Do more expensive amplifiers make a difference?

[manicm]

If I had a 200W amp. I would not play it at 200W I would probably play at around 1w to 10W!

Then why the hell buy a 200w amp in the first place?

 

[Supreme]

EDIT...

Try listening to a pair of ATC SCM40s with a budget 100 watt amp and then again with an ATC or Perreaux amp. If you can't tell the difference you must be half deaf. Yes amps do make a difference. Different speakers need to be driven by different types of amps.

 

[steve_1979]

Not everything can be explained by science. The appreciation of music. Scientists will tell you it's all brain chemicals and wot-not but there is something deeper and more eternal than that. When you look into your son or daughters eyes, when a kind act or deed happens, a birth, a marriage, a death, music can be like that and that emotional stuff can't be measured scientifically. If science is your only guide in life I pity you and if science governs your appreciation of music then you are missing out.

I read these forums daily and think that a lot here are hi-fi lovers primarily and music lovers next.

I completely agree that the music itself is all about the emotional experience which has little to do with science. But I also understand that the electrical equipment that is used to play the music is designed and built using well known scientific engineering principles which have nothing to do with emotion.

Watching a film is also an emotional experience. But the TV that you watch it on is just a piece electrical equipment that has also been designed and built using well known scientific engineering principles which have nothing to do with emotion.

It's the media which provides you with the emotional experience. The TV or hifi equipment is just a means with which to reproduce it (some do this job better than others though). These are two very seperate things and should not be mixed up.

 

[CnoEvil]

Sorry Cno but with the deepest of respect, that is complete bulls**t.

It is about as accurate as the contention that all passive speakers 'boom and tizz' and that all studio monitor types are 'harsh and forward'.

Sure there are some (people and speakers) that fit those stereotypes but really........ :?

Apologies again, no offence meant, I normally hold your posts in high regard.

Absolutely no offense taken, as this is simply how I see things....it will be interesting to see if anyone else agrees with me. If I can't get you to agree with my point, then I haven't made it well enough....and therein lies an interesting challange.

Yes it's a generalization, but I feel it has some merit. It's played out over and over again on this forum.....Eg. Anyone hearing a difference in a cable will soon have folk with a science based background, lining up to tell them it's impossible.

It is certainly more often the case with people (usually from a science background) who don't go and hear for themselves, as logic (and science) tells them it's impossible, so there is no point. This btw, is not meant as a crticism, but a personal observation.

You are the exception to the rule, as you've lived and breathed it. You have taken nothing for granted and come to your own conclusions, which are based on a mixture of science and personal experience / experimentation.

 

[Supreme]

Not everything can be explained by science. The appreciation of music. Scientists will tell you it's all brain chemicals and wot-not but there is something deeper and more eternal than that. When you look into your son or daughters eyes, when a kind act or deed happens, a birth, a marriage, a death, music can be like that and that emotional stuff can't be measured scientifically. If science is your only guide in life I pity you and if science governs your appreciation of music then you are missing out.

I read these forums daily and think that a lot here are hi-fi lovers primarily and music lovers next.

I completely agree that the music itself is all about the emotional experience which has little to do with science. But I also understand that the electrical hifi equipment that is used to play the music is designed and built using well known scientific engineering principles which have nothing to do with emotion.

Watching a film is also an emotional experience. But the TV that you watch it on is just a piece electrical equipment that has also been designed and built using well known scientific engineering principles which have nothing to do with emotion.

It's the media which provides you with the emotional experience. The TV or hifi equipment is just a means with which to reproduce it (some do this job better than others though). These are two very seperate things and should not be mixed up.

Maybe some people just don't hear and feel the same energy and emotional content in the music as others. Perhaps a better amp to one person is a waste of time where as to another person it's a little step closer to getting to the heart of the music.

 

[CnoEvil]

Maybe some people just don't hear and feel the same energy and emotional content in the music as others. Perhaps a better amp to one person is a waste of time where as to another person it's a little step closer to getting to the heart of the music.

I think this is probably correct.

