Amplifier Journey

[Haselsh1]

My amplifier journey started back around 1978 whilst I was recovering from a major motorcycle accident. I had just spent six months in hospital and wanted something new when I came home. So, I purchased a small 45 Watt Trio amplifier that lasted a year or so before being sold. The bug had sadly bitten.

My next amplifier was a Naim 42/110 that cost around £400 brand new back around 1980. I was dreadfully disappointed as to me, it never sounded much better than the Trio. A SNAPS was added to the Naim and it was moved on. I replaced it with another Trio but this one had Sigma drive so must have been good LOL. At that time I had QLN Mk I loudspeakers as well.

After this came an Incatech Claymore bought whilst on holiday in Norfolk. I have to say that this was without doubt the worst amplifying device I have ever owned. It was dreadful. So, a Musical Fidelity A100X came next and was a true blessing. I had Rogers LS3/5a loudspeakers in this gorgeous rosewood finish and the stereo imaging was massive. A beautiful combination but I so wanted to try a valve amplifier. So, 1996 and I had made a WAD KLP-1 preamplifier and a WAD 300B PP power amplifier. The sound of this thing was sublime but with virtually no stereo imaging when compared to what I had just replaced.

Around Y2K I had a yearning for serious Watts so bought a Samson Servo 550 power amplifier that I used with the KLP-1 preamp. This thing was gobsmackingly good especially in the bass. The imaging returned as did the sheer grip and power of the lower frequencies. This thing took no prisoners but I couldn’t get out of my head that it just wasn’t Hi-Fi. Sadly I had a momentary lapse of reason and sold everything for some gobshite little thing by Sharp.

I relocated to Pickering, North Yorkshire in 2005 and bought a Yarland Pro 200 SE. It lasted two years but sadly was Chinese. I need say little else really. Beautiful sound quality but just incredibly poor workmanship.

So, Icon Audio Stereo 20 PP and relocated back to Lincolnshire where I still am. OK amplifier but nothing exciting. Samson Servo 600 with a Croft Micro 25 Basic. Once again massive power, slam and gut wrenching bass but again, not Hi-Fi. So, currently, Croft Micro 25 Basic with phono into Rotel RB850 monoblocks. Quite Hi-Fi but no slam or guts.

Where next…? Who the hell knows…! Delicate sound of thunder awaits but again is it Hi-Fi…? I listen mainly to electronic music which requires slam and guts so possibly two Samson Servo 600’s as monoblocks but could I stand all of that fan noise…? Methinks that Ozric Tentacles could possibly drown any kind of interference.

You know the slam on Younger Brother’s ‘A Flock of Bleeps’ ? Try that through a single Servo 600 and listen to how it almost turns the cones inside out. That’s what I love. Two of them mono’d would be stunning. I’ll have to wait and see I guess.

[Puffin]

I think you (one) is/are either a "disco kid" type or a "folk concert" type. I fall into the former category and as a teenager loved the slam, impact and sheer visceral quality of a good club sound. It could literally move you. However I also like to listen to something more genteel as well and therefore need a system that does it all. Isn't this where the problem lies? You can't have it all......can you? IMO there is always going to be a compromise. If you like high spl and slamming bass over something more delicate and refined, then I would follow your heart. I am a slam and attack man, but not with harsh mids or treble. I have had great systems that I really enjoyed and changed it all because I kept thinking "this is not really what hifi should be".....uh!.....what should I worry about what others might think (but I did.....odd but true) I love ballsy amps and ballsy speakers. Small speakers are for wimps:D......discuss

[pgarrish]

The Kefs strike me as typical modern multi-driver speakers - they will go wallop, but only with some watts up them. If you want the same effect with a bit more 'decorum' I'd say go for speakers with bigger drivers - nothing moves air like a big woofer, clubs don't use 8" bass drivers do they!?!?!?! Then you may be able to get some less "yobbish" amps as the speakers will need a bit less power.

Or you could just say sod it and apply more power :D

Or buy a big M&K sub, reinforce the floors and rock away....

All those choices

[Arkless Electronics]

Yes you can have it all.... You're just looking in the wrong places..... or not spending enough. IMHO some rather strange choices/combinations of amps there in the past...
Try a second hand Musical Fidelity A370.

[RichB]

A pair of Samson servo 600!!!

It isn't a hifi box you want, it's a box of hand grenades.:lol:

Have you not considered going the route of a big Denon/Marantz receiver type thing? Big, loud and sound great too.

[DSJR]

The bigger Icons should do it, the Stereo 20and 40 being a bit 'classic pipe-n-slippers' even for my tastes..

The Micro Basic was cheap, cheerful and sounds it in comparison with its peers I'm afraid..

I'm going out on a limb and since I'm not really allowed to go overboard on the amps I make, why not try a god used Krell KAV400i, which has more beef-n-bass drive than the previous 300i, which will take your fillings out in a badly matched system, despite the easy clarity it offers. The 400i is delightful and really does give a good taste of the bigger FPB models from that era...

[Haselsh1]

OK, I used to play bass guitar with a few bands back in the mid nineties and I do fully understand that nothing shifts air like fifteen inches. My medium Victorian terraced house though cannot support such things. I bought the KEF's purely for the stereo imaging of their Uni-Q driver. This I absolutely adore especially on electronic music and especially on CD. Now even though I am using bridged Rotel RB850 power amps, they do not have that OMFG kind of bass power that the Servo 600 had so I suppose I could always buy a Servo 600 and use it to supplement the electronic music on CD when it is needed. Yes, it means lots of cable swapping but then it still can't be as much of a faff as bloody vinyl.

I thank you all for your positive comments and would love a Krell but, I used to use a Hasselblad and that was also way too flash for me. Humble rules...!

Of course with a Samson Servo 600 I wouldn't need a preamp as it has L&R gain controls. Maybe the Croft could become a phono stage...?

[Dauntless]

OK, I used to play bass guitar with a few bands back in the mid nineties and I do fully understand that nothing shifts air like fifteen inches. My medium Victorian terraced house though cannot support such things. I bought the KEF's purely for the stereo imaging of their Uni-Q driver. This I absolutely adore especially on electronic music and especially on CD. Now even though I am using bridged Rotel RB850 power amps, they do not have that OMFG kind of bass power that the Servo 600 had so I suppose I could always buy a Servo 600 and use it to supplement the electronic music on CD when it is needed. Yes, it means lots of cable swapping but then it still can't be as much of a faff as bloody vinyl.

I thank you all for your positive comments and would love a Krell but, I used to use a Hasselblad and that was also way too flash for me. Humble rules...!

Of course with a Samson Servo 600 I wouldn't need a preamp as it has L&R gain controls. Maybe the Croft could become a phono stage...?

Glad you don't live next door!

[Haselsh1]

Glad you don't live next door!

LOBL... When Sue and I first moved into this house it had been wrecked by students who had smashed most of the fittings but our landlady is a very long standing friend so we set to and fixed a lot of the damage and papered and painted. The biggest problem was that, because of the students, it had a noise abatement order on the place so for the first year here we have had to be very careful with the music. OK, so the Rotels may be 150 Wpc but they do not carry much in the way of excess weight and slam. In fact, they are particularly good for my vinyl setup which is much more refined and delicate than the CD side of things. I really do miss that grip and power the bass can sometimes have.

[Haselsh1]

You know I think I have become a bit amplifier OCD as these days I tend to think that nothing is worth it unless it forms a pair of monoblocks. Using the Rotels that is certainly true because as stereo amplifiers they are seriously lacking in the image department but as monoblocks the stereo is cavernous. So, I keep thinking that only two Servo 600's would fit the bill. As usual, I could well be wrong.

[Arkless Electronics]

The main advantage in monoblocks is ease of moving them when things get really big and heavy! No real advantage anywhere else as a stereo amp can be totally dual mono internally, and if not, a big enough and good enough shared power supply would make any disadvantage from a shared one fairly negligible.
You are halving the current and grip etc by using them in bridged mode btw. Better to parallel the channels if about 60WPC is enough, then you get twice the current and grip of a single stereo amp.

[struth]

Often depends on speakers if your bridging an amp.. Some are better but most are worse tbh. A true monoblock is different but as Jez says if the psu is dual mono and well specced then the stereo one will be as good... Other difference could be if you situate each amp right beside the speaker then you can reduce the speaker cable length to minimum.. Think if using very long signal cables then balanced comes out best

[anthonyTD]

How would that amp stack up today though Jez,
I have to say, i have never heard one, but they do look interesting, especialy from the time period. was it an all class A design, or ?
A...
Yes you can have it all.... You're just looking in the wrong places..... or not spending enough. IMHO some rather strange choices/combinations of amps there in the past...
Try a second hand Musical Fidelity A370.

[Arkless Electronics]

How would that amp stack up today though Jez,
I have to say, i have never heard one, but they do look interesting, especialy from the time period. was it an all class A design, or ?
A...

I think it would still stack up very well today. It could also be improved a bit probably by using a more modern op amp at the input but would need recompensating.
Only real issue with them is that as they run very hot they will really need a full re capping to give off their best. Unfortunately MF only fitted bog standard 85-C rated electrolytics to all their room heater amps!

It gives 18WPC in class A and then goes on to make 200WPC, and nearly double that into 4 Ohms (as you will know, no SS amp can really double it's output into half the load... never mind do it again into half that impedance. A certain Mr Georg Ohm says so!). IIRC the spec says 185WPC but they easily give 200 in practice.
It was misleadingly reviewed as a class A amp in early reviews.... This is not so wrong really as the 18WPC into 8 Ohms it does give in class A means it will be in class A most of the time, and nearly always when at "domestically acceptable" volumes of course.

[Firebottle]

Interesting site on Musical Fidelity amplifiers here http://www.markhennessy.co.uk/mf_a1/others.htm Anthony and Jez.

:)

[Arkless Electronics]

Often depends on speakers if your bridging an amp.. Some are better but most are worse tbh. A true monoblock is different but as Jez says if the psu is dual mono and well specced then the stereo one will be as good... Other difference could be if you situate each amp right beside the speaker then you can reduce the speaker cable length to minimum.. Think if using very long signal cables then balanced comes out best

Indeed. You need an easy load and for it to be 8 Ohm or more for best results. Bridging makes an amp a bit Quad 405 MkI..... lots of Watts but struggles with low impedances and awkward loads. Obviously if the amp is enough of a beast, with huge power supply and lots of paralleled output devices, then you could still get away with it into awkward loads etc ;)

[Arkless Electronics]

Interesting site on Musical Fidelity amplifiers here http://www.markhennessy.co.uk/mf_a1/others.htm Anthony and Jez.

:)

Yep, some of the info and circuit diagrams on there are from yours truly :)

[struth]

Was a big fan of the older mf gear....the one i had was special but the 370 ive seen too and its stonking. Dont see ,em very often..... At least i think it was the 370. Was that one you worked on jez?

[Arkless Electronics]

Was a big fan of the older mf gear....the one i had was soecial but the 370 ive seen too and its stonking. Dont see ,em very often..... At least i think it was the 370. Was that one you worked on jez?

I certainly worked on plenty of 'em..... (I was the service dept.!) but it was designed by TdP, who took the basic idea from a Motorola data book and modded it for mosfet outputs and higher voltages.

[southall-1998]

The Roksan Kandy stuff can do good slam & bass.

S.

[anthonyTD]

Ahh,Yes,
I seem to remember you mentioning something about its True Class A rating in another thread.
But, as you say, true 18 Watts into a nice load is more than enough for most living rooms these days. :)
A...
I think it would still stack up very well today. It could also be improved a bit probably by using a more modern op amp at the input but would need recompensating.
Only real issue with them is that as they run very hot they will really need a full re capping to give off their best. Unfortunately MF only fitted bog standard 85-C rated electrolytics to all their room heater amps!

It gives 18WPC in class A and then goes on to make 200WPC, and nearly double that into 4 Ohms (as you will know, no SS amp can really double it's output into half the load... never mind do it again into half that impedance. A certain Mr Georg Ohm says so!). IIRC the spec says 185WPC but they easily give 200 in practice.
It was misleadingly reviewed as a class A amp in early reviews.... This is not so wrong really as the 18WPC into 8 Ohms it does give in class A means it will be in class A most of the time, and nearly always when at "domestically acceptable" volumes of course.

[User211]

You know the slam on Younger Brother’s ‘A Flock of Bleeps’ ? Try that through a single Servo 600 and listen to how it almost turns the cones inside out. That’s what I love. Two of them mono’d would be stunning. I’ll have to wait and see I guess.


I think you'd like my set up a lot.;)

The bass is MENTAL. Speed, slam, articulation, extension... ideal for YB and Trentemoller etc etc especially with over half a Kilowatt behind them they are capable of driving a very large surface area of air very quickly indeed.

[Idlewithnodrive]

It's not hi-fi you guys want, more a PA rig.

[walpurgis]

It's not hi-fi you guys want, more a PA rig.

I'd bet we've got a few members with PA like systems. I used to like that sort of thing myself years ago.

[Macca]

PA power with hi-fi delicacy - that is the ultimate system.

[Audio Advent]

The Kefs strike me as typical modern multi-driver speakers - they will go wallop, but only with some watts up them. If you want the same effect with a bit more 'decorum' I'd say go for speakers with bigger drivers - nothing moves air like a big woofer, clubs don't use 8" bass drivers do they!?!?!?! Then you may be able to get some less "yobbish" amps as the speakers will need a bit less power.



Something that does move air like a big woofer is.... a load of small woofers with a combined surface area of the big woofer in question! And they'd have a plus of break-up modes much further up in frequency range and needing less excursion for each driver. There must be compromises too like maybe being less efficient? but it depends on your desired criteria. Plus I thought Kefs used to be designed as an easy and uniform 4ohm drive for any amp.

Clubs don't use smaller drivers because of the size of the space they're used in and the levels they need to put out to fill that space with bass - it would require so many smaller drivers that the cost and weight would be the stupid factor for any business trying to either produce or hire such a design. In the home though, especially a smaller european home, it's a completely different scenario. Not to mention in a club and in the bass department, quality is not the main issue - the room will mask a lot of bass detail and the punters just want chest-kicking power in the 60-120Hz range, don't want timbre (just push that range on an EQ..).

I'm only a novice and parrot of what I read on forums.. so please feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

[Audio Advent]

I recommend some Class D Hypex NC400 modules with power supplies.. 400W into 4ohms (200 into 8?).

Here's a review: http://www.tnt-audio.com/ampli/hypex_dlcp_n400_e.html - jump to the amp part of the review. Or a random quote from a forum, second link on a google search i just did (http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=105310.0:


In terms of sound, these give the impression of being invisible. A lush, rich recording sounds lush and rich, compressed and lean recordings sound that way. My audiophile buddy Jerry (turk) came over on Saturday and we spent many happy hours listening to music and after a while both of us observed that we could not stay in an analytical mode. Instead of thinking about how it sounded, the thoughts were, my what an exquisite piece of music this is, how well played. I can think of no higher praise.

I agree with the invisibility bit as I now have some - suddenly previous amps seem to have had more of a sound than I thought. They're DIY modules but you can find other people's projects being sold for about £700/$1000 or so about the place on forums. Or, there's another module the NC500 which has been sold only as an OEM set of modules for commercial use only and there's a guy selling stereo amps for £999 using those.

An odd thing also I experience is that sounds pop out of the speakers much more on synthesised music or studio mixed stuff. My take is that they are presenting more detail and getting the phase relationships between the channels more correct throughout the frequency range.

[Light Dependant Resistor]

Something that does move air like a big woofer is.... a load of small woofers with a combined surface area of the big woofer in question! And they'd have a plus of break-up modes much further up in frequency range and needing less excursion for each driver. There must be compromises too like maybe being less efficient? but it depends on your desired criteria. Plus I thought Kefs used to be designed as an easy and uniform 4ohm drive for any amp.

Clubs don't use smaller drivers because of the size of the space they're used in and the levels they need to put out to fill that space with bass - it would require so many smaller drivers that the cost and weight would be the stupid factor for any business trying to either produce or hire such a design. In the home though, especially a smaller european home, it's a completely different scenario. Not to mention in a club and in the bass department, quality is not the main issue - the room will mask a lot of bass detail and the punters just want chest-kicking power in the 60-120Hz range, don't want timbre (just push that range on an EQ..).

