, and
it sounded rather ordinary.

And I notice that I have to crank the volume knob on my amp much higher
when watching TV or DVDs to get equivalent SPLs as I would from CDs (no
measurements here, just playing it by ear).

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 23:26:57 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote

snip

I remain surprised by just how good a well-mixed Dolby 2.0 track can
be, at generating ambience well outside the speaker plane.

What, like a valve amp....??

Yup - but with SS you can turn the effect *off* when not watching a
movie!

Until I get
a front projector,

If you're thinking DLP (incredible technology) wait for the the three
chip/prism models to come out and go down in price. (The wheel's been
'reinvented'....!! ;-)

I continue to wait, but at least it's dropped from the 150 grand of
the professional units, through the 60 grand of Runco to the 20 grand
or so of the latest offerings. Once it dips below ten, my flexible
friend will have to start getting really worried!


I'm unlikely to go for a full 7.1 system, since I
find room-sized sound and a relatively tiny picture *very*
distracting, preventing as good involvement with the film as I get
from 2-channel.

Yep, it's a simple equation: Big picture = big sound, anything else is a
waste of time.....

Hey - something on which we agree! Hooda thunk... :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:03:44 +1000, Tat Chan
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:12:58 +1000, Tat Chan
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

A better competitor would have been the Maggie IIIC,
with the classic ribbon tweeter. Comparing those two, I thought the
Apogee was sweeter and more coherent through the wide midband (where
most of the music lies), and had noticeably deeper bass. The high
treble of the Maggie however, remains as good as it gets.

and the bass on your Apogees is good enough to warrant not having a
subwoofer?

The main panel resonance is at 30Hz, and they're flat to 25Hz, so I
don't feel the need for a sub. Organ music rattles the windows, and
you feel the 'heartbeat' in DSOM thumping your chest....

However, once I get the monster sub built, I'll certainly be seeing if
it can do anything for the main system, rather than just underpinning
movies.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

Tat Chan wrote:

and the bass on your Apogees is good enough to warrant not having a
subwoofer?

Dunno about apogees but my Radfords manage some very comfortable bass
down to about 12-15 Hz. no real need for a sub here, although for films,
perhaps it might be nice.

Good amps all sound the same do they?
 

In article ,
Tat Chan wrote:
If you mean the system, we have mono FM sound which is the equal of FM
radio - assuming a good receiver - and NICAM digital stereo on a
separate carrier. The distribution to the various transmitters is also
digital.

I was thinking of the quality that BBC radio broadcasts are meant to be
famous for and wondered if it was the same for TV broadcasts.

The actual programme chain is of the same high quality, but of course
depends on what it is fed with. Certainly some sound quality on TV is very
good, and this isn't restricted to the BBC.

Have heard good things about NICAM, and I have only just realised that
Oz uses German stereo and not NICAM (though my Sony TV supports NICAM).

Right. The UK was fairly late implementing stereo TV, so was able to take
advantage of digital techniques.


It's capable of giving very satisfactory results - if the material fed
into it is of high quality. Unfortunately, with the universal trend to
low dynamics and heavy processing, this is getting rather rare.

I've never quite worked out why, given that the average TV set has
rather better sound than was once the case, the programme controllers
think we all listen on two inch speakers in a noisy environment...


I use my TV speakers for the majority of shows I watch and find them
good enough for the task.

Thing is that few TVs have really decent built in speakers. The cost would
be prohibitive - as would the bulk. And TVs tend to need updating far more
frequently than a good sound system, so it makes economic sense to keep
them fairly separate.

--
*Women like silent men; they think they're listening.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.