Do more expensive amplifiers make a difference?

[davedotco]

busb has a point.

Really, pouring money into the electronics is a waste. Providing the amp is powerful suitable, in terms of the specifications, for the speakers, then spending more on high end amps isn't going to make a world of difference at all. Keeping an inexpensive amp and pouring money into the speakers will, however, make a massive difference.

I think there is a lot of truth in this, especially if the budget is limited and correct choices are made.

However, and quite illogically, there are a handful of amplification components that I have heard that bring a certain quality to a system that simply can not be obtained in any other way. They are pretty expensive but that is not really the point as many expensive amplifiers do not have this effect in the slightest.

Strange.

 

[MakkaPakka]

What do you do when there's nothing left to upgrade then? :help:

 

[TrevC]

busb has a point.

Really, pouring money into the electronics is a waste. Providing the amp is powerful suitable, in terms of the specifications, for the speakers, then spending more on high end amps isn't going to make a world of difference at all. Keeping an inexpensive amp and pouring money into the speakers will, however, make a massive difference.

Yes, but the better, more expensive speakers are often more demanding in the power and current dept. So if you want your amplifier to control them properly, it must be up to it (Watts and amps). And high current amplifiers tend to be expensive.

Magnepan is one example of a speaker that asks for a relatively solid (and often expensive) amplifier.

The Behringer used in this test can be bought for about £150.

http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

 

[MakkaPakka]

That amp looks identical to the Alesis RA500 that's been used in this new online blind test (which I stumbled across). One of the files is the original, the second has gone via a cheap amp and a ADC.

http://www.audiosmile.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=30382

Files are available for download and so you can try the test yourself. Even better use the ABX comparator in foobar so you can record the result.

Of course, lots of people here will get 100% :wave:

I may give it a go later if I have time.

 

[RobinKidderminster]

I'll hook up my cheap kitchen cd unit to my hifi speakers in the lounge. If I cant tell the difference then watch out in ebay.
I dont think so somehow.

 

[DocG]

busb has a point.

Really, pouring money into the electronics is a waste. Providing the amp is powerful suitable, in terms of the specifications, for the speakers, then spending more on high end amps isn't going to make a world of difference at all. Keeping an inexpensive amp and pouring money into the speakers will, however, make a massive difference.

Yes, but the better, more expensive speakers are often more demanding in the power and current dept. So if you want your amplifier to control them properly, it must be up to it (Watts and amps). And high current amplifiers tend to be expensive.

Magnepan is one example of a speaker that asks for a relatively solid (and often expensive) amplifier.

The Behringer used in this test can be bought for about £150.

http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I know the test, TrevC, but I'm not familiar with the ATC SCM12 they use. Is it hard to drive (impedance dips, high phase angles, ...)? Cos that's what my post is about. I give the example of the Maggies because I know they need a lot of current to come alive. But I'll certainly look into AL's suggestion of a NAD power amp.

The result of the test gives food for thought, obviously.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

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:

sorry to drag this back up, but real life...you all know how it is sometimes.

Anyhoo considering CD/file/record/tape data is fixed and source output is fixed......Makkapakka, no - you try recording with a omni-directional mic, then come back here and tell us if it sounds anything like what you hear coming from your speakers, in your room...... prrrft...

And level matching is stupid, if you are testing two devices against each other then you test them to their limits, to the point just before distortion on the very edge of integrity to the point of..... you get the idea. It's this crazy logic that makes me not take these 'hifi' test seriously. How can anyone consider a test valid if the kit is working well within its spec, whats the point?

if you compare say a 200watt Krell with the Cyrus 6a for example what the Krell could do with a pair of speakers will never be known if its limited to the spec of the Cyrus 6a 40watts - and that would be the basis for someone to claim both amps sound the same?......really?

Why you do you think Harbeth have worded their challenge so carefully.

 

[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.

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

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

LOL.... I try....

 

[davedotco]

LOL.... I try....

Of course you do.

And very successfully too....... :type:

 

[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:

sorry to drag this back up, but real life...you all know how it is sometimes.

Anyhoo considering CD/file/record/tape data is fixed and source output is fixed......Makkapakka, no - you try recording with a omni-directional mic, then come back here and tell us if it sounds anything like what you hear coming from your speakers, in your room...... prrrft...

And level matching is stupid, if you are testing two devices against each other then you test them to their limits, to the point just before distortion on the very edge of integrity to the point of..... you get the idea. It's this crazy logic that makes me not take these 'hifi' test seriously. How can anyone consider a test valid if the kit is working well within its spec, whats the point?

if you compare say a 200watt Krell with the Cyrus 6a for example what the Krell could do with a pair of speakers will never be known if its limited to the spec of the Cyrus 6a 40watts - and that would be the basis for someone to claim both amps sound the same?......really?

