|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.108.120.250
I have tried six different amplifiers with the otherwise same set up. Two of them had a much deeper (and subsequently wider ) soundstage.What is it in the design that creates it. One is an old Macintosh MC250(solid state with autoformers) and a ASL 1009 (tube, interstage coupled). Is it something to do with current, transformers used, or something else?
Follow Ups:
I imagine there are many views on this and it something I have attempted to gain via many experiments, so here is my 2 cents worth. Overall I feel that it starts with the source and is then limited by whatever is down the chain from the source.With amplifiers and I am relying here on my experience with about 10 gainclones I've built, the two deciding factors seem to be 1) Bandwidth of the amp and 2) very low noise levels.
I have had great results from gainclones, but building modules with higher than normal bandwidth (which is tricky due to potential stablitiy issues) brought about much deeper sound stage.
The noise level is interesting, I have tried regular torroids, snubbered power supplies, smps and battery, and the sounstage gets better in that order and the noise level decreases in that order. The funny thing is that from the listening chair they all sound pretty much dead quite when no signal is applied, but of course as you get right up to the driver the difference is fairly obvious.
The battery supplies are dead quite, music does really come out of the inky blackness, the difference in soundstage, micro detail, etc is quite pronounced so long as the speakers are up to it.
So I guess in a generic sense most amps probably would give better soundstage if their power supplies are really clean.
A wide bandwidth seems to give very fine HF detail and ambience which works really well if the speakers are up to the task, but I think for reasons of instability most amps are probably throttled back quite a bit.
Interstingly I found that increasing the power supply voltage and hence output, did not improve soundstaging and really only gave a bit more drive to the bass, but with a sub boosted system this is not an issue for me. The greater voltage should increase dynamics but really I feel as most of this is in the bass region and most of the ambinece information is in the HF the increase in bass may actually work against it by 1) causing more distortion at the drivers (I am using full range drivers) and 2 messing the HF/LF balance up a bit. Overall high frequencies don't need huge power but of course the bass does which is why I prefer to use a pair of subs. This might account for why many high powered amps I have heard actually sound worse that many lower powered ones, they give more bass but trade of a lot of fine detail in the process.
One other factor may have some control over sound staging this being a high degree of separation, which a dual mono set up should provide.
Anyway thats my take, but I sure there is a a lot more to it.
nt
For two-channels, an amplification system with very good stereo seperation helps to ensure that subtle ambient cues are not mixed up and otherwise "lost in translation". I immediately noticed that the dimensionality of the entire soundstage improved after I switched to a dual-mono amplifier design.
The ability to handle and deliver the biggest signal excursions in a linear manner, which in turn enables the low-level information and aural "cues" to create the illusion of a "3-D" image. If the LF signal gets compressed in any way, the distortion components affect the rest of the audio band, and those low-level cues are obscured and/or lost.I think low-frequency linearity is key to bringing forth the potential of the recorded performance in a lot of ways. And I think it's the one "objective" element that is most-relevant to what we perceive subjectively.
Todd - do you think it's equally important for speakers to have LF linearity - at least to the 40 hz range - to accomplish a credible 3-D effect? Interested in your thoughts.
"Todd - do you think it's equally important for speakers to have LF linearity - at least to the 40 hz range - to accomplish a credible 3-D effect? Interested in your thoughts."Very true. Not only does the amp have to provide the signal in a linear fashion to the complex load of a loudspeaker, but the speaker likewise has to translate those LF excursions into moving the air in a similar manner. And one thing I do agree on in this regard- Size matters. Less distortion, better linearity.
So you actually need both. No wait- A lot of preamps and sources fail to deliver in this regard as well. *Everything* must be able to sustain the linear signal. And often, attaining it somewhere in the audio chain exposes flaws in other parts of the chain.
Thanks Todd. I agree. So would you say its more important for 3-D soundstaging, etc. to have speakers that do a linear 40 hz than a non linear 30 hz?
A truely linear amplifier only has a deep soundstage when the recording does.
I caught this thread late, but had to reply close to your question.
While the scientists can argue below, the constant sense of 3D is not easily found in many systems. Some theories, below, might be valid, but are the theories really important ? Do we check the spec sheets and designer engineering notes before, during, or after a listening session ? Usually, we never care about the printed stuff, just the SOUND.
Many of us strive for the biggest sound they can get. Many actually like the sound of presence, as though they are immersed in a soundfield, onstage, with the musicians. I think of the speakers as the front of the stage, as in a theatre. Just like we sit, in a theatre, I like most of the sound to come from behind the speakers, a la depth. I need depth, more than the average bear. 3D is my audio life, has been for decades. It is only achieved by trial and error, and matching of components. I must admit, that the most depth, in my systems, has come from the use of triode amps, with little or no feedback compensation networks(in the power amps, feedback phono EQ rules). The use of interstage transformers, used in my push-pull amps, has successfully effected the most holographic soundstage, I have ever heard.
Of course, there are many excellent, feedback compensated, amps that can yield excellent depth and soundstage effects, in the right combinations(with the right associated equipment).
Transducers, those devices that convert one type of energy to another, are often critical to proper soundstage effects. Leaving CDs out of the picture for a moment, choices of speakers and phono cartridges can be the quickest way to effect depth and width and height. One cartridge can be bright and forward sounding; another can be bright and provoke depth; still another can have a midrange suckout and still sound bright and forward. Speaking of speakers, why do you think Bose is so popular among the non-audiophile crowd ?
Getting back to the ever popular CD, this can be a tough source to achieve depth, height and width. Synergistic combinations...
Psychoacoustically speaking, each of us is different in our subjective approaches. That is why we differ in our opinions. That is what makes humanity so diverse, isn't it ? However, when using acoustical music as the source, most of us know what they sound like, live. These instruments and the human voice and sound effects are the best demo music, to check component matching. How can we possibly use Pink Floyd or Led Zep to critically choose components, when none of us were at the studios, while the recordings were being made ? Acoustical music can tell us when our systems sound natural and neutral. Anything electronically enhanced, like electric guitar, electric piano, etc. is just not going to be able to help you choose high fidelity components, in a natural way. And, isn't natural sound the epitomy of this hifi hobby ?
So, first choosing neutral, natural sounding gear is critical to the path of 3D sound. Then, matching that gear, with other known good gear, we can achieve our desired holographic soundstage, while in pursuit of our favorite illusion of sonic reality. Enjoy the journey...
