|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.180.134.231
As the question states- how good are Bryston amps compared to other high end amps of comparable price? I'm looking at possibly getting a 4B SST2 amp, since I have two dealers I have access to that can carry Bryston. One of those dealers I can actually go and listen. They also carry Rotel which is what Im used to hearing.
My other option was to wait for a used Luxman M-05 and pray it doesn't need repair or get damaged in shipping. A new Luxman 600A cost 30% more then the 4B amp and have only 30 watts compared to 300. So its not really in the cards to get a new Luxman.
I'm used to Rotel gear and I know the Bryston is also a fast sounding amp with good dynamics and slam. Speakers will most likely be B&W 805D or 804D.
Follow Ups:
Lots and lots of subjectivists love to hate Bryston amps, but very few companies build more honest amps.
Try to get one for a home audition with the rest of your system and you be the judge.
Strange how many manufacturers of speakers that are beloved by knowledgeable audiophiles recommend Bryston amps.
If you want acceptance by the cultists, remortgage your house or stage a hold-up at a bank branch or take your pension money or your kids' inheritance and buy a cult brand. If you want to drive speakers and settle down and listen to some tunes you can't do much better than Bryston.
If you do a brief search you wil find that reviewers from all over the world for decades now have had great praise for Bryston amps.
What would subjective audio be without a permanent whipping boy?
You want to drive speakers, I want to enjoy the music. I gave up long time ago on speakers that need brute force to sound "good" as they never actually did. Enough said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane."
Bryston, excellent build quality, neutral sound, extremely powerful, 20 year warranty. What's wrong with that? Unless you want a an amp to "sound" different than neutral.
I do not find Bryston integrated amps to sound neutral, they sound harsh as previously posted.
Don't they fit your "ideal" amplifier? Class AB, very low THD, no tubes... what's not to like?
Or a Hafler DH500 for that matter...why spend more as it has plenty of power, has very low distortion etc.
but hey... GREAT damping factors, so...
is the only one that I would call listenable.Prior series were to my ear equivalent of screeching chalk on the blackboard.
SST² I could listen but would not be on my wish list at all.
Classe? Only if you want to fall asleep while listening IMHO.However, take in to account that I find B&W speakers as close to being music reproducers as I find Luciano Pavarotti being a ballet dancer. Bryston plus B&W - two disjoined screeching chalks on the blackboard amplified through the megaphone, IMHO.
Did not listen to Luxman to compare.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane."
Edits: 03/29/14
" Bryston plus B&W - two disjoined screeching chalks on the blackboard amplified through the megaphone, IMHO."
nt
nt
.
Not: more of a bad thing does not = good thing.
Mr. Cab I see that you list in your interests "Reviewing high end gear".
Where can your collected works as a reviewer be found?
Thanks.
Positive Feedback
Which one of the people listed are you? Couldn't find anyone with your sytem, although I did lose patience after looking at 24 names.
All these people are reviewers?
I am no longer listed because I am no longer reviewing (notice there is not an R by my moniker).
You will have to search the archives. You can look for my preamp reviews and my KR Audio Kronzilla review, which are the ones I am most proud of.
Over the years, i have had the pleasure of listening to Bryston power amps w/ the following speakers;
B&W
Focal/Jmlabs
Revel
Wilson.
And what conclusion did you come to after listening to all that?
To my ears, the Bryston is a sonic match for both Focal/Jm Lab and Wilson.
I liked the tight, solid bass of the Brystons I've auditioned. But the emphasized upper mids and treble gave me a headache (literally). They were powering B&Ws and Sonus-Fabers. The Brystons were not neutral at all, but tipped up, clinical, and cold. Like a straight wire with ice on it.
Brystons have great power and last, my favourite Classe are more subdued, yet they have a more natural extension on high frequency and seem to me to have better midrange sound.
I do think Brystons come closer the Krell in sound; however, I not crazy about Krell, but they both make super bass amplifiers.
It depends on which generation of Classe you are talking about...the early ones (literally running in Class A) were quite good amps. The later stuff...less so.
I would not use Krell as any kind of sound reference for amplifiers.
That's the difference between *accurate reproduction* and euphonic ? :)
Euphonic
1. denoting or relating to euphony; pleasing to the ear
2. (of speech sounds) altered for ease of pronunciation
agreeableness of sound; pleasing effect to the ear, especially a pleasant sounding or harmonious combination or succession of words: the majestic euphony of Milton's poetry.
Naturally we can't have any of that sort of thing in our audio reproduction chain. Cold analytical unlistenable dreck is what we should all be after in our audio systems - let's hand over the credit cards.
A system that is accurate should retain the "euphony" the artists intended. And be accurate enough not to sound implausible.
If a system does not provide "pleasing sound" (Euphony) - then it's worthless dredge as Hi-fi kit - even if the THD is .00000000025%
If you don't use analytical gear you are just adding euphonic dreck that the artist never intended you to hear because he has no idea or control over what kind of euphonic garbage you are adding.
what you don't know is that most gear that is labeled "analytical" or "neutral" or "accurate" is really nothing of the sort. The "neutral" label on an amp is often given to one that doesn't properly express tonal color correctly...everything is a shade of gray. The "analytical" or "accurate" amp is often one that has over emphasized leading edges and high frequencies that results in a skelatal outline of instruments and spaces but lacking the flesh on the bones.
All of these are a form of DISTORTION and it is an insidious one because it steers towards what many consider good hifi "values". It is however distortion and it degrades the sound because it of how it steers the sound away from a natural sound and more towards and artificial or synthetic sound. It is no surprise given that the distortions that cause such colorations are the result of unnatural processes such as negative feedback in electronic circuits...something our brains were not evolved to handle the consequences it imposes on the sound.
CHeever and others have shown that even very low levels of higher order harmonics are audible and thus detrimental to sound quality. These high order harmonics are quite dissonant also have consequences on the perception of loudness...this can destroy proper soundstaging from sonic cues in the recordings.
Now, tube amps suffer from other distortions, mostly transformer saturation distortions. Those seem to affect more bass frequencies, since those are the ones usually saturating the core of the transformer, and have repercussions up through the midrange. This is what is mostly responsible for the classic "tubey" sound. If the tube amp is also using a lot of negative feedback then it can sound both tubey and slow AND glassy and hard (or analytical). THere are many bad sounding tube amps with both of these characteristics
If you look at the really good tube amps, they do not suffer significant distortion from their output transformers, they often use no feedback and as a result sound extremely open and transparent with no "edge" to the sound...very natural. Bass is also well controlled, despite the relatively low damping factors, but with natural tone color. The secret to the great sound of these amps (if not pushed too hard as they are often lowish power) is the Class A operation, which eliminates one of the more insidious and nasty distortions called zero crossing distortion, no feedack so that the distortion pattern is monotonic...i.e. exponentially decreasing with increasing order, excellent transformers so that distortion even at full power is less than 1% etc.
This results in an amp with LESS distortion of the audible kind than most so-called "analytical" or "accurate" amplifiers because our ear/brain is not an oscilloscope. Up to a few percent of 2nd order is inaudible but 0.01% of 9th order is likely audible.
You CAN do similar things with transistors and even eliminate the output transformer from the list of potential issues but it seems to be somehow more difficult or at least less popular to do. Nelson Pass has tackled it with his First Watt series (but all are low power like a tube amp). However you are then really getting the sonic signature of the device itself and triodes, pentodes, Mosfets and bipolar transistors do not sound the same and have distortion harmonic patterns based on their transfer functions (none of which are linear).
Hybrids without feedback can give a melange that is better in many ways to pure tube or transistor and in fact some of the very best I have heard were hybrids (KR Audio, NAT, Blue Circle) AND single ended.
Push pull creates a distortion pattern that is not really consonant with the way we hear, which is effectively single ended in nature.
The best SETs are more consonant with how the human hears so I would say that this is probably closer to the "truth" than a Class AB, push pull, high negative feedback amp could ever dream to be.
Morricab (A) your post about different types of amps is well done ans is similar to my experience.
Thanks, I just try to be true to my observations and technical knowledge.
The one-off, not peer reviewed studies of Cheevers,et al., do not provide sufficient, scientifically reliable proof that the very low total harmonic distortion that includes some high-order components, is less accurate or even less disagreeable per blind testing than higher levels of 2nd and/or 3rd order HD.
OTOH it's has been known since Pythagoras that 2nd order both is not obvious and agreeable to the ear, (euphonic). However even Pythagoras won't have asserted that adding it makes the fundamental more accurate than it is by itself alone.
In my personal experience most of various "analytic" amps I've tried sound just fine playing good recording. I'm not prepared to buy an amp whose strength is make bad recordings sound better while compromising good recordings
I love the music of ... ... Gustav Mahler
Like you would know anything about peer review process. It was a master's thesis that had to at least be approved by an academic committee. Having a PhD myself (Analytical chemistry), I am familiar with the process as well as the peer review process (14 pubs and counting).
Guess you haven't read the Geddes papers then.
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Distortion_AES_I.pdf
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Distortion_AES_II.pdf
Conclusion: Some of the worst sounding tests subjectively had low THD but a high Geddes number and consisted of a high content of high order harmonics (relatively speaking).
The Nelson Pass white paper is also pretty enlightening:
http://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_dist_fdbk.pdf
You can think what you want about it but I started with a hypothesis and have been testing for several years now. Cheever and others have come to similar and better defined conclusions. Just like I use literature references in my research papers, I use CHeever and others as references towards "my" hypothesis (it is not really new so I use my loosely).
Unlike you though, I am interested in trying to characterize what I hear and WHY I and many other very experienced listeners gravitate towards certain design types and why super experienced designers have been slowly gravitating the same way (Nelson Pass is a perfect example...his latest SIT amps have ONE transistor...ONE simplest amp possible from the actual gain stage. I bet it sounds pretty awesome).
No one disputes that zero distortion would be better than any distortion, however, since that simply doesn't exist (no such thing as a linear amplification device) then the type of distortion is what matters. THis has been realized for a long time actually with efforts to characterize the impact of high order harmonics starting with D.E.L Shorter from the BBC (maybe even earlier but I am not aware of earlier). Yes, a major figure in the BBC thought it worthy of study because of what people were obviously hearing. Do your homework and you will see that I am not just fitting my preferences. Another good article is from Keith Howard in Stereophile (it is available online) where he adds distortion to recordings with a program he wrote. He concludes that the undistorted recording is best but that the least damage is done by low order even harmonics and the most damage by higher order harmonics.
How exactly are you knowing which of those recordings are "good" or "bad"?? Maybe your gear is steering you away from certain recordings?? How could you really know?
The "good" are the ones that have sounded good over the years with a variety of different components; the "bad" are the ones that sound bad with the same variety of components -- not a complicated criterion.
There is no debate that low order distortion sounds benign (if not actually good) and that high order sounds bad, (discordant, irritating): this has been know since Pythagoras demonstrated it 2500 years ago. Cheevers adds some scientific weight to this ... what deeya know.
You, I, and others are debating whether minute amounts of THD including vanishing amounts of high-order, sounds more or less accurate , (more like the recording), than much higher amounts of 2nd order harmonics. We might also debates whether relatively high 2nd or 3rd order distortion cloaks other types of distortion -- though you are disinclined to consider this possibility.
It would seem a matter of definition that less distortion is more accurate than more distortion, however I suppose that weighting by type distortion might be relevant. Maybe Cheever ought to get off his ass and work on this.
I love the music of ... ... Gustav Mahler
"It would seem a matter of definition that less distortion is more accurate than more distortion, however I suppose that weighting by type distortion might be relevant. Maybe Cheever ought to get off his ass and work on this."
You really don't want to read these things do you?? WTF do you think the Cheever thesis is about?? What do you think the Geddes papers are about?? They both develop very sophisticated weighting models for the audibility of distortion. The first to propose a weighting was D.E.L. Shorter from the BBC. Both CHeever and Geddes have found it was not a strong enough weighting factor and that the higher orders are sadly audible at even very low levels.
I won't discuss any of this further with you because you seem to refuse to educate yourself. If you read them all and don't understand any of it then just say, "Look, I tried but failed to understand it can you explain it to me". But making stupid comments like the one above means I am fighting a battle of wits against an unarmed man!
If you read and understand and have an argument as to WHY their models might be bogus then we can have a real debate but you are arguing from a point of utter ignorance and that is sad (Pythagoras indeed!)
It was several years ago and no doubt I've forgotten certain details. I'll reread and perhaps get back to you.
As I recall, I agreed that their findings were interesting and indicative but that their results were specific to their test conditions and ought not to be generalized. More research is what's called for but hasn't been forthcoming.
I love the music of ... ... Gustav Mahler
As I recall, I agreed that their findings were interesting and indicative but that their results were specific to their test conditions and ought not to be generalized. More research is what's called for but hasn't been forthcoming.
You recall incorrectly then. The whole point of CHeever's model is that he used what is known about psychoacoustics and masking as part of his model. More or less a "first principles" approach. It is not specific to a given circuit type or design.
Geddes used what is known about different distortion mechanisms of amplifiers. Coming from a somewhat different direction but still a valid theoretical approach.
I have relocated the Cheever and Geddes/Lee articles and will reread them but haven't at this point.
At best Cheever defines euphony not accuracy. For some of us accuracy is the goal: see b.l.zeebub's comments in this thread; see below. Your own comments there prove that accuracy isn't your goal -- to each his own.
I love the music of ... ... Gustav Mahler
Read it again before you comment because you are simply wrong. The device that sounds the best IS the best from a listening standpoint. If it sounds good and measures bad then it is good and if sounds bad and measures good it is bad.
So, I heartily disagree with your assertion about something you don't even remember what it contains!! You are pretty brave (or foolish) to give opinions on things you don't remember and/or don't understand.
I dare you to define accuracy in the context of music reproduction. The whole point of these studies is to show that the USUAL definition is inadequate and not taking into account how humans actually hear. You are making the same faulty assumption as many engineers that if you push the distortion low enough, regardless of HOW, it should be "perfect". BUT there is no zero distortion with non-linear devices, ever. That means you have to make sure that the distortion is shaped in the way that it is least audible...to HUMANS. If that means it sounds better...well good that is the point. Those so called "accurate" devices are in fact nothing of the sort and this is what is pointed out by both Cheever and indirectly from Geddes. Boyk and Sussmann and few decades earlier by Crowhurst (Cheevers intro covers it pretty well so just read the damn thing again).
... in the context of music reproduction -- the sound of the recording with the least audible change. (It is not remembered "live" sound which is likely to be a matter of poor memory + good imagination.)This is certainly difficult in that you have to have some sort of reproduction system to listen to the sound, i.e. can compare the system output directly to the medium.
However we have to take the work of experience sound engineers as to the sort of equipment that reproduces the sound as they heard it from the mix-down. E.g. see b.l.zeebub, who has said he never allows tubes in his system because of the distortion they introduce.
I love the music of ... ... Gustav Mahler
Edits: 03/31/14
the context of music reproduction -- the sound of the recording with the least audible change"
And you know how much it was changed exactly...how??
"However we have to take the work of experience sound engineers as to the sort of equipment that reproduces the sound as they heard it from the mix-down. E.g. see b.l.zeebub, who has said he never allows tubes in his system because of the distortion they introduce."
And that is why all the way back in the 70s it was realized that something important got lost in the sound quality of recordings. THat is why many of the small dedicated studios use TUBE microphones and TUBE recorders again...they dumped their solid state stuff realizing it couldn't achieve the same fidelity. The recording professionals were just as blinded by the industry pushing "profi" gear that sounds like shit.
Go get yourself a nice vinyl copy of something like Sonny Rollins Saxophone Colossus and then tell me that it isn't transparent, dynamic as hell and natural in tone. I seriously doubt that b.l.zeebub ever made a record that sounds 1/10th as realistic. It was made in the late 50s on tube gear. Sounds awesome...so does Kind of Blue, Way out West etc. If you think that is distortion then you need to go sit in the front row or two of a Jazz or Classical concert.
"You are making the same faulty assumption as many engineers that if you push the distortion low enough, regardless of HOW, it should be "perfect". BUT there is no zero distortion with non-linear devices, ever. That means you have to make sure that the distortion is shaped in the way that it is least audible...to HUMANS."
I am, as usual, very much enjoying your thoughts on amplifiers but I would like to comment on your statement above. While I think that I know where you are 'coming from', none the less it is simply, logically, not true. I also believe that you are making several assumptions that you may not be conscious of because those awful engineers are actually right.
First-off "perfect" doesn't exist other than in the sense of meeting Specs. Except for the identity case (I'm THE perfect example of myself) we are stuck with limiting variations sufficiently that stuff will "do the job". In this case the job is to have inaudible distortions.
With adequate loop bandwidth and gain the in-band distortion will asymptotically approach the error amplifier's which can be very clean.
The best solution to a problem is a function of the system constraints and there are always trade-off's as with everything else in life. So while your approach may be best for a particular ilk of designs it certainly isn't a given...
Regards, Rick
Interesting thoughts; however, when I say "perfect" I am referring to those who claim that for "properly" designed amplifiers within their limits they should all sound the same...i.e. no sound of their own. One only need look at this thread about Bryston, a brand with vanishingly low distortion, to see that many people, especially those with a lot of experience, find them at best flawed sounding. The truth is that despite super low THD and IMD they still have a characteristic sound that is imposed on all recordings and yes it is the human "detectors" that are picking these traits up consistently. People will tell you that it should be too low to be audible...but it isn't.
What exactly is logically not true about there is no such thing as zero distortion when designing amps with non-linear devices (of course there are no linear devices so...)? I don't think that thinking engineers are awful just the ones who follow the misguided directions that were laid out at the advent of negative feedback. The scientists were saying one thing (there must be something wrong because listening and measuring don't match) and the engineers were doing something else (i.e. they were saying, let's just keep pushing the THD and later IMD lower and then no one will hear the amp anymore)!! Well, no matter how hard they pushed we STILL hear it because of how they are pushing it down and the artifacts that creates.
"First-off "perfect" doesn't exist other than in the sense of meeting Specs. Except for the identity case (I'm THE perfect example of myself) we are stuck with limiting variations sufficiently that stuff will "do the job". In this case the job is to have inaudible distortions."
Exactly what I have been saying, if you read what I wrote carefully. I made it clear that since no perfect amp exists then the distortions that are there need to be inaudible. If you realize that even at the practical limit of what can be done with feedback and multi-stage amplifiers you will see that it is STILL AUDIBLE! If you look more into the psychoacoustics then you see that it is better to put the distortions where they can be masked and then they don't need to be so low. Many of these amps have stood the test of time (why on earth do you think SETs made a comeback?? It is not nostalgia because the last time they were used was out of most living memory). I can tell you that I would not have embraced this kind of amp unless it delivered a clear and obvious advantage for more realistic sound. I tried the low distortion route...dissatisfying in the extreme...enough to make one stop being an audiophile.
"With adequate loop bandwidth and gain the in-band distortion will asymptotically approach the error amplifier's which can be very clean."
And yet the amp with one of the lowest distortions ever measured (at least for an audio product), the Halcro monoblocks, was also one unlistenable S.O.B. They got their 15 minutes of magazine fame...and then went bankrupt. Then you have an amp like the KR Audio Kronzilla monoblocks, which remained at the top of Germany's Stereoplay magazine amp rankings for 10 YEARS (2002-2012)!! In that time the company had further improved the amp a couple of times so the latest version is even better (I had a 2006 version in my home and it made most other amps sound BROKEN...including the highly lauded ASR Emitter II Exclusive). It sure makes a lot of distortion compared to a Halcro...or a Bryston for that matter. But I bet 9 out of 10 experienced listeners would find it sound MUCH more realistic, transparent and holographic. It even uses transistors (proof to me that it is the design more than the devices) in the input and driver.
Meters don't matter for audio, unless you find the correlation with listening experience it is for naught because there is no linear in amplification devices. This is the point that Cheever, Crowhurst and Shorter have been pointing out for a long time but it seems only SET designers, Jean Hiraga and now Nelson Pass are listening. Matti Otala made a lot of interesting discoveries but he was not willing to throw away completely "good engineering practice" to get to the logical conclusion that modern amp design is barking up the wrong tree.
The best solution to a problem is a function of the system constraints and there are always trade-off's as with everything else in life. So while your approach may be best for a particular ilk of designs it certainly isn't a given..."
Like I said above, SETs made their comeback on the rediscovery of their sound not for nostalgia. THe low distortion brigade has had their 60+ years in the sun but now the experienced listeners who really care about sound are drifting towards gear that simply sounds more realistic despite the worse numbers on the scope. If it was really worse do you think it would have been able to reestablish a serious foothold in the high end industry?? Do you think Nelson Pass would really embrace the ONE transistor, no feedback design if he thought it sucked compared to his other designs?? Just sayin'...
You're talking to some people who don't listen to gear (at least no quality gear) so you're wasting your time - they won't audition Kronzilla or the numerous better examples of SE amplifiers. Heck I'd be happy if they just brought a modest Sugden A21a home to try for a weekend.I don't really blame them - I was a measurements guru - I was planning to purchase said Bryston and PMC (the ones in the recording studios), and B&W's (the ones in the recording studios). I was a pretty big Bryston/B&W booster boy when I first began. And to be fair it was a step up over the $199 receiver and Cerwin Vega stuff at the box chains.
And I would rant against tube distortion and that heck even my flagship Pioneer Elite receiver had .000025% THD big massive caps and all discrete amplifiers and a copper chassis (funny it didn't cost $55,000 like the Momentum ;-) 125 watts per channel RMS full bandwidth. WOW - Nothing could be better right?
Heck I would say things like "well B&W sells better than everyone else so it must be better or Bryston sells more than ... tube maker XYZ... so it must be better." The ole McDonalds attack.
Bryston got me into high end audio - I was considering selling my Wharfedale Vanguard loudspeakers (three way horn floorstander - an improvement on the now classic E-70) Ring Horn tweeter operating mostly at 10ohms and 95dB and could take 175 watts (steady). They were and are LOUDspeakers.
I brought home the Bryston 3B and I was stunned. How could it sound so much better than the receiver? The numbers actually favoured the Pioneer. The problem was that while it had that "grippy-tight-fake" presentation it did have an astonishingly low noise floor.
I'd still be on that path if it were not for a pseudo blind listening session of a 300B SET that is in a box (Meishu).
At that time (and still) that amp comes in a massive box. The dealer had it sitting on the floor. I assumed it was solid state amplifier. And that is important. If I had seen "tubes" I may have had a bias (I was biased against things that measured badly back then - they must be bad if they measure bad right).
So what a surprise when DIRECTLY A/B'd against a Bryston preamp/power amp of circa 160 watts of low distortion low noise floor on easy to drive speakers that the big Krell sized looking thing on the floor had superior sparkle on the treble - vastly deeper richer textures on the bass and the "dots were connected" rather than raspy and ssssshy sounding and your earlier note about the skeletal outline. Decay was much better but interestingly so was the attack.
When I asked the dealer about the mega watt amp (must be 600 watts right? - something like that) and when he grinned and said 8 watts I kind of went pale. That was kind of the epiphany moment that I wasted a decade salivating over the better specs and the better measured response.
Coming from where some of these other posters are coming from I kind of get the skepticism. I was no different sitting back in the chair laughing at the deluded tube guys obviously being duped by the higher distortion (2nd Harmonic) or whatever else they can find that SETs and tubes do badly at.
And if it wasn't for the "blind audition" (not knowing it was a SET and thinking it was a big Krell) I would be on their side telling you you "just like distortion" blah blah blah.
And to note it wasn't the first tube amp - I heard both Copland, Sonic Frontiers, Anthem tube amps, and Conrad Johnson years before and none
exactly made me think - Wow I gotta get tubes. They sounded tubby in the bass, rolled off, etc etc. Not exactly "beacons of accuracy."I always point to Kevin's review of a modest AN system - 20 years with Bryston and PMC (the stuff in many recording studios world wide). The review is 10 years old - I spoke with him on a British forum - nope not back to SS. Still got tubes.
Hi analogy is perfect.
Edits: 04/02/14
NT
I love the music of ... ... Gustav Mahler
NT
Well my first "high end" amp was an Onkyo Integra A-9711...which was also a step up from my Sony and Pioneer El cheapo receivers that I started with. Still it left me unsatisfied so I started to look into Class A amplifiers, I dreamt of a Threshold but couldn't believe the prices.
Went up to a pretty high level of SS amp before finally switching over to tubes and hybrids. KR and NAT are my personal highwater marks in my system. Surprisingly, I didn't like the Einstein hybrid so much I had for about 7 months. I loved their OTLs so I was expecting a bit less of the same...it was not to be...I had been spoiled by KR. The huge NAT I have now is quite close to the KR without perhaps some last bit of "magic" that KR gives to the music.
That Line Magnetic you are using seems quite nice...are you satisfied?
I heard last weekend an all AN system of a higher level: Jinro amp, M6 phono preamp, DAC 3.1X and CDT 3.1 and the ANK (upper middle level model don't know the exact model). So, quite expensive (around 100K I would guess or more). How did it sound? Tonally quite natural and smooth, decent resolution but not world class and dynamics seemed...well a bit subdued. My NAT/Ref3a gets the dynamics better IMO. Instruments seemed pretty realistic but not jump out and grab you realistic...I can get that when I play at more realistic levels. Overall, my 30K (retail) system I thought outperformed the AN system. It seemed too "rounded", which was a complaint I heard also from a friend of mine when he heard another friends all AN system (but a lower level one with Conqueror amp, M3 phono and lower end AN K speakers). Another friend of mine tried to love an M5 phono but couldn't again too rounded sounding. Maybe AN has gone too far with all the transformer coupling between all stages?? Too much of a good thing perhaps (my NAT is all direct coupled.)
That said, I would take an AN system any day of the week over just about any SS and B&W type system.
BTW, have you heard anything from WAVAC? I heard their HE805 model (about 50K new) a few years ago and I am haunted by it. It sounded so unbelievably good that I am dying to hear one again so I can see if I was right the first time. I had already had OTLs, Cary SET monos, hybrids and the KR by that time and I was still gobsmacked! I have also heard at great length the very best from Kondo by then and to my ears the HE805 was THE best I had heard to that point...maybe ever. The KR monos and my own VA350i are good enough to be on that level...I think, but I would like to hear again to know.
I just bought the Line Magnetic 502CA DAC (it will arrive next week) so That should tell you I am on board.
What you noted with Audio Note this time was no mention of a shout. My recommendation with them is to just give them some more auditions over time. It's not a leap out and grab you sound - and to be blunt I hated them the first time I heard them. I think I know what you mean by the "rounded" commentary but personally after long periods of time with it I have found that what other systems are producing is a fine sense of grain in the upper frequencies for added sparkle.
And I will say that a stunning improvement is the new Alnico tweeter and woofer in the AN E/Spx HE Alnico model in Hong Kong (Product of the Year winner here) for around $20,000US.
Last note: The fact is that AN runs a complete system - if one part of it is not desirable the whole thing will fall short for you. The gear stands on it's own - it's not like you have to run their speakers for example. It's just not going to do it for everyone. Same for the amplifier - I love the 211 but plenty of people much prefer 300B. I heard Shindo Petrus preamp with AN 300B Kegons with the AN E/Alnico at an audiophile's home here playing big Chinese drums direct to disc master and it was jaw dropping big scale.
Unfortunately, while Reference 3a is finally here (the entire current line up in fact) the sound has been rather middling due to the fact that the store owner is running Solid State - the tripped up treble doesn't let me engage and the BE tweeters just tell me more about how bad the solid state amps sound.
What on earth possessed them not to run a quality tube amp is mind boggling - that's part of the reason you buy tube friendly speakers. Fortunately, I know how good Reference 3a CAN sound when set-up properly with appropriate equipment but Ref 3a should tell the HK guys to bring in a good tube amp or a better SS amp if they must use SS.
NAT unfortunately is here but the dealer has Avantgarde with them. The speaker is probably better than what I heard but apartment living space is just not ideal for those loudspeakers and it's not like the amps, or the ones from AMR that they carry, need super super high efficiency speakers. They also carry YG Acoustics which was unlistenable at CES to me but one of my four favorite rooms at the California Audio Show (how's that for polarizing!) So perhaps if they have that combination going it would be interesting.
True there was no shout but this was the highest level of AN (UK) that I have heard so far. I have heard the absolute to of the Kondo tree (Gaku Oh and their more recent 211 based monos) M100 preamp and M100 DAC and found them to be quite special.
While there was no shout, I still wouldn't classify the sound as realistic in some ways. In that sense it was too lacking to lay out that kind of money. What I would really like to hear are the AN (UK) Kegon parallel 300B amps and a DAC 5 signature but I am still not convinced by the AN speakers...really the bass even though in a corner was not as good as I get with my L'integrales, which have really a superb bass...much better than the MMCs I have or the Royal Virtuosos I auditioned a while back (those were pretty great though...better than my MMCs I think).
I would never run Ref 3a with pure SS, except for maybe BAT or Edge (NL series). My NAT hybrid is excellent and so was the VAC 30/30 I sold to a friend (he also has Ref 3a MMCs). Kind of regret selling the VAC but it was just SLIGHTLY lacking that SET magic. I drove the hell out my other friend's Thiel CS3.7...only my KR VA350i sounded as good on his Thiels and world's better than his Octave monos.
I think the E is one of the more transparent speakers around and the most cohesive of 2 ways I've heard - properly set-up they can create in room pressure of instruments that very few speakers possess - even very large speakers. I quite enjoy reading the polarizing commentary on the sound of the loudspeakers - I've read them for years. (Too bright, too dull), (huge bass, lightweight bass), (vague soundstage, Panoramic soundstage, fills the room like MBL soundstage), vocals are crystal clear, vocals have a hand cupped feel), (Bass is slow, fast, tight, coloured, clear, warm, lean).As an AN speaker owner (having owned or continue to own the AN J/Spe, AN K/Spe, and AX Two) I am not the most objective person on their sound.
I am leaning to the AN E/Spx HE Alnico as the next speaker if I can sell off some things. The reality is there is a space element to be considered. Bass is a funny thing - my KEF LS50 has deeper punchier bass than the AX Two - and it's a terrific standmount that is getting worldwide hype from the press and owners. And I like it - but If I had to keep only one I'd keep the AX Two. For all the hi-fi things it's not - it's a more engaging loudspeaker to listen to to me. I'd still like to hear Line Magnetic's loudspeakers based on those WE designs.
Edits: 04/05/14
VA350i How can any amp with antique tubes continual deteriroration 3% THD sound close to the original Live sound ?
Because it does. My ears tell it like it is and the best reason beyond that I can give you is that the distortion is primarily 2nd and 3rd order harmonics with no really high order harmonics. This means it is basically inaudible or do you not "believe" in the research behind psychoacoustics? Furthermore, KR is one of the few SET manufacturers that uses a properly specified output transformer that keeps bass distortion very low and thus eliminates the "tubey" coloration you are probably equating with "tube" sound.
If you ever get a chance, listen to a good OTL amp from Atma-sphere for example. You will realize that tube amps without the output transformer are lightening fast with deep tight bass and not a scotch of "tubey" coloration. It is the output transformer, not the tubes.
Finally, as far as a low frequency linear amplifier, the triode tube is still the closest to linear of ANY amplification device. Your beloved bipolar transistors are the LEAST linear...period! This is an incontrovertible fact... If you want to discuss other applications and suitability then we can but for an audio frequency amplifier triodes are NOT obsolete.
I have listened to many valve amps over many many years at audio shows World Wide, I agree,the distortion is mainly 2nd harmonic, and the transformers have to be very expensive I used to own both Quad & Radford, today I would not touch any antique tube amp with a barge pole that includes so-called modern ones. I listen mostly to mch SACD. I have much immediate experience with Live v recorded sound only Class AB does it for me.
Well, that's what I use, what's wrong with that?
You are the sole arbiter of how enjoyable your stereo is. No topology is perfect and arguably implementation matters more than technology and topology anyway.
In my dotage I'm even considering playing around with some low power amplifiers just for fun. The dynamic range of my ears ain't what she used to be so I really don't need much average power which opens up a lot of options, especially that of using really fast parts since the SOA shouldn't be of much concern.
Regards, Rick
Amplifiers are all typically measured at maximum or near maximum levels. Solid State measures best at near maximum levels and tube amps measure their worst at maximum levels. BUT, Tube amps(SET) measure their best low levels - distortion decreases the lower in level you go. SS amps typically increase distortion the lower in level you go.
And this is the point that gets missed - if you have a low powered SET (with no feedback) and High Efficiency speakers the distortion is vanishingly low. No one is liking the tube amps for second harmonic distortion because there is none. The amp only distorts when it is over driven. Solid state amps with crossover distortion (A/B types) are operating in distortion all the time because most of the time on most speakers the amplifier is drawing less than 10 watts.
If you have a class A/B amplifier where the amp operates say up to 5 watts in class A and then crosses over to class B - then every time the amp needs to draw more than 5 watts it switches. A to B - B back to A and over and over and over in one song. Fluorescent light bulb syndrome.
The fact it may measure great steady state at 150 watts is all nice and fine but what is it doing in real world - and people with decent hearing are bothered by this fluctuating (perhaps subconscious) irritation(hash) like a mosquito buzzing around your ears but you can't quite see it.
Listening to a good tube amp (and there are many bad ones) for a long period and then flipping back to a solid state A/B and I think the difference becomes much more apparent as to what the SS amp is missing.
Typifying the A to B operation as "switching" is baloney.RGA's ignorant nonsense ...
" The fact it may measure great steady state at 150 watts is all nice and fine but what is it doing in real world - and people with decent hearing are bothered by this fluctuating (perhaps subconscious) irritation(hash) like a mosquito buzzing around your ears but you can't quite see it. "To be better informed, read the article below by Nelson Pass ...
Excerpt: Nelson Pass ...
We get a lot of questions about this. A typical email reads, “I can’t sleep at night – I keep worrying about where my amplifier stops being Class A. As I listen to my system, I think I can hear the Klunk as the special Class A part of the amplifier kicks in and out!”
For starters, there is no special Class A circuit that kicks in and out, and for that matter, there certainly is no Klunk. There is just a push-pull amplifier output stage which is operated at a constant idle current known as the bias. In this regard, our power amplifiers are like other amplifiers on the market. The vast majority of amplifiers are push-pull designs with a certain amount of bias current.
I love the music of ... ... Gustav Mahler
Edits: 04/04/14
Where did I say there was a klunk?
And Nelson makes some of the best solid state amplifiers around that are also fairly affordable but I believe the entry level integrated is still $6,000+ (the distortion is referred to as notch distortion in B/AB designs). I have been exploring the notion of buying a Pass Labs amp and bringin in one for review but I need to get some things sorted out first (like a preamp).
Most people who buy the big dedicated power amps own low efficiency speakers - and you always hear them bemoan the fact that they need more power cause their sound is unclear and often muddy.
Looking at the link you provided we may actually have an inkling for WHY that is the case. Very likely not the overall higher watts of the amps but the higher availability of class A watts. As it goes from 16 watts to 118 in their first listed series of amps.
And many audiophiles much prefer his First Watt amps - which is a different animal.
However, when the amp is leaving Class A it is possible that it will be heard depending on when it moves to AB (actually B because at that point it will cutoff at zero crossing). If the speaker is pretty insensitive and the bias only a few watts then probably quite a bit of listening is done in B or at least at low enough volume levels that the added distortion might be audible.
If you read Boyk and Sussman's simulation paper you will see that MOSFET Class A PP output stages are actually theoretically perfect...real world says otherwise but they get close. When they go into Class B (when the bias runs out so to speak) all hell breaks loose and they distort pretty badly. Funny enough bipolar transistors are less Schizophrenic... they just have quite a bit of distortion all the time unless you use a lot of negative feedback.
A Class A MOSFET single eneded stage is quite interesting because it has only very simple low order harmonics and CANNOT leave Class A (it is single ended afterall).
So, while Nelson is right that it is not so abrupt as to have a "klunk" it might be audible if the amount of Class A is low and the sensitivity of the speaker is also low.
Obviously, an amp that runs 20 watts in Class A will be in Class A most of the time with most speakers.
That is, to eliminate so-called notch distortion. With adequate transistors this occurs only at very low output levels and transitioning to class B adds no distortion at higher output levels.With good design the class A is only "insurance" against minute residual notch distortion. Enough bias, however, should ensure no abrupt, significant increase in distortion.
At the levels I listen, my Pass X150.5 is probably operating mostly in class A. In any case I don't hear any "klunk" or "florescent bulb" effect as RGA would have it.
BTW, according to Pass the X series amps operate single-end class A at very low levels, i.e. below one watt.
I love the music of ... ... Gustav Mahler
Edits: 04/04/14
What you say about Class B is not true there is distortion beyond just the crossover notch distortion. Boyk and Sussman demonstrate that clearly with the math. With or without feedback it is FAR FAR worse than Class A...otherwise no one would have ever bothered with a Class A amp in the first place!
Read Cheever about the level dependence of harmonic generation and also the sliding scale of perception...it's a complicated story but worth telling. Your Pass is probably 10-15 watts Class A so for most listening it will stay Class A. Whether you hear the switch to Class B will depend on speaker sensitivity and impedance, meaning it depends on how loud and what power draw is occurring as to the audibility. This means the amp speaker interaction but not for the reasons people usually think.
"...otherwise no one would have ever bothered with a Class A amp in the first place!"
I'm only semi-ancient but when young had lot's of experience with gear that was old even then. So... from that perspective, i.e. historical, you have it wrong. Single ended amplifiers have the advantage of the lowest possible parts count (and cost). Tubes used to cost a bundle and had wide production spreads so needing twice as many and matching just didn't cut it.
Historical Rick
I was referring specifically to PUsh/pull amps since Single ended can only be Class A anyway. When the first decided to make PP amps they probably took one listen to their latest Class B creation (early transistor era just for HR) and said OH F#$K what a piece of S$*T!! :-)
Morricab: Triodes v Bipolar Anything to say re the Humble contribution ?
Edits: 04/05/14 04/05/14 04/05/14
What are you looking for exactly? There is not much to say except that triodes (not tubes in general) are much more intrinsically linear that a bipolar transistor?? It is a simple fact. Transistors were never really designed for audio amplification (computer sure, audio not really). They were designed as digital switches not linear amplification devices. THey have way too much gain for audio purposes NECESSITATING the use of lots of negative feedback to work at all. This is where MOSFETS have an advantage that they can be run without feedback in Class A and work very well indeed.
The only significant drawback to triodes is that they need either a VERY good output transformer to match well with speakers OR you need a bunch in parallel to get the output impedance low enough. Otherwise, they are in just about every way superior to the BJT.
Morricab The earliest transistors from the late fifties were in three groups,
Red spot for AUDIO,Green spot etc for RF, and Yellow spot also for RF for the intermediate filter stage in radios all germanium then, and today Companies like Profusion have a catalogue of Bipolar and Mosfets specially designed for Audio.People should check their references, which includes how transistors actually work , and that constantly repeating a statement without defining the limits simply confuses the situation. I think I have more than adequately answered the question of triodes and their distortion characteristics and the conditions under which it is evident, and why it is evident. I have also emphasized that transistors are as different to valves as Blancmonge is to cheesecake, but that transistors can be configured in so many ways that valves cannot and thus in the area of distortion or linearity makes arguments moot since the Transistor circuit beats the valve hands down and that is a fact. Any transistor can be used as an amplifying device, the term "Switch" simply means that the transistor has been designed for a very low input capacitance and thus it is capable of working well at much higher frequencies without transit delays, but will work perfectly well at audio frequencies... this comes from my friend Humble
Edits: 04/07/14
Yes but unfortunately Nelson Pass doesn't design most amplifiers on the market - nor are most of them anywhere near as good.
Somewhere in this thread I noted that I liked certain SS amplifiers more than tubes - umm Pass Labs/First Watt is one of them - Sugden is another.
I am looking to build a SS system because I think it's helpful for reviewers to have both things that people like (ie; tubes and solid state) and Nelson's stuff tops my list). There are others but they usually cost ridiculously more money.
I tried going tubes, but found most tube amps to sound slow, soft, and lacking in dynamic punch. As mentioned- I like a quick/fast sound with punchy dynamics that really kick the speakers when it hits. I don't get that from tube amps.
I have heard the same thing - there is no inherent superiority going to tube amps. The tubes themselves can also suck or just not be right for a given amp.
One of my earlier auditions was with the Jolida 302B and Antique Sound Labs AQ 1003DT - both were about $1300 back in the day - both are similar size and both use EL34 output tubes. Played them back to back. The Jolida is closer to the way you describe - the ASL was completely the opposite and solid state like in terms of grip and speed. Total shocker at how truly different the two tube amps sounded. In the same store if you lined up the Bryston, Classe, Ayre, Sim Audio, Musical Fidelity amps of similar dollars - the differences would be nowhere even remotely as big as those two tube amps sounded.
This is partly why tube amp makers make a wider array of tube amplifiers. There is a "sonic envelope" that tube amps possess. Some guys like the softer rounded smoother sound - some want more visceral impact, some want a blend of both, some want drive, others want "beauty" etc. Accuracy is in the ear of the beholder. SOmething is either accurate or it is not accurate - 2+2 has only one right answer and no stereo system at any price is the answer 4. So whatever you got ain't the "accurate" and thus "correct" answer. So once that is accepted you may as well buy what you prefer. If that is SS or tube it makes no difference. All the forum chatter is simply talking points for people (including me) to explain what it is that we/I think leads to better sound reproduction.
It's the same conversations over and over 10 years ago, now, and ten years from now. I've heard far more tube amps that I would not want to own than tube amps that I would want to own. And there are several Solid State amplifiers that I think are better than tube amps.
But here's the thing - both are coming down in price - people can buy both. It's the same with vinyl/CD - you can buy pretty decent turntables complete with arm and cartridge for under $500 so who cares about "which sounds better vinyl or CD?" Buy one of each. Same for tube SS or low efficiency and high efficiency loudspeakers.
What you need to audition then is an OTL amp. THey are lightening fast and don't sound tubey at all! If you don't mind the heat then you will stay in the kitchen...for a long time!
Most tube amps have inadequate output iron on them and it gives the tubey sound. OTLs have no output iron and so don't sound that way. It will be an ear opener I promise.
IMO the nearest approach to original live sound is obtained from Class AB amplifiers but not integrated Brystons.
Edits: 04/04/14
"How can any amp with antique tubes continual deteriroration 3% THD sound close to the original Live sound ?"
Although I use SS gear I grew up in the tube era. I suspect that the THD that you mention may be actually be used as the threshold defining the "maximum power". Tubes, especially when running single-ended, have their worst distortion at the loud-end where your ears are the least sensitive to it due to their own distortion while most transistor circuits have their worst distortion at the soft-end where your ears are running at full gain with low self-distortion. Even when you run transistors single ended they tend to have significantly more higher-order distortion than tubes do, it's just an artifact of their transfer functions.
But, on the other hand, transformers suck and it's expensive to build good ones so most solid state designs eschew them as their lower impedances make that a viable option. The result is a semi-general rule (from my experience) that SS amps have more accurate and 'tighter' bass while tubes have a more open and natural sounding treble. The engineering says that and my ears agree.
HOWEVER, either can provide excellent performance, or not. It's just that different topologies have different things that they sort-of do well just by default and their weaknesses have to be addressed by good design and added expense.
The future looks rosy, I predict that "chip-amps" and "class D" used within active speakers will drive up performance and drive down costs. Our system topology is archaic garbage and audiophiles try to work around it by careful matching and spending money. This too shall pass...
Rick
In fact it is. At a more normal 1-2 watts the distortion is very low as it increases with output power. Also, it is nearly all low order harmonics.
As for transistors single ended...that is what I run now (although it is a hybrid with tube input and driver stages) and it is slightly different sounding than a really good SET for what I think are two reasons: 1) It has no output transformer so the distortions caused by those are not present (gives a more OTL like character then) 2) As you mentioned the transfer function of a MOSFET is not the same as a tube; however, MOSFETS tend to follow a quadratic function and when run Class A and this leads to a somewhat limited issue with high order harmonics as compared to the exponentially non-linear bipolar transistors.
Read the simulations done by Boyk and Sussmann:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~musiclab/feedback-paper-acrobat.pdf
I do find that the NAT does not quite have the holography of a top set but it is very very close and superbly transpaent and holographic. As you might expect the bass is quite tight and controlled.
There is a good reason though that KR gets the reviews it has...it really is that good. Anyone who heard otherwise either heard them with really incompatible speakers or the source was inferior (regardless of the price) because the amp gives sources nowhere to hide.
WHat I still want to try is a SET OTL. To my knowledge, only Transcendent Sound makes one. The problem is tha I think it requires feedback to lower the output impedance to be practically usable for normal speakers (headphones though it is THE way to go). Too much (well any is too much) and the sound "dries up" and sounds unnatural.
""properly" designed amplifiers within their limits they should all sound the same...i.e. no sound of their own."
I think it should read "properly specified". Maybe that would be better. Home audio is a nightmare because there are almost no system level specifications especially with respect to out-of-band energy.
"What exactly is logically not true about there is no such thing as zero distortion when designing amps with non-linear devices (of course there are no linear devices so...)? "
Nothing. It was the notion that it couldn't be reduced to inaudibility using feedback. But... the latter can easily be true if there's not enough GBW.
"THe low distortion brigade has had their 60+ years in the sun"
And will have many, many more... You of all people know that distortion is bad, although some forms are far worse to the ear than others. BUT, if all things are equal except for the quantity, less is more.
Regards, Rick
"I think it should read "properly specified". Maybe that would be better. "
Maybe, what would you propose. I would propose that they impement a number like the Geddes or Cheever T.A.D (total aural dissonance). Of course no manufacturer will use that if it gives them a bad number.
"Nothing. It was the notion that it couldn't be reduced to inaudibility using feedback"
Hasn't been done yet after 60+ years of trying. I don't think it can be and you do but that doesn't mean my statement is false, just unproven as is your assertion. It is not just an issue of insufficient GBW.
"You of all people know that distortion is bad, although some forms are far worse to the ear than others. BUT, if all things are equal except for the quantity, less is more"
It is only bad if it is audible. The problem with what you are assuming is in the last part of your sentence. IF All things are equal but in the real world ALL THINGS are NOT equal. They can also be highly non-linear, which results in even less equality. This is the case with distortion and audibility. With negative feedback you trade some relatively inocuous 2nd and 3rd order harmonics to get a whole myriad of little high order harmonics that are anything but benign. Not equal! Crowhurst showed that by sending the signals back around in what is essentially an endless loop you end up with a signal modulated "noise" floor that obscures low level information and adds a "grit" to the overall sound. True noise is not correlated with the signal and it is often not masking low level information...even sounds below the true noise floor. Your brain CAN pick those up because your brain is a bit like a lock-in amplifer digging signal out of the noise. But it cannot if the "noise" is correlated with the signal.
"With negative feedback you trade some relatively inocuous 2nd and 3rd order harmonics to get a whole myriad of little high order harmonics that are anything but benign."
Well, not if it's fast enough... but I think most audio power bugs are more focused on SOA than speed. I have actually not designed any of my amplifiers since my single-ended tube youth, maybe I should. One of these days I'll measure what sort of actual power levels I run in my main system. Years ago I checked my study stereo and it was almost nothing, just a watt or two, I'm decidedly not a head-banger so my power-amp is prolly silly overkill. But it sounds pretty good... When warm.
Rick
Apparently none of them are quite "fast enough" or we would have effectively perfect amps from the SS/feedback brigade.
"Apparently none of them are quite "fast enough" or we would have effectively perfect amps from the SS/feedback brigade."
Largely true, BUT I think I did mention that the error amp is always in the loop and can't be removed. However it's distortion is usually far better than the power stages.
Naturally nothing is "perfect", can't be since perfection is but a limit. Speaking of perfection merely flops the conversation away from engineering and into the realm of mysticism. But audibility has to have a lower limit and I think your arguments in this thread really address that issue pointing out that it's a complex limit even for a single listener. Shoot, even the goal is elusive, I'm not convinced that minimizing the error terms guarantees maximizing listening pleasure.
And all this is part of what makes home audio so interesting...
Regards, Rick
Wow its amazing how off topic this thread has come. I appreciate the viewpoints, but its so far removed from my original post. That said there is a reason why three major stereo outlets in the Fraser Valley sell Bryston. If is sounded so bad, then they would not carry it. Im auditioning the 4B amp on Wednesday and let my own ears be the test.
Conversations drift... just the nature of the brutes. Sorry.
As far as the Amp. goes, I've never heard one but have similar models and have heard many instances of SS push-pull amplifiers.
Logically one might think that they should all sound about the same given operation below clipping. But they do and they don't and their variations, your tastes along with how well they 'play' with the rest of your system and environment can make all the difference.
Hopefully after reading that your are thinking even more strongly that you had better listen for yourself, and that is exactly the case. It's crucial to do a good home audition, preferably of the very instance that you are considering buying. I know, that's a lot tougher than it used to be but that's the way of it.
Good luck, Rick
And sound quality doesn't have to be one of them. I applaud you going to audition the amp...nothing beats firsthand experience. Let us know what you find out. BTW, what is your experience with top tube gear just for point of reference?
A recording that sounds "good" could in fact be a poor recording if it is smoothed over allowing many systems to make it sound pleasing. For example, I have an old 1955 Chet Baker recording that he made in Paris. It smooth, warm and inviting on nearly every system I have tried it on. Is it is a good recording?? I would argue that it is much warmer and smoother than real life but it sure is nice to listen too. I used to use it as a reference for trumpet because of the great presence it has. I stopped using it because it is smoother and warmer than real life and gives poor differentiation between systems. I still listen to it often though for pleasure because it is really good playing and relaxing. A better reference (but not a true reference) is Wynton Marsalis live at the House of Tribes on Blue Note. That also has great presence but is much closer to a real live event sonically. On an edgy system this record will sound cold and harsh but on a really good system it will sound alive and present (but still not really warm).
I have a couple of near "absolute" references because I was either there for the recording or I made them myself. They are references not because they are the best sounding recordings but because I know how they should sound. If those are right then I am off to a good start with a system!
Well since Pythagoras didn't know what an electron was, let alone electronics, I sincerely doubt he confronted the situation we have in hifi...just sayin'. Nearly all natural sounds are monotonic and indeed so is our ear/brain mechanism. I don't think he had sussed out the intricacies of psychoacoustics either, which are far more complicated than most here are willing to admit.
"You, I, and others are debating whether minute amounts of THD including vanishing amounts of high-order, sounds more or less accurate, (more like the recording), than much higher amounts of 2nd order harmonics. We might also debates whether relatively high 2nd or 3rd order distortion cloaks other types of distortion -- though you are disinclined to consider this possibility."
This paragraph to me simply demonstrates how little you have learned on this forum and through internet research. It has been demonstrated that up to several percent 2nd order is inaudible. So, yes some of us focus on the minute but irritating parts that are definitely audible. Masking is a fairly well understood phenomenon (it is basically how MP3 works at all) it is also explained in some detail in the Geddes papers and Cheever thesis, which I guess you still didn't read or you would not have asked if 2nd and 3rd order cloaks higher orders.
The fact that so many people prefer (e.g.) a tube preamp in the chain is empirical evidence you (and Cheevers?) ignore. Often they admit that they loose some resolution but enjoy the "richer" tone -- highly suggestive of insertion of 2nd/3rd order distortion.
I love the music of ... ... Gustav Mahler
What you say is true; however the error occurs in mistaking a kind of stamped on sound as being an accurate reproduction.
If something sounds etched, thin, lean, (analytical), Punchy, grippy, tight, doesn't mean the speaker/amp/source is accurately reproducing the recording which may have "euphony" (pleasing sound) in the recording and not being produced.
I've heard the following from dealers:
"Sorry sir the reason our stereo makes that Amanda Marshal CD sound shrill and thin is because our stereo is so accurate and that CD was horribly recorded." In other words the superior stereo renders 95% of all recordings on the planet completely unlistenable because the stereo is SOOOOOOOOOOOO accurate that it keyholes all the faults in the recordings. And since such stereos often "seem" to possess more or louder treble or more or louder bass or because they perceive a much lower noise floor - I can see why so many people take what the dealers say as truth and then buy up the gear.
The trick is separating the pulled apart sound with better more accurate stereos that connect the dots properly so the connected dots appear to be a solid line. The Marshal CD should sound pretty good in fact when played on better stereos. If it doesn't the stereo is the problem. But one needs an accurate non grainy non etchy non ripped apart system to be able to play the thing so it doesn't sound like ass.
The way to determine what is accurate and what isn't is a system that delineates more differences from recording to recording and doesn't possess a homogeneous "sameness" across albums. If speaker A exhibits the "big soundstage" and it's always always a big soundstage no matter what the source disc genre is, then it's not an accurate speaker.
