Re: THE TEST.
To carlosfm et al, it would strongly appear that even the editors of Stereophile could not hear the difference between a $700 amplifier and one costing more that $10,000. They make their living hearing the smallest of differences between audio components but you can say they have bad ears if you like. You can certainly argue they're normally driven by their advertisers, but in this case, they were going against them.
As for the "state-of-the-art" advancing in the 15 years since the Stereophile Challenge, we need to be realistic about that. Are kitchen knives better today than they were 15 years ago? What about wood furniture or leather shoes?
Some things become "mature" and do not benefit from further refinements. Of course, the people that SELL them would like everyone to believe otherwise. One could aruge that audio amps were plenty mature in the late 1980's. Of course the companies selling amps would love to have you buy a new amplifier as often as possible. So that's just another reason to propagate the myths about amplifiers.
But from a technology point of view, if you ignore the latest "fad" components (that nobody has objectively proven make any audible difference at all), little has changed in audio amps since the 80's. The same basic circuit topologies in use then are still widely in use now. The measured performance hasn't changed much (if anything it's gotten worse overall).
There are some relatively new things in the audio world, namely SACD, DVD-Audio, multichannel, digital amplifiers, DSP, digital room correction, networking, etc. But the basic analog amplifier in the Gainclone isn't much different than the ones that have been around for decades.
Why on earth would they use an amp that Carver was already intimately familiar with? There's no way it was the Silver Seven because the article talks in several places about Bob being newly exposed to the Reference Amp. So yes, you are wrong.fdegrove said:
To carlosfm et al, it would strongly appear that even the editors of Stereophile could not hear the difference between a $700 amplifier and one costing more that $10,000. They make their living hearing the smallest of differences between audio components but you can say they have bad ears if you like. You can certainly argue they're normally driven by their advertisers, but in this case, they were going against them.
As for the "state-of-the-art" advancing in the 15 years since the Stereophile Challenge, we need to be realistic about that. Are kitchen knives better today than they were 15 years ago? What about wood furniture or leather shoes?
Some things become "mature" and do not benefit from further refinements. Of course, the people that SELL them would like everyone to believe otherwise. One could aruge that audio amps were plenty mature in the late 1980's. Of course the companies selling amps would love to have you buy a new amplifier as often as possible. So that's just another reason to propagate the myths about amplifiers.
But from a technology point of view, if you ignore the latest "fad" components (that nobody has objectively proven make any audible difference at all), little has changed in audio amps since the 80's. The same basic circuit topologies in use then are still widely in use now. The measured performance hasn't changed much (if anything it's gotten worse overall).
There are some relatively new things in the audio world, namely SACD, DVD-Audio, multichannel, digital amplifiers, DSP, digital room correction, networking, etc. But the basic analog amplifier in the Gainclone isn't much different than the ones that have been around for decades.
AKSA vs gainclone: relative sound?
Hi mb
You mentioned (about 10 days ago) that you swapped places between an AKSA 55 with tweaks (Nirvana +), a Krell and a gainclone-like amp.
I’m considering building either a Peter Daniel gainclone or an AKSA 55 with Nirvana +,
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9112
First what can say about the gainclone - a Peter Daniel design, what chip, etc?
Putting things in context: What load/ type are your speakers?
You and your wife consistently identify them, but what are relative sound qualities?
How well does the AKSA justify the extra time & cost?
TIA
Hi mb
You mentioned (about 10 days ago) that you swapped places between an AKSA 55 with tweaks (Nirvana +), a Krell and a gainclone-like amp.
I’m considering building either a Peter Daniel gainclone or an AKSA 55 with Nirvana +,
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9112
First what can say about the gainclone - a Peter Daniel design, what chip, etc?
Putting things in context: What load/ type are your speakers?
You and your wife consistently identify them, but what are relative sound qualities?
How well does the AKSA justify the extra time & cost?
TIA
COMPETENCE.
Hi,
Seems your "competent" is not the same as mine.
Same goes for Julian Vereker's Naim amps, although for different reasons.
