|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.206.205
In Reply to: RE: How Good Are Bryston Amps Compared to Other High End? posted by Alex F. on March 26, 2014 at 13:09:02
That's the difference between *accurate reproduction* and euphonic ? :)
Follow Ups:
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).
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: