We would usually recommend spending more on the CD than the amp or speakers. Is this good advice?

[TrevC]

You find one badly translated review and that trumps an actual listening test? Really? I thought you said listening was the most important criteria? http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I personally wouldn't buy the Behringer because it's fugly, BTW. I would go for one of the £200 amps that Richer sells.

Looking at the spec sheets for the test gear the YBA2 power amp used in the "high end" system only delivers 70W in to 8 ohms, whereas the A500 used in the "cheap as chips" system is in the many 100's of Watts in to 8 ohms. Given that ATC recommend a minimum 100W per channel to drive the SCM12's I would say that the "high end" amplifier is significantly under powered for driving those monitors. Nothing like skewing the test to deliver the result you want!

Part of the test is not driving either amp into clipping. The test is not looking for which amplifier is more powerfull and better at driving difficult loads, but if there are qualitative difference in sound when all quantitative things are equal.

The difference between 70Wpc in 8 ohms and 100 of the same is only slightly above a dB.

You need to read this and learn a bit about these tests and why they are done.

Sorry Vladimir but unless I am missing something, and it has been a long day, the article says NOTHING about how hard the amps were driven in the method section which describes the test. One can only assume therefore that there could have been clipping.

The test subjects couldn't tell the difference between both amps. The result didn't show the Behringer was better, so why would you asume the YBA was clipping? First thing that is done in these tests is to level match with a very tight tolerance and set the amplifiers at levels withut clipping (probably not using more than 10W).

By your logic the cheaply made Behringer A500 is undisputedly better than the much much more expensive quality build YBA because the A500 it is just a bit more powerfull. The subjectivists claim the YBA is better in all aspect and despite being less powerfull, it is more powerfull.

My logic states that equally specified products should be used in a test like this. On that note different cables were used in both systems and the Behringer was balanced on a wooden chair. It all smacks just a little too much of somebody trying to make a (their) point at the expense of objectivity.

You just change the amp. You don't change everything. Balanced on a chair?! Objective? Give me a fecking break.

The same speaker cables were used. It demonstrated that neither the amp, or the CD player or the interconnects or the racks used in a system make any real difference at all. Pretty damn conclusive.

 

[Gazzip]

You find one badly translated review and that trumps an actual listening test? Really? I thought you said listening was the most important criteria? http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I personally wouldn't buy the Behringer because it's fugly, BTW. I would go for one of the £200 amps that Richer sells.

Looking at the spec sheets for the test gear the YBA2 power amp used in the "high end" system only delivers 70W in to 8 ohms, whereas the A500 used in the "cheap as chips" system is in the many 100's of Watts in to 8 ohms. Given that ATC recommend a minimum 100W per channel to drive the SCM12's I would say that the "high end" amplifier is significantly under powered for driving those monitors. Nothing like skewing the test to deliver the result you want!

Part of the test is not driving either amp into clipping. The test is not looking for which amplifier is more powerfull and better at driving difficult loads, but if there are qualitative difference in sound when all quantitative things are equal.

The difference between 70Wpc in 8 ohms and 100 of the same is only slightly above a dB.

You need to read this and learn a bit about these tests and why they are done.

Sorry Vladimir but unless I am missing something, and it has been a long day, the article says NOTHING about how hard the amps were driven in the method section which describes the test. One can only assume therefore that there could have been clipping.

The test subjects couldn't tell the difference between both amps. The result didn't show the Behringer was better, so why would you asume the YBA was clipping? First thing that is done in these tests is to level match with a very tight tolerance and set the amplifiers at levels withut clipping (probably not using more than 10W).

By your logic the cheaply made Behringer A500 is undisputedly better than the much much more expensive quality build YBA because the A500 it is just a bit more powerfull. The subjectivists claim the YBA is better in all aspect and despite being less powerfull, it is more powerfull.

My logic states that equally specified products should be used in a test like this. On that note different cables were used in both systems and the Behringer was balanced on a wooden chair. It all smacks just a little too much of somebody trying to make a (their) point at the expense of objectivity.