Get real pls, there where better designed amps available, even way back then.
Sorry to day so, but I won't judge anything by those standards nowadays.
Hate to disagree but those are my sentiments,
Hi,
Seems your "competent" is not the same as mine.
Same goes for Julian Vereker's Naim amps, although for different reasons.
Get real pls, there where better designed amps available, even way back then.
Sorry to day so, but I won't judge anything by those standards nowadays.
Hate to disagree but those are my sentiments,
Quad what??!! No evolution?!!
For those who think little has changed from 30 years back to now in amplification, let me tell you a story.
Do you know the QUAD 405 power amp?
Highly rated back in the mid-seventies and even now there are people who swear for them.
Well... TL072 op-amp
inside, on the line in.
Quad rates it as 100W RMS / 8 Ohms, but tests indicate that it has much less, speakers really have to be 8 Ohms to get anywhere near that.
With 4 Ohm speakers connected to that, it strugles to give more than 25W RMS!!!
Aaaaaaaahahahahaahaahahaahaah!!!
Basically in terms of amp design very few revolutionary things have been made over the last 30 years, but there are some.
BUT COMPONENT QUALITY HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY FOR THE BETTER!
Note: I like Peter Walker not for his amps, but for his electrostatic speakers. That's what I call revolutionary (in the 50's!).
For those who think little has changed from 30 years back to now in amplification, let me tell you a story.
Do you know the QUAD 405 power amp?
Highly rated back in the mid-seventies and even now there are people who swear for them.
Well... TL072 op-amp
inside, on the line in.Quad rates it as 100W RMS / 8 Ohms, but tests indicate that it has much less, speakers really have to be 8 Ohms to get anywhere near that.
With 4 Ohm speakers connected to that, it strugles to give more than 25W RMS!!!
Aaaaaaaahahahahaahaahahaahaah!!!
Basically in terms of amp design very few revolutionary things have been made over the last 30 years, but there are some.
BUT COMPONENT QUALITY HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY FOR THE BETTER!
Note: I like Peter Walker not for his amps, but for his electrostatic speakers. That's what I call revolutionary (in the 50's!).
"Basically in terms of amp design very few revolutionary things have been made over the last 30 years, but there are some.
BUT COMPONENT QUALITY HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY FOR THE BETTER! "
EXACTLY !!
PS´s is not rocket science, layouts an topologys have been "mastered" for some time but the components...
Todays transistors gets better and better = more linear with higher BW. That translates into designs with better performance than the old SS designs of the 70´s.
LC Audio manage to build class A and A/B no feedback designs with THD about 0.01% 1W. That is good ****!
The IC opamps of the 70´s was not so fun I guess one could say and the discrete line level designs even though good wasn´t transparent. Today anyone can buy the latest opamp, power it with batteries and end up with a linestage transparant as the best highend designs out there, that´s cooool IMI and all this for only a couple of $.
Todays loudspeaker are better due to better drivers the same way as todays amps are better due to more linear components.
Two amps with 0.01% THD, 20Hz-20kHz +0 --0.1dB driven well below cliping level, do they sound the same..? sorry but answer is no!
/Peter
BUT COMPONENT QUALITY HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY FOR THE BETTER! "
EXACTLY !!
PS´s is not rocket science, layouts an topologys have been "mastered" for some time but the components...
Todays transistors gets better and better = more linear with higher BW. That translates into designs with better performance than the old SS designs of the 70´s.
LC Audio manage to build class A and A/B no feedback designs with THD about 0.01% 1W. That is good ****!
The IC opamps of the 70´s was not so fun I guess one could say and the discrete line level designs even though good wasn´t transparent. Today anyone can buy the latest opamp, power it with batteries and end up with a linestage transparant as the best highend designs out there, that´s cooool IMI
and all this for only a couple of $.Todays loudspeaker are better due to better drivers the same way as todays amps are better due to more linear components.
Two amps with 0.01% THD, 20Hz-20kHz +0 --0.1dB driven well below cliping level, do they sound the same..?
sorry but answer is no!/Peter
In conclusion...