Why you do you think Harbeth have worded their challenge so carefully.

What I meant was you could record it and there would be a difference - it's not about making an accurate recording, explaining it or understanding it - just showing that something is different.

I don't know exactly what Harbeth was specifying when it said level matching but in most tests that are carried out (like on the matrix site) the only level matching is the volume.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Y'know David, I walk past Frank Harvey every day but it's usually late and you're closed. I feel like I owe it to you to walk past when you're open, come in, shake your hand a buy you a beer for this comment.

I hope you didn't this week as I've been off

Anytime - always good to meet forum members

 

[Frank Harvey]

busb has a point.

Really, pouring money into the electronics is a waste. Providing the amp is powerful suitable, in terms of the specifications, for the speakers, then spending more on high end amps isn't going to make a world of difference at all. Keeping an inexpensive amp and pouring money into the speakers will, however, make a massive difference.

I don't know about that. I've heard our Blades with Bryston's 4Bsst2, 7Bsst2 monoblocks, Cyrus X300 monoblocks, Chord SPM1400 monoblocks, Yamaha MXD1 power amplifier, and Onkyo's Reference pre/power (and a few more), and to my mind, only the Yamaha and 4Bsst2 sounded similar. The others were quite different. I'd take a blind test between the Bryston, Chord and Onkyo any day.

 

[Frank Harvey]

David, if you read my initial post in this thread, you'd have read that I thought that better amplifiers do make a big difference & was agreeing with your point that expensive doesn't always mean better. So, to suggest I stated or imply spending so little when I splashed out £1400 on a 2nd hand power amp last Christmas does not add up.

Maybe I should've qualified my (sarcastic) statement with a smiley face - it wasn't direct at you, just to those who think ABX is the only way forward

 

[busb]

David, if you read my initial post in this thread, you'd have read that I thought that better amplifiers do make a big difference & was agreeing with your point that expensive doesn't always mean better. So, to suggest I stated or imply spending so little when I splashed out £1400 on a 2nd hand power amp last Christmas does not add up.

Maybe I should've qualified my (sarcastic) statement with a smiley face - it wasn't direct at you, just to those who think ABX is the only way forward

Glad to hear it - especially when I have serious doubts regarding the effectiveness of most, if not all ABX tests. If I don't want to direct a comment at an individual - I don't quote them.

 

[pauln]

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:

sorry to drag this back up, but real life...you all know how it is sometimes.

Anyhoo considering CD/file/record/tape data is fixed and source output is fixed......Makkapakka, no - you try recording with a omni-directional mic, then come back here and tell us if it sounds anything like what you hear coming from your speakers, in your room...... prrrft...

And level matching is stupid, if you are testing two devices against each other then you test them to their limits, to the point just before distortion on the very edge of integrity to the point of..... you get the idea. It's this crazy logic that makes me not take these 'hifi' test seriously. How can anyone consider a test valid if the kit is working well within its spec, whats the point?

if you compare say a 200watt Krell with the Cyrus 6a for example what the Krell could do with a pair of speakers will never be known if its limited to the spec of the Cyrus 6a 40watts - and that would be the basis for someone to claim both amps sound the same?......really?

Why you do you think Harbeth have worded their challenge so carefully.

I suppose you must be a troll. I can't believe that someone posting here about these things doesn't understand how our ears work; specifically regarding their sensitivity to different frequencies as in equal loudness curves. Or do you just reject all science?

 

[Frank Harvey]

I can't believe that someone posting here about these things doesn't understand how our ears work; specifically regarding their sensitivity to different frequencies as in equal loudness curves. Or do you just reject all science?

How do you know that scientists fully understand how our hearing works?

 

[matt49]

I can't believe that someone posting here about these things doesn't understand how our ears work; specifically regarding their sensitivity to different frequencies as in equal loudness curves. Or do you just reject all science?

How do you know that scientists fully understand how our hearing works?

I was speaking to my brother-in-law about this two evenings ago. He's a Royal Society professor and one of the world's leading experts on the brain physiology of sense perception.

He listed a number of areas in which he reckoned we're miles away from understanding how hearing works: frequency resolution, phase, complex harmonics, binaurality etc etc.

Alternatively you can look on wikipedia and give yourself the impression you understand how things work ...