I'm only a novice and parrot of what I read on forums.. so please feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

Edgar Villchur's invention of the acoustic suspension speaker ensured smaller drivers
can be used with smaller cabinets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Villchur
and as a result of using smaller cabinets, can and do sound exceptional.

Other examples other than AR were the gale GS401, with ridiculously good bass
reproduction from fairly small cabinets using 2 x 8 inch drivers per speaker,
They need decent stands and the best amplification including preamp and
source you can find.

Cheers / Chris

[Haselsh1]

PA power with hi-fi delicacy - that is the ultimate system.

Martin, once again you hit the proverbial nail.

Is it wrong that with the little bit of money I can afford to spend I have to resort to a high power studio amp to get my audio satisfaction...? Does it really matter that it is not considered Hi-Fi...? I am still thinking about using two of them bridged to get the best possible stereo separation and that awesome grip and slam in the lower frequencies. Two Samson Servo 600's works out cheaper than one Croft Series 7. Heavyweight, decent boxes and a massive power supply compared to a flimsy black box. Masses of slam and energy in the bass compared to gobfuls of detail and finesse. Do I really want masses of detail and finesse for throbbing electronic bass...? To be honest, I am not convinced that I do but the draw of 'real' Hi-Fi is quite strong. Ultimately I guess it is all about how we perceive the music and how it stirs us up.

[Macca]

Martin, once again you hit the proverbial nail.

Is it wrong that with the little bit of money I can afford to spend I have to resort to a high power studio amp to get my audio satisfaction...? Does it really matter that it is not considered Hi-Fi...? .

I'm speculating, but no, I don't think you do. I'd agree with the earlier post that you might consider changing the speakers for something that will be more appropriate for what you want them to do. Bass depth and slam aren't the same thing and a speaker can have one without the other.

[SPS]

I use a mix of vintage and modern PA drivers with what in the early 30's would have been termed as a PA amps even though only 5 watts p/c
So is my system PA or Hi fi i dont know, but for my money big magnets in speakers rule

[Haselsh1]

I have heard the KEF's with a Servo 600 and they sounded amazing in the bass. There was tons of grip and slam but I can't say that the mid or treble made much of an impact on me as I can't remember them. The 'Flock of Bleeps' album was amazingly impressive as were most of the Shpongle albums so I know that these KEF's can sound how I want them to sound. It is not true that I am just groping around in the dark here, I am going on previous experience.

Yes, I know it is true that big bloody cones and huge magnets make a big difference to the response of a drive unit but my current KEF's really are as big cabinet wise as I wish to go in the front room. If it was a dedicated listening room as was the one in our previous house then there would be no problem but everything is a compromise I guess. It doesn't help that these KEF's have two ABR's either. They have one powered bass unit and two passives. I am very passionate about their Uni-Q though as this thing has stereo coming from all over the room.

If, as has been said here in this thread, a stereo amplifier should image as well as two bridged monoblocks, I may find that one Servo 600 will suffice. Combine that with the Croft Micro 25 Basic and it should be damn fine. What I do want to retain is that amazing stereo effect but with gobfuls of slam and grip. Let's face it, financially, we are talking peanuts.

[struth]

Try one and if needed get second or if you get a good deal get 2 and keep one for spare

[Macca]

If the speakers are not the issue then I would consider the pre-amp. I like the micro basic and used one for several years but it is far from the last word in pre-amps and it isn't really hi-fi' in the strictest sense - although it is an entertaining listen.

My understanding is that most amps when bridged don't like to see a low load and I bet the KEFs are one. And that will effect the bass response. So I'd also experiment with a different configuration as suggested earlier - unless you did that already.

[jandl100]

.... After this came an Incatech Claymore bought whilst on holiday in Norfolk. I have to say that this was without doubt the worst amplifying device I have ever owned. It was dreadful.

:lol:

It's astonishing how tastes and requirements differ.
I have a recently acquired Claymore mk1, and I am hear to tell you that it is a wonderful amp!

In fact I'm reading this whole thread and thinking that I have been transported to an alien and incomprehensible planet.

We are just so after different things from our systems.

Still, good luck to you on your amplifier journey. :cool:

You and Justin user211 really should get together - you have so much in common. :eyebrows:

[Macca]

It's okay for you to talk Jerry, your speakers work even with a T-amp ;)

[jandl100]

It's okay for you to talk Jerry, your speakers work even with a T-amp ;)

Aye, it's true.
Currently flexing my eardrums with 8wpc valves. :eyebrows:

[User211]

It's okay for you to talk Jerry, your speakers work even with a T-amp ;)
Hm. Debatable. Very debatble.:)

[User211]

[emoji38]

It's astonishing how tastes and requirements differ.
I have a recently acquired Claymore mk1, and I am hear to tell you that it is a wonderful amp!

In fact I'm reading this whole thread and thinking that I have been transported to an alien and incomprehensible planet.

We are just so after different things from our systems.

Still, good luck to you on your amplifier journey. :cool:

You and Justin user211 really should get together - you have so much in common. :eyebrows:
Lincolnshire though. Ain't gonna happen. Shame but hey.

[jandl100]

Hm. Debatable. Very debatble.:)

Well, it all depends what you want your sound system to do.

Grab you by the balls and slam you against the nearest wall, then, no, a t-amp probably won't do that. Although it does surprisingly well.
But there are more things to music than testicular acrobatics and self harm, at least there are for me. :)

[Macca]

But some music relies on 'testicular acrobatics and self harm' - so a good system should be able to do that, as well as it does a 1950s jazz trio.

[jandl100]

But some music relies on 'testicular acrobatics and self harm' - so a good system should be able to do that, as well as it does a 1950s jazz trio.

Indeed.
But we are now back to the old chestnut that a "good system" should be able to play anything well.
Never the case, ime.
I've lost count of the number of systems I have heard that haven't a clue about playing classical music.
"But I don't listen to classical" say the proud owners.
Quite right - a system is almost always only really good for the music it has been set up to play.

[User211]

Indeed.
But we are now back to the old chestnut that a "good system" should be able to play anything well.
Never the case, ime.
I've lost count of the number of systems I have heard that haven't a clue about playing classical music.
"But I don't listen to classical" say the proud owners.
Quite right - a system is almost always only really good for the music it has been set up to play.

And even that is a matter of taste.

Had a classical music fan over last week. He loved my system on classical, whereas you don't. TBH I think the current iteration is pretty good at it too, but I am not a classical lover, so it is basically irrelevant.

I think the MBLs are good on classical. I actually think Tom's Tannoy's are very, very good at it. Maybe even a tad better Jerry! You will, of course, disagree, being a known Tannoise dissenter!:)

[Macca]

I bow to your experience but it still makes no sense to me. A system is just a mechanical device that creates standing waves in air. It doesn't know that it is music that it is playing, let alone what type of music.

[User211]

I bow to your experience but it still makes no sense to me. A system is just a mechanical device that creates standing waves in air. It doesn't know that it is music that it is playing, let alone what type of music.

Well, no it doesn't, but given that no system is actually accurate, and no human appears to have the same tastes, the combination of human and machine iteractions produces widely varying opinions as to what works well with which genres.

[Macca]

Or people like a bit of benign colouration to go with their favourite music.

'You need an amp that is good for Classical' and so forth...

[User211]

Pride comes into it too, with people basically talking BS when in fact in their hearts and mind they know their own system isn't really as good as another person's.

[User211]

One more point.

As humans we love ourselves, but we also find ourselves tough to live with and we get bored with ourselves. In truth, we are quite finely balanced, unstable creatures.

At the same time, we love our systems, but at the same time, familiarity breeds contempt and we also hate them from time to time too. Hence the constant messing with kit.

Well, that is my dose of hi-fi philosophy done for the day:lol:

[Barry]

PA power with hi-fi delicacy - that is the ultimate system.

Try a Quad 520. A 160W/channel power amplifier designed for use by professionals (recording studios, broadcasters, cinemas etc.), yet has all the poise, delicacy and resolution you would expect from a "hi-fi" amplifier.

[Haselsh1]

You know how sometimes you listen to a small section of a musical piece and you just think Jesus Christ - Where did that come from...! It hits you so hard emotionally. I am like that when I hear low frequencies played with massive grip and authority. Yes, what I need is an MF A370 but sadly, I can't afford one. What I can afford is a Samson Servo 600 or two and what I have heard is one of those very amps in my system. This is what has led to the current dissatisfaction.

I do not and have never believed that any Hi-Fi system should play all music equally. I love my current system with the bridged Rotel's but I have got to the stage where they just do not move me emotionally anymore. They totally lack impact and drama and for most, but not all of my listening, they just do not cut it.

My plan is to keep the Rotel's for vinyl replay and use the Samson for CD replay especially electronic music. OK, there is gonna be a lot of cable swapping. To be honest, there are worse things in life that I have to cope with. I remember that Maxell advert. Bring it on.

As an addition; for those that are technically minded, the Rotel's are totally dual mono with dual power supplies as well. It clearly doesn't help them as stereo amplifiers as they are completely different bridged.

[Haselsh1]

Try a Quad 520. A 160W/channel power amplifier designed for use by professionals (recording studios, broadcasters, cinemas etc.), yet has all the poise, delicacy and resolution you would expect from a "hi-fi" amplifier.

Barry, thank you, I value your contribution but I don't think this is just about high numbers of Watts however I could be wrong. The Samson is only about 225 Watts into eight Ohms so just a bit more than the Quad. Samson are very clever, their Servo 600 is only 600 Watts when bridged into eight Ohms. Not quite being honest are they...?

[Barry]

When people see the phrase PA (Public Address), they think of power amplifiers being able to provide lots of watts, but lacking in finesse - a case of "brute force and ignorance". I was merely suggesting the Quad 520 amplifier (which I use in my second system) is an exception to the cliché about PA equipment.

[Haselsh1]

When people see the phrase PA (Public Address), they think of power amplifiers being able to provide lots of watts, but lacking in finesse - a case of "brute force and ignorance". I was merely suggesting the Quad 520 amplifier (which I use in my second system) is an exception to the cliché about PA equipment.

That is exactly what worries me about the Servo 600, brute force with no finesse. It all sounded a little 'clumsy' when I heard it in my system but it certainly was emotional.

[Arkless Electronics]

PA amps are built for cheap high power and often don't do subtlety very well.... Cheap op amps etc in balanced to unbalanced converters in them is often a big bottle neck to SQ as well. Other common issues are small caps in the power supply. It's not unusual to find a 200WPC amp with just a pair of 6800uF caps for both channels. Big heatsinks are expensive, heavy and space taking so they often use very small ones with fan cooling which can be noisy...

[Barry]

PA amps are built for cheap high power and often don't do subtlety very well.... Cheap op amps etc in balanced to unbalanced converters in them is often a big bottle neck to SQ as well. Other common issues are small caps in the power supply. It's not unusual to find a 200WPC amp with just a pair of 6800uF caps for both channels. Big heatsinks are expensive, heavy and space taking so they often use very small ones with fan cooling which can be noisy...

:lol: The Quad 520 only has a pair of 6800uF + 220uF capacitors in its (regulated) power supply for both channels. :rolleyes:

[Haselsh1]

PA amps are built for cheap high power and often don't do subtlety very well.... Cheap op amps etc in balanced to unbalanced converters in them is often a big bottle neck to SQ as well. Other common issues are small caps in the power supply. It's not unusual to find a 200WPC amp with just a pair of 6800uF caps for both channels. Big heatsinks are expensive, heavy and space taking so they often use very small ones with fan cooling which can be noisy...

Yes, the Servo 600 uses fans but they are not audible from the listening position. I take your point though, and Barry's.

[Haselsh1]

:lol: The Quad 520 only has a pair of 6800uF + 220uF capacitors in its (regulated) power supply for both channels. :rolleyes:

:eyebrows:

[Haselsh1]

I may be wrong but I am sure that the Samson Servo 600 is a dual mono internal layout with a massive toroidal transformer.

[danilo]

Sooo. Buy the Samson things and enjoy ;).

[Arkless Electronics]

:lol: The Quad 520 only has a pair of 6800uF + 220uF capacitors in its (regulated) power supply for both channels. :rolleyes:

Regulated is different!

[Marco]

Especially on a Tuesday.

Marco.

[User211]

TBH I think some of those pro amps perform really well considering the cost.

In fact I can comfortably state the Crown XLS1500 I tempted Jerry to buy was actually a far better listen with my preamp than a $12000 Hypex SMPS NC700 and a very expensive valve preamp. OK I am being a bit anonymous but that is for a reason.

That sounds nuts, but I am just telling it like I heard it. The first combo I could just about live with. The 2nd I couldn't.

Amps are a real mystery and the price of the things bears no relation to perceived performance in many instances.

[struth]

Ive got four monoblocks that are from jukeboxes. they can be used as a single stereo amp too. They are surprisingly good.. class D I think. as cheap as chips but once you get used to the fan are very good especially with my sensitive speakers.

[Barry]

I don't think I could put up with the sound of a fan. Pity, as my Levinson ML-2s could do with some assistance; they just run too hot (especially in the summer) relying soley on air convection cooling!

[struth]

I thought that when I got them initially Barry. You get used to it and dont hear it when any music is playing

[Audio Advent]

TBH I think some of those pro amps perform really well considering the cost.

In fact I can comfortably state the Crown XLS1500 I tempted Jerry to buy was actually a far better listen with my preamp than a $12000 Hypex SMPS NC700 and a very expensive valve preamp. OK I am being a bit anonymous but that is for a reason.



Just to correct you, you must have listened to some Hypex NC1200 based amps at that price. The Hypex SMPS1200A700 is just the power supply board. God knows why they are priced so high... if you're lucky and can catch someone selling their OEM test boards made into an amp, they can sell for £2000. OEM boards for the NC500 amp module are reportedly only €90 plus a power supplies yet the cheapest stereo amp using them is £1000... That's the mark-up for you, perhaps they're obliged to sell at a price range to keep up marketing image for Hypex?

Still... as I say, MY Hypex based amp is the best I've had - transparent, detailed, fast... completely uncoloured as far as I can tell. Won't be any good for people wanting warmth or smoothness unless they can get it from the preamp, sources or speakers.

[Audio Advent]

At the risk of being too much of a Hypex shill - just been reading too much about them over the last few months! - you could build a stereo amp based on their UCD modules instead. Much cheaper and some say almost as good as their Ncore boards. The original version of the Grimm Audio LS1 active speaker used UCD modules (maybe it still does?). Buy someone's older, spare boards and you might pick them up for £40 each, add a power supply and you'll have a very good quality 200W into 8ohm stereo amp for about £220 ... err, after you've put it all together yourself!

[jandl100]

Amps are a real mystery and the price of the things bears no relation to perceived performance in many instances.

:thumbsup: absolutabubbly !!!!

And the same goes for DACs, imo.

[jandl100]

I bow to your experience but it still makes no sense to me. A system is just a mechanical device that creates standing waves in air. It doesn't know that it is music that it is playing, let alone what type of music.

Ah, hmm.. Should I speak my mind? :hmm:

No. :eyebrows:

But I will cite an example ....

About 5 years ago I went to a public dealer dem which included a higher end Naim setup.
The first couple of tracks were rock - guitars, drums, upfront vocals, you know the stuff.
I was stunned and actually checked that I had my credit cards with me. :)
The Naim demmer was beaming happily at the unaninimously positive response.
Then they played some classical - and the classical lovers in the audience fell about laughing, they really did
The gross distortions inflicted on the music in order to make rock/guitar music sound impressive were then grossly, laughably evident. A mighty Steinway grand piano sounded like an upright plinky-plonk from a cowboy movie. :doh:

That's an extreme example, ime, but I think the principle holds true.
It is very rare that a rock or electronic dance aficionado's system sounds really good on classical, imho, they usually sound scrawny and lacking in tonal body.

If I were setting up a system to enjoy solely rock music I'd have bought that Naim system in a heart beat.
But when it comes to the tonal accuracy needed for acoustic music, where there is an established absolute to compare it to, then a rather different approach is needed, imo.

And as Justin very wisely has posted in response to Martin's post ...


Well, no it doesn't, but given that no system is actually accurate, and no human appears to have the same tastes, the combination of human and machine iteractions produces widely varying opinions as to what works well with which genres.