So I guess we all have seen that there are several opinions about this thread ... like all threads.
So everyone has had a ball chucking their opinions around and trying to roadroller others ... on both sides .
So lets end all that and come down to people who NOW sit down and TRY the null method and post their results. That would be more positive and interesting than saying that 'so and so is ***** because he says ******* !
We have heard all the noise and appreciate the concerns. Now lets get serious and see what happens when we try the 'null tests'.
Lets call a truce .... and toast everyone who has responded.
Now down to some serious cross checking on our own. It will lead to lots of beer/wine and socialising AND enjoyment!
So I guess we all have seen that there are several opinions about this thread ... like all threads.
So everyone has had a ball chucking their opinions around and trying to roadroller others ... on both sides .
So lets end all that and come down to people who NOW sit down and TRY the null method and post their results. That would be more positive and interesting than saying that 'so and so is ***** because he says ******* !
We have heard all the noise and appreciate the concerns. Now lets get serious and see what happens when we try the 'null tests'.
Lets call a truce .... and toast everyone who has responded.
Now down to some serious cross checking on our own. It will lead to lots of beer/wine and socialising AND enjoyment!
Have fun with it
Yes, Fantastic,
It's about having fun.
If I wasn't crasy about good music, what sense would it make to have a good system, or always trying to make it better?
I don't listen to chips and transistors.
We can all learn from each other.
Every day we can learn something new.
That's the spirit.
I always give my oppinion, and it's only that.
I don't pretend to be always right, just share my experience with others.
I may not agree with some people, but we can't always agree.
Some people get really mad...
I tend lo laugh about some things I read, but I don't get things personally.
We are all just changing points of view!
Enough said, where's the bottle, man?
I'm drying...
Yes, Fantastic,
It's about having fun.
If I wasn't crasy about good music, what sense would it make to have a good system, or always trying to make it better?
I don't listen to chips and transistors.
We can all learn from each other.
Every day we can learn something new.
That's the spirit.
I always give my oppinion, and it's only that.
I don't pretend to be always right, just share my experience with others.
I may not agree with some people, but we can't always agree.
Some people get really mad...
I tend lo laugh about some things I read, but I don't get things personally.
We are all just changing points of view!
Enough said, where's the bottle, man?
I'm drying...
Pan said:[BTwo amps with 0.01% THD, 20Hz-20kHz +0 --0.1dB driven well below cliping level, do they sound the same..?
So do you think if we took two very different amps, one relatively inexpensive using common parts, and one much more expensive amplifer using "audiophile parts", that met the above above specs, you could pick them out in a blind test in your own system?
Yes, I think I would!
nw, I think I would.
You see, good equipment is made of good and selected parts.
You immediately notice, besides sound quality, a huge difference in soundstage.
Soundstage (large, precise, and mainly deep) only exists with first-rate devices.
Now... if I am hearing to crap speakers and cables, I may not notice as much...
Just to put it simple, on a cheap amp, a resistor that's on the pre-amp or power amp seccion on the left channel has 2.25 kohms.
On the right channel the same equivalent resistor measures 2.10 kohms.
It kills soundstage!
Not to speak other things...
That's why I can't imagine, even blinded, being fooled by a cheap amp.
With very good amps, you may have more difficulty in identifying the better one.
But then... it's so subjective that the better one for you may not be the best for me...
nw, I think I would.
You see, good equipment is made of good and selected parts.
You immediately notice, besides sound quality, a huge difference in soundstage.
Soundstage (large, precise, and mainly deep) only exists with first-rate devices.
Now... if I am hearing to crap speakers and cables, I may not notice as much...
Just to put it simple, on a cheap amp, a resistor that's on the pre-amp or power amp seccion on the left channel has 2.25 kohms.
On the right channel the same equivalent resistor measures 2.10 kohms.
It kills soundstage!
Not to speak other things...
That's why I can't imagine, even blinded, being fooled by a cheap amp.
With very good amps, you may have more difficulty in identifying the better one.
But then... it's so subjective that the better one for you may not be the best for me...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.