You just change the amp. You don't change everything. Balanced on a chair?! Objective? Give me a fecking break.

The same speaker cables were used. It demonstrated that neither the amp, or the CD player or the interconnects or the racks used in a system make any real difference at all. Pretty damn conclusive.

That is not how scientific testing is executed Trevor. A scientific test would eliminate each element one-by-one.

 

[Gazzip]

****. I'm feeding them. Dragged right in.

 

[Vladimir]

I actually agree with you Gazzip. In real world circumstances the amp with better PSU and more output devices will walk over the weaker amp with difficult to drive speakers. However, this test (and this debate) isn't about that.

 

[TrevC]

You find one badly translated review and that trumps an actual listening test? Really? I thought you said listening was the most important criteria? http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I personally wouldn't buy the Behringer because it's fugly, BTW. I would go for one of the £200 amps that Richer sells.

Looking at the spec sheets for the test gear the YBA2 power amp used in the "high end" system only delivers 70W in to 8 ohms, whereas the A500 used in the "cheap as chips" system is in the many 100's of Watts in to 8 ohms. Given that ATC recommend a minimum 100W per channel to drive the SCM12's I would say that the "high end" amplifier is significantly under powered for driving those monitors. Nothing like skewing the test to deliver the result you want!

Part of the test is not driving either amp into clipping. The test is not looking for which amplifier is more powerfull and better at driving difficult loads, but if there are qualitative difference in sound when all quantitative things are equal.

The difference between 70Wpc in 8 ohms and 100 of the same is only slightly above a dB.

You need to read this and learn a bit about these tests and why they are done.

Sorry Vladimir but unless I am missing something, and it has been a long day, the article says NOTHING about how hard the amps were driven in the method section which describes the test. One can only assume therefore that there could have been clipping.

The test subjects couldn't tell the difference between both amps. The result didn't show the Behringer was better, so why would you asume the YBA was clipping? First thing that is done in these tests is to level match with a very tight tolerance and set the amplifiers at levels withut clipping (probably not using more than 10W).

By your logic the cheaply made Behringer A500 is undisputedly better than the much much more expensive quality build YBA because the A500 it is just a bit more powerfull. The subjectivists claim the YBA is better in all aspect and despite being less powerfull, it is more powerfull.

My logic states that equally specified products should be used in a test like this. On that note different cables were used in both systems and the Behringer was balanced on a wooden chair. It all smacks just a little too much of somebody trying to make a (their) point at the expense of objectivity.

You just change the amp. You don't change everything. Balanced on a chair?! Objective? Give me a fecking break.

The same speaker cables were used. It demonstrated that neither the amp, or the CD player or the interconnects or the racks used in a system make any real difference at all. Pretty damn conclusive.

That is not how scientific testing is executed Trevor. A scientific test would eliminate each element one-by-one.

How would you know? You come across as a scientific illiterate that argues for the sake of it.

 

[Gazzip]

You find one badly translated review and that trumps an actual listening test? Really? I thought you said listening was the most important criteria? http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I personally wouldn't buy the Behringer because it's fugly, BTW. I would go for one of the £200 amps that Richer sells.

Looking at the spec sheets for the test gear the YBA2 power amp used in the "high end" system only delivers 70W in to 8 ohms, whereas the A500 used in the "cheap as chips" system is in the many 100's of Watts in to 8 ohms. Given that ATC recommend a minimum 100W per channel to drive the SCM12's I would say that the "high end" amplifier is significantly under powered for driving those monitors. Nothing like skewing the test to deliver the result you want!

Part of the test is not driving either amp into clipping. The test is not looking for which amplifier is more powerfull and better at driving difficult loads, but if there are qualitative difference in sound when all quantitative things are equal.

The difference between 70Wpc in 8 ohms and 100 of the same is only slightly above a dB.

You need to read this and learn a bit about these tests and why they are done.

