Do more expensive amplifiers make a difference?

[Singslinger]

As for a wattt being a watt being a watt. It is true but.. a watt is a vector product of two other quantities equaling a third such as V x I, I squared x R etc so a very simple relationship (with DC but not so with AC such as audio waveforms). This gives a linear relationship until we hit the ceiling of maximum current. Some amps will notionally provide the same wattage until the dynamic load of a loudspeaker dips towards zero impedance at certain frequencies, where the current fails to follow that nice straight line!

Which is why hooking up a pair of Magneplanars to an entry-level integrated or, to take it to the extreme, the amp inside the Panasonic mini-compo I have on my desk at work is destined to be a waste of time.

 

[TrevC]

As for a wattt being a watt being a watt. It is true but.. a watt is a vector product of two other quantities equaling a third such as V x I, I squared x R etc so a very simple relationship (with DC but not so with AC such as audio waveforms). This gives a linear relationship until we hit the ceiling of maximum current. Some amps will notionally provide the same wattage until the dynamic load of a loudspeaker dips towards zero impedance at certain frequencies, where the current fails to follow that nice straight line!

Which is why hooking up a pair of Magneplanars to an entry-level integrated or, to take it to the extreme, the amp inside the Panasonic mini-compo I have on my desk at work is destined to be a waste of time.

It's a pity almost no proper technical tests are carried out by magazines these days. Nobody knows if a 50 watt per channel amp even meets its spec without proper testing. I don't trust subjectivist waffle that changes from one review to the next..

 

[matt49]

It's a pity almost no proper technical tests are carried out by magazines these days. Nobody knows if a 50 watt per channel amp even meets its spec without proper testing. I don't trust subjectivist waffle that changes from one review to the next..

Stereophile still does tests, doesn't it? Also Hifi Choice: you can download the lab results if you register online.

Matt

 

[Covenanter]

My problem with this is that it assumes that personal subjective opinion actually has real value!

Chris

It only has real (meaningful) value to the person holding it, which is my point. If I gave you 6 sets of measurements from 6 different amps and told you to pick the one you would prefer, without listening....you would have a 1 in 6 chance of getting it right, as imo. you can't tell exactly how an amp will sound by looking at measurements.

You are a classical music lover, and I would be very surprised if you could measure the subtle things that cause you to like one performance over another....and it is these same things that I personally look to see if a system can convey.

Your first point is obviously correct. This is the old marketing principle of "perception is reality" in another form. But my point is that it doesn't have (or may not have) any objective reality and is rather useless as a means of comparison except to the person concerned. To be fair to you, you always tell people to go and listen and I agree with that 100%. My problem comes with people who believe that their perceptions prove something to be true.

In terms of technical measurements versus sound I guess the sound is in the technical measurements but it is very difficult to translate one into the other. I would also always listen, not least because you are not going to find many pieces of equipment nowadays which are going to have poor technical performance. What I do doubt are reviews where the reviewers open themselves up to their own prejudices.

Chris

 

[CnoEvil]

Your first point is obviously correct. This is the old marketing principle of "perception is reality" in another form. But my point is that it doesn't have (or may not have) any objective reality and is rather useless as a means of comparison except to the person concerned. To be fair to you, you always tell people to go and listen and I agree with that 100%. My problem comes with people who believe that their perceptions prove something to be true.

Since the enjoyment of music is so personal, provided what comes out of the speakers gives pleasure, does objectivity really matter? The only person that needs proof (of satisfaction), is the one spending the money.

 

[musical0111]

its yes from me with my rogers ls3/5a speaker they just get better every time ive tried better amps with them,
also my quad 11l bi amped sound a lot better as well so for me amps do make a differance.

 

[lindsayt]

The problem that I have with ABX testing is that it places the listerners under stress. The fear of failure. The fear of embarrassment at looking like a fool to the people coonducting the test by picking wrong. This makes people tensed-up And an uptight person is not in a good position to tell the differences between 2 pieces of hi-fi equipment.

You are more likely to make accurate assessments of hi-fi equipment if you are in a relaxed frame of mind. Relaxed in the same way that you would normally be when you listen to music at home.

ABX testing is not so bad for people that have a lot of experience and confidence with blind listening tests.

 

[TrevC]

The problem that I have with ABX testing is that it places the listerners under stress. The fear of failure. The fear of embarrassment at looking like a fool to the people coonducting the test by picking wrong. This makes people tensed-up And an uptight person is not in a good position to tell the differences between 2 pieces of hi-fi equipment.

You are more likely to make accurate assessments of hi-fi equipment if you are in a relaxed frame of mind. Relaxed in the same way that you would normally be when you listen to music at home.

ABX testing is not so bad for people that have a lot of experience and confidence with blind listening tests.

I think the lack of difference in similar spec amplifiers is a huge positive overall, especially for those on a tight budget.. It means you can concentrate your resources on the most important parts, ie firstly speakers and then sources.

 

[lindsayt]

SETs are probably not the best examples to use in any amplifier comparison.