Like yourself soundstage depth is high on my priority list. I was hoping to get a definitive answer. Although there does not seem to be a consensus the varied responses have been informative. As you state it will probably have to come down to trial and error. It would be nice though to save time and money when looking for my next amp buy, knowing exactly the design, spec, or whatever aspect that is most likely to give this trait.
Certainly, amps with interstage trannnies are at the top of my list.
If you use very efficient speakers, SET amps are very nice, if they can produce your wanted SPL. Stay away from the brightest sounding stuff; it always sounds forward, in a sit-up and listen, exciting kind of way, that wears quickly, to my ears.
It is too bad that the so-called state of the art gravitated toward extending high freq. detail. That has caused many transformers, CD players, speakers and cartridges to stay too bright sounding. Sometimes, especially as we grow older and our ears rolloff, less bandwidth, can be very helpful. I don't mean less detail, but gear with slightly less bandwidth can be endearing.
Another major factor to consider, especially when buying new stuff, is break-in time. Internal parts do take hours, to literally break-in. Some high tech coupling caps take 20-200 hours, of music passing through, to break-in correctly. The dealers that have the balls to sell Cardas cables have the nerve to tell us that their expensive cables take 90 days of listening to sound right. Don't they think that maybe, at their crazy prices, they should be beaking in the sound for us ?
Today's transformers usually do not have paper between the coil windings. The manufacturers seem to choose higher tech material, like poly... and even teflon ! Teflon can take months to break-in right ! So, maybe you can find some older vintage trannies in your next amps ? Happy Listening...and Good Hunting...
Doubter,Ain't hi-fi-life a peach?
1) ultimately the experience of the system builder/hobbyist - period. I can dial in depth if that is the (simplistic) brief by directing component/synergy choice, in any given room...
2) 'equalisation' usually achieved by trial & error room/component synergy or rather more effectively by a SigTech/DSP unit.
Experience/education is everything, and it costs; dearly...
To each his own, enjoy the journey.
"What is it in the design that creates it. One is an old Macintosh MC250(solid state with autoformers) and a ASL 1009 (tube, interstage coupled). Is it something to do with current, transformers used, or something else?"Whilst thermionic noise can a be factor, I think a much bigger factor is the variation in the frequency response curve of the amplifier interaction with various speakers. Any amplifier not just tube amplifiers with highish output impedance will react differently to various low to medium impedance speakers which form the bulk of most modern speakers, These variations will be reflected in soundstage amongst other things.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
If you listen with just one speaker to an excellent mono recording or stereo recording converted into mono, you can also get a sense of the depth and/volume of the soundstage because of the ambiance information recorded on the disc. (I'm old enough to have had a mono system as my first and remember how I judged sound in those days.) I'm mainly talking about classical music. I believe this infomation is generally at a low level. Different amplifiers differ in their ability to present this information realistically, and I've found mono listening can be an extremely valuable part of this evalaution. Amps that excel at mono stage presentation also excel in stereo if properly set-up, but it's sometimes much easier to hear the difference in mono.
HI All,
I don't think there is one single answer. Furthermore, if an amp delivers a consistently deep stage, I count that as a problem. Why is this?In my view, the most important characteristic of a hi fi system is the lack of signatures. Since all recordings are different and project a different soundstage, an amp that consistently gives depth is often violating the recording. This is a signature that will show up in many other ways. Therefore, I don't think of great amps as depth producers. Instead, a great amp should give what the recording gives, not more.
Thus, a great amp will produce a soundfield according to the information on the recording, the listening room, the associated equipment, and the basic ability of the overall system to reproduce very low level detail (the recorded reverberation field). That's my take.
... positioning results in any perceived depth being greater than the space between the plane of the speakers and the rear wall.This causes subsconscious conflict as the rearmost instruments or musicians appear to be embedded in bricks, mortar, wood, plaster, or even ice (if we're talking igloo-based audio systems...)
Amplifiers that are good in the depth department can still vary the depth but their median of depth projection with different recordings would still be greater than the median of lesser amplifiers if using the same recordings.
In your case why would you not use one of the two that have it, regardless of why?
I am happy for all the insightful responses after searching for an answer everywhere. I wonder if amplifier designers just luck into creating an amp with deep soundstage or if this some secret they keep to themselves.
At the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest there was an amp clinic that merely focused on THD. The cheap amp did poorly and the very expensive one did well. There was no sound suggesting that THD was all you needed to be concerned with. When I asked if the designer of the cheap amp might have been concerned with something other than THD, you would have thought I was the anti-Christ.
n/t
!
You gotta have the downward dynamics.
It seems low coloration, wide bandwidth amplifiers and speakers with a
fast settling time seem to all be important. That and the
ever important amp/speaker synergy.
The answer is a complex one and really requires two sets of explanations:1) How the human ear/brain combination detects/decodes the spatial cues of direction and distance.
2) How recording engineers capture/generate these cues
This response will not attempt a detailed explanation, but just touch on the key aspects.
The spatial cues are perceived using three main indicators:
a) Timing
b) Phase
c) IntensityBecause we have two ears, most of the subconscious analysis is based on relative or differential values perceived for each of these indicators.
Let's take the simplest first - Intensity.
In early stereo recordings, the only real spatial information incorporated was "lateral directional" (or "left/right") and this was achieved using differential intensity between left and right channels.
In this way, a signal that was louder from the left than from the right was perceived to come from the left, etc.
Timing (or, more correctly, differential timing) is also "decoded" to assist with directional and to capture some of the distance-related information.
The ear can detect a time difference as slight as 30 microseconds. Both the comparison of left and right ear receptions and the evaluation of the sound’s intensity are done automatically, without any conscious thought, allowing us to identify the approximate location of the origin of a sound.
Phase-related information plays the major role is determining distance, while also conveying some some directional cues.
By combining all three of these, the human ear/brain combination is able to locate a sound source in three dimensions.
So, if we accept the above elements, then the characterists of an amplifier that delivers a deep soundstage need to include accurate and faithful reproduction of:
- Timing
- Phase
- IntensityNext, we need to consider that the amplifier, on it's own, simply cannot deliver anything but a modulated electrical signal, sourced from elsewhere, to a set of speakers and that it's actually the "whole" that delivers the required accuracy in these three areas.
One critical aspect is the interface between the amplifier and the speakers - and here is where a high damping factor can contribute by helping to maintain enough control over the drivers to improve the accuracy of the air pressure modulation to that of the electrical signal.