The arguments then start with absolutist statements like:

"Expensive amps are nothing more than OTT trinkets"

or

"You can't get a decent sound unless you get an expensive amp"

Nb. These are simply examples, and not actual quotes, or aimed at anyone in particular.

 

[steve_1979]

Personally I'm both a subjectivist and objectivist. Most of the time I enjoy listening to music on a hifi system the has the minimal amont of distortion possible which is why I tend to like brands like Quested, AVI and Genelec the best.

I see you as an Objectivist, but with potential.

I'm more of a open minded objectivist who doesn't take anything for granted and likes to try things out for myself wherever possible.

 

[CnoEvil]

I'm more of a open minded objectivist who doesn't take anything for granted and likes to try things out for myself wherever possible.

Places actually exist where that can get you derided, or even banned. :shifty:

 

[matt49]

I'm more of a open minded objectivist who doesn't take anything for granted and likes to try things out for myself wherever possible.

Me too. Be sceptical, be open minded. And listen, listen, listen.

 

[steve_1979]

I'm more of a open minded objectivist who doesn't take anything for granted and likes to try things out for myself wherever possible.

Places actually exist where that can get you derided, or even banned. :shifty:

Oooh where? Let me know so I can go and annoy them with my open minded objectiveness.

 

[MakkaPakka]

Maybe some people just don't hear and feel the same energy and emotional content in the music as others. Perhaps a better amp to one person is a waste of time where as to another person it's a little step closer to getting to the heart of the music.

That seems to imply a subjectivist enjoys music more. I'm sure I'd be called an objectivist but I can guarantee I've spent more time on my system than 99% of the people here. Hours and hours of making acoustic panels, then many more hours on testing them to get everything as good as it can be. Even more hours of fielding angry objections from my wife.

 

[CnoEvil]

I'm more of a open minded objectivist who doesn't take anything for granted and likes to try things out for myself wherever possible.

Places actually exist where that can get you derided, or even banned. :shifty:

Oooh where? Let me know so I can go and annoy them with my open minded objectiveness.

I couldn't possibly say, as I'd worry that it would all end in tears....and what's the point of that?

 

[davedotco]

Sorry Cno but with the deepest of respect, that is complete bulls**t.

It is about as accurate as the contention that all passive speakers 'boom and tizz' and that all studio monitor types are 'harsh and forward'.

Sure there are some (people and speakers) that fit those stereotypes but really........ :?

Apologies again, no offence meant, I normally hold your posts in high regard.

Absolutely no offense taken, as this is simply how I see things....it will be interesting to see if anyone else agrees with me. If I can't get you to agree with my point, then I haven't made it well enough....and therein lies an interesting challange.

Yes it's a generalization, but I feel it has some merit. It's played out over and over again on this forum.....Eg. Anyone hearing a difference in a cable will soon have folk with a science based background, lining up to tell them it's impossible.

It is certainly more often the case with people (usually from a science background) who don't go and hear for themselves, as logic (and science) tells them it's impossible, so there is no point. This btw, is not meant as a crticism, but a personal observation.

You are the exception to the rule, as you've lived and breathed it. You have taken nothing for granted and come to your own conclusions, which are based on a mixture of science and personal experience / experimentation.

Thanks for taking my rather firmly expressed comments in the spirit they were intended.

Just to expand slightly, I think that anyone with a reasonable grounding in science and scientific method will understand that a hi-fi system is a pretty complex piece of electro mechanicle engineering that, under dynamic conditions, behave in ways that do not, at first sight, make sense.

To say that such events do not happen shows a lack of scientific knowledge, just as we blythly consider the parallel connection of two 8 ohm loudspeakers to result in a 4 ohm impedence, we think we know how everything works and interacts. Mostly we simplt don't, a little scientific knowledge, poorly applied can be a very dangerous thing.

Similarly there is enough information available on the mechanism and psycology of hearing for anyone to understand that our perception of what we are hearing can be very wrong, but that does not mean that we can not hear real differences in different hi-fi components. What it does mean is that we need to be wary of what we hear and not draw wide ranging conclusions from what is in reality, erronious data.

In my experience, with a few exceptions usually to be found 'in another place', people with a real understanding of scientific method are much less dogmatic than non scientists.