Matt

 

[pauln]

I can't believe that someone posting here about these things doesn't understand how our ears work; specifically regarding their sensitivity to different frequencies as in equal loudness curves. Or do you just reject all science?

How do you know that scientists fully understand how our hearing works?

Are you claiming that they don't? Fletcher Munson curves? Do you think they are wrong? You might as well just ask how scientists know anything at all.

:shakes head in disbelief:

 

[BigH]

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:

sorry to drag this back up, but real life...you all know how it is sometimes.

Anyhoo considering CD/file/record/tape data is fixed and source output is fixed......Makkapakka, no - you try recording with a omni-directional mic, then come back here and tell us if it sounds anything like what you hear coming from your speakers, in your room...... prrrft...

And level matching is stupid, if you are testing two devices against each other then you test them to their limits, to the point just before distortion on the very edge of integrity to the point of..... you get the idea. It's this crazy logic that makes me not take these 'hifi' test seriously. How can anyone consider a test valid if the kit is working well within its spec, whats the point?

if you compare say a 200watt Krell with the Cyrus 6a for example what the Krell could do with a pair of speakers will never be known if its limited to the spec of the Cyrus 6a 40watts - and that would be the basis for someone to claim both amps sound the same?......really?

Why you do you think Harbeth have worded their challenge so carefully.

So playing 1 amp at 40w and 1 amp at 200w will be a good comparison? As for playing at their limits that does not always work either, some amps sounds poor at their max. volume while others sound OK. How about playing them at a normal listening level?

 

[davedotco]

I can't believe that someone posting here about these things doesn't understand how our ears work; specifically regarding their sensitivity to different frequencies as in equal loudness curves. Or do you just reject all science?

How do you know that scientists fully understand how our hearing works?

I am pretty sure that scientists do not 'fully understand' how our hearing works.

I am equally sure that they know enough about how our hearing works to understand that it both quite remarkably sensitive, has incredible resolving power yet in other area is unreliable and easily fooled. I do not have a problem with that.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Are you claiming that they don't? Fletcher Munson curves? Do you think they are wrong? You might as well just ask how scientists know anything at all.

:shakes head in disbelief:

I'm not saying any particular scientific theories are incorrect, but do remember that most are just that - theories.

You can :shake your head in disbelief: all you like! If scientists know absolutely everything, why are they still employed? Why are they still being paid to further research, to improve understanding of everything around us?

 

[BigH]

Yes and many people have been fooled in demos by the level (volume) being different when comparing systems. Its an old trick.

 

[davedotco]

Are you claiming that they don't? Fletcher Munson curves? Do you think they are wrong? You might as well just ask how scientists know anything at all.

:shakes head in disbelief:

I'm not saying any particular scientific theories are incorrect, but do remember that most are just that - theories.

You can :shake your head in disbelief: all you like! If scientists know absolutely everything, why are they still employed? Why are they still being paid to further research, to improve understanding of everything around us?

Do you actually know what a "theory" means in scientific terms?

It is a little different from the bloke at the bar spouting "I have a theory.........'

 

[Frank Harvey]

Yup, but much of what is out there may not be 100% fact. Due to research, there's always something new we're finding out about the universe and its contents. If scientists knew absolutely everything about the human body, there'd be no disease or illness. Or at least, there'd be no incurable diseases.

Anyway, back on topic - yes, amplifiers can make a difference

 

[Thompsonuxb]

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:

sorry to drag this back up, but real life...you all know how it is sometimes.

Anyhoo considering CD/file/record/tape data is fixed and source output is fixed......Makkapakka, no - you try recording with a omni-directional mic, then come back here and tell us if it sounds anything like what you hear coming from your speakers, in your room...... prrrft...

And level matching is stupid, if you are testing two devices against each other then you test them to their limits, to the point just before distortion on the very edge of integrity to the point of..... you get the idea. It's this crazy logic that makes me not take these 'hifi' test seriously. How can anyone consider a test valid if the kit is working well within its spec, whats the point?

if you compare say a 200watt Krell with the Cyrus 6a for example what the Krell could do with a pair of speakers will never be known if its limited to the spec of the Cyrus 6a 40watts - and that would be the basis for someone to claim both amps sound the same?......really?

Why you do you think Harbeth have worded their challenge so carefully.

What I meant was you could record it and there would be a difference - it's not about making an accurate recording, explaining it or understanding it - just showing that something is different.

I don't know exactly what Harbeth was specifying when it said level matching but in most tests that are carried out (like on the matrix site) the only level matching is the volume.

this post makes no sense in the context of what I said......