I judge source components by their soundstage so I don't presume that amplifiers should be judged any differently.The deepest soundstage is when it resembles the original event (at the microphones).
I tend to agree that the low level detail being presented to the speaker can produce a deep, three dimensional soundstage if present in the recording.
Mostly its the the way the frequency response is varied (even just a few tenths of a dB sometimes) by the loudspeaker load. You can play subtlely with a digital parametric eq and get the same effect. This is the reason the some speaker lock in better with some amplifiers...BTW: this is also true with biamping speakers. Many passive speaker crossover these days include components to "flatten" the impedance curve a bit - and smart designers can even engineer these frequency variations into these "Zoebel Networks" and well. When you throw out the passive crossover to biamp - the drivers impedance is laid bare to the amp - so it is not unusualy to see frequency response variations at places where the drivers impedance may peak - These can be eq'd into the elctronic crossover before the amp or you can even leave the "Network" part of the crossover in the cabinet.
...a deeper soundstage. regarding stage width, I wonder if that is a separate issue, because width seems to me to be related to more low bass and high frequency energy. My theory is the bass is energizing the room more by vibration, and the treble by reflection.
The problem then is that recordings that shouldn't have much depth then have too much. This can negatively affect speech intelligibility in some cases. B&W Nautilus speakers have a few db depression in the presence region that makes them sound a bit more "spacious". It can be a bit of a blessing with really close miked "hot" recordings, taking them a bit out of your face. However; it doesn't do good recordings any favors, IMO.
...as an example, because I had a pair of Matrix 805s years ago and they indeed did seem to have a lot of depth to the soundstage.
it could be related to the amount of phase shift and phase distortion the amp ads to the signal. The lower the feedback and other signal "treatments" the amp does, the better is preserved the original signal's shape and more likely the stage would resemble the recorded one. Sometimes there are amps that create fake stage, I suppose that due to some phase alterations in the same way that recording engineers can create "on your back" effects by manipulating the mix. HTML tag not allowed
"it could be related to the amount of phase shift and phase distortion the amp ads to the signal. The lower the feedback and other signal "treatments" the amp does, the better is preserved the original signal's shape and more likely the stage would resemble the recorded one. Sometimes there are amps that create fake stage, I suppose that due to some phase alterations in the same way that recording engineers can create "on your back" effects by manipulating the mix.HTML tag not allowed"
Have you ever "looked" at most of contemporary solid state amps? If you had you would measure next to nothing in the so called phase distortion you are talking about.
And just to clarify a known misconception, propagation delay, if uniform throughout the band, Has NOTHING to do with phase response.
Most reasonably well designed solid state has a uniform propagation delay with minimal phase shift.
Now, you maybe talking about stereo separation, which if the coupling between the channels is high enough and out of phase can cause the effect that you describe which point to stereo separation not negative feedback.
who in addition to being an audio components designer, (defunct) manufacturer, and crusader for the marginalization of the "high-end" also excells at being an obstreperous old goat.Oh, and all ye going on about soundstage differences arrived at by swapping electronic components alone, well what can I say, hmmmmm....? Oh yeah, got it...
You will be marginalized, resistance is futile!
LOL
nt
You may be right, but I've heard monoblocks using the same preamp yielding different soundstage presentation than other monoblocks, so in spite of channel separation being an issue, it's not the only one.I don't measure gear, but in those "minimal phase shifts" you mention could be some of the stage differences we can perceive. All I know is that electronics using low or no feedback and electronics working in single ended as opposite to push-pull, usually offer a more consistent and natural soundstage than the others, being all other things equal, it is speakers, wires and source.
I don't think wider and deeper soundstage is better, some of those "special effects" are mostly speaker-room dependant, but being these a constant, then what do you think explains the stage differences among amps?
Well since you have made up your mind there is no point of posting further.
d.b.
I don't think my question deserved such answer. It's not about having my mind made up or confused, I just expressed my previous experience without any intention to offend you. It's quite obvious that you have your own right explanation about why some power amps provide different stage than others, and that doesn't include any phase characteristics. OK so, What do you think is what makes for those differences apart from channel separation?
You're going to have to excuse me here, I have posted on issues that relate to this on Prop Head, and elsewhere. I am going to ask that you do a search on issues such as distortion, grounding, etc.etc.
At the present time I do not feel obligated to keep re posting the same thing twice,or more.
My apologies;
d.b.
P.S. There a few recording that I perceive to "image correctly"
and they are Blumlein miked recordings. They are very rare indeed.
I'll do a search :-) Many of us here just speak about things we have experienced, but very rarely our observations correlate with the technical explanations we "believe" support those empirical facts. To me it's very interesting reading someone with technical background having measured what he speaks about, correlating electronic facts with audible impressions.
Your welcome. Seriously, Take your time and take a long hard look at recording studio techniques and processes.
d.b.
Blah blah blah. I have more than one recording Dan done with Blumlein techniques (several I made myself) and yes they do have much more acoustic information on them (for better or worse...depends on the venue if its a good thing or not). However; the quality of the amp can take it from "yes I hear some hall information there" to "jesus! My room has vanished and it sounds like I am in the original venue!" Maybe you have never heard this??It is obvious the recording is important, why bother stating something so obvious? A comparison between amps with the same recording tells you much about what the amp does right or wrong and I use such natural recordings all the time in my evaluations. Try to stay on topic, please (in case you forgot the topic its about amps and soundstage, not recordings and soundstage).
"A comparison between amps with the same recording tells you much about what the amp does right or wrong and I use such natural recordings all the time in my evaluations. Try to stay on topic, please (in case you forgot the topic its about amps and soundstage, not recordings and soundstage). "You are making the assumption that you know which is right or wrong.
I find that an interesting assumption, given all the variables that one can have, and are those assumptions made with or without the Clever Little Clock?
d.b.
When I made the recording I have a reasonable shot at knowing which is more right and which is not, don't you think?Well, Dan if you want to loan me your CLC then I will have one. Come on confess, your house is a tweakers paradise (either that or you are simply tweaked!).
Dan has asked you about CLCs after you directly answered the question?The onset of Alzheimer's can be tragic.
Its like Bill Murray in Groundhog day!! I can't get away from Dan asking me if I want to borrow his CLC!! LOL!
Basically agree. Zero NFB seems to be the key for three dimensional soundstage rendering in my experience (or, at least, minimal amounts of NFB). Spec amps, as I call them, seem to me to be generally more two-dimensional and hazier than the no/low NFB crowd.
but it's getting tougher by the moment.