To quote a famous american....

There are things that we know we know,

There are things we know we do not know,

And there are things we don't know that we do not know, and most of these are found in hi-fi systems.

 

[CnoEvil]

Even more hours of fielding angry objections from my wife.

That is certainly a good indication of the tremendous effort you're putting in.

Good job, Sir.

 

[steve_1979]

I couldn't possibly say, as I'd worry that it would all end in tears....and what's the point of that?

No worries. I was just kidding.

I never annoy people deliberately anyway (it's just a gift that happens naturally without me needing to try :shifty: ).

 

[CnoEvil]

I never annoy people deliberately anyway (it's just a gift that happens naturally without me needing to try :shifty: ).

This is why you have potential.

...and I know you were kidding.......I should have put one of these in :twisted:

 

[Frank Harvey]

Watching a film is also an emotional experience. But the TV that you watch it on is just a piece electrical equipment that has also been designed and built using well known scientific engineering principles which have nothing to do with emotion.

It's the media which provides you with the emotional experience. The TV or hifi equipment is just a means with which to reproduce it (some do this job better than others though). These are two very seperate things and should not be mixed up.

Yes, I appreciate that emotion in a movie is a culmination of the scriptwriter, actors, director etc, but the way in which a film is shot, the look it is given, and any post processing that takes place can create a certain feel/vibe. How many times do you see "film fanatics" (the ones who spend more time arguing over them than actually watching them) complaining about hues, grain, DNR etc? Not everyone likes what they see (even if it is what is intended), and it is the same with music. Some like what they hear from an accurate sounding system, some won't, and the same goes for a system that is "coloured" in one way or another.

How many people have a (more accurate looking) calibrated screen? Very few. Why? Either because they don't want to pay someone £400+ for the privilege, calibrating a screen isn't on their list of priorities or a regular/normal thing to do, or because they are quite happy with the settings they set themselves. Seem prefer quite a colourful looking picture, some like a lot of contrast, some little, some like a DNR'd picture because it looks quite smooth and easy to look at, whereas someone else will prefer grain and all because of the detail it can create.

I've constantly been distracted while writing this post, so apologies if it makes less sense than I'd like it to. Maybe if it doesn't make my point properly, maybe it will present a few things to think about.

Oh, and amplifiers can make a difference

 

[steve_1979]

If I had a 200W amp. I would not play it at 200W I would probably play at around 1w to 10W!

Then why the hell buy a 200w amp in the first place?

While most of the music only requires a relatively low power level to reproduce it, it also has very short dynamic peaks which will require much more power.

99% percent of the time your amplifier will only be using a few watts of power to reproduce the sound effectively but every time a loud drum beat plays (for example) there will be a very short dynamic peak that may only last for a few milliseconds but this dynamic peak will require much more power for it to be reproduced without clipping. So while you only need a few watts for 99% of the time the 1% where you need more power will still be occurring very regularly but only for very short bursts.

 

[steve_1979]

There are things that we know we know,

There are things we know we do not know,

And there are things we don't know that we do not know, and most of these are found in hi-fi systems.

I think that this sums up most people on HiFi forums (myself included).

 

[pyrrhon]

Everything that we can hear can be measured. But not everything that can be measured can be heard.

I really think you made good points but here you could also look at the opposite of your claim: we do hear things that cannot be measured. I saw a wolf in a shadow, I heard a melody in the repeating sound of an engine... Music is not measured, sound is measured! Music is a lot about anticipation. I have posted about that in this thread but it got ignored. I have also claimed that lo-fi accentuate "musical imagination" and linked that to the ever going debate on warm vs clinical sound. It does also explain a lot of the fuss with ABX. I dont want to throw to much details in, just direct your attentiion on it. I would be curious to hear people expand on that.

 

[BigH]

If I had a 200W amp. I would not play it at 200W I would probably play at around 1w to 10W!

Then why the hell buy a 200w amp in the first place?

Well as you used car example why buy a car that goes 200mph if you can only drive it at 70mph?

I don't think you realise how loud 1w is, in my living room 1w will produce about 75dbs of loudness which I understand is a fairly average listening level, 10w will produce about 86dbs which is quite loud, 100w will produce 96dbs.