The biggest issue is the generally high output impedance that causes all but the simplest of loudspeakers to modify the amplifiers frequency response to degrees that would nomally be considered unacceptable in any other amplifier.

Probably more sensible to use push-pull, either triode or pentode. In the original quad challenge, Peter Walker set up the 8 watt II amplifier, the 30 watt 303 and the 100 watt 405, driving ELS57s at 'normal' levels and no one could tell the difference.

That is valve push-pull, class AB and the current dumper, all very different designs.

Yes the high output impedance and high damping factor may well alter the frequency response in certain areas by a db or two. With some speakers that might be a modification in the right direction. With others it will be a modification in the wrong direction.

I have a SET valve amp and a push pull valve amp. Both use 300b valves. I strongly prefer the SET. More detailed, better clarity, more transparent. I am confident that I could them apart in a blind ABX test with my source and my speakers. I don't see anything sensible about using my push pull amplifer when it sounds worse than my SET.

 

[davedotco]

SETs are probably not the best examples to use in any amplifier comparison.

The biggest issue is the generally high output impedance that causes all but the simplest of loudspeakers to modify the amplifiers frequency response to degrees that would nomally be considered unacceptable in any other amplifier.

Probably more sensible to use push-pull, either triode or pentode. In the original quad challenge, Peter Walker set up the 8 watt II amplifier, the 30 watt 303 and the 100 watt 405, driving ELS57s at 'normal' levels and no one could tell the difference.

That is valve push-pull, class AB and the current dumper, all very different designs.

Yes the high output impedance and high damping factor may well alter the frequency response in certain areas by a db or two. With some speakers that might be a modification in the right direction. With others it will be a modification in the wrong direction.

I have a SET valve amp and a push pull valve amp. Both use 300b valves. I strongly prefer the SET. More detailed, better clarity, more transparent. I am confident that I could them apart in a blind ABX test with my source and my speakers. I don't see anything sensible about using my push pull amplifer when it sounds worse than my SET.

SETs into the wrong loudspeaker, even efficient easy to drive ones, causes significant and unpredictable variations in response, more than a db or two in some cases. Not a problem for enthusiasts prepared to experiment and try things out but perhaps not for everyone.

The point I was simply that push-pull amplifiers are, generally speaking, more powerful and more tolerant of loudspeakers than SETs, so probably easier to set up a comparison with different types of amplifiers, solid state perhaps, as the choice of speakers would be wider and perhaps more suitable to different types of amplifier.

 

[Phileas]

The problem that I have with ABX testing is that it places the listerners under stress. The fear of failure. The fear of embarrassment at looking like a fool to the people coonducting the test by picking wrong. This makes people tensed-up And an uptight person is not in a good position to tell the differences between 2 pieces of hi-fi equipment.

You are more likely to make accurate assessments of hi-fi equipment if you are in a relaxed frame of mind. Relaxed in the same way that you would normally be when you listen to music at home.

ABX testing is not so bad for people that have a lot of experience and confidence with blind listening tests.

Article and set of tests by Nousaine on why long-term listening is less effective and more unreliable than rapid switching in distinguishing audible differences (PDF):

http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Flying%20Blind.pdf

 

[pyrrhon]

I would tend to differentiate 2 approaches before answering.

1-does it mask some details at some frequency range

2-does it involves me emotionally

Personally I either listen in an analytic or emotional state but not both a the same time. When I try level match comparison im very focused on details and will be very curious or analytical or sound focused. Sometime im not paying attention to sounds and get absorbed in melody, groove with foot taping, the need to dance or goosebumps. The thing is with the second mood (not analytical) Im really not in need of high quality sound I only need good music and most system will feed what my emotions needs.

If you mind look at this crappy recording, very very bad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4meyB6gGwA I get goose bumps with the 2 notes bass riff. Because a song creates anticipation and you feel something you dont ear. We are able to extract a feeling out of little information. Too much information will tend to tame your musical imagination. I think thats why warmer sound often give more goose bumps while loosing high frenquency informations.

So here my answer, very personal and respect any other opinion: amplifiers should play fine at midrange midprice because building amps is a mature and refined art. So I say no difference. (assuming your amp respect your speakers specs)

Dont let your gear drive you into an analytical state cause your trying to justify what you paid!

 

[Thompsonuxb]

What can you hear that can't be measured?

In terms of hifi the sound stage, scale the 3dness of the image, the depth of that image produced between the two speakers and quite a bit more actually.

Anyhoo, can someone explain the point of level matching two amps in any sort of test what would that prove, its like Top Gear (a popular motoring program on the BBC) testing cars on its tracks with the proviso they must achieve 30mph in no less and no more than 10secs and then complete the remainder of the lap at 30mph no more no less - the times would all be the same be it a f1 car or a 1970's austin allegro..... thats stupid.

That Harbeth test is a joke a laweyer must have written it up.

If you geninly believe all amps sound the same or differences are subtle at "a fixed level" ...seriously you should buy yourself a transistor radio or a mono cassette recorder and live long and prosper playing them at fixed levels. Play your kit at what ever levels you want but don't presume your budget amp can compare to more exotic kit. quality speakers WILL expose your budget equ - amps do not sound the same.