Most of your soundstage as you call it is dictated by the recording studio, and your loudspeaker room interaction.
d.b.
Laugh at what? The original poster for hearing differinces between amps or for what replies he received? My soundstage, which has always been very good, has improved immmensely by tweaks to AC handling and room treatments.
I have 2 amps - a very nice SS 50 Wpc integrated and a very nice 65 Wpc PP tube power amp. I play the same music from the same source through the same speakers in the same place in the same room with different amps and I get different sound stage effects.
I attribute that to the Thermionic noise of the tube amps and how the speaker disperses that noise. In any case the soundstage that you perceive is better is still just an illusion, but obviously a preferred illusion.
The real point that I was trying to make, and ignored by nearly all is that negative feedback has little or nothing to do with this.
Am I clouding the issue with facts? if so then I will refrain from posting further.
d.b.
Yes, I prefer the tube amp for a lot of reasons, but it is not as quiet as my Blue Circle, for sure. I also have bad hearing and am nearly deaf in one ear, so I have to balance the speakers unevenly.
I appreciate the honesty.
d.b.
"I attribute that to the Thermionic noise of the tube amps and how the speaker disperses that noise."And what if the tube amp is as quiet as a good SS amp and yet soundstages much better? What then, Dan? I know many SS amps noisier (as in good old hiss coming from the speaker) than my tube amp. Do you know what the theoretical noise limit is for a good vacuum tube? I would bet that it is lower than you can hear. Soundstage is tied closely to the purity of HF reproduction. The less garbage at HF the more likely the amp is able to accurately recreate the ambient information on the recording (whether real or synthetic). It is a fact that tubes are better at delivering power at high frequencies. The fact that the output transformer rolls this off does not change the fact that they have a wider inherent bandwidth, without feedback, than a transistor. Adding feedback DOES increase HF hash in the form of high order harmonics that are signal correlated. This can degrade the ability of the amp to recreate an accurate soundstage. This has been known since the 1950s (read Crowhearst again).
All one has to do is look at the HF distortion of most SS amps with feedback. Nearly all of them show a rather large increase in HF distortion regardless of the power output. This increase is happening right where the critical information on the recording occurs. The implication is obvious.
"All one has to do is look at the HF distortion of most SS amps with feedback. Nearly all of them show a rather large increase in HF distortion regardless of the power output. This increase is happening right where the critical information on the recording occurs. The implication is obvious. "You're unaware of the fact that Dan designed a solid-state amp whose distortion signature was second order in nature. Do a Google search for "RE Designs" or "LNPA 150".
It's really true, the gentleman who did the testing was the former electronics guy for Apogee Loudspeakers. All of the testing was done on an Audio Precision One. I'm really not the only guy to do this with solid state, and there are a number of solid state amps out on the market today that really don't sound harsh at all. The real reason Morricrab is so upset is that just doesn't fit into his stereotyping of solid state equipment, and his political agenda.
He is nothing more than than an audio bigot.
d.b.
"You're unaware of the fact that Dan designed a solid-state amp whose distortion signature was second order in nature. Do a Google search for "RE Designs" or "LNPA 150". "I am aware of what his website CLAIMS. There is no graph no independent measurement to confirm this claim. Lot's of companies claim lots of things in hifi and often the claims don't live up to the test bench.
Still peddling the old propaganda from the mid 1980's? Well you picked the right place for it.
d.b.
Still peddling late 1960s and early 1970s SS amp propaganda (it measures perfect it must sound perfect!), Dan? Guess you picked the wrong place for it. The sad truth is that you are so blinded by your prejudices in this matter you haven't even gone out and listened to the latest and greatest amps on the market that don't follow your design philosophy. You are the man with the agenda here, Mr. "I am the only one building them right around here and anyone who disagrees with me must be an idiot"! You are the one that has the design philosophy based on your engineering indoctrination, mine concept derives from my listening experience and then finding explanations for what I hear. Are you happy as a good catholic enginner? When was the last time you actually tried and lived with a good tube amp? 30 years ago? 40?
nt
Please be so kind as to say something useful next time. Also, please demonstrate where I have shown even a hint of bigotry. Unlike you and your old school engineering indoctrination that won't seem to wash off, I observe and then judge based on observation, not preconceived notions as you are doing with regard to tubes and negative feedback.
I observe and then judge based on observation, not preconceived notions...That's bullshit, and why I gave up attempting to communicate with you.
I have seen your system and it explains a lot about your position. It is SS and strictly midfi. Now I don't have a problem with this per se, either you can afford better and don't feel the need or you can't afford better. No matter, it tells me something rather important. You lack experience with really good hifi.Before you judge me as holding preconceived notions, let's have you look into the mirror for a second.
Have you ever: Owned or demoed for an extensive time (ie. more than one hour in a shop or 5 minutes at a show) top class tube or hybrid gear? Owned or demoed a top class loudspeaker that is dynamic? Owned or demoed a top class loudspeaker that is ribbon, electrostatic or horn? Owned or demoed a top class turntable or cd player? Go to live unamplified concerts or hear a live unamplified instrument being played more than once per month?
If you answered no to any or all of these questions then your experience is sorely lagging behind mine.
Now you own strictly midfi SS amps? Why? Do you feel that more expensive amps can't possibly sound better?
As we are in the amp/preamp asylum I will stick with this. Did you buy them because they measure good? Sound good? Both? If you haven't tried good tube and/or hybrid amps then why not? Is it because you read literature that says that those designs must be crap and only the accepted orthodox amp design is right?
I would argure that it is YOU that has preconcieved notions if you have dismissed these other amp technologies out of hand. DB is the same way as he hasn't even tried a tube amp in 30 years because he is convinced that they are noisy distortion devices. He is so convinced that he won't listen to them. These are preconceived notions, Andy_C.
I am tired of people like you trying to twist an argument around and you aren't even self-aware enough to see your own biases and preconceived notions.