More watts is about control, less distortion and having plenty in reserve for those dynamic peaks you get in some music. For me 200W is probably a bit OTT at the moment but when I move the living maybe larger than my current 5m x3.5m room size, so no need to upgrade.

 

[drummerman]

Correct. Its not just about volume per se. Peak programme levels can far exceed average power level. To produce them undistorted it is handy to have the dynamic headroom available.

All amplifiers are not created equally though. Many have high levels of current to cope with different loads of speakers whereas others swing volts but are not so able to deal with difficult to drive speakers.

Its a juggling and matching exercise.

regards

 

[steve_1979]

Everything that we can hear can be measured. But not everything that can be measured can be heard.

I really think you made good points but here you could also look at the opposite of your claim: we do hear things that cannot be measured. I saw a wolf in a shadow, I heard a melody in the repeating sound of an engine... Music is not measured, sound is measured! Music is a lot about anticipation. I have posted about that in this thread but it got ignored. I have also claimed that lo-fi accentuate "musical imagination" and linked that to the ever going debate on warm vs clinical sound. It does also explain a lot of the fuss with ABX. I dont want to throw to much details in, just direct your attentiion on it. I would be curious to hear people expand on that.

That's a very interesting point that you make here. I hadn't considered it like that before.

I suppose what I ment to say is that any sound that our ears can hear can be measured. However the emotional message contained within those sounds is something separate altogether. It's possible to measure any frequency or amplitude much more accurately than our ears can hear. But is it possible to measure something like the happiness or sadness in a singers voice? :? Hmmm maybe, but I'm not sure. Even if these things could be measured I doubt that the measured emotions could be decoded as effectively as our ears and brain can do. Like pyrrhon I'd also be interested to hear what other people think about this.

I think that this comes back to the point that I made earlier about it being the content of the music which contains all the emotion and the HiFi system used to reproduce the sound is just an objective and emotionless piece of electrical equipment.

 

[davedotco]

That's a very interesting point that you make here. I hadn't considered it like that before.

I suppose what I ment to say is that any sound that our ears can hear can be measured. However the emotional message contained within those sounds is something separate altogether. It's possible to measure any frequency or amplitude much more accurately than our ears can hear. But is it possible to measure something like the happiness or sadness in a singers voice? :? Hmmm possibly, but I'm not sure. Even if these things could be measured I doubt that the measured emotions could be decoded as effectively as our ears and brain can do. Like pyrrhon I'd also be interested to hear what other people think about this.

I think that this comes back to the point that I made earlier about it being the content of the music which contains all the emotion and the HiFi system used to reproduce the sound is just an objective and emotionless piece of electrical equipment.

Interesting but largely pointless in hi-fi term.

Enthusiast will simply say that a system that is more capable of portraying the emotion contained in a piece of music is a better system because it gets you closer to the performance. Real, measured accuracy or transparancy has nothing to do with it.

Strangely such a system rarely seems to produce less emotion from a poor performance.

 

[Bigsounds]

Why do so many argue about such trivialities or dull geekery such as ABX testing, measurements about this hobby, do such ones spend more time discussing it than actually listening?

I for one spend much more time enjoying listening to music than discussing it. In fact the only reason I'm even bothering to post on here right now is because it's something interesting to do to pass the time while it's quiet at work.

I'm a new guy so can someone please help me, why do the engineers go to such great lengths of listening to components over and over again and then chose the component that sound best? Surely they just need to copy someone else work, or just chose those that measure best?

Everything that we can hear can be measured. But not everything that can be measured can be heard.

This means that scientific measurements are by far the most reliable and accurate method to use when designing HiFi electronics. As a general rule the better something measures in terms of lowering the distortion the better it will sound.

EDIT - Welcome to the forum BTW.

Thanks man, I guess with over 2000 post work much be pretty boring huh

What though have measurements got to do with how it sounds to you as an individual, how do you measure pleasure, emotional response, happiness, we all react differently to sound and what we hear, where is the human factor in all these scientific measurements?, I believe they miss a key element.