Sorry Vladimir but unless I am missing something, and it has been a long day, the article says NOTHING about how hard the amps were driven in the method section which describes the test. One can only assume therefore that there could have been clipping.

The test subjects couldn't tell the difference between both amps. The result didn't show the Behringer was better, so why would you asume the YBA was clipping? First thing that is done in these tests is to level match with a very tight tolerance and set the amplifiers at levels withut clipping (probably not using more than 10W).

By your logic the cheaply made Behringer A500 is undisputedly better than the much much more expensive quality build YBA because the A500 it is just a bit more powerfull. The subjectivists claim the YBA is better in all aspect and despite being less powerfull, it is more powerfull.

My logic states that equally specified products should be used in a test like this. On that note different cables were used in both systems and the Behringer was balanced on a wooden chair. It all smacks just a little too much of somebody trying to make a (their) point at the expense of objectivity.

You just change the amp. You don't change everything. Balanced on a chair?! Objective? Give me a fecking break.

The same speaker cables were used. It demonstrated that neither the amp, or the CD player or the interconnects or the racks used in a system make any real difference at all. Pretty damn conclusive.

That is not how scientific testing is executed Trevor. A scientific test would eliminate each element one-by-one.

How would you know? You come across as a scientific illiterate that argues for the sake of it.

*lol*

 

[Vladimir]

You two stop clowning and check this out. Null testing for amplifiers.

Null testing can be used to compare the errors and distortions produced by two devices under test. You simply subtract the gain-matched ("nulled") output of the two devices from each other. If you get a deep null, a strong argument can be made the two devices will be indistinguishable in listening tests.

Null testing can also be used to compare the input to a device with the output of that device. If you subtract the gain-matched ("nulled") output from the input, what you're left with is ALL distortion and errors produced by that device. The resulting null signal can then be quantitatively measured in various ways (i.e. average level, spectral content, etc.). You can also listen to it if you want to subjectively evaluate the distortion products, etc.

It should be stressed that null testing allows the use of ANY kind of test signal ranging from real music to pink noise to sine waves. If you're testing an amplifier, you can test it driving real-world speakers.

Null testing allows the device under test to be used exactly as it would be when listening to music in your system. SO MOST OF THE USUAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST CONVENTIONAL MEASUREMENTS DON'T APPLY TO NULL TESTING. It measures ANY kind of distortion or errors produced by the device including frequency response deviation, phase shift, THD, IMD, TIM, etc.

A famous example using null testing was the Carver Challenge in Stereophile. Bob Carver challenged the editors of Stereophile they would not be able to hear any difference between a $700 Carver amp and whatever amp they wanted to provide as a reference amp. Stereophile chose a very well regarded high-end tube amp with a five figure price tag. They were very certain they would win the challenge.

Bob Carver spent a few days nulling his $700 Carver amp against the reference amp. He added some series resistance to the output and tweaked the feedback loop in the Carver. He claims he ultimately achieved a -70db null between the two amplifiers. The editors at Stereophile listened for two days and finally gave up--they couldn't hear any difference!

The Carver Challenge, IMHO, further validates null testing as a very powerful tool for audio design. The technique was first published by Baxandall in 1977 and then again in 1986 by David Hafler. You can find diagrams of the null setups proposed by both authors in this link:

http://www.dself.demon.co.uk/subjectv.htm

 

[MajorFubar]

Interesting. I didn't really think null testing was possible in that way. I've used it to prove two digital audio files are exactly the same, most recently a few years ago when I convinced myself the CD rips from my iMac sounded different to those from the cheap USB drive I had so far been using to rip two thirds of my 600+ CD collection. I posted a thread about it. The null test proved of course they weren't different at all, it was a complete illusion. It also proved to me that just about the last things you can trust to make an objective decision are your own mortal senses.

 

[keeper of the quays]

After hearing my mates cyrus cdxtse and its dac! If you have very good kit? A too notch cd transport and dac make a huge difference!

 

[Infiniteloop]

You find one badly translated review and that trumps an actual listening test? Really? I thought you said listening was the most important criteria? http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm

I personally wouldn't buy the Behringer because it's fugly, BTW. I would go for one of the £200 amps that Richer sells.

Looking at the spec sheets for the test gear the YBA2 power amp used in the "high end" system only delivers 70W in to 8 ohms, whereas the A500 used in the "cheap as chips" system is in the many 100's of Watts in to 8 ohms. Given that ATC recommend a minimum 100W per channel to drive the SCM12's I would say that the "high end" amplifier is significantly under powered for driving those monitors. Nothing like skewing the test to deliver the result you want!

Part of the test is not driving either amp into clipping. The test is not looking for which amplifier is more powerfull and better at driving difficult loads, but if there are qualitative difference in sound when all quantitative things are equal.

The difference between 70Wpc in 8 ohms and 100 of the same is only slightly above a dB.

You need to read this and learn a bit about these tests and why they are done.

Sorry Vladimir but unless I am missing something, and it has been a long day, the article says NOTHING about how hard the amps were driven in the method section which describes the test. One can only assume therefore that there could have been clipping.

The test subjects couldn't tell the difference between both amps. The result didn't show the Behringer was better, so why would you asume the YBA was clipping? First thing that is done in these tests is to level match with a very tight tolerance and set the amplifiers at levels withut clipping (probably not using more than 10W).

By your logic the cheaply made Behringer A500 is undisputedly better than the much much more expensive quality build YBA because the A500 it is just a bit more powerfull. The subjectivists claim the YBA is better in all aspect and despite being less powerfull, it is more powerfull.

My logic states that equally specified products should be used in a test like this. On that note different cables were used in both systems and the Behringer was balanced on a wooden chair. It all smacks just a little too much of somebody trying to make a (their) point at the expense of objectivity.

You just change the amp. You don't change everything. Balanced on a chair?! Objective? Give me a fecking break.

The same speaker cables were used. It demonstrated that neither the amp, or the CD player or the interconnects or the racks used in a system make any real difference at all. Pretty damn conclusive.

That is not how scientific testing is executed Trevor. A scientific test would eliminate each element one-by-one.

How would you know? You come across as a scientific illiterate that argues for the sake of it.

Oh the irony.

 

[Native_bon]

I once used a Marantz Sr6003 to drive a pair of Sonus Fabers Cremona's floor standing speakers & was told what a waste of speakers. But to my ears it never one bit sounded wasted. I dn't really care what people think but how the sound satisfies me. If your not sure & experienced you will sometimes doubt your decisions.

More attention is always paid to expensive Hifi when it comes to pairing & setting it up than non expensive ones. No one is wrong about what sounds right to their ears. It has to be said though, many myths of hifi are now been busted.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Any system can sound better when care is taken to set it up properly, regardless of the system's overall cost.

As for your Cremonas, I couldn't comment, as I've not heard them, so I don't know how demanding a load they are, or what sort of quality they require to give their best.

 

[Frank Harvey]

As pointed out to me by a customer I bumped into at the Bristol Show this weekend, there seemed to be far attention being paid to the front end of the systems on demo, which could be one reason why even more rooms sounded better this year (last year's tally was increased by more attention paid to room acoustic treatment). One reason why the £300 Tannoy's probably sounded so good - a £500 amp and £1000 source.

 

[TrevC]

Any system can sound better when care is taken to set it up properly, regardless of the system's overall cost.

As for your Cremonas, I couldn't comment, as I've not heard them, so I don't know how demanding a load they are, or what sort of quality they require to give their best.

They are quite demanding. http://cdn.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/CREmoFIG1.jpg

4 ohm speakers.

 

[Jota180]

As pointed out to me by a customer I bumped into at the Bristol Show this weekend, there seemed to be far attention being paid to the front end of the systems on demo, which could be one reason why even more rooms sounded better this year (last year's tally was increased by more attention paid to room acoustic treatment). One reason why the £300 Tannoy's probably sounded so good - a £500 amp and £1000 source.