I have seen your system and it explains a lot about your position. It is SS and strictly midfi. Now I don't have a problem with this per se, either you can afford better and don't feel the need or you can't afford better. No matter, it tells me something rather important. You lack experience with really good hifi.Classic morricab,Andy_c is the fourth person with considerably more knowledge or experience in either electronics or acoustics that has said the same thing about your opinion Earl Geddes, Dan Banquer and Soundmind now andy_c. I suppose what really baffles me about you how someone who claims to be so knowledgeable in science will discount the single most important parameter concerning speaker/amplifier performance i.e. frequency dependent amplitude level variations,influenced directly or indirectly by output impedance and feedback and chase mirages such as TIM and TAD, why not account for the most important effects before chasing all these debatable effects.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Oh I see you put this back up."suppose what really baffles me about you how someone who claims to be so knowledgeable in science will discount the single most important parameter concerning speaker/amplifier performance i.e. frequency dependent amplitude level variations"
whatever gave you the idea that I discount FR unimportant?? Why do you make false statements just to have something to argue with? I have told you more than once I imagine that I use digital room correction to smooth out room response. That doesn't mean that I find it the most important, just important.
Do you do anything to adjust the response of your system in your room? If not then I would propose that you don't take it seriously.
However; I have done experiments with different amps, equalized to the same target curve and got completely different sounds. Can't blame on FR anymore then can you?
When I do reviews of amps and preamps I level match to within 0.5db. I had 5 preamps for review and level matched all of them to the same level before doing any auditioning. I also checked that they didn't significantly alter the FR (they didn't not surprisingly).
Why do you continue to harp on the one standard measurement that is clearly audible but also the easiest to fix? If you have room correction then the FR of the speaker, which is generally not nearly as bad as what the room does to it especially in the bass, and the small (yes small) variations from the amp are not a big issue. What digital equalization cannot do is reduce distortion or shift its spectral content, affect an amps dynamic capabilities across the audible frequency range, etc.
As to these other guys:
Earl: Earl basically thinks all amps sound the same (he told me that he is more than happy with his $150 pioneer receiver and felt little was to be gained going to more expensive amps). He has biases regarding what is audible and what is not with regard to amp distortion. Obviously you don't believe like Earl or you wouldn't have a $20,000 amp or is the Sharp SX100 just to show off for the ladies?
Dan B: Thinks that there is only one right way to make an amp and it is strictly orthodox engineering that he learned in school. He hasn't actually listened to a tube design in a LONG time. His biases are based on some amps heard a long time ago and what they told him in school. Ironically, he touts his amp to give only 2nd order harmonic so he at least pays lip service to the idea that harmonic distortion content is audible (something I couldn't really get old Earl to admit).
Soundmind: Listens with old modded AR speakers (not even the best of their time) and old 70s SS amps (Yikes...I wouldn't even wish them on you). Stuck in a time warp. Even SS now would be a blessing by comparison.
Andy_C Had no problem with him until he turned suddenly rude. Guess he didn't like that I didn't accept his Baxandall papers as gospel. He clearly lacks experience listening to top gear given his modest system listed on the forum. Not sure what his technical background is. He has a lot of nerve attacking me over my observations and judgments based on them and my readings of several interesting papers.
You have to understand that my whole approach is empirical, I listen then make judgments. This means that by definition it is not preconceived as Dan B and Andy C assert. Once I have heard some techniques that yield what I consider to be natural sound then I investigate what they are doing and who else has explored this territory to try to understand the WHY.
"Oh I see you put this back up."With good reason.
"However; I have done experiments with different amps, equalized to the same target curve and got completely different sounds. Can't blame on FR anymore then can you? "
How did you accomplish this? And how did you arrive at your conclusion?
" you have room correction then the FR of the speaker, which is generally not nearly as bad as what the room does to it especially in the bass, and the small (yes small) variations from the amp are not a big issue."
You are well and truly wrong, your comments do not take into the "equal loudness curves", a small variation in the 1-5KHz region will be much more audible than a larger SPL variation in bass or lower midrange, ironically there is a prepoderance of speakers' whose input impedance rise in the selfsame region especially in the 1-5kHz region. Consequently, small amplifier induced SPL variations that invariably occur in this region in respect of high output amplifiers will have a BIG EFFECT on the overall sound of the system.
"digital equalization cannot do is reduce distortion or shift its spectral content, affect an amps dynamic capabilities across the audible frequency range, etc"
Only partially correct, Whilst equalisation may not reduce distortion, which is a much smaller effect anyway. FR variations will dramatically alter perception of the dynamic capabilities of the amplifier/speaker combo.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
"How did you accomplish this? And how did you arrive at your conclusion?"How do you think I did it? With digital equalization, duh!
"You are well and truly wrong, your comments do not take into the "equal loudness curves", a small variation in the 1-5KHz region will be much more audible than a larger SPL variation in bass or lower midrange, ironically there is a prepoderance of speakers' whose input impedance rise in the selfsame region especially in the 1-5kHz region. Consequently, small amplifier induced SPL variations that invariably occur in this region in respect of high output amplifiers will have a BIG EFFECT on the overall sound of the system."
What the Hell are you talking about? I said I equalized the two amps to the same target curve. What about that don't you get? Besides even without this the variations of the amp are much less than say with position of the speakers, damping in the room, geometry of the room, nature of the walls, type and amount of furniture etc. Nevermind though you obviously can't read when I say equalized to the same target curve.
You didn't answer MY question though, do you do ANYTHING to correct for these so called horrible FR variations in amplifiers? So I guess I take it more serious than you and all you do is give lip service on this forum...as usual. I guess you would rather get only 0.1 db variation from your amp but +- 10db in your room response.
I would rather have +- 0.5 db from my amp but +- 1.5 db in my room from 125Hz to 10Khz (I roll off the highs gently above 10Khz as recommended in rooms to give a more even power response. Also, I find the bass too lean if it is equalized totally flat so there is a few db bump below 100 Hz). It wouldn't matter though if my amp was +- 3db (an extreme case and nearly no amps are this bad) because with the equalization I can hit the same target curve.
"Only partially correct...which is a much smaller effect anyway."
Why do you continue to assume this? Where is your proof that this is so? Is it because the FR graph is much easier for you to read? Is it because it is easier for you to understand? Your downplaying of distortions tells me you don't have a good grasp on this stuff.
".. FR variations will dramatically alter perception of the dynamic capabilities of the amplifier/speaker combo."
Maybe but how is this applicable if we are equalizing two amps to the same target curve? You now have the same FR for both so any perceptual differences in dynamics are not due directly to FR. If you think they are then you had better come up with a good explanation.
"How do you think I did it? With digital equalization, duh! "
That was not the question I asked, I wanted to know how you used equalization to achieve the same target curve."What the Hell are you talking about? I said I equalized the two amps to the same target curve"
I am interested in a more complete answer than what you have provided. How did you equalizee the FRs of the different amplifiers to the same target curve. There is not much in your post to respond to until you provide a more complete answer to my question.
"You didn't answer MY question though, do you do ANYTHING to correct for these so called horrible FR variations in amplifiers?"
Unlike you, I have an easily accessible up-to-date system profile, I suggest you read it before mouthing off, afterall I note that you used andy_c's system profile as a platform to further push your misguided preconceived notions.
On the substanstive issues of the post, there are two issue at play here, I was referring to SPEAKER FR variations due to differing amplifier output impedance though on further reflection amplifier FR variation itself is also an issue, though it's effect should be more consistent in various speakers.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
"That was not the question I asked, I wanted to know how you used equalization to achieve the same target curve."And I told you, I set a target curve in the device and let it work until it achieved the target. Obviously you have never used one of these devices before or you wouldn't ask such silly questions.
"I am interested in a more complete answer than what you have provided. How did you equalizee the FRs of the different amplifiers to the same target curve. There is not much in your post to respond to until you provide a more complete answer to my question."
There is no more complete answer. I used a digital equalizer, I set a target curve in the device and let it correct the room response to that target curve. There really isn't anymore to say than that. It doesn't matter to the equalizer what amp is attached it keeps adjusting parameters until the target is met.
"Unlike you, I have an easily accessible up-to-date system profile, I suggest you read it before mouthing off, afterall I note that you used andy_c's system profile as a platform to further push your misguided preconceived notions."Thanks for (indirectly) answering my question. You have no room correction. THerefore, I can only conclude that you don't take the issue seriously and you like to hear your lips flapping.
I will repeat, you have a problem with reading comprehension. You obviously don't know what a preconceived notion is.
Here is a definition for you...maybe it will help but I doubt it:
an opinion formed beforehand without adequate evidence
1) I have reached my opinion after many years of owning and listening with many different amplifiers. So I can't really have reached my opinion beforehand now could I? This is especially true in light of the fact that I started, like nearly everyone else in my age range with SS amps like a humble Sony receiver up through decent SS integrated amps from the likes of Onkyo, then to old hifi gear like Hafler and Sumo, later to better SS like Simaudio, then to tubes, then to amps with no feedback and hybrids, then to OTLs, then to hybrid no feedback SETs. So, nothing preconceived about it. All empirical. Along the way I learned how they worked and what different design parameters did. This is called experience.
2) The evidence is from my listening experience and from papers I have found that give support to what I am hearing. I found these papers AFTER I had reached my current thinking that this kind of sound is more correct. The rationale behind why is interesting to me but by no means the decider if I like or dislike a certain technology. That comes from listening. Just like I would say there are one or two Class D amps (but of the true digital kind like TACT or Sharp) that sound pretty good so I can't condemn the whole concept. However; the majority of them sound not good so I would say that the implementation is seriously flawed in most cases. Even so, the best of that technology pales in front of seriously good tube and hybrid in my listening experience.
So, in conclusion, you can stop with the preconceived shit because it doesn't wash here. You on the other hand, are likely to dismiss an amp out of hand because you don't like its measurments, right? If that is the case then it is you who has preconceived notions about what the measurements mean regarding sound quality. It measures bad so it must sound bad, isn't that what you think? You are biased and worse, so blinded that you call others biased when it is really you who is.
"I was referring to SPEAKER FR variations due to differing amplifier output impedance though on further reflection amplifier FR variation itself is also an issue, though it's effect should be more consistent in various speakers.
"Can't you write an NON convoluted sentence? I know exactly what you are referring to. However; FR of the amp is almost solely dependent on the load it is attached to so the things here you try to separate are really the same thing. Almost all amps measure flat into a purely resistive load. So if by some miracle a speaker is nearly resistive (actually Apogees fit this very closely in fact) then the FR variations for all amps attached to it will be minimal.
I understood your point perfectly...the first time. My whole point, which you obtusely seem to want to dance around is that why worry about deviations in FR at all when there are tools to essentially eliminate the problem, ie. digital equalization? I agree it is an important problem but who cares when you can solve this most obvious of problems? I think you like to dwell on it because it is so obvious and easy for a non-technical guy like you to understand.
My whole point is that this problem is easily solved by today's technology. The rest of my point is that even when two completely different amps are hooked to a system and then that system is equalized to the same target curve, regardless of which amp, the sound with the two amps is STILL different, meaning it can't be due to FR variations as those have been corrected.
Once again, you assume (preconceptually) that FR is a major issue to be solved, when in fact if you take advantage of tools readily available on the market, the problem basically just goes away.
Its great that you want to sound scientific and important on the forum by talking about amp/speaker interface and impedance variations in the speaker leading to FR variations, as if we haven't known this for a long time or something. However; this is not 1985, it is 2007 and the issue of linear FR is not a major one when you have the right tools. In fact, a designer nowadays should be much more concerned with speaker sensitivity, dynamic range, and colorations from the cabinet/horns and drivers, thermal and dynamic compression, harmonic distortion, resonances etc. than they should be about FR because FR is so easily correctable regardless of the amp used. As long as the mismatch between the drivers is not too great and their headroom is adequate, equalization can make them match, in time and FR (look at TACT and Lyngdorf audio for example...they even provide some xovers).
Then the important parameters for an amp are not output impedance but distortion, headroom, power, linearity over that power delivery range etc.
"And I told you, I set a target curve in the device and let it work until it achieved the target. Obviously you have never used one of these devices before or you wouldn't ask such silly questions."The joke is on you, fool.
"There is no more complete answer. I used a digital equalizer, I set a target curve in the device and let it correct the room response to that target curve. There really isn't anymore to say than that. It doesn't matter to the equalizer what amp is attached it keeps adjusting parameters until the target is met."
Well I knew you are stupid like that! How do you know that the equalizer matched the target curve that you set for amplifier/speaker? Oh I see, you assumed that it was so. Ever heard of a Real-Time Analyser, that is how you validate that the equalizer settings matched the suggested curve, you do not just make an assumption to that effect, but then you are foolish like that. Even the manual itself suggests that it is possible for inaccuracies to occur under certain conditions, Furthermore the manual makes it clear that it is not trivial to retrieve the "true response" after equalization, look at the manual on pg 12, they use an Audio Precision RTA! to illustrate the corrected curve. But then you knew that, hot bag!
"Thanks for (indirectly) answering my question. You have no room correction. Therefore, I can only conclude that you don't take the issue seriously and you like to hear your lips flapping."