:thumbsup:

[jandl100]

You want bass power and slam, Shaun.

I've had experience of loads of amps - almost all fail to really deliver the razor sharp bass transient edge and follow-thru solidity that defines true slam.

Two amps come to mind which do the slammy thing in spades - curiously, both were vintage items.

- A fully re-capped Perreaux 2150b that a visiting audiophile brought round to try. My gawd :eek: Astonishing. But very fierce up top. Totally awesome on electronic dance music (which was my visitor's main interest in music) but unpleasantly screechy on classical violins etc.

- And Justin's new Accuphase monos. Totally awesome for slam and overall control. And very high rez all round. Amazing things, actually, and would suit you to a proverbial T, I feel sure. I've not heard them in my system, but I suspect they are too explicit for me.

:hmm: There was another amp that Justin heard in my system. He looked at me and said "I didn't know the MBLs could do that" - referring to bass slam. I can't recall what that amp was, though. :scratch: - do you remember, Justin?

--- oh, and Marco's system as heard at Scalford a few years ago could do slam.

[User211]

Just to stress the fact that the Accuphase monos are from 1975... LOL. They are the best solid state match I have found and whilst being very high resolution the feeling I get from them is a sense of real honesty or truthfulness to the source. They aren't really phased by anything and there's a sense of freedom from colouration that I have not really come across before. A sense that everything is easy. IMHO they do need a valve DAC and preamp in front of them though. Experiments running them DAC direct (they have volume pots) is more than I am able to take i.e. extreme resolution.

Probably the relatively lowly Krell KAV 250a (in Krell terms) Jerry. That's the best SS amp I've heard with your gear for my tastes. Hate some Krell amps - in fact in most situations I am rarely impressed by them. But that amp matched really well. Not so good with my old Duettas though.

[User211]

Just to correct you, you must have listened to some Hypex NC1200 based amps at that price. The Hypex SMPS1200A700 is just the power supply board. God knows why they are priced so high... if you're lucky and can catch someone selling their OEM test boards made into an amp, they can sell for £2000. OEM boards for the NC500 amp module are reportedly only €90 plus a power supplies yet the cheapest stereo amp using them is £1000... That's the mark-up for you, perhaps they're obliged to sell at a price range to keep up marketing image for Hypex?

Still... as I say, MY Hypex based amp is the best I've had - transparent, detailed, fast... completely uncoloured as far as I can tell. Won't be any good for people wanting warmth or smoothness unless they can get it from the preamp, sources or speakers.

NC400 with linear PS and JFET input stage - a home built effort - was the best class D I have come across. They can work well.

[jandl100]

Hmm, yep, ta - it probably was the Krell KAV-250a. It did work well all round with my speakers.

[Marco]

Ah, hmm.. Should I speak my mind?

No.

But I will cite an example ....

About 5 years ago I went to a public dealer dem which included a higher end Naim setup.
The first couple of tracks were rock - guitars, drums, upfront vocals, you know the stuff.
I was stunned and actually checked that I had my credit cards with me. :)
The Naim demmer was beaming happily at the unaninimously positive response.
Then they played some classical - and the classical lovers in the audience fell about laughing, they really did
The gross distortions inflicted on the music in order to make rock/guitar music sound impressive were then grossly, laughably evident. A mighty Steinway grand piano sounded like an upright plinky-plonk from a cowboy movie.

That's an extreme example, ime, but I think the principle holds true.
It is very rare that a rock or electronic dance aficionado's system sounds really good on classical, imho.

If I were setting up a system to enjoy solely rock music I'd have bought that Naim system in a heart beat.
But when it comes to the tonal accuracy needed for acoustic music, where there is an established absolute to compare it to, then a rather different approach is needed, imo.


I tend to agree, Jerry. Classical music, without doubt, places different demands on a system, than does other genres of music. However, I also know where Martin is coming from, and as usual in life, the 'truth' of the matter lies somewhere in the middle of two opposing views......

I see it like this:

First of all (and I know this from previously many years experience of using it), Naim equipment has *always* been deliberately designed (through selective component choice) to have a 'mid-forward' balance, which succeeds to 'project' rock/guitar-based music in such a way that it sounds 'exciting'/impressive to the listener. It is also tonally lean (and somewhat 'bleached out'), which helps to give an impression of 'tunefulness' and speed/PRAT - but it is entirely false, and somewhat akin to tilting the tonal response with a graphic equaliser [yes, I know you like those, too :eyebrows:]!

'Naimees' and 'flat-earthers' (such as I was back in the day), tend to 'lock onto' that style of presentation, as in general, it suits both their sonic and musical proclivities, but said 'tilted tonal response' is completely unsuitable for the demands of accurately reproducing classical music, which requires more neutral 'voicing', in terms of component choice, with rather more subtlety and tonal variation, in order both to sound musically satisfying to a classical music listener, and also act as a faithful facsimile of the music contained on the recording.

Quite simply, it's not the job of the equipment to 'edit' music in that way, but edit it, it can, if the designer chooses to tailor its response in a particular way (through selective component choice), so as to appeal to a particular set of buyers. In that respect, you can end up with your hi-fi system almost dictating your choice of music! :doh: And if you examine the type of music 90% of Naim owners listen to, you can see ample evidence of that......

Therefore, it's no coincidence that my music tastes have not only changed, since moving from using Naim gear, but have also massively WIDENED, nor is it a coincidence that I've only started listening to classical music since I moved from Naim to valves ;)

That's not to say, however, that only valves can make classical music sound good (far from it), but that the type of system I have now plays classical music (and jazz, amongst others) in a totally different (vastly more realistic) way from how my Naim system did. Therefore, to get back to the subject at hand, certain types of equipment *can* indeed be made to excel at reproducing certain genres of music, and as you correctly say, in the same way, one can assemble whole systems, designed for that very purpose.

*However*, my view is also that if you set up your system to act as far as possible as a 'wide-open window', with the goal of achieving maximum resolution (reproducing as far as possible, a faithful facsimile of the information contained on recordings), then it becomes, not fully (because one can always achieve more by tailoring things to suit a specific genre), but largely music-agnostic, which is why I can play ANY kind of music on my system, and not be disappointed with the results - and I'm sure that there are also others here in a similar position.

Let's face it, classical music is an excellent (arguably the best) test for any hi-fi system, because if it can portray a lifelike illusion of an orchestra in full flow, and has the dynamic ability and headroom to successfully achieve that, then it should also be able to do justice to some Rammstein! :hairmetal: :fingers:

Marco.

[jandl100]

Just to stress the fact that the Accuphase monos are from 1975... LOL.

And the Perreaux amp I mentioned was from 1982 (http://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/perreaux-industries/pmf-2150b.shtml), I think.

Does that count as vintage? :scratch:

[jandl100]

I tend to agree, Jerry. Classical music, without doubt, places different demands on a system than other genres of music. However, I also know where Martin is coming from, and as usual in life, the 'truth' of the matter lies somewhere in the middle of two opposing views......

I see it like this:

First of all (and I know this from previous years experience of using it), Naim equipment has *always* been deliberately designed (through selective component choice) to have a 'mid-forward' balance, which succeeds to 'project' rock/guitar-based music in such a way that it sounds 'exciting'/impressive to the listener. It is also tonally lean (and somewhat 'bleached out'), which helps to give an impression of 'tunefulness' and speed/PRAT - but it is entirely false, and somewhat akin to tilting the tonal response with a graphic equaliser (yes, I know you like those, too :eyebrows:)!

'Naimees' and 'flat-earthers' (such as I was back in the day), tend to 'lock onto' that style of presentation, as in general, it suits both their sonic and musical proclivities, but said 'tailored tonal response' is completely unsuitable for the demands of accurately reproducing classical music, which requires rather more subtlety and tonal variation, in order both to sound musically satisfying, to a classical listener, and also act as a faithful facsimile of the music contained on the recording.

Quite simply, it's not the job of the equipment to 'edit' the music in that way, but edit it, it can, if the designer chooses to 'voice' it in a particular way (through selective component choice), so as to appeal to a particular set of listeners. In that respect, you can end up with your hi-fi system almost dictating your choice of music! :doh: If you examine the type of music 90% of Naim owners listen to, you can see ample evidence of that.

And so it's no coincidence that my music tastes have not only changed, since moving from using Naim gear, but have also massively WIDENED, nor is it a coincidence that I've only started listening to classical music since I moved from Naim to valves ;)

That's not to say, however, that only valves can make classical music sound good (far from it), but that the type of system I have now plays classical music (and jazz, amongst others) in a totally different (vastly more realistic) way from how my Naim system did - and so, yes, to get back to the subject at hand, certain types of equipment *can* be made to excel at reproducing certain types of music, and indeed as Jerry correctly says, in the same way, one can assemble whole systems tailored for that very purpose.

*However*, my view is also that if you set up your system to act as far as possible as a 'wide-open window', with the goal of achieving maximum resolution (reproducing as far as possible, a faithful facsimile of the information contained on recordings), then it becomes, not fully (because one can always achieve more by tailoring things to suit a specific genre), but largely music-agnostic, which is why I can play ANY kind of music on my system, and not be disappointed with the results - and I'm sure that there are also others in a similar position.

Let's face it, classical music is an excellent (arguably the best) test for any hi-fi system, because if it can portray a lifelike illusion of an orchestra in full flow, and has the dynamic ability and headroom to successfully achieve that, then it should also be able to do justice to some Rammstein! :hairmetal: :fingers:

Marco.

Yes, I agree with all of that.

Very true that rock music etc sounds more impressive when thinned out tonally - and that is what most folk unconsciously aim for, imho.

But, based on many bake-offs and visits to other audio-obsessed folk, and also listening to my music at the many Scalford Shows, I think there are quite limited numbers of folk who have genuinely broad tastes in music and who have the inclination and wherewithall to come close to putting it into practise in terms of their own system's capabilities.

Most audio-visitors chez-Jerry reply to my "what sort of music do you listen to?" query with "oh, anything really". And it just ain't so! They are quite bewildered often enough at my choice of music (and not just classical) .... then their preferences start to become known!

So, I stand by my view that the vast majority of systems (including my own) are based around the musical preferences of the owner. It's just that I have come to realise that fact, whereas many people don't do so and they think their systems can play all genres equally well - it's painfully obvious usually that they can't!

[Marco]

Lol... I absolutely agree, and indeed, like you, my experience of bake-offs, etc, confirms the same.

Furthermore, as you intimate, not everyone wants a 'wide-open window', but instead prefer their system to create a 'nice sound', and one sees this most in turntables or vinyl-only systems, where there is a multitude of different ways to tailor the response accordingly, and achieve that effect :)

Marco.

[struth]

Nice sound to the owner is of utmost importance, or is to me. No point in having it really if you think the sound stinks.:)

[Marco]

Yes I know, and agree, but if the goal is also to achieve the highest standards of fidelity (and if not, what is one doing on a specialist audio forum such as this? ;)), then a trumpet should sound, as close as possible, like a REAL trumpet, and a sax, like a sax, etc, when reproduced by your hi-fi system [the operative word], otherwise you may as well just buy a low-fi midi-system from Tesco, and be done with it!

I don't own the type of system I do because it creates a 'nice sound' (although I guess it does indirectly through the choices I've made, in order to achieve the goal of realism), but rather to make recorded voices and instruments sound LIFELIKE.

Therefore, the pleasure I obtain from my system (and thus how 'nice' it sounds to me) is directly proportional to how REAL it makes the above sound, based on what I hear when attending live, acoustic music events. If it doesn't succeed in doing that, then it ain't hi-fi! :nono:

Marco.

[struth]

I'll get me coat then;)

[walpurgis]

*However*, my view is also that if you set up your system to act as far as possible as a 'wide-open window', with the goal of achieving maximum resolution (reproducing as far as possible, a faithful facsimile of the information contained on recordings), then it becomes, not fully (because one can always achieve more by tailoring things to suit a specific genre), but largely music-agnostic, which is why I can play ANY kind of music on my system, and not be disappointed with the results - and I'm sure that there are also others here in a similar position.

Marco.


Exactly. That's always been my approach. A true Hi-Fi system is just that, 'High Fidelity'! This necessarily excludes tailoring the sound in a way that slants the balance or tonality towards some perceived (and incorrect) vision of what may be better suited to a particular type of music.

[Marco]

Nail > head, muchacho! :thumbsup:

Although I would use the word "sound", at the end of your last sentence instead. Essentially, it about trying as much as possible to create something that's real, not false.

Yes, of course you have to LIKE the sound that your system makes, but the point is, if it can faithfully reproduce the sound of real instruments and voices, and you LIKE how those sound in real life, then you should also LIKE the sound of them, when reproduced by your system. Simples!

Therefore, the 'pleasure' derived from your listening to your hi-fi system, should be directly proportional to how well your system *gets that right*, unless you simply like to wallow in a cacophony of euphonic coloration (in order to 'niceify' things), and don't like the sound of what's real ;)

Marco.

[Marco]

I'll get me coat then;)

Not at all. I've heard your system, and it's well capable of creating a believable illusion of real voices and instruments, so you've successfully done what I've said! :)

Marco.

[Macca]

Jerry, you accept your Naim example is an extreme case, and on those grounds it doesn't really work to make your point.

There is a poll on another forum at the moment asking if folk prefer a nice sound or an accurate one. 'Nice' is winning by a country mile. The problem with using that as a criteria is that some recordings will sound bad and the system will therefore dictate your choice of music. And it doesn't just separate into rock or classical. Plenty of folk out there bemoaning recording quality when there is nothing wrong with the recordings, but they have tailored the system to falsely enhance some aspects at the expense of others.

That is the trouble with aiming for a nice sound instead of a truthful one. If you find yourself skipping over a recording thinking 'no that's a bit hard, or a bit rough' then the system isn't truthful. You can get that sense of reality and 'rawness' naturally, from the recording, having the amplifier add it is just faking it. But it is a lot easier. I can see why such an amplifier will not be 'right' for Classical, but that is by no means all amplifiers.

As to my system I don't listen to Classical so tough for me to judge on that split. But I believe my current amplification to be the most neutral sounding that I have had to date. I'd guess I've owned 30 odd integrated amps and maybe 10 pre-power combos over the years, to put that into context.

[struth]

Not at all. I've heard your system, and it's well capable of creating a believable illusion of real voices and instruments, so you've successfully done what I've said! :)

Marco.

Lol thats kinda changed a bit Marco. In fact its ALL changed:D. Its very Sinatra these days

[jandl100]

Jerry, you accept your Naim example is an extreme case, and on those grounds it doesn't really work to make your point.


I disagree.

That rock-focussed Naim system was just toward one end of an extremely well populated spectrum and it serves well to demonstrate what many people's systems do, imo.

[Marco]

There is a poll on another forum at the moment asking if folk prefer a nice sound or an accurate one. 'Nice' is winning by a country mile. The problem with using that as a criteria is that some recordings will sound bad and the system will therefore dictate your choice of music <snip> .Plenty of folk out there bemoaning recording quality when there is nothing wrong with the recordings, but they have tailored the system to falsely enhance some aspects at the expense of others.

That is the trouble with aiming for a nice sound instead of a truthful one.


Spot on. I'll go with "truthful" every time [based on my interpretation of such], instead of 'nice' (although hopefully, if you value musical realism and consider it as 'nice', one should automatically follow the other)! :exactly:

Marco.

[Macca]

I disagree.

That rock-focussed Naim system was just toward one end of an extremely well populated spectrum and it serves well to demonstrate what many people's systems do, imo.

And at the other end of the spectrum is even handed, neutral and truthful. The Naim enhances some music at the expense of others. I agree. it is your contention that this is an inevitability with any amplification that I disagree with. Personally I can live without hearing some rock recordings on steroids if it means I can listen to shonky old Stax recordings in pleasure. Although it seems I am in the minority.

[Haselsh1]

What I require from my system is a rollercoaster of emotion. I am not remotely interested in how 'accurate' it may or may not be. I require emotion.

[Marco]

Yes, but the "emotion" is derived from the musical content in recordings, not as an artifice of the system ;)

Therefore, the job of the system is to extract and portray the emotion from said recordings, to the best of its ability - and that's most successfully achieved by it being 'truthful'. After all, what can ever be more "emotional" than what's real?