If one listens to a speaker and it always always sounds like drivers in a box as many (virtually every 3+ way speaker exhibits) then it may be accurate in terms of producing a flat frequency response but doesn't work if I always hear the tweeter's sonic signature overriding the presentation.
If the amp always always sounds fatiguing and shrill no matter what the album then it's not an accurate amplifier whether some magazine with their wholly lacking measurements set says it has flat response and vanishingly low distortion (usually after the feedback loop is engaged which is worthless). Since all recordings sound different from all other recordings the gear should not be presenting a thin etched (analytical) pulled apart sound. That ain't what the artist or RE was after I am sure.
Unfortunately a lot of gear that is supposedly accurate when using a wide array of different genres of music show up the same traits over and over - the speakers with the tweeter on top that get raves always have a tweeter that you can hear as a tweeter - it's a beacon that says "hear this metal tweeter" whether you listen to the best classical music or Lady Gaga synthy fake stuff. It's why I am not a big fan of Magnepan - I use a variety of recordings across a variety of genres and got a very similar "washed out" presentation across all of them. And an overall lack of dynamics - whether I auditioned with flagship Bryston and Classe or Single Ended tubes. Highly resolving systems should provide more variance. From the thumpy whumpy pop bass to the smooth wall of other kinds of music - but if everything has a flat wall sound then it's not accurate and forces the user to only listen to whatever the speaker happens to be able to do.
Alternatively a dealer in Hong Kong who uses ATC SCM 100 speakers I was far more able to differentiate between EL34 VS KT 88 and SET amps and different kinds of SET amps - that is a far more accurate loudspeaker even if some poo poo it for being wider baffle or because it's a dynamic.
I would never put "Bryston" and "accurate" in the same sentence. :)
You don't but the only people who can directly compare the original sound with the recorded version (ie those who are present during the recording) do so all the time.
One has to wonder who is wrong: you or the engineers, producers and artists. No... wait... one doesn't as the answer is obvious.
That's a problem too: the recording gear and monitoring gear itself is all wrong. There is an interesting paper from the mid 70s that highlights the changes in recording studios from tube to transistor and the resulting drop in sound quality in a lot of studios. Garbage in = Garbage out.
However imperfect the the recording & monitoring gear, the recorded result we must presume is as close to what the artist and engineer wanted as could be achieved.
I'm OK with blaming recordings for not sounding as good as they should, but if we don't reproduce them to sound as much like the artists & engineers intended, i.e. what the recording sounds like, then we can't claim to have accurate reproduction.
I love the music of ... ... Gustav Mahler
It proves nothing of the sort. It only shows that I am aware that many recordings are far from what they could have been or what many recordings of the past were when the sound quality was more important than pushing through "product".
N/T
*
What's with the nasty attitude?
You said: "You don't but the only people who can directly compare the original sound with the recorded version (ie those who are present during the recording) do so all the time.
One has to wonder who is wrong: you or the engineers, producers and artists. No... wait... one doesn't as the answer is obvious."
-------------------------
Anybody who has ever heard unamplified instruments at a live performance, such as a classical concert, knows how instruments truly sound. A good example is an intimate chamber music session, where you often can sit very close to the performers. One can take in the distinctive sound of each instrument: the fundamentals and overtones, the richness and beauty.
You do not need to visit a recording studio to learn what violins, cellos, or flutes sound like, do you?
If you then play multiple chamber music recordings from different labels and all of them sound hard, sterile, and cold through one amplifier and reminiscent of the real thing via a different amp, then it is obvious which unit does a better job of reproduction.
The Bryston amps I have auditioned--at length with my own reference recordings--were always sterile and cold, and stripped away the richness of the instruments.
Besides spending plenty time in recording studios I've also worked at the German Opera in Berlin on and off for ten years so the sound of unamplified instruments and voices is quite familiar to me.
It's one of the reasons I do not use tubes anywhere in my replay chain as they tend to be less than accurate. They are quite euphonic though but that is not what I am after.
As a little aside: Large, active PMC monitors are quite popular in classic recording circles and guess what?
They are all powered by Bryston amps.
I really hate this derogatory usage of the word Euphonic. What exactly do you mean?
Because I have found that really good tube gear is clearer, more transparent, more natural with tone color shading (less "gray" sounding), better with dynamics and better with imaging and soundstaging. Even the best SS i have heard has residual graininess in the highs, grayed out tonal color, squashed dynamics (irrespective of the power) and generally a less lifelike sound as compared to live, unamplified music and the best reference recordings.
See, I have found that what other are calling accurate I find to have unnatural graininess and edge that one never hears in a live setting. Even listening to my ex play a strad in my living room and I sitting 3 meters away didn't create the unnatural artifacts I hear in nearly all SS gear.
"See, I have found that what other are calling accurate I find to have unnatural graininess and edge that one never hears in a live setting. Even listening to my ex play a strad in my living room and I sitting 3 meters away didn't create the unnatural artifacts I hear in nearly all SS gear."
If it sounds wrong, how do you know that the problem is the amplifier rather than some other part of the record playback chain or some kind of adverse component interaction?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
A valid point, Tony. Of course one cannot discount that possibility; however, I have found that if things were working well before and the change is only the amp then one can be at least pretty sure that the problem is either with the amp or the speaker/amp interaction.
If you choose an amp with a high output impedance and match it with a speaker that has a wild impedance curve then you may not really be sure what you will get.
However, the issues I am talking about don't relate to FR or other linear system killers. The distortions that ruin sound usually come through regardless and imprint a "character" on the sound that is unnatural once noted. This signature will be heard regardless of what else is in the chain.
Those load dependent effects can also interact with the non-linear properties of the amplifier by impacting feedback, affecting stability, etc... My belief is that amplifiers and speakers (and associated wiring) should be evaluated as pairs, not evaluated separately.
I don't know why, but that solid-state edge seems to be prevalent at power up, but with the solid state equipment that I happily use, it's gone after the equipment has been powered up for 24-48 hours. IMO, solid state equipment should be run 24-7 for best sound. This does not appear to shorten product lifetimes and may possibly extend the lifetime of components by reducing the number of thermal cycles and power transients. Electric cost can be a factor, however, particularly in the summertime.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Those load dependent effects can also interact with the non-linear properties of the amplifier by impacting feedback, affecting stability, etc"
If it uses a lot of negative feedback then you are correct. However, amps that don't will not suffer most of these ills just FR variation with the impedance load. Matti Otalla looked into the back EMF of speakers and the impact on amplifier distortion and stability. I have seen it firsthand as well with an OTL amp that was unstable on the Acoustats I used to have...it started oscillating at a couple of watts.
"My belief is that amplifiers and speakers (and associated wiring) should be evaluated as pairs, not evaluated separately.
"
AGain, it matters a lot if the amp has negative feedback or not. If not then one just needs to know if the speaker has severe impedance swings or not and if it has adequate sensitivity. Doen't mean it will sound good (either or both components can still be crap) but that paper exercise will eliminate a gross mismatch.
" don't know why, but that solid-state edge seems to be prevalent at power up, but with the solid state equipment that I happily use, it's gone after the equipment has been powered up for 24-48 hours. IMO, solid state equipment should be run 24-7 for best sound. This does not appear to shorten product lifetimes and may possibly extend the lifetime of components by reducing the number of thermal cycles and power transients. "
While it certainly smoothes out the sound I have found that it doesn't really go away...just reduces it a bit. If the amp is Class A then you can't really leave it on all the time so you are mainly talking about relatively low bias AB amps or D amps. Even AB tubes get too hot to leave on 24/7. My own amp has a Class A single ended transistor output stage that needs a good hour to sound its best and has reached thermal equilibrium (i.e. the heat sink stops getting hotter). Before that the soundstage is a bit constricted, the depth foreshortened a bit and dynamics a bit compressed...once it warms up though...whoo boy does it expand in all ways but images get even better defined and focused. Just wish it didn't take so darn long...
It could be that my amplifiers are good enough after an hour, but I don't have the patience. (They are class AB, and H, seven in all.) My DAC takes much longer to stabilize. All told, I am "wasting" about 120 watts of electricity, which I view as a good tradeoff.
I usually hear the sound of live instruments as warm and inviting. On those occasions where I do not, then I don't return to hear the same band/venue. I expect recorded music to have similar characteristics. That is the case with the majority of my record collection as played on my system. There are some exceptions and if they are repeated I tend to black flag the offending record labels. Of course there is the occasional bad recording made with grainy op-amps, etc... I listen at concert volumes and expect to listen at these levels for at least the length of a typical concert without any fatigue. Otherwise, there is something wrong. (This is for unamplified acoustic music.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Sounds not too dissimilar to what I require.
Some should, other's not so much.
The only SS. audio thing I've ever had that really was significantly impacted by warm-up is my current power amp. It simply doesn't have enough feedback to fix the distortions present prior to achieving it's normal bias point. I've left it running for decades but have now stopped because I figure the electrolytics may be getting dry and I want to stretch their life. The heat generated isn't usually an issue since we heat with electricity anyway. True, it's less efficient than the heat-pump but it sounds a whole lot better...
It's rough the first 20 minutes and stops changing in an hour which, oddly enough, is when the heatsink temperature stabilizes.
As you well know all designs are a mass of trade-offs. I can live with this one although I consider it sub-optimal.
73, Rick
I just looked at your system for the first time! I had the Nak PA5 amp in the past...not bad...but I didn't keep it for long. I had it for a while driving the panels of my Infinity IRS Betas (I like those Renaissance speakers you have!)...then I went to tubes and hybrids and never looked back.
I would imagine that the stabilization of the operating points happens when the temperature stops changing. I experience the same thing with my Class A NAT. However, it takes a good hour or more. It is clear though when it gets there because it goes from good to OMG good! Waiting that long though listening to merely good is annoying I have to say and it runs far too hot to leave it on.
b.l.zeebub said: “Besides spending plenty time in recording studios I've also worked at the German Opera in Berlin on and off for ten years so the sound of unamplified instruments and voices is quite familiar to me.
It's one of the reasons I do not use tubes anywhere in my replay chain as they tend to be less than accurate. They are quite euphonic though but that is not what I am after.
As a little aside: Large, active PMC monitors are quite popular in classic recording circles and guess what?
They are all powered by Bryston amps.”
-------------
You have made it clear that your ears hear orchestral instruments and voices as cold and clinical, thus your preference for solid-state gear that reproduces them in that fashion. You call it accurate. I hear those same instruments quite differently.
I will not even bother to reply to your generalization that all tube components are less accurate than solid-state products.
Today I had conversations with two top employees at PMC’s U.S. office. They confirmed that their best active studio loudspeakers do utilize Bryston amplifiers--sort of. It was explained to me that the amps were chosen for their well-known reliability and build quality. But the circuitry undergoes a major revision to alter the overload characteristics and to change the sonics. PMC found the stock amps to be fatiguing, and cold, hard, and sterile, which is a sound they did not want in their speakers. So they change the voicing of the amplifiers, one said, to fix those problems.
the difference in perception lies with musical preferences. The Devil's profile says he favors:
"bit of everything from Latin to Black Sabbath but mostly Dub"
His profile also mentions chamber music and orchestra (see final part of System entry).
Check out Van Alstine. Factory direct with 30 day return.
Only heard Bryston integrated amplifiers into PMC speakers, the amps sounded harsh ,very expensive in the UK and zero interest to me.
I thought that was your cup-o-tea, Class AB, pushpull and high power? Should be the perfect amp for you.
Class AB certainly but not from a Bryston Integrated
Edits: 03/28/14
Quality of sound varies so much within the family of solid-state Class AB amps. Bryston was not for me. At the other end of the spectrum, I'm loving the Ampzilla 2000 2nd Edition. Pass Labs was also very nice. I'd even take the high value Odyssey Stratos Extreme over Bryston.
Abe-
are the Ampzilla amps still in production?
Original Ampzilla are no longer made but the current production includes the Ampzilla 2000 2nd Edition mono blocks, and the stereo version.
Information on the Spread Spectrum Technologies Ampzilla website does not appear to be completely current since the death of designer James Bongiorno in 2013.
Wyred4Sound manufacturers the Ampzilla amps but I didn't find any info on them on the W4S website. However, they sometimes advertise Ampzilla amps on Audiogon, linked below.
If you search "Ampzilla" on Audiogon, you will also find the stereo version Son of Ampzilla.
Don't know about the 2nd edition but the 1st were a bit warm, dark and not too resolving. Pleasant enough for an SS amp, at least no real nasties, but not close enough to SOTA for me.
Morricab : What is SOTA for you ?
Edits: 03/30/14
For SS, probably the current state of the art are the First Watt SIT amplifiers. Unique transistor, utterly simple design, superb sound. This from a guy who is making his money feeding the vanity of big spenders with his huge Pass X series amps, which don't sound half as good but sure are big. It is unlikely that any Class AB amp can touch a SIT amp driving a speaker for which they are both compatible. I have heard the darling Soulution and Vitus SS monsters and they don't sound really good, despite what the reviewers and the high price say. The Reimyo KAT-777 might be an amazing good SS amp (haven't heard it though). Oh and the edge NL series were probably the best AB I have heard to date.
For Tube, it is likely a big SET from the likes of Lamm, Wavac, Kondo, Ayon, NAT, Reimyo etc. For Push pull it is likely VAC or CAT. Or an OTL from Atma-Sphere.
For hybrid it is the likes of Ypsilon, Siltech and KR Audio
I have not heard the First Watt SIT, but have yet to hear amp with FET input or Jfets that I like. Mosfets are OK.