You are an enigma as brilliant as you are stupid. A simple trip to my system profile will have saved you from making a fool of yourself, but I suppose mouthing off and then looking like a fool afterwards suits you perfectly, here is an excerpt from my profile (Last Update: March 29, 2007 at 02:17:06)
CD Player/DAC: Sony SCD1 (VSEI L5+ balanced)
Behringer UltraCurve Pro DEQ2496(Analog In/Out)
.
.
The system employs digital equalization in the bass to smooth out and extend bass response . It is also selectively employed in the midrange and extreme treble to fine-tune the system's frequency responseOr do you want me to spoon feed further, as it seems you are stupid like that.
Not much to say, you are a pompous ignoramus and a bigot. There is no point continuing this discussion seeing that you did not know to verify that the adjusted FR equalization matched your intended target curve. A misstep that renders your level-matched comparisons of the said amplifiers totally invalid, As expected you fell at the first hurdle on a basic issue. I suggest you send a letter to your editor telling him to pull those articles till you correct your errors, LOL!
What baffles me is how someone who claims to be learned scientist, you have a PhD in a scientific discipline is so easily blindsided by fairly basic issues. Upon further reflection it is no surprise, your preconceived notions blind you. You are attempting to fit the data to suit your misguided notions. Unfortunately, such misdirected actions make you look stupid every time someone looks closer at your so-called investigation.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
My System has been posted on the this forum more than once. A simple search by you would have found that I have a Behringer. However; for the record here it is...again:Speakers: Acoustat Spectra 4400, Spectra 2200, or DIY ribbon hybrids
Amp: KR audio VA350i (until recently also had a Sphinx Project 14)
Cd system: Cambridge Audio Diskmagic transport, Monarchy Audio DIP, Behringer DEQ 2496, Monarchy DIP, Monarchy Audio M24 DAC
Analog: Voyd "The Voyd" TT, Helius Cyalene arm, Benz Micro H2O cart, Silvaweld SWH 650 phonostage
Digital xover for ribbon hybrids: Behringer DCX 2496
Cables: Goertz Sapphire interconnects and Kimber 8VS speaker cable
"How do you know that the equalizer matched the target curve that you set for amplifier/speaker? Oh I see, you assumed that it was so. Ever heard of a Real-Time Analyser, that is how you validate that the equalizer settings matched the suggested curve, you do not just make an assumption to that effect, but then you are foolish like that. Even the manual itself suggests that it is possible for inaccuracies to occur under certain conditions, Furthermore the manual makes it clear that it is not trivial to retrieve the "true response" after equalization, look at the manual on pg 12, they use an Audio Precision RTA! to illustrate the corrected curve. But then you knew that, hot bag!
"You are so stupid that it hurts sometimes.
The equalizer I am using has a BUILT in 1/6th octave RTA!!! I use a CALIBRATED microphone that plugs into it (it is a condenser mic if your really need THIS much detail) It also has the signal generator to make the pink noise. You see the changes in real time. Funny how that technology works, eh? Guess which one I have?? The same Behringer you claim to have! That's right you idiot and I am using the same equalizer but only digital in and out. Why you would use it in analog in and out is beyond me because basically it sucks that way.
"You are an enigma as brilliant as you are stupid. A simple trip to my system profile will have saved you from making a fool of yourself"
Can't look at it because its blocked at work (only some parts of the asylum are accessible...guess the IT guys missed something). So f&ç/ you.
"There is no point continuing this discussion seeing that you did not know to verify that the adjusted FR equalization matched your intended target curve. A misstep that renders your level-matched comparisons of the said amplifiers totally invalid, As expected you fell at the first hurdle on a basic issue. I suggest you send a letter to your editor telling him to pull those articles till you correct your errors, LOL!
"So clearly everything you have ASSummed here is completely wrong because now you know what I use so it should FINALLY be clear to you that I can check the measurement at will and use the fine SPL level meter to level match on top of that. So I don't think I have to admit anything to my editor. The levels were matched and verifiably so.
"What baffles me is how someone who claims to be learned scientist, you have a PhD in a scientific discipline is so easily blindsided by fairly basic issues. Upon further reflection it is no surprise, your preconceived notions blind you. You are attempting to fit the data to suit your misguided notions. Unfortunately, such misdirected actions make you look stupid every time someone looks closer at your so-called investigation.
"No blindside I have my bases covered just fine. Only your ASSumptions have forced me to state explicitly what I have and did. I am not attempting to fit data to anything. I am listening and making judgements and then finding support for what I hear as to how it could be correct.
So wrong again Audiohobby, I have been using the Behringer for the last 2 1/2 years. I also have a computer based MLS measuring system that I used when I developed my ribbon hybrid speakers. Its more of a pain to setup but works fine as well (see my review on the Piega C2 ltd. and you will see my in room and 1 meter measurements.). Put that in your pipe and blow me.
Why you continue to hinder useful discussion is beyond me. I tell you I use digital equalization there are only so many on the market and basically all have measurement capabilities. Why would you make such a stupid ASSumption that I can't check the results?? Then you refuse to state what you are using trying to play the "gotcha" game. Grow up.
"Upon further reflection it is no surprise, your preconceived notions blind you"
Blind me about what exactly? I use FR correction the same as you. I readily admit its usefulness. ARe you going to tell me now that all amps sound the same on your system when corrected?
"Unfortunately, such misdirected actions make you look stupid every time someone looks closer at your so-called investigation"
Nope, don't think so, your Gotcha failed again because you didn't know what I was using. Now you know and you realize all of your comments are based on your false ASSumptions.
"Can't look at it because its blocked at work (only some parts of the asylum are accessible...guess the IT guys missed something). So f&ç/ you."You could not access my system profile yet you were and still mouthing off about the information that was contained therein, now that is stupid.
Indeed, you are a pompous idiot.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
based on your non-response to my direct questions it was a logical conclusion. The fact that I was incorrect about you not having any room correction is not as important as you being evasive to try to "trap" me. This kind of behavior is not conducive to constructive dialogue.
Still playing fool, eh?"The equalizer I am using has a BUILT in 1/6th octave RTA!!! I use a CALIBRATED microphone that plugs into it (it is a condenser mic if your really need THIS much detail) It also has the signal generator to make the pink noise. You see the changes in real time.