Marco.

[Haselsh1]

But electronic music is not 'real' it is only created in a studio or a bedroom. Therefore the emotion comes purely in the waveform or the processing of the sound. That emotion is then 'extended' by the system and its ability to display it in a certain way. A totally accurate system may be unbelievably bland and therefore definitely not suited to electronic music. I just cannot imagine an electronic kick drum being played by an 8 Watt SE 300B.

[Macca]

If you actually had a system that was totally accurate and some music sounds bland on it then that is either you or the music. It can't be the system by definition.

A lot of music is bland, even if/because it is well-produced. Hence amps that add a bit of distortion to give the illusion of excitement. Solution: don't bother with bland music, no matter how well made.

[Marco]

But electronic music is not 'real' it is only created in a studio or a bedroom. Therefore the emotion comes purely in the waveform or the processing of the sound. That emotion is then 'extended' by the system and its ability to display it in a certain way. A totally accurate system may be unbelievably bland and therefore definitely not suited to electronic music. I just cannot imagine an electronic kick drum being played by an 8 Watt SE 300B.

Yes, Shaun, but it all comes back to what exists on the recording to begin with, embedded "emotion" included.

In that respect, a system can't falsely create what isn't there, but it *can* fail to resolve information fully (no matter the genre of music), and thus portray a diluted version of said "emotion", which to your ears, is perceived as an 'unemotional' sound, if that's what you mean? :)

Therefore, "real", in terms of electronic music (or indeed any other music), is thus whatever exists on the recording to start with. How well (or not) your system is able to successfully 'capture' that information, is thus directly proportional to how much "emotion" you hear, and subsequently how "real" that sound is.

There is no magic fairy dust here.

Marco.

[Joe]

Not everyone can like every kind of music, however 'good, 'accurate' or 'nice' their system. People's tastes change as they get older; just now I started listening to one of my teenage favourites, Derek & the Dominoes' 'Key to the Highway', but got bored with the seemingly endless guitar wankery. These days I much prefer the original version by Big Bill Broonzy, however old and scratchy the recording.

Which brings us back to the central conundrum; is it better to listen to good music, poorly recorded, or to mediocre music, excellently recorded? (Obviously the ideal would be good music, excellently recorded).

[Marco]

Which brings us back to the central conundrum; is it better to listen to good music, poorly recorded, or to mediocre music, excellently recorded? (Obviously the ideal would be good music, excellently recorded).

Aside from the latter, when it's possible, I'll take good music poorly recorded, every time - and so would every other genuine music lover. Because, if a system is sufficiently 'talented' (as it were), it should always allow the listener to appreciate what's good about the music, without being distracted by what's bad about the sound.

Marco.

[walpurgis]

But electronic music is not 'real' it is only created in a studio or a bedroom. Therefore the emotion comes purely in the waveform or the processing of the sound. That emotion is then 'extended' by the system and its ability to display it in a certain way. A totally accurate system may be unbelievably bland and therefore definitely not suited to electronic music. I just cannot imagine an electronic kick drum being played by an 8 Watt SE 300B.

You should hear a bit of Shpongle, Younger Brother, UnionJack or OTT on my system. All the deep ambience, soundstage, detail and slam are there, with neutrality and even delicacy when required. That's with 25 (very grippy) watts of pure Class A driving the Tannoys. I've had amps with hundreds of watts. No longer needed!

[Haselsh1]

I understand where you are coming from. I have CD's by Ulrich Schnauss that are unbelievably emotional because of their power and authority but then I have a couple of CD's that are amazingly bland. Whether it be a Samson power amp or my Rotel monoblocks those CD's are bloody bland. Where does that leave me...? Not sure and its lunch time right now. See you later ;)

[Marco]

Lol thats kinda changed a bit Marco. In fact its ALL changed:D. Its very Sinatra these days

No matter. I still trust your ears to have gotten it right! :)

Marco.

[Marco]

I understand where you are coming from. I have CD's by Ulrich Schnauss that are unbelievably emotional because of their power and authority but then I have a couple of CD's that are amazingly bland. Whether it be a Samson power amp or my Rotel monoblocks those CD's are bloody bland. Where does that leave me...? Not sure and its lunch time right now. See you later ;)

I'd suggest one of two places:

1) "Amazingly bland" is precisely how they're supposed to sound, or rather that's your interpretation of what you're hearing, based on what your system is revealing.

2) Your system currently struggles to cope with, what one could call, 'more complex' recordings.

There are recordings which, in my experience, sound 'good' on pretty much any system, but that level of 'good' increases as your system becomes more 'truthful'. Also, 'complex recordings' tend only to be 'opened up' and appreciated properly, by systems with the greatest ability to faithfully resolve recorded musical information.

Enjoy your lunch - I'm off now to have mine! :cool:

Marco.

[Arkless Electronics]

A genuinely high fidelity system should be able to play all types of music equally well as it should add nothing and take nothing away from the recording.... Now this is not cheap to do unfortunately... hence at more reasonable price points many choose to "corrupt" the sound in the way that suits them personally.
The straw poll elsewhere which Macca mentions doesn't surprise me but does depress me :rolleyes: People do often seem to prefer to listen through "rose tinted" hi-fi :stalks: Which ain't what it's about as far as I'm concerned and is of course worrying to someone like myself who strives to design and build truly neutral, transparent and accurate amplification. It drives me to apoplexy when people immediately (and very wrongly!) attribute things like "sterility", "coldness", "edginess" and blandness to accurate equipment!

[Marco]

Yes, but your equipment doesn't sound bland or sterile because, as well as measuring it, you also listen to it, and make final adjustments to its design on that basis. However, equipment that is simply measured, and not also listened to [and that does exist], *can* indeed sound precisely like all things you've just mentioned....

The key, therefore, to building good hi-fi gear, is to use your ears as much as your test equipment! ;)

Marco.

[struth]

Golden rule number one... One shoe doesn't fit all.
Golden rule number two... Don't listen with your eyes.

[Haselsh1]

The two Schnauss recordings I have that are amazingly bland are so because they convey very little musical emotion. They are just monotonous endless drivel when compared to his other recordings. There is nothing about the music in these recordings that engages me in any way and, as I have listened on various systems, it is not the current system that is causing this.

There is a track by India Arie called ‘Brown Skin’ and back in Y2K this track and album sounded stunning. The cause of this was purely down to my then Samson Servo 550 and the way it handled the sublime bass guitar. OK, I had an Arcam Alpha 8 SE CD player which was much better than my current Marantz back then and I was listening through Castle Harlech’s but my current KEF Q500’s are a lot better than I ever remember the Castle’s sounding.

I do not agree that an excellent Hi-Fi system can make any recording sound good; that is just ridiculous. I agree though that a really good Hi-Fi system can resolve real differences. Poor music is poor music and no intervention can make up for crap chords, crap playing and crap production. If you simply do not connect with a certain song or album then so be it. I know that there is some fantastic electronic music out there but I also know that there is some drivel.

I also do not and never will understand the ridiculous price structure that covers all things Hi-Fi. The further up you go, the more expensive it gets and the less you get in return in the way of true value. This is also true of cameras. There are people out there who, back in the days of 35mm film, would proclaim that their Leica was the best because it was damn expensive. My Mamiya RB67 Pro SD was certainly a lot cheaper and an awful lot better mainly because it used a massive negative and not a miniature negative.

My jury is still out, I need to think.

[Haselsh1]

Golden rule number one... One shoe doesn't fit all.
Golden rule number two... Don't listen with your eyes.

;)

[southall-1998]

My Roksan Kandy MK3 certainly has that ''Naim alike'' sound. But I do tend to like beat/electronica kind of music.

The Roksan has serve its purpose for my requirement. (For now anyway!)

S.

[Marco]

Hi Shaun,


The two Schnauss recordings I have that are amazingly bland are so because they convey very little musical emotion. They are just monotonous endless drivel when compared to his other recordings. There is nothing about the music in these recordings that engages me in any way and, as I have listened on various systems, it is not the current system that is causing this.


Absolutely, and I would agree. If the music to YOU is devoid of merit in the first place, then NO hi-fi system in the world is going to make it sound good, to YOU. However, it might be different for someone else, who has a different take on the musical merit of the Schnauss recordings in question.


There is a track by India Arie called ‘Brown Skin’ and back in Y2K this track and album sounded stunning. The cause of this was purely down to my then Samson Servo 550 and the way it handled the sublime bass guitar. OK, I had an Arcam Alpha 8 SE CD player which was much better than my current Marantz back then and I was listening through Castle Harlech’s but my current KEF Q500’s are a lot better than I ever remember the Castle’s sounding.


I'm not in a position to doubt what you're saying, but the reason why the India Arie track, and that album, sounded stunning through your previous system, could be down to the fact that back then (by your own admission) you had a better (CD) source, i.e. one that was more capable of faithfully resolving musical information.

Quite simply, no pair of speakers, no matter how good, can ever replace what has been lost further back in the chain.


I do not agree that an excellent Hi-Fi system can make any recording sound good; that is just ridiculous.


Yes, but I didn't say that; what I wrote was quite different. Please read it again:


Aside from the latter, when it's possible, I'll take good music poorly recorded, every time - and so would every other genuine music lover. Because, if a system is sufficiently 'talented' (as it were), it should always allow the listener to appreciate what's good about the music, without being distracted by what's bad about the sound.


That's quite different from what you've implied...


I also do not and never will understand the ridiculous price structure that covers all things Hi-Fi. The further up you go, the more expensive it gets and the less you get in return in the way of true value.


I completely agree, which is precisely why I no longer buy commercially produced hi-fi equipment (poor SPPV), and if I do, it's generally always modified to my own tastes (taking what's good about it and removing what's bad) ;)

Marco.

[Arkless Electronics]

Yes, but your equipment doesn't sound bland or sterile because, as well as measuring it, you also listen to it, and make final adjustments to its design on that basis. However, equipment that is simply measured, and not also listened to [and that does exist], *can* indeed sound precisely like all things you've just mentioned....

The key, therefore, to building good hi-fi gear, is to use your ears as much as your test equipment! ;)


Marco.

Well yeah but test gear is nothing to do with what I'm saying.... I could and would use test gear if trying to design something with "rose tinted tone"! Test gear and measurements are our friend and without them we wouldn't get very far in electronics!

As far as what Grant says well I'm not so sure... If you mean don't buy hi fi by what it looks like then I give that a hearty thumbs up!! Fantastic styling and 1/2" thick alloy front plates mean the money spent on that hasn't been spent on the important bits! (unless at silly money prices where you can get both).

As far as one size doesn't fit all well I'll be contentious and say maybe it should! Only one sound is the accurate one that sounds the most similar to the original and surely that one is the correct one!? A good hi fi should not reinterpret the recording...

There can be a down side to true accuracy and wide frequency response, without any rolling off or softening, and that is of course that if the recording sounds dodgy, glassy, hard etc then the system will let you hear that... don't shoot the messenger! Without the accuracy and transparency it also can't rise to breathtaking peaks with very good recordings.
Ever noticed that often with systems voiced to sound "nice" and have "a pleasant tone" everything sounds the same, due to the colourations of the system, and different recording studios, mixing desks, mic's and even sometimes whether it's on CD or vinyl are all glossed over and smoothed out to give the same sound, albeit a pleasantly rose tinted one, to everything the system plays?

[Haselsh1]

Marco, your last comment and I fully agree. I cannot add anything to what was said.

[Firebottle]

.....(and very wrongly!) attribute things like "sterility", "coldness", "edginess" and blandness to accurate equipment!

+1

I'm sure some of the bland recordings are down to laziness in the production.

[Marco]

As far as one size doesn't fit all well I'll be contentious and say maybe it should! Only one sound is the accurate one that sounds the most similar to the original and surely that one is the correct one!?


Yup, in theory, but if only it were as simple as that. In reality, who decides which sound is the more "accurate" or "correct": you, me, Captain Pugwash or your oscilloscope? ;)

Unfortunately also, the (genuinely faithful) reproduction of recorded music is a complex business, and it takes good ears, as well as the judicious use of test apparatus, to build equipment that truly delivers the goods. We have to remember that measurements only ever tell PART of the story.

It's therefore no coincidence that the best sounding equipment out there is designed by people who combine the use of both approaches :)

Marco.

[Haselsh1]

One of my problems is that around twenty years ago I was involved in bass and bands be that bass guitar or synth bass and I just love it through a massive PA system. My current Hi-Fi is by comparison, disappointing. Using a Samson Servo 600 returns some of what I was used to at a live gig. I don't doubt that there are countless amplifiers out there that are very Hi-Fi and many thousands of pounds that could do just the same kind of job. I am not about to go spending that kind of money on what I currently perceive as very poor value for money.

It has also occurred to me that there may be a big mismatch between my bridged Rotel's and the KEF's which do dip down to around 3.8KHz at one small place. However, if I use one Rotel as a stereo amplifier then the sound is even flatter and a whole lot more dull with very little stereo effect. I think I need current...!

[Arkless Electronics]

As fas as SPP and VFM etc it is a fact that in many areas of human endeavour one reaches a point where something is good to very good at a reasonable-ish price but because it is now so good it takes a lot of money to make it better still.... The law of diminishing returns! E.g a cheap electrolytic in the signal path is a bottle neck to sound quality... but you would be amazed just how good even a cheap cap such as this can sound. To get a noticeable improvement (I mean noticeable, not night and day difference) you may have to replace the 8p electrolytic with a polypropylene film cap costing say £8. If there are 10 such caps in the amp then the cost of just improving the caps has become £80. By the time manufacturers profit margin and dealer margin etc have been factored into it this could make the amp £200+ more expensive to get a difference that may not even be particularly noticeable if the rest of the system isn't up to revealing it.

[Arkless Electronics]

Yup, in theory, but if only it were as simple as that. Who decides which sound is the more "accurate" or "correct": you, me, Captain Pugwash or your oscilloscope? ;)

Unfortunately also, the (genuinely faithful) reproduction of recorded music is a complex business, and it takes good ears, as well as the judicious use of test apparatus, to build equipment that truly delivers the goods. We have to remember that measurements only ever tell PART of the story.

It's therefore no coincidence that the best sounding equipment out there is designed by people who combine the use of both approaches :)

Marco.

It is! The most accurate is the one that sounds most similar to a reference such as live music. Without reference to the real thing though I reckon many tend to choose a rounded off and over warm presentation which just isn't like that when you hear the real thing...

[Haselsh1]

It is! The most accurate is the one that sounds most similar to a reference such as live music. Without reference to the real thing though I reckon many tend to choose a rounded off and over warm presentation which just isn't like that when you hear the real thing...

Yes but the kind of live music I listen to is not 'live' it comes via a PA system.

[Marco]

It is!


Lol, it's not, because you'll always have subjective disagreements between people over which sound is the more "real"!!

When we're at the next NEBO, and if you're sitting next to me listening to a system, and I say: "Bloody hell, Jez, that guitar don't half sound real, eh?", and you reply: "Yas talkin shite, Marco, it sounds leek a Fisher Price toy." :D

Who's 'right', you or me...? ;)


The most accurate is the one that sounds most similar to a reference such as live music. Without reference to the real thing though I reckon many tend to choose a rounded off and over warm presentation which just isn't like that when you hear the real thing...

I totally agree, but unless you bring measurements into the equation (and we all know that they only tell part of the story), one person's "accurate" is always likely to be someone else's 'sterile'. So who or what gets to be arbiter of the 'truth'??

That's my point! :)

Marco.

[Jimbo]

The only accurate sound that matters is the one you hear.

Not one that some else tells you, you should hear.

[Arkless Electronics]

Lol, it's not, because you'll always have subjective disagreements between people about which sound is the more "real"!!

When we're at the next NEBO, and if you're sitting next to me listening to a system, and I say: "Bloody hell, Jez, that guitar don't half sound real, eh?", and you reply: "Yas talkin shite, Marco, it sounds leek a Fisher Price toy." :D

Who's 'right', you or me...? ;)



I totally agree, but unless you bring measurements into the equation (and we all know that they only tell part of the story), one person's "accurate" is always likely to be someone else's 'sterile'. So who or what gets to be arbiter of the 'truth'??

That's my point! :)

Marco.