Edits: 03/30/14
Your statement is completely contradictory. You don't like FET input or JFETs but Mosfets are ok? For what? Only the output stage. Are you telling me that you only like in particular Class AB amps with bipolar transistors?? Probably the best amp I have ever heard is the KR Audio Kronzilla DX monoblocks and like all KR Audio amps they use a JFET on the input and a MOSFET as a driver.
The best mono blocks I have heard are made by a friend of mine an electronics engineer they have mosfet output and bipolar input. He says JFETs have higher distortion and are more suited for PA amps. I would not waste my time listening to any amplifier that had FET/JFET input irrespective of what any reviewer might say.
Edits: 03/31/14 03/31/14
I would not waste my time listening to any amplifier that had FET/JFET input irrespective of what any reviewer might say
Why, because your engineer friend is not too partial to them...well that is plain silly!
Morricab: Not silly , all the amps I have auditioned over many years with FET of JFETS sound poor.Latest example the new Sony TA-1AES amplifier.
Edits: 04/01/14 04/01/14 04/01/14
Poor selection of amp choices then? I can tell you if they are run the right way they perform very well indeed. They probably should not be run Class AB for example. If run heavily in Class A they offer very benign distortion...again without feedback...add feedback and all bets are off.
Try listening to FETs in some top Class A implementations...you might change your mind.
I have zero interest in any Class A amplifier, the latest Sony TA-1AES is Class A with FET input IMO it sounds lousy, but has got rave reviews in Andrew Everards Words & Music & in Hi-Fi News & RR both reviews in my opinion are totally inaccurate and very misleading. I took the Sony amp for a second opinion to a audio engineer & speaker designer he agrees with me. The Heat sinks are small, the amp runs hot, distortion due to the FET input at HF is on the high side as measured by HFN & RR. There are distracting bright white light circles around the facia line input indicators, & there is no unity gain by pass facility. WHF? says "Does,nt convey rhythms particularly well,needs more sonic punch" I find the Sony amp conveys nothing particularly well, Bass is just a thud or thump with no proper resolution or natural definition, the overall sound is artificial. I have read on a Forum that this new amp was not designed by Sony,s Chief designer Mr Kanai this does not suprise me.
Edits: 04/02/14
I have not heard this design but if it is not designed properly then you can hardly blame the damn transistors!
I have an amp that runs Class A and uses 1 big industrial mosfet per channel on the output. Yes, it is single ended and yes it uses tubes on the input and driver stages. Yes it sounds very good...far better than any Class AB amp or push pull amp I have owned or heard.
The KR Audio amp I owned before had 1 JFET, 1 MOSFET and 1 big tube for the output and also sounded far better than...well than anything else I know. Also better than the amp above but for safety reasons I had to sell the KR.
Just for your information, I have owned or heard at great length the following Class AB and A amps:
Onkyo Integra A-9711
Sumo "The Nine" amp with Hafler 915 preamp
Sumo Andromeda
Sumo Polaris III (worst amp I ever owned)
Nakamichi PA5E (Stasis design curtesy of Threshold)
Sim Audio Celeste W-4250
Sim Audio Moon W5
Sphinx Project 18 (friend of mine had this for a couple of years)
Ampzilla 2000 monos (same friend for about 1 year)
Krell (various KSA series from original KSA100 to Reference monos)
Musical Fidelity KW750 (different friend and he had some of the Krells)
McIntosh MC501 monos (third friend and had them for several years so I heard them with lots of speakers, dacs, wires etc.)
Plinius SA-102 (another friend still has them)
Accuphase A45 (Class A friend 5)
Mark Levinson ML27
Karan integrated (big don't remember the model friend 6)
Pretty big list there and I am sure to be missing some. Now here is the funny part:
Friend 1 has KR Audio SET hybrid now after switching to tubes completely with many many years with all SS of various kinds
Friend 2 has KR Audio, Lamm hybrids, Sphinx hybrids and sold the KRell and Musical fidelity
Friend 3 sold the McIntosh but even before got an Einstein preamp and now couples that with Octave tube monoblocks
Friend 4 Stil has the Plinius (he has two biamped)
Friend 5 oscillates around a lot but currently has an all Audio Note setup (obviously all tube)
Friend 6 sold the Karan and now has a VAC 30/30 all tube amp.
I have been a SET hybrid man for the last 8 years and before that I was a conventional hybrid man for about 4 years and had started dumping pure SS a few years before that going with PP tube amps.
Nearly all my friends "grew up" and dumped their unsophisticated sounding Class AB SS amps...I just did it several years before they did.
In some cases tubes work well, but Im so used to the quick attacks, snap, and kick of a high current solid state amp, that I keep coming back to it. Im currently in talks with a seller to possibly buy his YBA 2 HC amp at a later time frame, since money is tight right at this time. I only went to the audition today at HiFi Center to see if Bryston was worth getting. Apparently not. Bryston is a very clean sounding amp that does voice presentation very well, but the depth and space to the music is missing. I have also heard a Sumo 9 Plus at one time, and almost bought it. I should have. I didn't like it because it was weak on the bass side of things. And I don't think it had the quickness of sound that I like. So YBA might be my solution. Plus its a lot cheaper (in used condition) then spending 5 grand on a new amp.
I'm curious, and I realize this is a bit off topic, but whats your impression of Goldmund amps. I'm using the JOB 225, but it has the same house sound as the house offerings. I like tube amps too, but I find the JOB to be incredibly fast and detailed.
--Ze'ev
Well I had my audition of a system today at Hifi Center in Vancouver BC. To cut to the chase- I wasn't really that impressed with what I heard today. The sound from the speakers didn't really fill the room as much as I heard even on my own system. The sound had a hard time escaping the speakers. It only did that to maybe a small amount away from the speaker, but not the "I feel like Im in that space" kind of sound. The amp did have balls however- like Rotel I've heard before. Maybe it was the source material. All of it was digital files. What I heard was a Bryston 4B SST2 amp on B&W 804D speakers. Now I've heard the 804s from the Matrix to the 804S, and now the 805D. The best sound to me came from the 804 Matrix. The most non colored neutral sound is from both the 804S and 804D. I didn't really think the diamond tweeter really made that much of a difference compared to the older versions. Again maybe it was source material. What I will say were voice presentation was very good. That I'll give it. Bass was tight, but it really struggled to produce sub type bass. It was more reserve non colored bass. I don't know what was really restricting the sound. The speakers or the amp. I didn't really notice the bass too much, even though this amp is supposed to do bass quite well. Probably the speakers there. For what these speakers cost, I think you can do better today. The only thing B&W had going for it was the realism in the voice, but the speaker itself wasn't very musical. I don't know if I should keep looking for another amp or speaker, but I haven't found nirvana yet. I have one classical piece I use for a reference at how real the sound can be, and the only time it sounded its best I ever heard- was the first time on a YBA amp and B&W Matrix 804. All other combos struggle to produce that in the air horn sound that one song can do. Maybe I should look for some Matrix speakers. And I wasn't too impressed with the salesman either. He kept interupting my music listening session and we wasted a lot of time screwing around with equipment that wasn't really necessary.
I was picking on the Bryston earlier but I will now pick on B&W speakers. They a pure engineering for engineers speaker and frankly miss most of the point of music. First they use drivers of all different materials that each have their own sound signature...bad start. Then they use steep filters (except the new diamond tweeter apparently) to separate the drivers, which is bad when each driver has it's own "voice" leading to bad blending of the drivers. This also makes any form of time alignment impossible. The midrange is far to flexy in the upper frequencies and has nasty breakup modes. This colors the upper mids and lower treble ranges. Bass seems often neither tight nor tuneful in many models and difficult to drive.
All-in-all one of my least favorite loudspeaker brands driven by a very run-of-the-mill amplifier...a match made in hifi but not music IMO.
The only B&W I heard make some music was the Silver Signature stand mount speaker driven by some reissue Marantz Model 9 monos...that was pretty good.
Of course there is the B&W Nautilus...the real Nautilus that Laurence Dickie designed but does not follow the ethos of B&W at all...except the tapered tube tweeter and midrange head...an idea they got from Dickie not the other way around! Now Dickie makes the Vivid speakers, which are very good indeed!
That sound not getting free from the speakers and the "restricted" nature was mainly the amps (along with whatever preamp was used).
The old 3BST was known for having an overly tight bass...don't know if the SST2 models fix that or not.
Worst amp I've ever owned, aside from numerous class D beasties...
I am also allergic to Class D amps, as well as tubes
Edits: 04/03/14
Tripath- and International Rectifier-based: both very good with good recordings -- neither sugar coating bad recordings.
I prefer my current Pass Labs but I could live my Class D Audio SDS very well, especially for 1/9 the price of the Pass.
I love the music of ... ... Gustav Mahler
And yet, you decided not to live that way and now have the Pass even though, by your own admission, it was quite a financial stretch for you. That is telling....
nt
I love the music of ... ... Gustav Mahler
I seriously doubt you have heard an OTL amp or I don't think your opinion would hold up...or are you blinded by your opinion? I think that might have something to do with it...
Listen to 12 antique tubes in one mono block ? I am not crazy I have excellent central heating.
Edits: 04/04/14
Antique does not equal obsolete. That simple really. Besides, KR Audio, Ayon and Emission Labs have all designed new tubes in the last 15 years.
TRIODES versus BIPOLARS from a friend of mine
It all depends on how one interprets "facts" for example a pretty standard bipolar stage with a current mirror load and a constant current source at relatively low cost will produces vanishingly small levels of distortion, whilst producing much of the required gain in an amplifier.. The sort of values in distortion terms are typically 0.00001% at I kHz and 0.0006% at 50kHz this sort of circuitry with a CCS, the VAS stage will and can produce a total distortion of better than 0.0015% in what is called a blameless amplifier at full power of 50 watts and 30+ kHz. Quote Douglas Self , there is no valve amplifier out there that can get anywhere near these values and for a very good reason. The triode suffers one distortion which is rarely measured or noted , that of an early effect , which basically is this, that when the grid goes positive the anode current increases and in doing so reduces voltage on the anode due to the voltage drop across the anode load , this drop will cause the signal during + half cycles to have a significantly different amplitude to the - half cycles , effect of this is that if you take a high Mu triode used to get the gain required and introduce current negative feedback by not decoupling the cathode resistor the lowest distortion you wil get is about 0.2% or worse. CCS's have been tried with Triodes but the early effect still remains.
You may already know that the second grid was introduced to make the valve less dependant on this effect but because of the screen grid alone caused a kink in the curves , they introduced the suppressor grid to even it out again, the new valve the pentode has unremarkable distortion characteristics... in summary it is unfair to try to make comparisons with such devices because they are so totally different in the way in which they can be used , one other factor that must be considered is that a thermionic valve will be swinging across its transfer characteristics significantly higher voltages than a transistor, effectively stretching its distortion range because you are using more of its curve area , a transistor is concerned with just a few volts and so a much smaller area is being used.
There is no doubt at all many valve designers have today pushed the limits of circuit design to produce some overall sweet sounding amps which many people prefer , Tim de Paravicini for instance who also has OTL designs and has used mosfet O/Ps to simplify the heat & current requirements , but in any event many people are not after distortionless amplification , rather they want a sound that does not fatigue after long term listening and in which the very nature of valves presenting even order harmonics is perhaps better suited to those requirements which will also be commensurate with the speakers thay are using, meaning that many speakers have a very bright presentation and usually reflexed so that a tight bass from the valve amp will largely go unnoticed anyway and the easier top will be more acceptable to those modern speaker designs which I frankly find irritating on any amplifier.
regards etc. Humble
Edits: 04/05/14
"It all depends on how one interprets "facts" for example a pretty standard bipolar stage with a current mirror load and a constant current source at relatively low cost will produces vanishingly small levels of distortion, whilst producing much of the required gain in an amplifier.. The sort of values in distortion terms are typically 0.00001% at I kHz and 0.0006% at 50kHz this sort of circuitry with a CCS, the VAS stage will and can produce a total distortion of better than 0.0015% in what is called a blameless amplifier at full power of 50 watts and 30+ kHz. Quote Douglas Self , there is no valve amplifier out there that can get anywhere near these values and for a very good reason"
First: Show me ONE amplifier out there with numbers that good other than Halcro, which if you ever heard them you would know why the numbers don't mean anything when massive feedback is used.
Second: Those numbers are not achieveable without negative feedback... a lot of negative feedback. It is also a fact that negative feedback does not cure the ills of a Class AB amp's residual crossover distortion.
Third: When are you going to learn that it has become clear after the last 50 years of "blameless" amplification that psychoacoutically transparent and Oscilloscope transparent are NOT the same thing.
Quote from Geddes paper I:
"To be useful the metric must be consistent and reliable – the same number must mean the same thing in every context and there must be a close correlation between the metric and the response that it is intended to scale."
"This is precisely where the signal-based distortion metrics fail. In our next paper we will show that .01% THD of one type of nonlinear system can be perceived as unacceptable while 10% THD in another
example is perceived as inaudible. Even one of these simple examples is sufficient to invalidate THD as a viable metric for discussion of the perception of distortion. Furthermore, 1% THD is not at all the
same as 1% IM, but we will show that neither correlates with subjective perception. While some of the signal-based metrics may be “better” than others, it is our opinion they all fall short of what we are seeking."
"If we take these facts and join them up with our Perception Principles then we can make the following statements, which are, perhaps, not exact, but they are, none the less, more valid than not.
• The masking effect of the human ear will tend to make higher order nonlinearities more audible than lower order ones.
• Nonlinear by-products that increase with level can be completely masked if the order of the nonlinearity is low.
• Nonlinearities that occur at low signal levels will be more audible than those that occur at higher signal levels.
Again these may seem intuitively obvious."
"If the amplifier has crossover distortion then this type of nonlinearity violates both of our principles – it is both very high order and it increases (as a proportion of the linear terms) with decreasing signal level. Based on our hypothesis, one would expect that this type of distortion would be highly objectionable and it is."
Quote from Geddes Paper II:
"Of primary interest in the present study was the correlation between the mean subjective ratings and the various metrics. Table 5 provides the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between the
mean ratings across subjects of the twenty-one stimuli, and each of the three metrics. A negative weak relationship was observed with the THD (r = -0.42, p=0.06) and the IMD (r=-0.35, p=0.13) metrics. These results suggested negligible predictive values when utilizing THD and IMD metric in this context."
"These results supported the skepticism that THD and IMD metrics were poor predictor of subjective perception of sound quality ratings."
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Distortion_AES_I.pdf
http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Distortion_AES_II.pdf
Based on their studies, they found that there was a slightly NEGATIVE correlation with THD and IMD and sound quality!!!
That is because of how modern amps make distortion and that the negative feedback trick doesn't make it much more listenable.
CHeever also made the same observations and he said that THD once upon a time was a pretty good indicator of quality when amps were all SET and none used negative feedback. Once they went to PP, AB and lots of feedback then THD and IMD no longer correlate with sound quality.
You can take your numbers all you want, I listen to music not numbers and I can tell you that the WORST sounding amps I have ever heard were all the best measuring ones. Your engineer friend and also Doug Self are just delusional and brainwashed by 50 years of engineering "best practice" that had nothing to do with sound quality.
OK Have it your way to say 10% THD is inaudible ? However I would agree that at the end of the day it is all about how it sounds and I would not waste my time again listening to any valve or Class D amplifier. I have auditioned the Devialet Class AD at Home gets highest SQ rating from Paul Miller HFN & RR best Class D to date but I still prefer my old Class AB amplifier, had the Devialet been better I would have bought it despite only being interested in the power amp section.
Edits: 04/07/14
I don't say that 10% is inaudible but 1 or 2% of mostly 2nd harmonic is almost certainly inaudible. How can you say that for you it is only about the sound when you are wantonly ignoring the psychoacoustics of sound and catergorically dismissing whole technologies...one of which clearly more closely matches psychoacoustic ideals of what kind of distortion an amp should make...seeing as it is impossible to have a zero distortion amp. I don't offhand dismiss any technology based on my "feelings" of the technology (your comments about tubes being antique for example), I base it on my current understanding of psychoacoustics and the types of distortions made by each technology. This along with lots of listening tells my Class AB ANYTHING (transistor, tube or hybrid) isn't the way to sonic nirvana. Class D is also not the solution because of the noise and distortion pattern it generates. The signature is obvious even if somewhat more subdued with the Devialet.
As I said, I haven't used a pure tube amp for several years. I find that the current SOTA without spending a king's ransom comes from hybrids running Class A or a VERY simple transistor design like the First Watt SIT amps. For pure tubes, either you need OTL or VERY expensive output iron and then you get there.
There was a review of the KR Audio Kronzilla monos in a German magazine many years ago (that version is now about 2 generations behind). The measurements showed about 3% THD at around the rated power (droping like a stone with lower power I might add) but nearly all of it (over 2%) was 2nd harmonic some 3rd, a bit of 4th a tiny 5th and not much else above -120db.
It follows Cheever's Aural harmonics nearly perfectly and as a result SOUNDS nearly perfect. I had a generation newer at home as a reviewer and it made other highly regarded amps (like the ASR Emitter II Exclusive) sound broken by comparison...it was not subtle. Another German magazine had the older version monos as their highest rated amp for 10 years!!! (2002-2012) and it is still in the top 3. It was FAR ahead of the competition and still among the very best. It is a hybrid. My current NAT is also a hybrid.
Speaking of the Devilet, I too had it at home and it did not compare favorably against the amp I had at the time, The Einstein "The Absolute Tune", which was one of my least favorite amps that I have owned in the last 10 years (still it is quite good just not compared to what I owned before it and not what I own now). The Einstein was notably more musical and just as resolving. The Devialet failed to move me to think higher of Class D. I have also heard the Devialet 110 in a friend's home...he now has an all Audio Note system with the Devialet long gone.
What is your current Class AB amp that you find so realistic sounding? The ONLY one I have heard that truly competes at the highest level is the now defunct Edge NL series amps. They were GOOD. BAT VK amps are pretty good too but a bit darkish sounding to me that reduces their realism. BATs tube amps are better.
Amps I have heard from Accuphase, Soulution (current darling), MBL, Krell and others have failed to move me at all (either AB or A offerings). Who in your mind is making the best amps out there?
Morricab: Triodes versus Bipolar from Humble
You may be interested to learn young man that between Disbeliever and myself there amounts to over 100 years of listening to both valve & transistor amplifiers , we do not essentially disagree with you about sound quality and can concur that many amplifiers that measured well were largely overrated. However you appear to be widening the goalposts, originally stating that triodes had less distortion than bipolar transistors being a blanket statement without any circuit references, so I had to challenge you. You then go on to rubbish any form of feedback as if it were the bane of any design concept in the audio domain.So firstly allow me to clarify a few points, it is true that taken as as an individual device transistors do have more intrinsic distortion than say a high mu triode but the point I have re-iterated is that a solitary transistor is rarely used in isolation as a straight amplifying device in a high quality amplifier, so the point about distortion becomes irrelevant , simply put, a circuit topography is used because the way in which transistors work allows it to be used to cancel out the very distortion that nonlinearities produce, but in such a way that it essentially still remains within the domain of a single device, meaning no phase anomalies an increase in speed thus widening the bandwidth and significant reduction in all distortions, yes it is essentially within the realms of current negative feedback, but the electrical reaction within the topography is without detriment , it,s now a symbiotic unity. The simplest of which is the longtailed differential pair to the more complex Current mirror load and constant current source, the same CCS is often used to feed the next stage the VAS to improve its linearity.
Now it is also true that with this type of topography very high intrinsic gains are achieved and further distortion from the output devices and drivers are also reduced by negative feedback, however many articles have been written about the proper use of feedback and all those other artifacts of SID, TID etc. which includes nested feedback to reduce phase anomalies , but you can not rule out the fact that many very good amplifiers have been designed with both high & low amounts of feedback, and some like Onkyo with no Global feedback which still produce relatively low amounts of distortion because the circuits are an amalgam of topographies used to reduce the additive stage distortion and if I remember correctly the Onkyo produced around 0.02% that Company believing as you do that an amp with limited distortion sounded better but in fact did,nt.
Referring to Geddes and Lee have you considered what happens when when say an audio amplifier of the transistor variety uses differing devices throughout the amplifying stages , for instance a J.Fet front end with it,s slope character followed by a standard B.polar VAS stage then followed by by say Mosfets, here you have three different slopes all adding their own particular distortions , feed all these back into the early stage and you have a disparity of control which results in both odd and even harmonics but more importantly some of the harmonic intervals are not amplitude consistant meaning some harmonics in the higher reaches have a larger than those proceeding, perhaps this is one reason why feedback can have rather unpleasant sounds with some designs , but is not generally known as a casual link,.. but in the end preferences will always be the deciding factor, however for proof of the proverbial pudding just take a well respected modern amplifier of each variety , in the case of the transitor version remove the input filter if it has one , then feed it with a square wave set at the same level as a valve version , then monitor the output into a dummy load , I think you will be very suprised at the result, because all the other factors of the amps will come into play which include the reaction by capacitors in the signal path and the interelectrode capacitance of the triodes CGK+(A+1)CAG, this then becomes a measure of accuracy not necessarily distortion, because it is measuring the filtering effect of both types of amplifier .
I have already conceded that there are many amplifiers of the valve variety out there which sound very sweet, so essentially we are not in any conflict whatever, I simply believe that a properly designed Transistor amplifier will give very satisfactory and pleasing results and can be blameless, I have had many debates with well regarded audio engineers , consultants and other speaker designers. Everyone has a preference for their particular beliefs and experiences , but they would all tell you that sound quality is of paramount importance but more often than not are convinced that their way is the only way forward and so sometimes get caught up in a negative feedback loop. ha ha.
Humble
Edits: 04/09/14 04/09/14 04/09/14 04/09/14
No need for the condescension. Maybe you guys have learned something during all your years of "experience" but based Disbelievers amps of choice I am inclined not to think so. Experience is not a substitute for talent.
As for the linearity of devices there is no debate, triodes are more linear than bipolar transistors by a long way. So are FETs for that matter...at least running Class A. Adding more non-linear devices in a circuit doesn't make the circuit more linear, it makes it less so. This is only logical and it can also be shown easily if you build any kind of circuit with them and don't wrap it up in negative feedback...fact is that if you go with multiple stages you MUST use some negative feedback and often it won't be stable without it. At least with a FET or SIT you can take one, run it Class A and it will be stable, sound very good and measure ok to a few watts. With a tube amp you need probably at least two stages but the whole thing will run without feedback and still measure ok and sound really good as long as you used good parts.
Making an amp with multiple stages (this is also true for FETS or tubes) only makes it less linear and then NECESSITATING the use of local and/or global feedback just to control the way too high gain and stability issues.
"essentially within the realms of current negative feedback" Heard amps with this topography like Accuphase and well YAWN, they didn't sound very good despite the glowing press...They sound gray and dead.
"believing as you do that an amp with limited distortion sounded better" Their problem is the same as others, the use of the wrong design gives a poor sound not the absolute amount of distortion. The design dictates what the form of that distortion will be and it is that pattern that is important. Find the design parameters that deliver the right pattern and you get good sound...stray into ultra low distortion techniques and you pay in sound quality. It is not as you think that it is because the distortion is low it is because of what was done to the signal to get it low that is the problem.
"Referring to Geddes and Lee have you considered what happens when when say an audio amplifier of the transistor variety uses differing devices throughout the amplifying stages , for instance a J.Fet front end with it,s slope character followed by a standard B.polar VAS stage then followed by by say Mosfets, here you have three different slopes all adding their own particular distortions , feed all these back into the early stage and you have a disparity of control which results in both odd and even harmonics but more importantly some of the harmonic intervals are not amplitude consistant meaning some harmonics in the higher reaches have a larger than those proceeding, perhaps this is one reason why feedback can have rather unpleasant sounds with some designs"
Once you have multiple stages and complex topologies in each stage AND feed all that back to the input I don't think it matters anymore what the elements are. Especially if one of the stages is Class B. Like I said, a tube push/pull amp in Class AB that is not triode and uses negative feedback will suffer many of the same problems because a non-triode tube is also highly non-linear, feedback exacerbates the problem AND it is likely to have transformer saturation issues unless the output iron is very good. I don't cut them any more slack than most transistor designs.
I have found that one thing that works very well is a hybrid design with two stages only, running Class A or very high bias AB (so like Class A 10 or more watts). With a FET output this can be run without any feedback and will sound very good with low absolute and low order distortion primarily. Make this single ended and it will sound even better but the amp will have to be physically huge.
Of course the pure tube variant and reverse hybrids (like KR Audio) can also sound phenomenal.
"I simply believe that a properly designed Transistor amplifier will give very satisfactory and pleasing results and can be blameless,"
And I would simply argue that no such animal exists or has ever existed, nor will exist until a truly linear amplification device is invented. Until that device is invented then I will stay with the psychoacoustically correct path for sound reproduction.
I also don't really care too much what engineers think on these matters...they are usually designing by what they learned is proper circuit design and to price points for the market. The majority of them are not scientists and don't know how to make the proper observations about what their products are doing. I am a scientist, which makes me a professional observer, which means i hear things in their products that they don't or wish not to hear. I may or may not know how to design various cool and tricky circuits but I know how to tell when one is doing the right thing and one is not. THen I bother to find out what was used and how it was implemented and wait to see other similar examples and how they sound. One can build a mental library of what sounds consistently good and what doesn't and start to draw conclusions about various "innovations" in circuits. I have done so and came up with some guidelines for a good sounding amp. I would share them with you but I doubt you would take them seriously. I have posted them before so feel free to search under my name and you might find my ideas.
"in the case of the transitor version remove the input filter if it has one , then feed it with a square wave set at the same level as a valve version , then monitor the output into a dummy load , I think you will be very suprised at the result"
Why on earth would you remove the input filter? That's silly. All systems have finite bandwidth and dynamic range and I think that one of the biggest failures of home audio gear is NOT limiting the input to what the device can swallow. Many audio people think the world stops at 20Kc. and removing input filters just punishes those that know better.
But... I am very much in favor of evaluating systems by using square waves, I'm just not in favor of modifying them first.
Rick
From HUMBLE
Input filters were originally used amongst other things to prevent the main amplifier from suffering SID especially , when the pre-amp was much faster. Bearing in mind that many earlier amplifiers had relatively slow Bi-polar output devices which meant that as the frequencies increased less feedback was available and distortion crept up sometimes significantly, modern out put devices like Sankens and some Toshiba audio devices are extremely fast with an FT up to 40mhz making the amplifier much faster and thereby keeping the distortion lower at much higher frequencies. BY removing the input filter and some amplifiers don,t have them ,enables you to see what the amplifier is capable of without the inhibiting effect of that filter which often comes into effect depending on the designers criterion of frequencies as low as 150kHz, taking the filter out of the Hafler 200 series enables a beautiful square wave to be reproduced above 10kHz, with the filter in the square wave was much more rounded as you would expect.. There is a strong correlation between the speed of transistors and point of roll-off in the treble particularly prevalent with slow output devices a factor that feedback does not totally compensate for, of course Mosfets enable a much faster performance and often noted for a detailed treble especially with supertweeters. When the JL Linsley-Hood 75 watt amplifier was first produced it had 2 t 3 mhz FT O/P devices, later these were substituted with BDY56 10 MHZ devices and immediately the distortion dropped by almost a decade and that amplifier had 78 db of NFB, it also sounded faster and easier on the ear.
Humble
Good Post!
I have no problem with injecting test signals after an input filter, or any place else for that matter to evaluate a system's response. I also believe that using square-waves and a scope are far more likely to get you to the root cause of audible problems than peering in the frequency domain with a spectrum analyzer, especially an FFT one that doesn't go very far out-of-band.
All "properly designed" systems need to make a reasonable attempt to not accept signals that they can't handle. I think the best case is to have enough bandwidth margin to allow a simple RC LPF as the dominant pole and still be high enough to not mange the treble.
Regards, Rick
I have no idea who is making the best amps out there. My own 18 year old close coupled design ( similar to Hafler )Class AB stereo amplifier Prime Design A100 has the following specification:
Transistors two 17 amp. 40 mHz per side. High grade 500 Va toroidal transformer, 80,000 mfd capacitance, damping factor at 40Hz in excess of 200, THD 0.005% has had a few upgrades and still sounds excellent.
.005% THD, at which frequency? I bet at higher frequencies it is significantly worse (above say 1Khz)...that would be typical for a high feedback design (the only way to get THD that low).
However, it is irrelevant because as I have said and the research shows there is even a slightly NEGATIVE correlation between THD/IMD and sound quality...That is what Geddes found and Cheever as well and many others before them...at least since the dawn of PP circuits and negative feedback.
I wonder what you'd think of the Matrix speakers if you have heard one? My B&W 602 S3 speakers produced 3D depth to music very well, and when I had vinyl on- it did fill the room. I was expecting better from their 800 series. There is a YBA amp on Craigslist right now. Shame I can't afford it at the moment. Its only a 60 watter, but was very musical if I remember correctly. Don't recall how dynamic YBA was though. It is a high current design- is it not?
I have heard the B&W Matrix 801 whatever the last version was (they came out with the Nautilus 801 not long after that) and the 802. They weren't bad but at that time I heard as well the Monitor Audio Studio 50 and it was WAY better overall. THen I heard big planars and realized that both were way behind the best speakers.
I haven't heard a YBA but I believe it really depends on the model if it was a good design or not.
This is all way off original thread topic however you can also forget B & W 804D , tweeter output is up by +6dB around 12kHz giving audible brightness in the treble ,even a treble sting. (from Hi-Fi World Measured performance)
Edits: 04/03/14 04/03/14
Yeah that would seem pretty deliberate on their part...naughty boys.
Haven't heard the JOB or other Goldmund amps, sorry. But when I hear the first descriptors used by someone about an amp as "fast" and detailed, I think "lean" and "fatiguing". If someone describes and amp with "tone", "transparency" and "presence" then I start to perk up and take notice.
Thanks. Sorry I didn't perk you up with the right verbiage.
--Ze'ev
I agree quality of sound varies a lot with Class AB amps or any other class. I was referring to Bryston Integrated amps which sound harsh and you are coming up with a pair of expensive large Godzilla ha. mono blocks which would be of no interest to me despite the rave reviews. I am mainly concerned with 150 watt into 8 ohm amps, have you auditioned the Quad Platinum amplifier which sounds very good into my TL speakers but I could not use it as I got unresolved hum problems when it was connected to the pre-outs of my excellent Sony DA5400ES AVR no other amp I tried has this problem.
Edits: 03/29/14
As you can see when you ask a question like this it's highly subjective. If I had any Rotel amp and upgraded to a Bryston 4Bsst I'd be thrilled to death. Only you can say if you like the sound quality but Bryston's build is top notch. You wouldn't be in business long putting a 20 year transferable warranty on a product if you had to back it up very much. Bryston is just a good solid power house amplifier.
With all that said, my subjective 2 cents, I found Pass Labs to be a more engaging sound for me.
Could it be here that people don't like Bryston because it doesn't color the sound, making it more pleasing to listen to? Im told Brystons are very neurtal amps that are basically wire plus gain- that's it. So people who don't like Brystons don't like neutral amps. Am I correct in that assumption? Im wanting a very fast sounding amp with quick dynamics with kick that can knock your socks off. Rotel did this and Im told Bryston does as well. Im not sure Pass labs can do this, especially on a power hungry speaker only receiving 30 watts of Class A.
"Im wanting a very fast sounding amp with quick dynamics with kick that can knock your socks off. Rotel did this and Im told Bryston does as well. Im not sure Pass labs can do this, especially on a power hungry speaker"
Listen to a Pass x250.5 (or the brand new x250.8 which I have not heard myself) and then tell me it does not do dynamics with kick. Give one a listen and then decide for yourself.
Nope. They tend to be hard sounding and don't replicate music. While loads of feedback look better on paper, they sacrifice real world performance.
Neutral tone is a different thing altogether.
especially on a power hungry speaker only receiving 30 watts of Class A.
Which delivers 153 watts into 8 ohms (195 into 4) when driven into AB.
View the measured performance
You need to understand that Rotel isn't even in the same performance league as Pass or Bryston. Of course, they don't cost as much either. Pass makes both pure Class A, which is the 30 watt you probably saw, and they also make the X series which are Class A/B, the smallest being 150x2 into 8 ohms. The most bone jarring transients I've experienced so far has been from Krell. Krell also gets a lot of flack for not being sweet. Audition the Bryston and see what you think.Also, all watts are not created equal, I'm sure that little 30 watt Pass can drive most any speaker. You might find reading about Nelson Pass interesting. He began designing amps that would drive difficult electrostat speakers. We all like different presentations of our audio so listen to as much as you can to hear what's out there.
Edits: 03/26/14
perhaps, but their Evolution series totally blow this myth out of the water, especially when they're being connected via CAST to the Krell Evolution 202 pre amp.
Its neutral sounding characteristics is totally dependent on the music source. If the music is sweet and lush sounding such as the "A Meeting by the River" by Ry Cooder, it'll sound lush and sweet as well, if the music is impactful with great dynamic contrast and sweet to boot, like the PF's "Comfortably Numb" song, it'll sound just that...
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
Good to see Krell still has fans. Unfortunately our local dealer parted ways with Krell a few years back and it's more difficult to keep up with them.
I've never was a fan of Krell nor a fan of Audio Research or any brands for that matter as I only subscribed to what sound best to me within my price range.
Prior to owning the Krell Evolution system, I used to own the Audio Research all tube reference system, as good as the sound was, but after auditioning the Krell Evolution system in my dedicated listening room, I sold my Audio Research.
Who knows maybe in the future I will be auditioning another equipment and if that system will sound better than the Krell Evolution system then it too will stay and Krell will be sold.
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
Agreed.
An ARC pre-amp + the Bryston power amp are a sonic match, IMO.
The combo I demo'ed was an ARC Ref 3 and Bryston 3B ST on Wilson Sasha speakers w/ all Transparent Opus cabling.
That's odd. I thought my ARC LS25mkII with the Bryston 7BSST2 mono blocks were sorely lacking.
The Aesthetix Calypso preamp did better with the rather dry and lean Brystons, but even the Aesthetix couldn't make the Brystons sound 'right' for me. I gave up on 'em.
It'a all about synergy after all. The top of the line Bryston such as their 28BSST2 monoblocks together with the BP 26 pre amp that I auditioned didn't sound lean or forward or what have you, while driving the Proac Carbon Pro 8 speakers, if anything it sounded sweet and lush coupled with ultra dynamics.
The only problem with it was, I couldn't afford it.
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
Never auditioned the Bryston mono -blocks Abe.
Last week, I did have the listening pleasure of finally auditioning the wonderful Aesthetix Calypso signature preamp w/ matching Atlas power amp.
Very nice sound, indeed!
I would love to demo the Aesthetix pre w/ a Pass Labs power amp!
As kootenay mentioned, it might be system synergy and possibly my choice of speakers. However, I've had other amps that do extremely well with the Thiels. Sufficiently powerful tube amps in particular, and some solid-state.
I like the Calypso preamp not only for its sound but flexibility. It was the only preamp I could find that came close to offering a similar set of features as the ARC. I wanted a good selection of balanced and unbalanced inputs/outputs, remote control input selection, volume up/down/mute, etc. And it was better suited to tube rolling vs the 6H30 based ARC.
Thanks! Abe. I do remember those tube-rolling sessions.
The problem with Krell is the inconsistency in their product line over the years. I don't have very recent experience with Krell but I can tell you that the old KSA series were very nice sounding amps.
As an example, the 'little' KSA-50S was sweet yet very robust and impactful. It was a wonderful sounding amp. The Krell KAV-2250 was grainy, sterile, and dry, with no midrange warmth or robustness.
Someone commented on Pass Labs vs Bryston. I'd take Pass any day over Bryston having owned the Pass X150 and X150.5, Pass X-3, and the Bryston 7B-SST2 amps.
Bryston was a great amp when it was 2395.00 25 years ago. Nothing could touch it at that price. 25 years later the price is 5000.00 and it's not a great bargain anymore. I'll take a used Pass lab over it any day of the week. There is a reason it comes with a 20 year warranty. It's not really that good. (Sure it's built like a brick shithouse)It just doesn't sound that good.
I sold my incredibly wonderful sounding Manley Neo-Classic 250 EL34 vacuum tube based 250wpc mono blocks as I wanted something that ran a bit cooler and had no tube maintenance. I sold them and YES, I miss the way the way they brought beautiful music into my life.
But it was time to move on....
I'm not a big fan of Bryston based on a recent pair of 7B-SST² mono blocks that I had about a year ago. These were going to replace the Manleys.
I found the Brystons to be rather cold, lean, and analytical. The bass was good but the lower mids / upper bass was a bit lean with no warmth, no richness, and no robustness to the sound. But compared to old Brystons from the 1990's, these were at least smooth and not irritating.
I spent quite a bit of time with two vacuum tube preamps trying to get better sonics out of the Brystons but finally gave up. The ARC LS25mkII preamp couldn't do it... this preamp is fairly neutral as tubes go. The Aesthetix Calypso was warmer and richer and made the Brytons nearly tolerable but by then, I had enough and decided to sell the beastly Canadian mono blocks rather than fight to 'correct' their shortcomings.
I ended up with a pair of Spread Spectrum Technologies Ampzilla 2000 2nd Edition mono blocks. Whew! What a lengthy name but what an improvement over those Brystons. They are everything the Brystons are not! I love these amps. They also have a stereo version for about 1/2 the cost of the mono block pair.
The Ampzilla 2000 2nd Edition mono amps run cool and draw just 50-watts each at idle
Sneakin Sally through the alley. Nice
Didn't think anyone would recognize that album. ;-)
Did Wyred 4 Sound take over AmpZilla?
The website's contact info references Wyred 4 Sound.
http://www.ampzilla2000.com/contact.html
TIA
I don't know about 'take over' but they manufacture Ampzilla as well as a couple other brands.
Interesting.
I heard they made "Red Dragon's" amps.
Do you know what other brands they make?
I saw you mention B&W 805D or 804D.
My experience would be prior to the "D" versions of each, but I absolutely hated both Rotel and Bryston amplification on most any B&W loudspeakers I have heard. Didn't like Classe either, for that matter.
When my main system had B&W N805s and a Von Schweikert sub to fill in the bottom end, I found an Electrocompaniet integrated (an ECI-4 in particular) crushed pretty much any other amplification I tried. There were other combos that were "OK," but I was pretty much driven from the room by the offerings from Rotel and Bryston. I was giving Classe one more try at that time, and they didn't work out either.
...it all depends on how well they match with your speakers.Some find them too cold and analytical - others like them a lot.
On the positive side, they are very reliable and usually have very good bass.
Listen at length with your speakers before buying if possible.
Edits: 03/25/14
I am a treble freak and without a perfect treble any amp would be out of consideration.
I went from a Forte'4a and as i mainly wanted a pair of Magnepan 3.6. The amps of choice were Classe' and Bryston (Pass being out of my price range)I never did get to hear a Classe'. My dealer supposedly carried both brands, but was adamant Bryston was a way better choice.
After careful listening I decided to go with the Bryston 4B-SST²My one complaint is the sound is best if the amp is left on 24/7.
Mainly a tiny trace of harshness in the treble which goes away after being on over 8 hours.Otherwise it is good.
The amp has keep up with other upgrades and I have not reached it being a limiting factor four years in.
It is a perfect choice with my Magnepans.
Edits: 03/25/14
"My one complaint is the sound is best if the amp is left on 24/7."
That's been my experience with all the solid state equipment that I've owned. Horrible when first turned on, tolerable after an hour. Excellent after on for a day or two. I run all my analog equipment 24/7 except during thunderstorms or when I'm going on a trip.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: