 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.115.217.131
In Reply to: RE:Good point! However, how much are interconnects limiting factor in separates? posted by Eldragon on March 23, 2015 at 20:26:22
Actually your statement is potentially even far more accurate than you may think.IMO, I can probably take any well-enough designed middle-of-the-raod int. and make it easily outperforms separates that should be greatly superior.
Why? Because, and besides the one less pair of IC's you pointed out, there's generally:
1. One less power supply that needs to deal with noisy AC coming in from the street.
2. One less power supply inducing internally-generated vibrations that need to be controlled.
3. There's one less chassis capturing unwanted air-borne and internally-generated vibrations.Considering these two basic energies when under-controlled will induce far more sonic harm than all other distortions combined, it is completely logical that an reasonably well-designed int. amp should easily generate a superior level of musicality over separates costing many times more than the int. amp.
Regardless of the performance-oriented industry, when it comes to performance less should always be more.
If (and it is so) less is more translating to performance gains is true, then the question is, why hasn't this less-is-more concept caught on in the supposedly performance-oriented high-end audio industry?
Edits: 04/07/15Follow Ups:
"then the question is, why hasn't this less-is-more concept [integrated amplifiers] caught on in the supposedly performance-oriented high-end audio industry?"
I long ago went with the seperate power-amp and pre-amp for the simple reason that they made managing the system over time easier. The most important thing about the power amplifier is mating well with the particulars of the speakers. The most important thing about the preamp is accomodating all of the desired sources whose characteristics tend to shift relatively rapidly over time.
Having two boxes with a simple, standard interface between them has proven to be an effective solution for me.
Rick
"then the question is, why hasn't this less-is-more concept [integrated amplifiers] caught on in the supposedly performance-oriented high-end audio industry?"
IMO, and hopefully there's at least a handful that agree with me, that "high-end" really isn't so high-end, that the industry is not really performance-oriented like other performance-oriented industries. That from a performance perspective, high-end audio is really still very much in its infancy stages rather than at a mature stage.
That high-end audio is really more about the bling bling, winning performance wars on internet forums such as this, and keeping up with the Jones.
If any of the above is true (and it is), then it makes perfect sense that the more is more philosophy remains supreme while the less is more philosophy continues to make little sense.
I challenge you log into a Formula 1 or Top Fuel Dragster forum and try to convince either one of those groups that more is more.
Maybe not the best analogy, but if "high-end" audio generally fails miserably with 2 speakers, 2 pairs of IC's, and 2 or 3 components, how in the world could more speakers, more connections, and more components bring a system any closer to the absolute sound?
Especially when almost nobody has yet discovered where the serious flaws are within our components?
"if "high-end" audio generally fails miserably with 2 speakers, 2 pairs of IC's, and 2 or 3 components, how in the world could more speakers, more connections, and more components bring a system any closer to the absolute sound?"
Well...
1. It doesn't fail miserably.
2. More channels are exactly what it needs for better accuracy with live performances.
3. There IS no absolute sound. (ever walked around a hall during rehearsals?)
4. Real performances also are watched. So it needs video too...
I don't know about your racecar analogy, I bet a dragster wouldn't say no to more traction AND more horsepower...
"almost nobody has yet discovered where the serious flaws are within our components"
"Serious" is tough to define, but in general I think just the opposite is true. I'd venture to say that most of the problems are known in general but that their thresholds of perception (and importance) individually and collectively are a gray area, especially across populations of listeners and musical genre.
I used to design electronic stuff that had both aural and visual outputs and the acuity of the experienced user's ears was just breathtaking. Amazingly subtle nuances in the sounds made all the difference to them. Seem familiar? It's not so much that the gear is too bad, it's that our hearing is too good! The cool thing is that the technology is really coming of age and many of the things that are still fuzzy will likely be well quantified and controlled by 2020.
Something to look forward too...
Rick
Rick, It seems in perhaps every point you've made here, you're talking apples and I'm talking oranges or vice versa and frankly I couldn't disagree more.
But thanks for your response.
"you're talking apples and I'm talking oranges"
Seems like it. But at least we tried...
Rick
I like apples ...:)
If Devialet is the genesis of this new circle and if we were to extrapolate , then the future will be different and quiet possibly better, making Stenho single box only theory a possibility. The single box approach is nothing new of course and IME has never bettered individual SOTA seperates , is it cost effective ? yes , better ? Never experienced such ....
Akin to having slower laptimes and then Boast about paying less for the tires .. :)
Regards..
"I like apples ...:) "
And I like Lattes! (sipping one now...)
I'm not a car fancier but I do love electronics and so know a great deal more about the latter than the former having plied the trade for over forty years from college to retirement. Based on that dubious qualification I can say with confidence that there is no singular answer.
If you give me the least provocation I'll bore you to death with the strengths and weaknesses of the tradeoffs inherent in the two approaches but the upshot is that system design and implementation is everything and that the optimum approach is a function of the environment and application. While there is no blanket answer in a given instance there may be.
At the risk of seeming trite: if your system sounds good and you listen to it a lot and love the experience: it IS good. Now that doesn't mean that it can't be improved, especially with respect to the satisfaction of a single user, but diminishing, albeit hopefully pleasant, returns are the goal. I think most folks on AA are likely already there and that is why we seem so obsessive about minutia. Once satisfaction has settled in it then becomes a matter of tuning for the most joy. Maybe an ackward way to express it but something along that line and I think we all love finding little ways of elevating our experiences even though they were already on a very satisfactory level. Sensory greed? Whatever it is it's fun to do and to chat about with other sonic addicts.
Regards, Rick
IMO,
Integrateds trade off's are mostly due to the limited space available for the PSU's, a SOTA integrated would have at least 3 PSU's to have the same or similar performance of separates and then there is poor noise rejection due to proximity ...
Most would not be interested in a 120lb integrated ... :)
Yeah go ahead, Show us, how an integrated noise box beats seperates ...
No problem, Wayne. You go out and audition 2 or 3 of the best SOTA-level playback systems you can locate in your area, then bring some cheese and crackers over and I'll be happy to show you exactly what I'm talking about.
Unless, by "show" you're one of the many who think "high-end" audio performance is best demonstrated on paper and actual levels of musicality matter not.
Please don't tell me you're one of those nonsensical types.
It's Audio , delusional sensibilities is a necessity .... :)
There is no way to match the advantage of proper chassis size and circuit layout of seperates with an integrated, the SOTA systems you are comparing your integrated to may just not be worthy ...
Then again, if an integrated hits your sweet spot , then , its a winner ....
Regards
....
So says the guy with blue lights and a amp rack .............. ROFL
Yes integrated is the way to go, first heard it with IC's, I guess chassis and circuit layout is highly overrated, so it must be true, how's that chip amp treating you ..?
You should first discover the "high-end" and not it's posers....
Regards...
Edits: 04/08/15
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
