Audiophile?

[Vladimir]

This is about sound quality alone.

Sorry.

This remarkably simple concept seems to get lost on here...where there are still a few who would agree with you.

It seems some come on here with 'issues' that they really should sort via another platform.

Will squash help?

 

[fr0g]

Jaeger-Lecoultre and Patek Philippe create mechanical time pieces that sell for thousands and millions even though they are less accurate than a $5 Casio quartz.

Your analogy is interesting. Do the tiny, measurable, yet imperceptible differences in time affect in any way a persons perception of it?

Is this also not true of the tiny, measurable, yet imperceptible differences in distortion between Valve and SS Amps?

We actually appreciate mechanical time pieces more for being outdated technology difficult to make, rare and exclusive, closer to art than convenience. But no owner is feeding himself the delusion they are superior at keeping time. This is the difference with audiophiles who cherish valve amps, turntables and fancy cables. If you accepted that you enjoy your luxury kit not for its technical performance but for other appeals, we would not have this debate at all.

+1

Totally agree.

 

[Infiniteloop]

Jaeger-Lecoultre and Patek Philippe create mechanical time pieces that sell for thousands and millions even though they are less accurate than a $5 Casio quartz.

Your analogy is interesting. Do the tiny, measurable, yet imperceptible differences in time affect in any way a persons perception of it?

Is this also not true of the tiny, measurable, yet imperceptible differences in distortion between Valve and SS Amps?

We actually appreciate mechanical time pieces more for being outdated technology difficult to make, rare and exclusive, closer to art than convenience. But no owner is feeding himself the delusion they are superior at keeping time. This is the difference with audiophiles who cherish valve amps, turntables and fancy cables. If you accepted that you enjoy your luxury kit not for its technical performance but for other appeals, we would not have this debate at all.

+1

Totally agree.

.........And like I said, I enjoy both my Devialet and Valve Amp as much as each other, for their similarities and differences, and ultimately for the high quality of sound that both deliver.

 

[drummerman]

Jaeger-Lecoultre and Patek Philippe create mechanical time pieces that sell for thousands and millions even though they are less accurate than a $5 Casio quartz.

Your analogy is interesting. Do the tiny, measurable, yet imperceptible differences in time affect in any way a persons perception of it?

Is this also not true of the tiny, measurable, yet imperceptible differences in distortion between Valve and SS Amps?

We actually appreciate mechanical time pieces more for being outdated technology difficult to make, rare and exclusive, closer to art than convenience. But no owner is feeding himself the delusion they are superior at keeping time. This is the difference with audiophiles who cherish valve amps, turntables and fancy cables. If you accepted that you enjoy your luxury kit not for its technical performance but for other appeals, we would not have this debate at all.

+1

Totally agree.

.........And like I said, I enjoy both my Devialet and Valve Amp as much as each other, for their similarities and differences, and ultimately for the high quality of sound that both deliver.

... and that is a most valid post from a user of both topologies and supremely good ones at that.

 

[DocG]

I wonder how many here have put together a system on just pure perfect measurements with out even listening to the system before buying. That will be a first.

Edit: cause something tells me you will get a far different result from what you truely desire from your system.

I don't think it'll be a first, but that's exactly my plan! I bought a pair of Magnepan MMGs (blind, factory-direct); I'll reframe them (with solid wood instead of MDF), and swap the passive cross-over for a DSP-driven active XO (DEQX -- never demoed). Amplified with 2 channels of Hypex NCore (never demoed, but really low distortion figures) per speaker, built into the frames (to keep the speaker wire to a strict minimum). Distortion should be extremely low (relatively speaking), combining the XO, the amps and the panels! I'll keep you posted how close to what I truely desire I get -- audiophile or audiophool...

 

[TrevC]

My gripe is with those who summarily dismiss Valve Amplifiers as being generally 'inferior'.

They are usually more worried about how a system measures, than how real it sounds

Can not agree more. Now if measurement is key, evryone would put together a system just based on mesasurement. I.e Sensitivity to ohms to power handling. I wonder how many here have put together a system on just pure perfect measurements with out even listening to the system before buying. That will be a first.

Edit: cause something tells me you will get a far different result from what you truely desire from your system.

Measurements tell us a lot. They tell us about weaknesses, about whether specs are reached or exceeded, and in an amplifier they give a good idea about the sound you're likely to get. Speakers, well they are a completely different kettle of fish. They are always the weak link in any system and ideally should be demoed in your room.

 

[steve_1979]

I wonder how many here have put together a system on just pure perfect measurements with out even listening to the system before buying...

With the exception of speakers and headphones I have.

All of my DAC's, pre-amps and power amps were bought without an audition based on their measurements which show their distortion levels to be below audibility.

 

[Infiniteloop]

I wonder how many here have put together a system on just pure perfect measurements with out even listening to the system before buying...

With the exception of speakers and headphones I have.

All of my DAC's, pre-amps and power amps were bought without an audition based on their measurements which show their distortion levels to be below audibility.

How low is 'below audibility'? I've never bothered to look at technical specs, preferring instead to let my ears tell me what's good, - so I'm genuinely interested.

 

[steve_1979]

I wonder how many here have put together a system on just pure perfect measurements with out even listening to the system before buying...

With the exception of speakers and headphones I have.

All of my DAC's, pre-amps and power amps were bought without an audition based on their measurements which show their distortion levels to be below audibility.

How low is 'below audibility'? I've never bothered to look at technical specs, preferring instead to let my ears tell me what's good, - so I'm genuinely interested.

It can vary quite a lot depending on the type of distortion introduced as some types of distortion are easier to notice than others. I've read about tests on the internet in the past but I can't actually remember any exact figures off the top of my head.

What I do remember when reading it was that my Epiphany Acoustics O2 DAC/amp with it's <0.0017% THD was way below what's audible.

 

[fr0g]

Jaeger-Lecoultre and Patek Philippe create mechanical time pieces that sell for thousands and millions even though they are less accurate than a $5 Casio quartz.

Your analogy is interesting. Do the tiny, measurable, yet imperceptible differences in time affect in any way a persons perception of it?

Is this also not true of the tiny, measurable, yet imperceptible differences in distortion between Valve and SS Amps?

We actually appreciate mechanical time pieces more for being outdated technology difficult to make, rare and exclusive, closer to art than convenience. But no owner is feeding himself the delusion they are superior at keeping time. This is the difference with audiophiles who cherish valve amps, turntables and fancy cables. If you accepted that you enjoy your luxury kit not for its technical performance but for other appeals, we would not have this debate at all.

+1

Totally agree.

.........And like I said, I enjoy both my Devialet and Valve Amp as much as each other, for their similarities and differences, and ultimately for the high quality of sound that both deliver.

And that of course is totally understandable.

The valve amp obviously adds something that stirs emotions. But that isn't to say it's the highest fidelity. It may sound mesmerising, it may invoke winged angels that dance down your spine as you listen, but there is no doubt that for absolute fidelity, the valves would be better served with something more modern.

It's the same with my Avi ADM9RS speakers and my Dali Ikon 6 system. There is no doubt which speakers give more clarity and fidelity, but sometimes I prefer listening to my passive system. The treble for me is nicer and I put that down to some odd colouration. The bass is slower and more boomy, but that also adds a feeling of warmth... It is not as technically good, but in many ways it's preferable.

And I think this kind of sums it up. I think both sides are arguing different points but think they are arguing the same. Whether it be valves, vinyl, passive v active or whatever, all can be enjoyed, all can give the perception of extremely high quality playback, but if we are arguing for an ultimate fidelity system then all the things that detract from that can be taken out of the list...So vinyl, passive crossovers, valves would not be in that system. And if in the end, it sounds worse to you, then it does. Not everyone likes ultimate transparency. I can understand that.

 

[Vladimir]

The sole function of an amplifier is to amplify. The ideal amplifier makes small signal in big signal without adding or removing anything from it. If you find me a valve amp that can do 100Wpc RMS in 8 ohms, doubling down to 2 ohms, with no FR deviance, for £1K, hey I'll buy it. I have no bias towards SS. I just want the results.

 

[FennerMachine]

What ss amp can give that performance without losing out in other areas at £1000.00?

Just because a ss amp can produce lots of power, a flat frequency response with low THD does not mean that it does not distort. What about crossover distortion, TIM, and other forms of distortion?

Valves can measure better in some areas.

 

[matt49]

And I think this kind of sums it up. I think both sides are arguing different points but think they are arguing the same. Whether it be valves, vinyl, passive v active or whatever, all can be enjoyed, all can give the perception of extremely high quality playback, but if we are arguing for an ultimate fidelity system then all the things that detract from that can be taken out of the list...So vinyl, passive crossovers, valves would not be in that system. And if in the end, it sounds worse to you, then it does. Not everyone likes ultimate transparency. I can understand that.

If we're talking ultimate fidelity, then other things that would definitely not be in the system would be: electrodynamic drivers, drivers in boxes (especially square boxes), crossovers in the presence zone ...

 

[TrevC]

What ss amp can give that performance without losing out in other areas at £1000.00?

Just because a ss amp can produce lots of power, a flat frequency response with low THD does not mean that it does not distort. What about crossover distortion, TIM, and other forms of distortion?