CNOevil speaks sense, listen, trust your ears and while I don't always agree with WHFI's verdict their method for testing kit is the best way.

Oh, I'm confident I could pass ABX test's ......I'd put money on it, a good amount too.

 

[richardw42]

I've been debating which thread to post to, this seems as good as any.

We all know this forum has software to edit out bad language. What's the chances of WHF developing a BS detector.

 

[CnoEvil]

We all know this forum has software to edit out bad language. What's the chances of WHF developing a BS detector.

Well that would certainly cut down on forum traffic.....maybe by as much as 90%.

....and I'd have to find somewhere else to go.

 

[richardw42]

some threads run their course, but still keep going and going. And going.

 

[MakkaPakka]

If your ears can detect depth. 3dness, scale, etc. etc. then why can't a couple of good quality omni-directional microphones hooked up to a recording device?

Level matching means ensuring that the two things you're testing are at the same volume. You cannot compare the relative merits of two sounds if one is louder than the other. I would have thought that was obvious :doh:

 

[davedotco]

What can you hear that can't be measured?

In terms of hifi the sound stage, scale the 3dness of the image, the depth of that image produced between the two speakers and quite a bit more actually.

Anyhoo, can someone explain the point of level matching two amps in any sort of test what would that prove, its like Top Gear (a popular motoring program on the BBC) testing cars on its tracks with the proviso they must achieve 30mph in no less and no more than 10secs and then complete the remainder of the lap at 30mph no more no less - the times would all be the same be it a f1 car or a 1970's austin allegro..... thats stupid.

That Harbeth test is a joke a laweyer must have written it up.

If you geninly believe all amps sound the same or differences are subtle at "a fixed level" ...seriously you should buy yourself a transistor radio or a mono cassette recorder and live long and prosper playing them at fixed levels. Play your kit at what ever levels you want but don't presume your budget amp can compare to more exotic kit. quality speakers WILL expose your budget equ - amps do not sound the same.

CNOevil speaks sense, listen, trust your ears and while I don't always agree with WHFI's verdict their method for testing kit is the best way.

Oh, I'm confident I could pass ABX test's ......I'd put money on it, a good amount too.

Ahaaa, Thomson, nice to have you back, been on your holibobs........?

Your posts are on an entirely different level, quite inspired....... :clap:

 

[MakkaPakka]

some threads run their course, but still keep going and going. And going.

It's like a party, just when it was about to finish someone turned up really, really drunk thinking it had just started.

 

[Captain Duff]

Do different amps sound different? Yes. Are expensive amps better? No, not necessarily.

My own take on this is that the key element of an amp (once you get past the power issue) is actually its EQ. Bob Carver basically proved many years ago that it is possible with a little bit of knowledge to EQ cheap components to mimic rather well the sound of expensive ones in an amp, and therefore to produce a cheap product that can easily fool the 'experts' in a genuinely blind test.

And this all links to the old issue of whether there have been (or indeed still are) different national preferences in terms of EQ, with the 'British' sound being 'warmer' than preferences elsewhere. And I think myself that this is where the orginal NAD budget amps got things pretty much spot on from their sales point of view, as their engineers at the time had produced a warm sounding EQ from some pretty cheap componants in the late 70s/early 80s (helped along by some cheap labour costrs in the far east).

And yet I do actually think that in some cases (in fact in quite a few cases), cost does matter. Not for the sake of it, or for badge snobbery (of which there is plenty about), but because if you manufacture a product well and from better quality components it should - all things being equal - last longer. You would also expect that the company has been able to employ some decent engineers who can get the EQ of their amps 'right' in a very comprehensive way, something that is less likely to happen with cheaper products.

But of course it is possible that a reasonably priced amp will sound just as good as a very expensive one (as others besides Bob Carver have shown). That said, while my Sugden isn't the cheapest amp around (although it is far from being the most expensive) I do rather like the 'Sugden sound' it produces - although this definately isn't via a blind test so I claim no science or objectivity here at all!

 

[John Duncan]

I've been debating which thread to post to, this seems as good as any.

We all know this forum has software to edit out bad language. What's the chances of WHF developing a BS detector.

**** all.

 

[plastic penguin]

I'm completely EDITED off with my system. Fed up with a cheap piece of EDITED. Totally EDITED up the whole ambience and feel. EDITED.

 

[John Duncan]

Well I do keep offering you my PMCs...

 

[Frank Harvey]

Well I do keep offering you my PMCs...

It's because he's not using an Apple product as a source...

 

[manicm]

I've found the sonic differences between power amps on highly efficient and easy to drive speakers to be relatively small. Smaller than the differences between vinyl sources. Smaller than the differences between speakers.

Was not my and my brother's conclusion mate. When our insurance company tried to replace our stolen Technics amp with a cheaper, inferior one, the difference was immediately and simultaneously noticed by the two of us. I was a teenager and I knew what Bryan Ferry's Slave To Love should have sounded like on vinyl. And in those days ABX testing was not in vogue. And our speakers were the easiest things to drive.