We'll have to disagree on that one then... I'm talking about getting the actual electric guitar, recording it and then playing it back straight away on various systems whilst the guitar is still set up as a reference against which the hi fi's can be instantly compared. The one which sounds most like the actual real thing is the best hi fi... and yes the sound of the recording equipment needs to be factored in to this!

I've participated in such a test conducted by B & W many years ago with a live clarinet. It was very interesting!

Now obviously reproducing lets say a heavy rock band will need different capabilities as regards maximum volume and bass extension when compared with reproducing a clarinet but the principal holds.

As Shaun says some music was never really "live" in the first place and the sound of a synth can only be heard from a speaker... as can that of an electric guitar. In this case then the original live sound is what one hears after the PA speakers and EQ'ing have done their thing. Indeed with an electric guitar amp and speaker they are designed to be very coloured and distorted and so the sound one hears is very much down to the choice of these as well as the guitar itself, the weight of strings used and the playing style!

Another way of looking at this is art forgery. The one that fools the experts into believing it's an original is the best. Not the one that's been reinterpreted with brighter, jollier colours! You may prefer the one with brighter, jollier colours as an art piece but ones eyes easily tell you which is most like the original by putting the paintings side by side.

[Haselsh1]

To take up a point made by Jez; these days I play six string electric through a 5881 powered valve amp into a 2X12" cab. I can fuck up the sound of that guitar anyway I want but when it is so, I bloody love it. So what is right...? I guess right is the way I want it to sound because I am creating the bloody noise. If I were in a studio and I recorded an album with a band then some tossers into Hi-Fi would be debating whether it sounded real or not :eyebrows:

Ultimately I guess, real is how it sounded when it was recorded. I guess it is the way the team at the desk wanted it to sound or in the case of a guitar, the way the amp or pedals were set up.

Oh for acoustic music. But then of course you couldn't record it because then it would not be 'real'

[Haselsh1]

Another way of looking at this is art forgery. The one that fools the experts into believing it's an original is the best. Not the one that's been reinterpreted with brighter, jollier colours! You may prefer the one with brighter, jollier colours as an art piece but ones eyes easily tell you which is most like the original by putting the paintings side by side.

I prefer acrylics...! Maybe that says something ;)

[Marco]

I'm afraid then, Jez, that we'll have to 'agree to disagree'.

For me, and I expect most people, there are too many variables currently in existence, to ever arrive at anything approaching 'conclusive proof' of what is definitively more 'real', when it comes to analysing the sound produced by hi-fi equipment, and referenced against that produced by real instruments.

As such, since we're humans, not computers, the answer to that will always remain subjective :)

Marco.

[Haselsh1]

The only accurate sound that matters is the one you hear.

Not one that some else tells you, you should hear.

That comment is just so accurate :eyebrows:

[Macca]

Another way of looking at this is art forgery. The one that fools the experts into believing it's an original is the best. Not the one that's been reinterpreted with brighter, jollier colours! You may prefer the one with brighter, jollier colours as an art piece but ones eyes easily tell you which is most like the original by putting the paintings side by side.

Good analogy. Added to which whilst some paintings may benefit from the brighter colours they will make other paintings look totally wrong. And then people will start blaming the type of canvas used.

Don't know about anyone else but for me it is always obvious when a system goes beyond being just sound coming from some speakers and becomes a window on the recording. It is a completely different experience.

[Marco]

That comment is just so accurate :eyebrows:

Indeed!!

Also, I'd bet (since I suspect that all of us here have a pretty good 'handle' on how real instruments are supposed to sound), if we were sitting together at a hi-fi show, judging a system's ability at such, we'd all be pretty much in agreement about its efficacy (or otherwise), in that respect.....

However, that still doesn't make it definitive! ;)

Marco.

[Arkless Electronics]

I'm afraid then, Jez, that we'll have to 'agree to disagree'.

For me, and I expect most people, there are too many variables currently in existence, to ever arrive at anything approaching 'conclusive proof' of what is definitively more 'real', when it comes to analysing the sound produced by hi-fi equipment, and referenced against that produced by real instruments.

As such, since we're humans, not computers, the answer to that will always remain subjective :)

Marco.

I agree we'll have to agree to disagree!

I also disagree with "The only accurate sound that matters is the one you hear. Not one that some else tells you, you should hear." which doesn't really make much sense to me.... It's not up to interpretation and has feck all to do with if anyone LIKES the sound or not. HI fi is not strictly speaking about making a sound you like but about making one that sounds most like the original!
Some people may not like the sound of a real life violin but they couldn't deny its reality if it's being played in front of them by a maestro!

[Arkless Electronics]

Good analogy. Added to which whilst some paintings may benefit from the brighter colours they will make other paintings look totally wrong. And then people will start blaming the type of canvas used.

Don't know about anyone else but for me it is always obvious when a system goes beyond being just sound coming from some speakers and becomes a window on the recording. It is a completely different experience.

:exactly:

[Marco]

I also disagree with "The only accurate sound that matters is the one you hear. Not one that some else tells you, you should hear." which doesn't really make much sense to me.... It's not up to interpretation and has feck all to do with if anyone LIKES the sound or not.

Lol - you're so absolutist minded, mate, it's unreal! :D Sorry, but that's complete bollocks.

The whole point of ANY hi-fi system is that is must reproduce music in such a way, as to be enjoyable for the listener, "accurate" or not, otherwise there's simply no point in having it. Why would you ever listen to something you don't like??

In that respect, the above which I've quoted (originally posted by Jimbo), and which you say you don't agree with, is *undeniably true*, simply because the only arbiter of such that matters, are the ears of the listener that the system has to satisfy....

If the system doesn't fulfil that primary task for the listener, then it's not 'fit for purpose' and, unless you're a self-confessed masochist, should simply be put in the bin!! :ner:

Marco.

[Macca]

From a philosophical perspective Jez is correct. A true hi-fidelity system will not corrupt the recording in any way, good or bad.

In reality Marco et al are right because that isn't what most people want (or think they want) and manufacturers long ago cottoned onto that. So you get situations arising where manufacturers of expensive equipment won't allow some types of music to be played on it at shows, because it will show the system in an unflattering light. Which is absurd.

[Haselsh1]

HI fi is not strictly speaking about making a sound you like but about making one that sounds most like the original!

If this indeed true then I am not even remotely interested in Hi-Fi and I needn't waste any more money on Croft gear :eyebrows:

Listening to music is only about conveying emotion to me via a really nice music session. If the sound I am listening to does not really make me feel a certain way, I am not interested whether it cost £25k or £2.5k, but I would rather it cost £2.5k

I get a massive buzz from creating low resonant synth sounds along with other musicians and I expect my sound system to give me the same kind of buzz. Currently, it does not.

[Haselsh1]

From a philosophical perspective Jez is correct. A true hi-fidelity system will not corrupt the recording in any way, good or bad.

In reality Marco et al are right because that isn't what most people want (or think they want) and manufacturers long ago cottoned onto that. So you get situations arising where manufacturers of expensive equipment won't allow some types of music to be played on it at shows, because it will show the system in an unflattering light. Which is absurd.

But it is already corrupted by the recording process and the systems used.

[Haselsh1]

From a philosophical perspective Jez is correct. A true hi-fidelity system will not corrupt the recording in any way, good or bad.

In reality Marco et al are right because that isn't what most people want (or think they want) and manufacturers long ago cottoned onto that. So you get situations arising where manufacturers of expensive equipment won't allow some types of music to be played on it at shows, because it will show the system in an unflattering light. Which is absurd.

I have experienced that at so called Hi-Fi shows. The only company that allowed anything to be played was Klipsch.

[Arkless Electronics]

High Fidelity is an absolute concept! Strictly speaking it is as I say now't to do with if you like the sound and everything to do with accuracy. Hi-fi - "a piece of electronic equipment for reproducing sound in a clear and accurate way" - Webster's dictionary. "The closest approach to the original sound" - Quad.

The term has been bastardised into an acceptance of meaning "an expensive and impressive stereo system" but originally and ultimately it's all down to accuracy. Fidelity - "The degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced" Oxford English dictionary ;)

Now as we all know many/most people choose something in which the compromises suit their own tastes/likes/dislikes but this is not strictly speaking what hi fi means!

[Marco]

From a philosophical perspective Jez is correct. A true hi-fidelity system will not corrupt the recording in any way, good or bad.

In reality Marco et al are right because that isn't what most people want (or think they want)...

As you know, I'm all for attempting to emulate, with my hi-fi system, what Jez says is 'accurate' (because I agree with the notion in principle), but I wouldn't dare to be so arrogant as to TELL anyone who disagreed with my notion of 'correct' or 'accurate', that he or she was wrong! Or that there exists some notional 'established standard' for audio accuracy.

That's my point. When you get to being guilty of that level of blinkered absolutism, you're head's way too far up your arse, for your own good ;)

Marco.

[Joe]

The subjective approach to accuracy baffles me. Let's suppose two people, one aged 20 and one aged 50 listen to the same system. One thinks it's accurate, the other thinks it's inaccurate. Who is right, and how can we tell? Clearly a younger person should be more able to distinguish inaccuracy, because his/her hearing will be better. On the other hand, maybe the older person's ears will be more 'educated'. Either way, there's no independent arbiter of accuracy that can be applied simply by listening.

I think it's fine to say that all that matters for each individual is whether he/she likes the sound of a particular system, but that may not mean that their preferred system is accurate, or 'faithful to the original', or indeed anything other than 'a system which produces a sound they like'.

[struth]

Perhaps we should be reclassified as semi hifi.....hmm, well better than an mp3 forum:doh:
We've had all this b4 and i bet if you had 5 folk in studio listening to a record being made they would all have a different impression on how it sounded....


...if they were being honest:)

[Arkless Electronics]

"As you know, I'm all for attempting to emulate, with my hi-fi system, what Jez says is 'correct', but I wouldn't dare to be so arrogant as to TELL anyone who disagreed with my notion of 'correct' or 'accurate', that he or she was wrong!

That's my point. When you get to being guilty of that level of blinkered absolutism, you're head's way too far up your own arse, for your own good

Marco."

Well I would and do. Right and wrong, black or white have fuck all to do with ones feelings, subjective viewpoint or wish to not offend. They are facts, incontrovertible, as in proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.
I'll ignore your last comment.

[Marco]

The subjective approach to accuracy baffles me.


"Accuracy" to what though, and what other evaluation method would you suggest, when it comes to deciding on which type of sound you'd like your hi-fi system to make?


Let's suppose two people, one aged 20 and one aged 50 listen to the same system. One thinks it's accurate, the other thinks it's inaccurate. Who is right, and how can we tell? Clearly a younger person should be more able to distinguish inaccuracy, because his/her hearing will be better. On the other hand, maybe the older person's ears will be more 'educated'. Either way, there's no independent arbiter of accuracy that can be applied simply by listening.


...nor by measuring or blind-testing (because that too has its flaws), but we are essentially in agreement, which is precisely why such a thing can only EVER be subjective.


I think it's fine to say that all that matters for each individual is whether he/she likes the sound of a particular system, but that may not mean that their preferred system is accurate, or 'faithful to the original', or indeed anything other than 'a system which produces a sound they like'.

Of course, but we're going round in circles now, as is always the case in these types of discussions! :doh:

Marco.

[Haselsh1]

High Fidelity is an absolute concept! Strictly speaking it is as I say now't to do with if you like the sound and everything to do with accuracy. Hi-fi - "a piece of electronic equipment for reproducing sound in a clear and accurate way" - Webster's dictionary. "The closest approach to the original sound" - Quad.

The term has been bastardised into an acceptance of meaning "an expensive and impressive stereo system" but originally and ultimately it's all down to accuracy. Fidelity - "The degree of exactness with which something is copied or reproduced" Oxford English dictionary ;)

Now as we all know many/most people choose something in which the compromises suit their own tastes/likes/dislikes but this is not strictly speaking what hi fi means!

Yes, I take your very accurate point and I agree.

[Arkless Electronics]

The subjective approach to accuracy baffles me. Let's suppose two people, one aged 20 and one aged 50 listen to the same system. One thinks it's accurate, the other thinks it's inaccurate. Who is right, and how can we tell? Clearly a younger person should be more able to distinguish inaccuracy, because his/her hearing will be better. On the other hand, maybe the older person's ears will be more 'educated'. Either way, there's no independent arbiter of accuracy that can be applied simply by listening.

I think it's fine to say that all that matters for each individual is whether he/she likes the sound of a particular system, but that may not mean that their preferred system is accurate, or 'faithful to the original', or indeed anything other than 'a system which produces a sound they like'.

I'm not talking about comparing two hi fis but of comparing them against a reference of real live music music recorded and played back in situ and straight away. We can then decide which sounds most like the undeniably real thing.

[Marco]

I'm not talking about comparing two hi fis but of comparing them against a reference of real live music music recorded and played back in situ and straight away. We can then decide which sounds most like the undeniably real thing.

Ah, so we do get a choice, then? ;)

But you will likely still get differences of opinion, as to what is "undeniably the real thing", so it goes back again to who occupies the role of 'officially appointed arbiter of the truth': you, your test equipment, or someone else with a different idea of what is 'real'?


Well I would and do. Right and wrong, black or white have fuck all to do with ones feelings, subjective viewpoint or wish to not offend. They are facts, incontrovertible, as in proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.


I'm afraid that you're off on one of your infamous, somewhat condescending 'lectures', and as such, are completely missing the point. Best that we simply agree to disagree and move on :)

Marco.

[Haselsh1]

MP3... now have reached a new low ;)

We'll be talking DJ decks next :eyebrows:

[Joe]

I'm not talking about comparing two hi fis but of comparing them against a reference of real live music music recorded and played back in situ and straight away. We can then decide which sounds most like the undeniably real thing.

Hmm, well, up to a point, though I'd say the best we can do by listening is try to reach a consensus on which sounds most like the undeniably real thing.

[Macca]

The subjective approach to accuracy baffles me. Let's suppose two people, one aged 20 and one aged 50 listen to the same system. One thinks it's accurate, the other thinks it's inaccurate. Who is right, and how can we tell? Clearly a younger person should be more able to distinguish inaccuracy, because his/her hearing will be better. On the other hand, maybe the older person's ears will be more 'educated'. Either way, there's no independent arbiter of accuracy that can be applied simply by listening.

I think it's fine to say that all that matters for each individual is whether he/she likes the sound of a particular system, but that may not mean that their preferred system is accurate, or 'faithful to the original', or indeed anything other than 'a system which produces a sound they like'.

What about Jerry's example of the Naim system he heard. It could do rock so well he considered buying it. But it couldn't do Classical. Now if you like both Rock and Classical that system is no use to you. That's the trouble with systems that are coloured like that. Some music is enhanced, other music made unlistenable. And then the recordings get blamed. As though the system is right and the recording is wrong! How can that be? It is the other way around.

[Marco]

Indeed! :)

Marco.

[Joe]

What about Jerry's example of the Naim system he heard. It could do rock so well he considered buying it. But it couldn't do Classical. Now if you like both Rock and Classical that system is no use to you. That's the trouble with systems that are coloured like that. Some music is enhanced, other music made unlistenable. And then the recordings get blamed. As though the system is right and the recording is wrong! How can that be? It is the other way around.

I don't like Naim for rock, classical or anything really. Luckily for me, both my systems are great for everything. Are they 'accurate'? Dunno.

[Macca]

If they are great for everything then they are probably not too far off accurate. Stands to reason.

Here's a link to the High Fidelity verses 'sounds nice' poll

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?129807-What-do-you-want-high-fidelity-or-to-make-your-music-sound-nice

97 votes, 'nice' won with 77%

[Arkless Electronics]

Ah, so we do get a choice, then? ;)

But you will likely still get differences of opinion, as to what is "undeniably the real thing", so it goes back again to who's the 'appointed arbiter of the truth': you or someone else with a different opinion of what is 'real'?



I'm afraid that you're off on one of your infamous 'lectures', and as such, completely missing the point. Best that we simply agree to disagree and move on :)

Marco.

I'm not trying to "tell" or "lecture" anybody.... strange how merely pointing out that, strictly speaking, hi fi is supposed to be about recreating reality, as far as possible, and not about creating an individuals biased subjective interpretation of reality, obviously causes so much angst to some. As I said earlier don't shoot the messenger! And on that bombshell.... yes it's best that we simply agree to disagree and move on :)

[Macca]

I think the point is that even if you could prove absolute fidelity to the recording, the vast majority would still not want it.

[Arkless Electronics]

I think the point is that even if you could prove absolute fidelity to the recording, the vast majority would still not want it.

Nail on head! That's precisely where this discussion started and the point I was trying originally to make!

[Marco]

I'm not trying to "tell" or "lecture" anybody....


I'm afraid if that's your goal, you're failing badly.


...strange how merely pointing out that, strictly speaking, hi fi is supposed to be about recreating reality, as far as possible, and not about creating an individuals biased subjective interpretation of reality, obviously causes so much angst to some.


It's the rather absolutist way you 'point that out', and construct your argument, which makes it come across as a lecture. If you were less dogmatic, it would give your arguments much more validity, not to mention stop rubbing your 'opponent' up the wrong way...

The somewhat hilarious irony is that we are completely in agreement with the highlighted bit above, so no "angst" here! ;)

Where we disagree, is what the main purpose of a hi-fi system is for its owner, and also who decides what "reality" is in the context in which you infer.


yes it's best that we simply agree to disagree and move on

Indeed, so let's do that :)

Marco.

[Macca]

Have to confess I used to be one of the 'blame the recordings' people. As my system got fancier the selection of music I wanted to play on it got smaller and smaller.

Some will tell you this is because the system is now good enough to show up poor recordings. That's bollocks.

[struth]

Have to confess I used to be one of the 'blame the recordings' people. As my system got fancier the selection of music I wanted to play on it got smaller and smaller.

Some will tell you this is because the system is now good enough to show up poor recordings. That's bollocks.

Been there....and a depressing place it is too. Find something decent you like and
let it be

[Marco]

I think the point is that even if you could prove absolute fidelity to the recording, the vast majority would still not want it.

I've never once on this thread disagreed with that, or that I'm one of those who wants it.

Marco.

[Marco]

If they are great for everything then they are probably not too far off accurate. Stands to reason.

Here's a link to the High Fidelity verses 'sounds nice' poll

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?129807-What-do-you-want-high-fidelity-or-to-make-your-music-sound-nice

97 votes, 'nice' won with 77%

Ha - I'm surprised that Serge didn't invoke the 'everything that measures accurately, is thus transparent and represents hi-fi' clause, then declared the poll null and void! :lol:

Marco.

[Joe]

Have to confess I used to be one of the 'blame the recordings' people. As my system got fancier the selection of music I wanted to play on it got smaller and smaller.

Some will tell you this is because the system is now good enough to show up poor recordings. That's bollocks.

The other day I dusted off a copy of Louis Armstrong's 'Hot Fives and Sevens' which I bought for a fiver some years back, played once and put away. My audio memory was that it was poorly-recorded to the point of being impossible to listen to. To my surprise, it was very enjoyable and the sound quality wasn't too bad. I don't know what I've changed to account for such a dramatic improvement (the only surviving element from the system on which I originally played it is the CD transport).

I must dig out my copy of Chuck Berry's Golden Decade, which got less enjoyable over the years as the 'mono reprocessed for stereo' nature of the recording became more apparent. Maybe it'll sound OK again!

[RichB]

This is a bit like a discussion I have with my brother in law, he works in video game audio design and has a very high end 5.1 set up in his studio.

He's always on at me about why I like hifi when pro gear, in his view, measures better and is more neutral and therefore more lifelike than hifi. I explain that if I wanted just that I'd buy pro gear but I look for some enjoyment in my music, and for me you only really get that emotional side of it with a well thought out hifi system. There's faithful reproduction and there's enjoyment. Not all systems do both.

[Haselsh1]

This is a bit like a discussion I have with my brother in law, he works in video game audio design and has a very high end 5.1 set up in his studio.

He's always on at me about why I like hifi when pro gear, in his view, measures better and is more neutral and therefore more lifelike than hifi. I explain that if I wanted just that I'd buy pro gear but I look for some enjoyment in my music, and for me you only really get that emotional side of it with a well thought out hifi system. There's faithful reproduction and there's enjoyment. Not all systems do both.

This is why, I think, I am going to go with a blend of both. Keep all of the Hi-Fi components but use a studio (Pro) amp for CD replay of certain kinds of music and keep the Rotel mono's for all other kinds of music. You never know, I may even buy a Croft Series 7 stereo power amp to replace the Rotel's. I would also use the Croft/Croft setup for vinyl replay as I think it would be much better suited.

[The Black Adder]

This is a bit like a discussion I have with my brother in law, he works in video game audio design and has a very high end 5.1 set up in his studio.

He's always on at me about why I like hifi when pro gear, in his view, measures better and is more neutral and therefore more lifelike than hifi. I explain that if I wanted just that I'd buy pro gear but I look for some enjoyment in my music, and for me you only really get that emotional side of it with a well thought out hifi system. There's faithful reproduction and there's enjoyment. Not all systems do both.

Interesting, I work in the games industry. What's his name? I might know him.

[Marco]

Doubting Thomas! :lol:

Marco.

[Haselsh1]

Doubting Thomas! :lol:

Marco.

I thought I was schizophrenic at one point but now I am in two minds about it :eyebrows:

[Marco]

:lolsign:

Marco.

[Haselsh1]

Many thanks for all of the contributions to this thread, very valuable. All I need now is a DJ amp and a DJ deck and I'm sorted. There I think lies what we are up against if we do not conform.

[User211]

If they are great for everything then they are probably not too far off accurate. Stands to reason.

Here's a link to the High Fidelity verses 'sounds nice' poll

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?129807-What-do-you-want-high-fidelity-or-to-make-your-music-sound-nice

97 votes, 'nice' won with 77%

Sound nice, hey? Hmmm - rather limited poll choices if you ask me.

I want a system that fucks me up. Seriously.

I've got a nice enough sounding system in the lounge that sounds nice with all sorts of material, but ultimately it is boring. After a hard week's work, I want a few beers, a lot of volume, and some serious adrenaline rush to go with it. Sounds a bit at odds with needing to relax, but that is exactly how I unwind.

[RichB]

Interesting, I work in the games industry. What's his name? I might know him.

Lewis Griffin

[struth]

Sound nice, hey? Hmmm - rather limited poll choices if you ask me.

I want a system that fucks me up. Seriously.

I've got a nice enough sounding system in the lounge that sounds nice with all sorts of material, but ultimately it is boring. After a hard week's work, I want a few beers, a lot of volume, and some serious adrenaline rush to go with it. Sounds a bit at odds with needing to relax, but that is exactly how I unwind.

You get bored of excitement and such, and look for more and more etc. sooner or later you'll be very happy with "nice" ;)

[User211]

You get bored of excitement and such, and look for more and more etc. sooner or later you'll be very happy with "nice" ;)

Multi-decades sez no, Grant. Maybe when I'm 90:D

[Marco]

Only a couple of years to go then! :eyebrows:

Marco.

[struth]

if he carry s on the way he's going it'll be next week :D I remember listening to loud music one day and said wtf! ;) is this all there is :eek: switched it all off and went out to play:D

[User211]

if he carry s on the way he's going it'll be next week :D I remember listening to loud music one day and said wtf! ;) is this all there is :eek: switched it all off and went out to play:D


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQCZD7FRL90

[User211]

Only a couple of years to go then! :eyebrows:

Marco.

Cheeky MoFo. I didn't hear anyway - the needles just past the half KW mark... cos that's all there is.

[struth]

Love Peg...think thats the 2002 remaster. She had a nice husky, sexy voice, and a good looking woman. must look out my PL cd;) .........from an ex heavy metal man too:eek:

[Haselsh1]

Sound nice, hey? Hmmm - rather limited poll choices if you ask me.

I want a system that fucks me up. Seriously.

I've got a nice enough sounding system in the lounge that sounds nice with all sorts of material, but ultimately it is boring. After a hard week's work, I want a few beers, a lot of volume, and some serious adrenaline rush to go with it. Sounds a bit at odds with needing to relax, but that is exactly how I unwind.

You and me both brother, very best wishes to you.

[jandl100]

Sound nice, hey? Hmmm - rather limited poll choices if you ask me.

I want a system that fucks me up. Seriously.

I've got a nice enough sounding system in the lounge that sounds nice with all sorts of material, but ultimately it is boring. After a hard week's work, I want a few beers, a lot of volume, and some serious adrenaline rush to go with it. Sounds a bit at odds with needing to relax, but that is exactly how I unwind.



You and me both brother, very best wishes to you.

I just knew that you two guys had the same world view! :lol:

Shaun, Justin has your Dream System :thumbsup:

[Audio Advent]

NC400 with linear PS and JFET input stage - a home built effort - was the best class D I have come across. They can work well.

Interesting.. that might have been UCD400 rather than NC400 as the descrete input stage on the nc400s requires delicate surgery to bypass so is unlikely. Meanwhile on OEM UCD400 boards the input buffer is bypassable.

[Audio Advent]

Exactly. That's always been my approach. A true Hi-Fi system is just that, 'High Fidelity'! This necessarily excludes tailoring the sound in a way that slants the balance or tonality towards some perceived (and incorrect) vision of what may be better suited to a particular type of music.

The problem is not with the passive hifi system, it's with the owner (and designer if they are trying to "voice" an amp to subjective taste) and what they perceive to be "real".

So... in order to get a sound they perceive to represent the impact of a real live electric guitar or kick drum (beside the fact drums and electric guitar sound different live than they do after being recorded and mixed and mastered... ) they actually distort or colour the sound to make it hyper-real. Then you go to play music with an opposite presentation and it's all wrong e.g. classical. Same the other way around where some people make classical overly rich and warm and all cosy with an emphasised midrange or vocal region..

It's another reason I stick to my theory that the very best way to voice a system or judge a system is with non-music, non-speech i.e. natural field recordings of environments you know instinctively. That way you allow your subconcious to judge what instinctively sounds "wrong" - the ear/brain is VERY sensitive to that - rather than your concious comparing to a culture-distorted memory of how you think things should sound.

[User211]

Interesting.. that might have been UCD400 rather than NC400 as the descrete input stage on the nc400s requires delicate surgery to bypass so is unlikely. Meanwhile on OEM UCD400 boards the input buffer is bypassable.

You might be right. All I know is the builder tried SMPS configs and said they sounded pretty awful, as indicated by the NC1200 based amp's sonic output - which I thought was pretty dreadful. At least in my system. I literally actively and thoroughly disliked it.

EDIT: Just checked it was UCD, which provides flexibility to change the input stage.

[Audio Advent]

There is a poll on another forum at the moment asking if folk prefer a nice sound or an accurate one. 'Nice' is winning by a country mile.

So logically anyone who votes "Nice" must by definition feel that "accurate" does not sound nice???

That is just crazy.

If something is accurately portrayed and a person doesn't like it then really I'm surprised they dabble in music and hifi at all and also surprised they haven't cut their ears off and poked their eardrums out in some kind of rare psychological pain..

Or in other words it's a completely rediculous poll and question.

[Haselsh1]

There is no way I want to relax; I want to break out into goosebumps and sweat. I want to feel bloody moved and have my head caved in with low frequencies. I do not care if it is accurate or not, who the hell wants accurate and what the hell is accurate if it comes out of a PA system or speaker cab...?

[struth]

If you want that I will send you some if my dreams lol

[Audio Advent]

What I require from my system is a rollercoaster of emotion. I am not remotely interested in how 'accurate' it may or may not be. I require emotion.

That's up to you, not the sound nor the system!

If you try hard enough, you can get all emotional about any old chart topper - have seen it happen, normally from afar, normally a middle-aged woman having drunk loads and loads..

Emotion is not in the music or any sound. Music is sound and sound is nothing but pushing and pulling of air. Emotion is all in your head and is influence by your own life, your own memories and cultural memes you've picked up and assimilated with. Take something as simple as a minor key and people in the west will say it is "sad". Play that minor key in somewhere like the middle east (can't remember where in the world exactly) and that very same minor key is considered full of joy.

Therefore no hifi system can create or convey emotion more than any other (unless one is silent) all that matters is what is going on in your head. And seeing as our brains mostly sing along and recreate the music we know rather than actually responding to the specific aural stimulus heard at that point in time, you can get just as emotional hearing the same song on a portable FM radio. If there are other aspects of sound recreation that you respond to emotionally they are entirely specific to you...

Take the right pills and any old crap can be emotional to the point of complete elation and near nirvana! Just a bunch of brain chemicals being stimulated and released..

[southall-1998]

Sam, are you a robot by any chance?

S.

[Audio Advent]

At least in my system. I literally actively and thoroughly disliked it.


I just can't relate to that at all... I enjoy music when it's played on the most terrible system imaginable. I might not enjoy the same aspects and will note how wrong it might sound, but I can still enjoy the music. And yet, from many people's DIY experiments and experiences I've read, the differences most people have found between linear supplies on UCD modules and ncores and the SMPS's have been pretty small. Most however, with the ncores at least, have found that the SMPS's sound superb and it's not worth the cost or effort to build a linear one, even those previously big linear supply proponents.

So I am surprised to hear that you actively and throughly disliked it.. perhaps the words are describing something subtle but which still got on your nerves? Hard to tell what people mean in audiophile world.

[Audio Advent]

Sam, are you a robot by any chance?

S.

What makes you ask that?

Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

[southall-1998]

Sam, I was only joking. I'm a sarcastic git, but I don't mean any harm :)

S.

[Audio Advent]

(of course that's a HAL 9000 quote... :) )

Emotion I feel through listening to music I am well aware has nothing whatsoever to do with the hifi system I am listening to it on! I know that certain music will make me feel a way no matter what I listen to it on.

Now, listening to fantastic sound is a different matter. I get the same feelings and thrill from it whether that sound comes from a hifi system or a real-life object. But that has nothing to do with music AND it has everything to do with transparency and accuracy.

The emotion Shaun appears to be describing is what he finds in the music as he is disinterested in accurate sound and the joy you can get from sound itself (not everyone is into "sound" even in this hobby..).

[Audio Advent]

Sam, I was only joking. I'm a sarcastic git, but I don't mean any harm :)

S.

I was too slow with the follow-up to let you know it was a HAL 9000 quote, the last sentence anyway. I guessed you were. :)

[Audio Advent]

For example, I must be one of the very very few people who gets a thrill from listening to live bagpipes. When I come across a player in London somewhere I'll stand in front of them for a good long while!

The attack, tone and rich timbre and harmonics is a delight in real life. Doesn't matter what they play. I look for a system that can convey that kind of thing but alas it would also probably require me to annoy my neighbours with high volumes.

[walpurgis]

I like hearing Irish fiddle & pipes together and played well. The harmonic interplay is amazing. And no, I'm not Irish.

[Audio Advent]

The subjective approach to accuracy baffles me. Let's suppose two people, one aged 20 and one aged 50 listen to the same system. One thinks it's accurate, the other thinks it's inaccurate. Who is right, and how can we tell? Clearly a younger person should be more able to distinguish inaccuracy, because his/her hearing will be better. On the other hand, maybe the older person's ears will be more 'educated'. Either way, there's no independent arbiter of accuracy that can be applied simply by listening.

I think it's fine to say that all that matters for each individual is whether he/she likes the sound of a particular system, but that may not mean that their preferred system is accurate, or 'faithful to the original', or indeed anything other than 'a system which produces a sound they like'.

I remember going to pick up an ebay item and hearing the guy's system. He was very proud of it and talking about how natural sounding it was and how great and analogue his original 60s rock singles sounded, warm rich etc etc etc

Yet it almost blew my eardrums out with all the treble and sibilance and screaching! Obviously his hearing was tailing off at about 14KHz and his whole system compensated for it so much that to me it sounded like the worst system I'd ever heard. *

And so, yes, you cannot judge how generally accurate the system is subjectively. All you can do is say that it sounds accurate to you with the possibility that it is skewed to compensate for how your own ears and brain work. Only some of those people might, by complete chance, be actually correct.

* I realise that this makes the assumption that my hearing is perfect and accurate! I bet we all think that about our own..

[Audio Advent]

I like hearing Irish fiddle & pipes together and played well. The harmonic interplay is amazing. And no, I'm not Irish.

:yesbruv:

(might be the most inappropriate emoticon but I agree - love that kind of thing whatever the music).

[walpurgis]

I think learning classical piano as a youngster (I was damned good actually) started my appreciation of what might bluntly be called the noises music playing can create. The vast array of chords were great fun to play through and experiment with.

I always thought much of the appeal of Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young came from their voices being unusually harmonic together. More so than any other band I can think of from that time. (not to mention the excellent lyrics and music). That's my opinion anyway.

[jandl100]

It seems to me that someone who craves bass slam and dynamics (say) would get more of a kick out of a system that can do that sort of music justice than an Amstrad music centre.
It's quite possible to still enjoy the music from said music centre, but they'd enjoy it more from Justin's system with his awesome Accuphase mono amps and big-mutha Apogee-based ribbon speakers. ;)

So in my view it is not all in the mind of the listener. The system can definitely help (or hinder) the emotional reaction.

[Haselsh1]

OK, so while this thread has been canoodling with itself, I have bought and installed a Samson Servo 600 as a bit of an experiment. I see that Samson have sneakily changed the spec on their amplifiers over the last three years since I first heard one but I have to go to work shortly so I'll update when I can.

[jandl100]

OK, so while this thread has been canoodling with itself,...

That's what aos threads do best! :D

[Joe]

Hard to tell what people mean in audiophile world.

Indeed. I am often reminded of this bit in 'Alice in Wonderland':

'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

[Haselsh1]

OK, last night Sue and I installed the Samson Servo 600 into the system with no preamp in place. We decided that we would test it out using a direct link between the CD player and the amplifier through the amps gain controls. We listened to David Bowie ‘Black Star’, Ghostpoet ‘Shedding Skin’ and Daft Punk ‘Random Access Memories’ all of which were on CD.

First thing, the bass end. Really nice and propulsive when compared to the Rotel bridged mono’s. Lovely sold, firm extension and good power. The Rotel mono’s just do not carry the same weight or power to their lower frequencies.

The midrange is really good with Ghostpoet’s voice much better presented than with the Rotel’s. A more rounded tone with no artificial edge as there is with the Rotel’s and Croft preamp. I prefer the sound in the midrange of the Samson to the sound of the Croft/Rotel. There is a track on ‘Shedding Skin’ maybe track three where there is a guitar very wide of the left speaker that is clearly played using a small guitar combo in the studio. This is now very obvious and highly realistic. Not so with the Croft/Rotel.

The treble is good and it is there but not false like it is with the Croft/Rotel’s.

The stereo imaging is staggering it is now so good. The images are exceptionally well defined and presented with everything deeply etched into its own space. With the Croft/Rotel, when trying to set up a central image it is almost impossible when at the amplifiers to hear a central image moving between two points. Not so with the Samson. It is just so easy to hear the central focus. Bloody brilliant.
All that remains for this weekend is to try it with the Croft preamp.

I did notice back in 2009 whilst listening to a then Samson Servo 600 that when using it with a preamp you couldn’t turn the volume up full and control it with the pre because the level of hiss was dreadful. Not so now. Also, the front panel is not black plastic anymore but a rather fetching grey gunmetal finish.

Should have been around £300 but mine cost £210 brand new.

[struth]

A result then Shaun. £210 wont break the bank either:) i like my pro type amps too

[walpurgis]

If the amp sounds well enough via its built in volume controls Shaun, I'd suspect it would work just fine with a simple passive pre-amp. Might be worth borrowing one to find out.

[struth]

If the amp sounds well enough via its built in volume controls Shaun, I'd suspect it would work just fine with a simple passive pre-amp. Might be worth borrowing one to find out.

Aye, or if you just need inputs then Stan Beresford does an excellent switchbox. Ive got one for my proamps that only have 1 input but have vc,s

[User211]

It's quite possible to still enjoy the music from said music centre, but they'd enjoy it more from Justin's system with his awesome Accuphase mono amps and big-mutha Apogee-based ribbon speakers. ;)

What's this? Build a shrine to Justin's system day?:D:lol:

[User211]

Should have been around £300 but mine cost £210 brand new.


Result.

Someone should have a pro amp bake off for kicks.

[Audio Advent]

OK, last night Sue and I installed the Samson Servo 600 into the system with no preamp in place. We decided that we would test it out using a direct link between the CD player and the amplifier through the amps gain controls. We listened to David Bowie ‘Black Star’, Ghostpoet ‘Shedding Skin’ and Daft Punk ‘Random Access Memories’ all of which were on CD.

First thing, the bass end. Really nice and propulsive when compared to the Rotel bridged mono’s. Lovely sold, firm extension and good power. The Rotel mono’s just do not carry the same weight or power to their lower frequencies.

The midrange is really good with Ghostpoet’s voice much better presented than with the Rotel’s. A more rounded tone with no artificial edge as there is with the Rotel’s and Croft preamp. I prefer the sound in the midrange of the Samson to the sound of the Croft/Rotel. There is a track on ‘Shedding Skin’ maybe track three where there is a guitar very wide of the left speaker that is clearly played using a small guitar combo in the studio. This is now very obvious and highly realistic. Not so with the Croft/Rotel.

The treble is good and it is there but not false like it is with the Croft/Rotel’s.

The stereo imaging is staggering it is now so good. The images are exceptionally well defined and presented with everything deeply etched into its own space. With the Croft/Rotel, when trying to set up a central image it is almost impossible when at the amplifiers to hear a central image moving between two points. Not so with the Samson. It is just so easy to hear the central focus. Bloody brilliant.
All that remains for this weekend is to try it with the Croft preamp.

I did notice back in 2009 whilst listening to a then Samson Servo 600 that when using it with a preamp you couldn’t turn the volume up full and control it with the pre because the level of hiss was dreadful. Not so now. Also, the front panel is not black plastic anymore but a rather fetching grey gunmetal finish.

Should have been around £300 but mine cost £210 brand new.


That sounds great. I wonder what is inside one these days...

Sometimes you find that the volume controls on the front of these amps are exactly passive attenuation on the inputs. Active pre-amps are all about compensating for the lack of drive from the source component's output circuitry.. so if your CD player has a beefed up output stage then effectively you already have an active pre-amp built in to the cd player with a long wire before the attenuation and volume control that's now located in the amp itself. See what difference it makes.

[Audio Advent]

It seems to me that someone who craves bass slam and dynamics (say) would get more of a kick out of a system that can do that sort of music justice than an Amstrad music centre.
It's quite possible to still enjoy the music from said music centre, but they'd enjoy it more from Justin's system with his awesome Accuphase mono amps and big-mutha Apogee-based ribbon speakers. ;)

So in my view it is not all in the mind of the listener. The system can definitely help (or hinder) the emotional reaction.

I guess, as Joe was saying, we don't know what the words we use mean to other people.

I would enjoy the bass slam and it would be pleasurable and make me smile. But that to me is not what I take to be meant by "emotion" in music. I take emotion to mean that it stirs something more than mere sensual tittilation..

So that bass slam may be enjoyed by me on a sensual level but the next person then relates internally that bass slam to care-free days of partying when they were younger and excitement and love for their fellow partiers (maybe enhanced by some mdma based drugs) and all sorts of added emotion which are completely unique to their memories and associations.

And then it's not going to be the bass slam that makes people react to the music - if it was, then they'd equally be moved by bass slam from recordings of a pnumatic drill. Away from the absurd, it will also matter if the bass slam is from some death metal or some electonica - people liking one will probably hate the other. So you've already got to have the emotional connection with the music via the Amstrad system beforehand else no extra dressing on the sound will make a difference.

I probably have stronger emotional moments listening to music whilst driving a van, singing at the top of my voice along the motorway than anywhere else and at the same time, when I think about it, I have a mild frustration that it doesn't sound better - too much road noise etc - but it doesn't detract from the emotion. Lack of neighbours etc is more conducive to emotion than better sound in my opinion.

It's a complicated subject, made impossible by people's different internal definitions of the same words.

I like to canoodle ...

[Macca]

I'm with Sam on this. amp A may be of higher sound quality (measurable and audible) than amp B, but the idea that this somehow directly corralates to emotional engagement is I think a myth propagated by the more romantic of magazine reviewers.

[Haselsh1]

Yes indeed. There was a track last night on 'Random Access Memories' with this really beautiful key change from a major to a minor. Cue goosebumps and slight eye watering on my part. It is not just about bass slam and power that is why I am wondering how long it will be before I am back with valves ;)

[Haselsh1]

By the way, cables in my system are currently Atlas Hyper interconnects and NVA LS5 speaker cables. These have quite an obvious high frequency response.

[Haselsh1]

Well Sue and I have just connected up the Croft Micro 25 Basic into the system along with the Samson Servo 600 and the first and most noticeable thing is the stereo imaging which has now become very vague and sloppy. Tonally, the system is as good as it was straight into the power amp gain controls but we think this needs a much longer listen.

[User211]

I guess, as Joe was saying, we don't know what the words we use mean to other people.

I would enjoy the bass slam and it would be pleasurable and make me smile. But that to me is not what I take to be meant by "emotion" in music. I take emotion to mean that it stirs something more than mere sensual tittilation..

So that bass slam may be enjoyed by me on a sensual level but the next person then relates internally that bass slam to care-free days of partying when they were younger and excitement and love for their fellow partiers (maybe enhanced by some mdma based drugs) and all sorts of added emotion which are completely unique to their memories and associations.

And then it's not going to be the bass slam that makes people react to the music - if it was, then they'd equally be moved by bass slam from recordings of a pnumatic drill. Away from the absurd, it will also matter if the bass slam is from some death metal or some electonica - people liking one will probably hate the other. So you've already got to have the emotional connection with the music via the Amstrad system beforehand else no extra dressing on the sound will make a difference.

I probably have stronger emotional moments listening to music whilst driving a van, singing at the top of my voice along the motorway than anywhere else and at the same time, when I think about it, I have a mild frustration that it doesn't sound better - too much road noise etc - but it doesn't detract from the emotion. Lack of neighbours etc is more conducive to emotion than better sound in my opinion.

It's a complicated subject, made impossible by people's different internal definitions of the same words.

I like to canoodle ...

Great post.

Reminds me of Bjarne Stroustrup saying "if you think C++ is difficult, you should try English". C++, one of the hardest high level computer languages to really get to know well, suffers from massively less ambiguity that the English language.

I can enjoy music via an Ultimate Ears Boom II Bluetooth speaker (my current fave portable) as much as from my main system. But it never fucks me up - which my main system can do with ease. What I mean by that is literally being overwhelmed with sonic information that just makes my jaw drop. Like "wow that's good", "damn that was fast", "can't believe what I am hearing", "that sounds so close to a real drum kit" - that kind of stuff.

It isn't an easy listen system. And I don't want it to be. I want to be impressed. I demand sonic information in copious quantities.. The hi-fi equivalent of a very fast car. Give me that adrenaline rush.

[User211]

Yes indeed. There was a track last night on 'Random Access Memories' with this really beautiful key change from a major to a minor. Cue goosebumps and slight eye watering on my part. It is not just about bass slam and power that is why I am wondering how long it will be before I am back with valves ;)

I honestly think it is good to have a solid state and valve option. In fact tomorrow night I'm back on the 211 monoblocks I have.

The bass speed is actually appreciably higher than the Accuphase's dish up (which let's face it will measurbate much better than the 211s). Probably some weird colouration but maybe not. So having the right valve amp doesn't mean losing bass speed or slam. For all the extra power the Accuphase's can deliver, it doesn't translate to a massively higher volume level capability. The Accuphase's typically get cranked right up when I'm not in the room or Jerry is here and we're playing Dream Theater LOL.

[Audio Advent]

Great post.

Reminds me of Bjarne Stroustrup saying "if you think C++ is difficult, you should try English". C++, one of the hardest high level computer languages to really get to know well, suffers from massively less ambiguity that the English language.

I can enjoy music via an Ultimate Ears Boom II Bluetooth speaker (my current fave portable) as much as from my main system. But it never fucks me up - which my main system can do with ease. What I mean by that is literally being overwhelmed with sonic information that just makes my jaw drop. Like "wow that's good", "damn that was fast", "can't believe what I am hearing", "that sounds so close to a real drum kit" - that kind of stuff.

It isn't an easy listen system. And I don't want it to be. I want to be impressed. I demand sonic information in copious quantities.. The hi-fi equivalent of a very fast car. Give me that adrenaline rush.

If it truely does that (and I don't doubt it) then I feel like I need to have a listen!

[User211]

If it truely does that (and I don't doubt it) then I feel like I need to have a listen!

Well, it is very good at doing what I describe in comparison to the vast majority of domestic set ups.

But it has constraints - it can't sound completely like a live band in a small pub venue, or even 120DB from a serious horn driven stack at the local dance club.

Recordings of my acoustic guitar definitely sound better via the hi-fi than in real life. It is like hearing what I play with a forensic lens. I can hear WAY more via the hi-fi than I ever can playing it for real. Which is kind of odd.

[Audio Advent]

Yes indeed. There was a track last night on 'Random Access Memories' with this really beautiful key change from a major to a minor. Cue goosebumps and slight eye watering on my part. It is not just about bass slam and power that is why I am wondering how long it will be before I am back with valves ;)


Well Sue and I have just connected up the Croft Micro 25 Basic into the system along with the Samson Servo 600 and the first and most noticeable thing is the stereo imaging which has now become very vague and sloppy. Tonally, the system is as good as it was straight into the power amp gain controls but we think this needs a much longer listen.

Hopefully even a hardboard backed, plastic all in one system can portray a key change. That's a real shame about the stereo imaging! I have a theory that stereo imaging is about consistency of each channel, is about detail retrieval and about phase accuracy and that the simplest path is the best in that aspect. And with that I begin to think - without practical evidence - that the more accurate possibilities of a good solid state design will achieve that more readily, especially with SMD components and digitally controlled volume controls..

[Audio Advent]

Well, it is very good at doing what I describe in comparison to the vast majority of domestic set ups.

But it has constraints - it can't sound completely like a live band in a small pub venue, or even 120DB from a serious horn driven stack at the local dance club.

Recordings of my acoustic guitar definitely sound better via the hi-fi than in real life. It is like hearing what I play with a forensic lens. I can hear WAY more via the hi-fi than I ever can playing it for real. Which is kind of odd.

Where do you put the mic or pick-up? I imagine that to hear the same sound live, you'd risk being hit by the guitarist's strumming hand and even then those details might be too quiet without amplification.

[struth]

Well, it is very good at doing what I describe in comparison to the vast majority of domestic set ups.

But it has constraints - it can't sound completely like a live band in a small pub venue, or even 120DB from a serious horn driven stack at the local dance club.

Recordings of my acoustic guitar definitely sound better via the hi-fi than in real life. It is like hearing what I play with a forensic lens. I can hear WAY more via the hi-fi than I ever can playing it for real. Which is kind of odd.

Its just warming it up for you ;)

[User211]

Where do you put the mic or pick-up? I imagine that to hear the same sound live, you'd risk being hit by the guitarist's strumming hand and even then those details might be too quiet without amplification.

It is the playback at volume that provides the magnifying lens. My recordings are generally done using a Rowland digital recorder but I had a fairly serious mic at one stage and that was a step above the Rowland. Typically it is about a foot away from the guitar and at about the same level, though placement to the fore or aft of the guitar in the horizontal plane do make a marked difference to the resulting sonics. My recordings don't really compare to the quality available from say Nils Lofgren "Acoustic Live", which is simply stunning.

[Audio Advent]

I'm with Sam on this. amp A may be of higher sound quality (measurable and audible) than amp B, but the idea that this somehow directly corralates to emotional engagement is I think a myth propagated by the more romantic of magazine reviewers.

It's like they are trying too hard to impress, trying to invoke something in people so that they love reading their reviews - indeed people comment these days at how they love reading people's reviews, especially it seems if they write about how emotional they got over a specific recording of a specific performer's obscure recital of some composer or other. Presumably the performance was otherwise so crap that on a lesser stereo they would be left stone cold! Kind of an insult to the music and performers they say they like..

[jandl100]

As for the above, I think Sam is actually agreeing with what I posted.
Amstrad = musical enjoyment and emotional response. Hifi can be even better, otherwise what's the point?


The Accuphase's typically get cranked right up when I'm not in the room or Jerry is here and we're playing Dream Theater LOL.