Valves can measure better in some areas.

There are loads of SS amps well under a grand that will blow any valve amp you can name into the weeds distortion wise. They won't necessarily be as cosy and nostalgic to own, but they will save on the leccy providing you avoid the class A nonsense.

 

[FennerMachine]

What ss amp can give that performance without losing out in other areas at £1000.00?

Just because a ss amp can produce lots of power, a flat frequency response with low THD does not mean that it does not distort. What about crossover distortion, TIM, and other forms of distortion?

Valves can measure better in some areas.

There are loads of SS amps well under a grand that will blow any valve amp you can name into the weeds distortion wise. They won't necessarily be as cosy and nostalgic to own, but they will save on the leccy providing you avoid the class A nonsense.

That wasn't the question I was asking.

What ss amplifier can produce 100w into 8 ohms, 200w into 4 ohms and 400w into 2 ohms with a flat frequency response for under £1000.00 that does not suffer in some other area to meet these figures?

 

[TrevC]

What ss amp can give that performance without losing out in other areas at £1000.00?

Just because a ss amp can produce lots of power, a flat frequency response with low THD does not mean that it does not distort. What about crossover distortion, TIM, and other forms of distortion?

Valves can measure better in some areas.

There are loads of SS amps well under a grand that will blow any valve amp you can name into the weeds distortion wise. They won't necessarily be as cosy and nostalgic to own, but they will save on the leccy providing you avoid the class A nonsense.

That wasn't the question I was asking.

What ss amplifier can produce 100w into 8 ohms, 200w into 4 ohms and 400w into 2 ohms with a flat frequency response for under £1000.00 that does not suffer in some other area to meet these figures?

Too many to mention, especially as I don't know what you mean by 'suffer in some other area'.

BK do some hefty amps, Behringer do too. Some have twice the power you quote.

Name something a valve amp does better.

 

[FennerMachine]

Valve amps do too many things better to mention

.

Suffer as in THD, TIM, phase response...

Maybe they don't have these problems, but why would someone use not use one of the makes you mention if they are that good?

What amp do you use TrevC?

Also, I appreciate that valve amps have their flaws, which is why I've reconsidered buying one. I'll likely get a ss amp instead if I upgrade from my Denon AVR 3801.

 

[Infiniteloop]

And I think this kind of sums it up. I think both sides are arguing different points but think they are arguing the same. Whether it be valves, vinyl, passive v active or whatever, all can be enjoyed, all can give the perception of extremely high quality playback, but if we are arguing for an ultimate fidelity system then all the things that detract from that can be taken out of the list...So vinyl, passive crossovers, valves would not be in that system. And if in the end, it sounds worse to you, then it does. Not everyone likes ultimate transparency. I can understand that.

If we're talking ultimate fidelity, then other things that would definitely not be in the system would be: electrodynamic drivers, drivers in boxes (especially square boxes), crossovers in the presence zone ...

+1

 

[Infiniteloop]

What ss amp can give that performance without losing out in other areas at £1000.00?

Just because a ss amp can produce lots of power, a flat frequency response with low THD does not mean that it does not distort. What about crossover distortion, TIM, and other forms of distortion?

Valves can measure better in some areas.

There are loads of SS amps well under a grand that will blow any valve amp you can name into the weeds distortion wise. They won't necessarily be as cosy and nostalgic to own, but they will save on the leccy providing you avoid the class A nonsense.

That wasn't the question I was asking.

What ss amplifier can produce 100w into 8 ohms, 200w into 4 ohms and 400w into 2 ohms with a flat frequency response for under £1000.00 that does not suffer in some other area to meet these figures?

Too many to mention, especially as I don't know what you mean by 'suffer in some other area'.

BK do some hefty amps, Behringer do too. Some have twice the power you quote.

Name something a valve amp does better.

Just listen to one.

 

[fr0g]

And I think this kind of sums it up. I think both sides are arguing different points but think they are arguing the same. Whether it be valves, vinyl, passive v active or whatever, all can be enjoyed, all can give the perception of extremely high quality playback, but if we are arguing for an ultimate fidelity system then all the things that detract from that can be taken out of the list...So vinyl, passive crossovers, valves would not be in that system. And if in the end, it sounds worse to you, then it does. Not everyone likes ultimate transparency. I can understand that.

If we're talking ultimate fidelity, then other things that would definitely not be in the system would be: electrodynamic drivers, drivers in boxes (especially square boxes), crossovers in the presence zone ...

Quite possibly, along with all I have mentioned. But then money comes into the equaton too.