You'd have to not know the sources to really be sure the price wasn't playing a part in the conclusions. If the source was a tenner electrical item from Ebay that would likely illicit negative thoughts before a note was played.

Ideally they should hide the sources (if they are a loudspeaker company) and let the speakers take centre stage.

 

[Jota180]

After hearing my mates cyrus cdxtse and its dac! If you have very good kit? A too notch cd transport and dac make a huge difference!

Did he bring it round your house and put it in your system?

 

[keeper of the quays]

After hearing my mates cyrus cdxtse and its dac! If you have very good kit? A too notch cd transport and dac make a huge difference!

Did he bring it round your house and put it in your system?

no he didnt..we share same pre amp, but his amplification is naim with quad esl speakers..mine is quad with ae1mk3 speakers...bit off topic..we were having a chat bout digital, and we both agreed like vinyl if you provide good equipment for cd? Its sound is very good..

 

[Frank Harvey]

You'd have to not know the sources to really be sure the price wasn't playing a part in the conclusions. If the source was a tenner electrical item from Ebay that would likely illicit negative thoughts before a note was played.

Not really, as most people are usually listening to the product being showcased in the room. The source IS playing a part in the conclusions, so it serves no purpose to just shove any old source on the front end.

 

[nopiano]

As pointed out to me by a customer I bumped into at the Bristol Show this weekend, there seemed to be far attention being paid to the front end of the systems on demo, which could be one reason why even more rooms sounded better this year (last year's tally was increased by more attention paid to room acoustic treatment). One reason why the £300 Tannoy's probably sounded so good - a £500 amp and £1000 source.

Yes, I noticed that too. The ones I recall:-

1. Origin Live, with their new turntable, an amp I cannot recall and £169/pr Q Acoustic stand mounters. I suspect the stands cost much more than the speakers. Sounded superb.

2. Elac Debut 5 speakers at £250 a pair with £000's on mains cleaning, amps and wire. Moon sources I recall. Excellent, and way better than the price would lead you to imagine.

3. Harbeth HL5 speakers. No source obvious, so I asked. Hegel amps. And a cheap PC from Sainsburys! Yes, that is what they said. Pure BBC sound, a bit lightweight, but no boom or overhang which most had in abundance. Very natural in voice, which few offer!

I used to know a good analogy with film cameras to describe changing amps and speakers. Something about the amps providing focus and the speakers more about the colour. Trouble is, everything is digital now, so analogue comparisons are hard to make! And, regarding shows, I often find the more modest systems sound the best, almost like they are right for the room when bigger systems are "too much" for the space. PMC sounded good, but they had a much bigger space, more of a conference room. I think that is a big factor.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I used to know a good analogy with film cameras to describe changing amps and speakers. Something about the amps providing focus and the speakers more about the colour. Trouble is, everything is digital now, so analogue comparisons are hard to make!

I think PMC used that analogy, although I'm sure they used the speakers as focus...

And, regarding shows, I often find the more modest systems sound the best, almost like they are right for the room when bigger systems are "too much" for the space. PMC sounded good, but they had a much bigger space, more of a conference room. I think that is a big factor.

Agreed. I remember when PMC used to show their PMC/Bryston systems in the smaller rooms on the higher floors, and there'd be a fair amount of boom, basically because the room was too small, and the PMCs back then were a little more forthcoming with their bass (i-Series). I think people expect less from cheaper kit, so are surprised when they sound the way they do, probably because the speakers aren't huge and can't produce too much bass. More is (quite rightly) expected from more expensive kit, and whilst some higher end systems produce a better sound in some of those smaller rooms than others, I think they generally deserve a little more breathing space.

 

[Audio Maniac]

Sources do make difference but digital sources become obsolete quickly ... 90's high-end amp and speakers are still high end today, but the same is not valid for digital sources.

I am in the process of upgrading my system and during exchanges with various dealers one stated the line above. This was a bit of a surprise to me what do others think?

Chris