:D - yeah. My ears are still ringing from out last DT sesh. :eek:
A dweeb on another forum keeps having a poke at me cos he thinks I play music too quietly. :lol:

[Firebottle]

I have a theory that stereo imaging is about consistency of each channel, is about detail retrieval and about phase accuracy and that the simplest path is the best in that aspect. And with that I begin to think - without practical evidence - that the more accurate possibilities of a good solid state design will achieve that more readily, especially with SMD components and digitally controlled volume controls..

Absolutely spot on IMO.

Can't agree about the SS design and digital volume controls though, I do have an SS digital volume preamp and it's not as transparent as my other gear.

:)

[Haselsh1]

Hopefully even a hardboard backed, plastic all in one system can portray a key change. That's a real shame about the stereo imaging! I have a theory that stereo imaging is about consistency of each channel, is about detail retrieval and about phase accuracy and that the simplest path is the best in that aspect. And with that I begin to think - without practical evidence - that the more accurate possibilities of a good solid state design will achieve that more readily, especially with SMD components and digitally controlled volume controls..

That's my whole point; any system CAN portray a key change but not any system can portray the emotion that goes with that key change.

[Dauntless]

It's been a good thread, this! Interesting, your findings using the Samson amp Shaun. I myself have 3 Behringer A500's and I like the sound I get from them. At present I am bi-amping a pair of Monarchy SM70Pro amps and they are good but I cannot decide if they are any better than the A500's. The only other I know that uses A500's in his system is Serge Auckland so maybe it's my ears! However I have had a Naim 250 and a Linn Clout recently and was lukewarm on both these amps. Interesting when a cheap Pro amp like the Samson is preferred to respected Hi-Fi gear. Have you ever seen or heard these speakers Justin and Shaun. http://www.tektondesign.com/images/gallery1-large.jpg
They maybe just up your street. High power handing, great sensitivity and low bass all in one package. There's a review of the Tekton Enzo on the TNT site but the Pendragon is much more still. Should be great for Bagpipes to Electronica.

[Haselsh1]

I did actually consider the A500 power amps at one point but came out with the Samson, no idea why though. I may now buy another Servo 600 and bi-amp/bi-wire but for that I shall require a good preamp or means of splitting RCA outputs.

[Audio Advent]

That's my whole point; any system CAN portray a key change but not any system can portray the emotion that goes with that key change.

I'm confused by that ... a key change is a key change. It can be played by a mariachi band or on piano or accapella group or full orchestra. The notes and the key change are the same.

In cynical music writing (like songs sung on X-Factor with some pyro effects going off at the keychange) key changes are used again and again to effect the emotions of the listener. It is most definately the key change that pangs the emotions... and yet that keychange can be potrayed by any system.

If that RAM tune doesn't give you any emotion UNLESS it's played on a particular system with particular sound characteristics .... then I'd guess that it's not a very emotional tune for you in general, you have to work really hard to get that connection (and some might say too hard). But I am guessing that really you will feel that emotion also on a lesser system too. It's just that you are also enjoying the sound at the same time - you're getting sonic titilation PLUS the emotion from the song PLUS probably your environment and ritual (you've already put yourself in a certain frame of mind by setting up a system and deliberately sitting down to pay special attention to the music) .

That's my theory and experience anyway.

And another form of proof that emotion is entirely internal - I bet I won't feel the emotion from the same tunes on the same system. If the emotion was carried in some way by the music, it would be noticed by all, like feeling heat from the sun. The personallised and internal emotive triggers are also used very successfully in sports psychology too, to the point that even the shittest quality or merest suggestion of the trigger music will bring about very strong emotions, in fact they can just recall the music in their heads and brain scans will show the brain firing off as if they are listening to it...

I can understand a resistance to something which appears to dehumanise or robotise us ... but it's just a different and more truthful understanding of what we as humans really are like.

But my take home message is, if you want more emotion from your music then simply learn to pay more attention to the music itself and open yourself up to it in a hippy, new-age way and stop worrying about hifi. If you specifically enjoy other sonic merits and sonic sensual experiences then invest in a good hifi.. One needs to get the right balance so they're not wasting time on the wrong things in life. And it sounds like you're doing that - some would worry about the Samson not being good enough in some way..

[Audio Advent]

With all that waffle said..

.. there is something to say for precise rhythm and beat that makes you want to move! A good powerful amp is only going to help with that.

[Arkless Electronics]

With all that waffle said..

.. there is something to say for precise rhythm and beat that makes you want to move! A good powerful amp is only going to help with that.

Only if there was insufficient power in the first place. 10W from an amp capable of 200W is no different from 10W from an amp capable of 30W.... all else being equal.

[Macca]

But ability to deliver current can seriously affect the bass performance, regardless of the wattage on offer.

[Arkless Electronics]

But ability to deliver current can seriously affect the bass performance, regardless of the wattage on offer.

Precisely (kind of anyway...)..... all sorts of related things come into play as well as this though. Remember that it only needs 3.5A to to give 100W into 8R.... An amp capable of 100W into 8R but only 130W into 4R may well have far less ability to control and deliver current than another amp with a max of 30W into 8R but 59W into 4R! It all depends on the power supply, the number and type of output devices and the settings of any protection circuitry fitted. Bigger heatsinks and heavier duty wiring tend to go with these as well. It can be much cheaper to make an amp that gives 150Wpc RMS but flakes into awkward loads or 4R loads than to make a much less powerful into 8R amp with serious current and control.

[Haselsh1]

I'm confused by that ... a key change is a key change. It can be played by a mariachi band or on piano or accapella group or full orchestra. The notes and the key change are the same.

I guess you just don't get it.

[jandl100]

I guess you just don't get it.

:lol: +1

[cyclopse]

It is the playback at volume that provides the magnifying lens. My recordings are generally done using a Rowland digital recorder but I had a fairly serious mic at one stage and that was a step above the Rowland. Typically it is about a foot away from the guitar and at about the same level, though placement to the fore or aft of the guitar in the horizontal plane do make a marked difference to the resulting sonics. My recordings don't really compare to the quality available from say Nils Lofgren "Acoustic Live", which is simply stunning.

Yes I must try the vinyl version released recently.

[Audio Advent]

I guess you just don't get it.

Yep! There's no need to even guess - I expressed that with "I'm confused by that". Again, I suspect that there is a difference between us in the meaning of "emotion" when applied to music.

Seriously, if there are aspects in the MUSIC which convey emotion for you then simply turn up the volume! Doesn't matter how good the system is... try it, wack it all the way up ! That is the appeal of a more PA oriented set-up - the speakers can handle more power before distortion, the amps can give out more power before clipping or distortion. And it sounds great !

I was in Selfridges the other day and they were blasting out MP3s via some active Pioneer DJ monitoring speakers. When Chaka Khan came on and I was near, it had everything in the sound when playing loud that draws me into that tune - the stop-start punch of the kick, the sharp edges of the synth bass, the expressiveness of her vocal performance.. made me want to dance and sing (yeah it was loud enough that I could sing without anyone hearing :) ) . It's nothing particularly hifi ... but it can play loud and cleanly!

It's the exact same reason why compression is used in a lot of music - more slam and rhythm to make people want to dance, especially when it's played loud.

By the way, I listened to Random Access Memories yesterday the whole way through - thanks for mentioning that, great album and I don't think I'd listened to it before, only the hits. Err... to be a muso pedent, I didn't hear one key change. You must mean a certain chord progression you liked - which, again, any system can portray and more so when the wick's turned up.

[Audio Advent]

:lol: +1

Turning to classical that I know you listen to a lot, a great hifi can make a piece sound gorgious (reverb of the recording space, more timbre of instruments etc) but surely the "emotion" is in the overall, general expression of the musicians and the intertwining lines between instruments, chord progressions they make? If the volume is turned up, then surely any old hifi can portray that too?

I differenciate the emotion of music with the sonic stimulations of the sound itself. And anyway, even if hearing reverb (for example) sounds so beautiful that it's emotional, then that's not even music.. it's just sound. Would a hammer being dropped in the same hall trigger the same emotion? Someone who lives or works in a large hall will ignore that reverb as an everyday event and there is no inherent emotion contained within at all. The emotion and associations that trigger one's emotions are entirely internal to one's brain - external stimulous is nothing but cold, hard triggers for your particular wiring of your brain.

Personally, I would listen to a track of hammers dropped in a reverberant hall because it does sound gorgious :) And that's why I'm a hifi geek to try to make that sound as real as possible without having to just play everything stupidly loud to get at that detail..

[Haselsh1]

Err... to be a muso pedent, I didn't hear one key change. You must mean a certain chord progression you liked - which, again, any system can portray and more so when the wick's turned up.

To those who know this album well I think I would say much more if I kept quiet.

[Audio Advent]

To those who know this album well I think I would say much more if I kept quiet.

Very cryptic! Intriguing... :)

Ah! The little hidden one on the piano track, from the intro into the song.. tho of course you didn't keep quiet :p

[OD1]

May I ask a (silly ?) question ?
What is meant by the terms "fast Bass" & "Slam" when describing how a system sounds ?

[Haselsh1]

Hey, Oliver, some bass can be reproduced in a slow, plodding fashion whereas some bass can have 'attack' and 'speed' which sometimes conveys more emotion. Slam is a hefty 'thwack' from the bass cones that shifts quite a bit of air in the room. Bass fanatics cherish this kind of behaviour from their systems. Or at least, I certainly do.

;)

[Haselsh1]

May I ask a (silly ?) question ?
What is meant by the terms "fast Bass" & "Slam" when describing how a system sounds ?

With great respect, no question is silly.

[OD1]

Thanks Shaun,
I listen to a lot of reggae (inc dub) where the bass is deliberately played slow & deep, & the only "thwak" would be from the kick drum, hence me thinking can a bass guitar produce slam ?

My search for bass (that I like) from a decent hifi faced a few hurdles, and compromises along the way, so I admire your perseverance & hope you find the amps to give the sound you crave, me, I took the lazy route & compromised dynamics for tone/ air & space at low volumes.

One of the hurdles that still irritates happened at the first hifi show I attended (Manchester 2011), I was in the Naim room, & was invited to let them play my 12" single of Plastic Smile by Black Uhuru (i have heard it live [well via PA] & know it well), through their very expensive multi mono block system, and when it ended I commented that the bass was lacking depth !!!
In summary, what followed was "oh, he likes distorted boomy bass", & suggested that when I heard it live the bass was distorted as well :scratch:

I left that show thinking "they must be right", maybe I can't get the sound I like from a hifi system.

I certainly like my bass deep, but find that having neighbours restricts the times I can pump up the volume levels that would give me more attack, and that "lovely" punch to the guts.

An example is the Daft Punk track Get Lucky, I won't play this unless the neighbours are out, because I know I would be tempted to turn the wick up to "feel the music", before the knock at the door :eek:

Oliver

[Barry]

The main advantage in monoblocks is ease of moving them when things get really big and heavy! No real advantage anywhere else as a stereo amp can be totally dual mono internally, and if not, a big enough and good enough shared power supply would make any disadvantage from a shared one fairly negligible.
You are halving the current and grip etc by using them in bridged mode btw. Better to parallel the channels if about 60WPC is enough, then you get twice the current and grip of a single stereo amp.

The advantage of monoblock amps is that they can be located directly behind each speaker, minimising speaker cable length and maximising damping factor. This does of course mean long cables running back to the preamp, but if both can support true balanced line connections this is not a problem.

[Arkless Electronics]

The advantage of monoblock amps is that they can be located directly behind each speaker, minimising speaker cable length and maximising damping factor. This does of course mean long cables running back to the preamp, but if both can support true balanced line connections this is not a problem.

That's very tenuous Barry as I'm sure you are aware :) If using monoblocks can save using 20 Meters of speaker cable then yes but this doesn't apply in many situations. For most people using runs of say 5M of thick cable the difference in damping factor will be negligible. Also of course damping factors more than about 40 are pretty irrelevant anyway. It can be argued as to how much damping factor is really necessary and answers between about 16 and 60 will usually be mooted.... Even if we go for 60 then an average run of about 5M of thick cable will only reduce this to say 59.5! With lower DF's the proportion due to the cable becomes far lower still..... When we get to valve amps with DF's of only around 2 - 16 it would take a very long or very thin cable to make any difference to the DF whatsoever!

[Barry]

Disagree - I replaced 11 metre and 17 metre runs respectively with two 60cm runs and there was an improvement, even though my speakers (Quad 57s) don't need damping. Also the lower the resistance of the speaker cables, the less power wasted in them.

[Arkless Electronics]

As power wasted in cable will be maybe 0.001W I assume you're 'aving a larf :lol:

[Barry]

The loop resistance of the longer cable was nearly 1 Ohm, and the small increase in volume for a given setting of the volume control was noticeable.

[Arkless Electronics]

The loop resistance of the longer cable was nearly 1 Ohm, and the small increase in volume for a given setting of the volume control was noticeable.

That was 17 Meters and must have been none too thick to have that loop resistance. I have only seen this sort of way too high resistance with DNM single strand cable in the past. I stand by all I said in post #238

[Barry]

The cable was 5 amp twin-core mains cable, measured with a Fluke DMM. The increase in volume was small but noticeable.

I have just redecorated the living/listening room and have replaced the old cables with QED 79 cable (of 20A rating) as a back up, should I need to use a stereo power amplifier.

[Arkless Electronics]

The cable was 5 amp twin-core mains cable, measured with a Fluke DMM. The increase in volume was small but noticeable.

I have just redecorated the living/listening room and have replaced the old cables with QED 79 cable (of 20A rating) as a back up, should I need to use a stereo power amplifier.

If you re read my earlier post it clearly states that my comments refer to "normal" 5M ish lengths of thick speaker cable.... If one chooses to use an example of 17 meter lengths of 5 Amp lighting type cable then obviously things will be as you describe! I think the fount master is of mischievous bent this evening :eyebrows:

[Haselsh1]

An example is the Daft Punk track Get Lucky, I won't play this unless the neighbours are out, because I know I would be tempted to turn the wick up to "feel the music", before the knock at the door :eek:

Oliver

I think you have what I have ;)

[Barry]

If you re read my earlier post it clearly states that my comments refer to "normal" 5M ish lengths of thick speaker cable.... If one chooses to use an example of 17 meter lengths of 5 Amp lighting type cable then obviously things will be as you describe! I think the fount master is of mischievous bent this evening :eyebrows:

I was describing the situation as it was, not as it should be. I got away with it because I was using Quad 57 speakers which have very low mass/inertia to damp.

[Arkless Electronics]

I was describing the situation as it was, not as it should be. I got away with it because I was using Quad 57 speakers which have very low mass/inertia to damp.

OK :)

[DSJR]

QED 79 strand, how 1970's :lol:

Loads of better and cheaper stuff on fleabay Barry - the one that looks like Linn K10 is a magnificent buy (and a fifth or less than Linn charge) and really does 'sound' good. Just thought I'd mention it ;)

[DSJR]

That's very tenuous Barry as I'm sure you are aware :) If using monoblocks can save using 20 Meters of speaker cable then yes but this doesn't apply in many situations. For most people using runs of say 5M of thick cable the difference in damping factor will be negligible. Also of course damping factors more than about 40 are pretty irrelevant anyway. It can be argued as to how much damping factor is really necessary and answers between about 16 and 60 will usually be mooted.... Even if we go for 60 then an average run of about 5M of thick cable will only reduce this to say 59.5! With lower DF's the proportion due to the cable becomes far lower still..... When we get to valve amps with DF's of only around 2 - 16 it would take a very long or very thin cable to make any difference to the DF whatsoever!

Jez, I think it also depends on the amp design and what the designer found important. twenty years ago, AVI were my amps of choice and single ended or not, the designer made his products so the preamp sounded best driving several metres of interconnect (as long as it was low capacitance and of good quality) to the power amps, which despite having high damping factors, always sounded great (as did Quads) when driving short, albeit chunky gauge, speaker cables. As we all know by now, Naim were the opposite, needing long speaker cables to maintain some form of stability in their amps. The stuff I make is fine in short speaker lengths, but the passive preamp, I'm told, shouldn't have hugely long interconnects to the power amp.

[Arkless Electronics]

Ah the fairy dust factor..... :D