So given a certain budget, what I have mentioned would not be on the table for someone looking for ultimate transparency / fidelity. Yes/ No??

In the end we play with what we have in our pockets, and valve amps and vinyl sources are incredibly bad value for money if we are after fidelity for the money we do have.
And again, that's not to say they can't produce a great sound...if you like that kind of faff.

 

[Potts]

I think as long as you care about the reproduction (and equipment) according to your means/budget, you are an audiophile.

I think you hit the nail on the head there. With the negative connotations seemingly associated with 'Audiophile', perhaps 'Hi-Fi enthusiast' would be the best way to describe the likes of people who post on forums such as this?

 

[Infiniteloop]

And I think this kind of sums it up. I think both sides are arguing different points but think they are arguing the same. Whether it be valves, vinyl, passive v active or whatever, all can be enjoyed, all can give the perception of extremely high quality playback, but if we are arguing for an ultimate fidelity system then all the things that detract from that can be taken out of the list...So vinyl, passive crossovers, valves would not be in that system. And if in the end, it sounds worse to you, then it does. Not everyone likes ultimate transparency. I can understand that.

If we're talking ultimate fidelity, then other things that would definitely not be in the system would be: electrodynamic drivers, drivers in boxes (especially square boxes), crossovers in the presence zone ...

Quite possibly, along with all I have mentioned. But then money comes into the equaton too.

So given a certain budget, what I have mentioned would not be on the table for someone looking for ultimate transparency / fidelity. Yes/ No??

In the end we play with what we have in our pockets, and valve amps and vinyl sources are incredibly bad value for money if we are after fidelity for the money we do have.And again, that's not to say they can't produce a great sound...if you like that kind of faff.

Interesting. My Valve Amp cost £5,500 new. I paid £2,500 for it second hand when 6 years old. I have had it for 3 years and it is still in mint condition. I listen to it virtually every day when I'm not away on business. At the very least it has another 10 years of life in it.

- Most importantly, it sounds glorious with all kinds of music.

Now, even at the 'new' price, the Amp costs less than 80p a day.

It will cost me less than 53p a day.

For the quality and pleasure it delivers, I'd say that's pretty good value for money.

As for fidelity, I doubt most people would be able to tell the difference between the S8 and my Devialet 200 in a line matched blind test.

 

[TrevC]

And I think this kind of sums it up. I think both sides are arguing different points but think they are arguing the same. Whether it be valves, vinyl, passive v active or whatever, all can be enjoyed, all can give the perception of extremely high quality playback, but if we are arguing for an ultimate fidelity system then all the things that detract from that can be taken out of the list...So vinyl, passive crossovers, valves would not be in that system. And if in the end, it sounds worse to you, then it does. Not everyone likes ultimate transparency. I can understand that.

If we're talking ultimate fidelity, then other things that would definitely not be in the system would be: electrodynamic drivers, drivers in boxes (especially square boxes), crossovers in the presence zone ...

Quite possibly, along with all I have mentioned. But then money comes into the equaton too.

So given a certain budget, what I have mentioned would not be on the table for someone looking for ultimate transparency / fidelity. Yes/ No??

In the end we play with what we have in our pockets, and valve amps and vinyl sources are incredibly bad value for money if we are after fidelity for the money we do have.And again, that's not to say they can't produce a great sound...if you like that kind of faff.

Interesting. My Valve Amp cost £5,500 new. I paid £2,500 for it second hand when 6 years old. I have had it for 3 years and it is still in mint condition. I listen to it virtually every day when I'm not away on business. At the very least it has another 10 years of life in it.

- Most importantly, it sounds glorious with all kinds of music.

Now, even at the 'new' price, the Amp costs less than 80p a day.

It will cost me less than 53p a day.

For the quality and pleasure it delivers, I'd say that's pretty good value for money.

As for fidelity, I doubt most people would be able to tell the difference between the S8 and my Devialet 200 in a line matched blind test.

I doubt you can tell the difference between a Behringer and either of them in that case.

 

[TrevC]

What amp do you use TrevC?

I sold my Yamaha to my brother in law, so I'm between amps. Currently using an oldish Sony thing. Unsurprisingly, it sounds fine, the same as the Yamaha.

 

[fr0g]

As for fidelity, I doubt most people would be able to tell the difference between the S8 and my Devialet 200 in a line matched blind test.

Quite possibly, or in fact the A500 that TrevC aludes to below. I'm pretty sure it would be just as good (in a line matched blind test). So yes, I still think valves are very low in VFM.

If I ever need an amp again, I'd probably simply go for a decent Yamaha AV receiver to be honest, something with all the bells and whistles. It too would be impossible to tell apart in a line matched blind test.