Big deal, it is called a REAL TIME analyzer, you are supposed to see the changes in real time. If you want to make a curve matching comparison, you need an external tool. Secondly, the internal RTA is too coarse for that purpose. Neither can you compare the curves simultaneously to verify that they are matched, you need an external tool to capture the curves. All your lousy response has confirmed is that you are an ignoramus.
" Funny how that technology works, eh? Guess which one I have?? The same Behringer you claim to have! "I thought you were berating me for not using room correction. Now you are playing a game of one-upmanship, IDIOT.
"That's right you idiot and I am using the same equalizer but only digital in and out. Why you would use it in analog in and out is beyond me because basically it sucks that way."
urh....so now it is time for advice on how to use the device, LOL! Get over yourself, pompous IDIOT.
"Big deal, it is called a REAL TIME analyzer, you are supposed to see the changes in real time. If you want to make a curve matching comparison, you need an external tool. Secondly, the internal RTA is too coarse for that purpose. Neither can you compare the curves simultaneously to verify that they are matched, you need an external tool to capture the curves. All your lousy response has confirmed is that you are an ignoramus.
"Did you bother to read the part of my post regarding my computer based MLS system? Guess you missed that part. Did you see the measurements that I put in my Piega C2 ltd. review yet? I showed them to the company and they thought they were pretty well done. First Dan and now you have serious reading comprehension issues...maybe you caught the disease from him? Besides for a quick check putting the RTA in average mode works pretty ok and allows you to check the response in various bands quite closely. It compares favorably with MLS and 1/6th octave smoothing. For preamps,I matched SPL levels at the listening position after I found that there were no significant FR deviations (I don't need to keep checking this, once is enough). Got a problem with that also?
I find it laughable that you think you understand how to make measurements...all you know how to make are objections! LOL!
"I thought you were berating me for not using room correction. Now you are playing a game of one-upmanship, IDIOT."
Obviously this comment was inserted so you could exercise your proclivity for pointless name calling. And just how is using the same eq as you one-upsmanship?? One upsmanship would be if I had something better than you but as you can see I admitted to using the same thing. Again you seem to lack comprehension of the words you are trying to use. Get a dictionary and thesaurus already so you will quite making so many mistakes.
However; I have had mine longer so are you copying me then? First you get Audiostatics after me and now a Behringer. SHEESH, you should be thanking me. LOL!
"urh....so now it is time for advice on how to use the device, LOL! Get over yourself, pompous IDIOT."
As if everyone on the web who uses this thing doesn't know the analog ins and outs are complete shite. Why do you think there are so many tweaks for them?? So I am telling you something you SHOULD already know but apparently don't or are too lazy to do anything about it. Its one thing to be ignorant but you are a ranting and raving and ignorant. Not very becoming.
I also find it again laughable that you would have such a nice machine as an Allen Wright (who is good personal friend of mine) modded Sony player and then trash it through the Behringer's analog in and analog outputs. Allen would shudder in horror at the thought of all his good sound undone. On that note, you know that Allen's mods have no negative feedback!! Oh the Horror!! Baxandall and would turn in his grave at the thought, eh? Better take those noisy, distorted transistors out and put all those wonderful super linear opamps back in because after all it measures better! LOL! His amps and preamps also have no negative feedback, why not talk to him about it and ask him why he does it that way? Careful you don't get an answer similar to mine.
"Not much to say, you are a pompous ignoramus and a bigot. There is no point continuing this discussion seeing that you did not know to verify that the adjusted FR equalization matched your intended target curve. A misstep that renders your level-matched comparisons of the said amplifiers totally invalid, As expected you fell at the first hurdle on a basic issue. I suggest you send a letter to your editor telling him to pull those articles till you correct your errors, LOL!"
Odd how we both came to the same conclusion. However there is no need to send a letter to his editor: The Web-zine Positive Feedback, who morricrab writes for gave a design award to the Clever Little Clock, and if they are stupid enough to do that..............
Well there's no need for me to go further.
d.b.
I thought you were going to send me your CLC.
"The Web-zine Positive Feedback, who morricrab writes for gave a design award to the Clever Little Clock"Are you surprised? They have morricab as their in-house audio theory guru, ROTLMAO!
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
And you have no idea about theory...period!
Is that so? Where the hell do you get off telling me about my observations? Please point out where I have expressed any comments that were based on preconceived notions. I have arrived at my current positions based on my experiences with listening first then reading literature to try to understand what i was hearing.This is by definition then not a preconceived notion. So either you think I am lying about my experiences or you have to accept that I arrived at my current position by experience.
I am also fully willing to accept that under most standard tests the amps that I find sound more correct measure worse than those that follow a more catholic approach. However; it would be nice if guys like you, who are obviously pretty well versed in electronics design, would acknowledge that how these numbers relate to the human auditory system are sketchy at best, thus leaving room for lots of exploration off the orthodox design path.
I fully accept that there are people here more technically experienced in design but when interpreting data I can more than hold my own. The comments of DB come directly from an orthodox EE training without consideration of listening results. Same for the Baxandall papers you presented, which BTW did not by any means give a hard conclusion to the matter.I am fully willing to accept other positions if my experience with listening bears out that the approach has merit. If you can kindly suggest which amplifiers that you think are the best sounding you know, I will gladly give them a thorough audition if I haven't already heard them at one time or another. If they surpass my current reference and other similar amps that perform at a high level, then I will happily reevaluate my position, but it does beg the question as to why so many others are making good measuring but indifferent to bad sound amplifiers.
I guess the underpinning concepts behind valves/tubes versus transistors may just have something to do with it...In a thermionic valve (aka vacuum tube in American), thermionic emission caused by heating the cathode in a vacuum, sees the flow of ELECTRONS from the cathode to the anode.
In a transistor, we have a different situation where HOLES flow. (A "HOLE" being defined as a "place where an electron isn't").
So, as most bottleheads will attest, solid-state amps operate on a basis of something not being there, while valve/tube amps operate on a basis of something (eg spatial cues) actually being there.
This may just have something to do with the phenomenon you observed....
When I roll my own the soundstage is enormous. : ) 'splain dat!
Gee, Dan, please don't soil yourself on my account. I guess that massive change in soundstage rendering/transparency that I heard when I swapped the Atmaspheres in for the Brystons (spec amps) must be attributable to something else altogether. Ditto for the Richard Gray NTV amps.It was never suggested that non NFB amps "create" soundstage. I submit they facilitate its full dimensional portayal. Certainly other factors contribute as well.
I didn't use any html tag. Just added that I don't think power or current provided have any influence on this stage thing.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: