very powerful amp= better sound quality? - Page 11

Yes, but chances are I'd at least get a handy from the chick I pick up in the Vette. Well worth it IMO

Some can get lucky regardless of what they drive

I'm not saying to buy crap equipment, I'm saying don't fool yourself into thinking you gain much after your first $6-800 in potential amplification. I have spent more too, but live under no false pretenses.

Yes indeed, so we come back to the human equation that other folks here argue about as their Gospel. If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, does it matter?

But back to reality. If an amp is spec'ed to perform down to 2 ohms, I tend to give it a good mark, subject to further review. If an amp starts to trip its protection circuit when u throw 4-6 ohms speakers to it, I'd say probably skip it.

all amplifiers are created equal?

thats news to me.
how am i supposed to know when the displays arent even plugged in or connected to speakers?

low total harmonic distortion numbers help with confidence.. but i'm stubborn enough to think that the sound might be colored, or the amp wont produce superb clarity.
there's clarity.. and then theres going the extra mile, where you hear things in your favorite songs that you never knew where there.

i wouldnt want to hear things i never knew was there and then go back to something less.

How would you measure clarity and color? VVS1 F like a diamond? No, if you cannot measure it, your mind reflecting on your wallet and guided by your ego is filling in the sonic scenery. But, actually I'm totally ok with that, to each his own. I like big heavy and expensive amps too.

I thoroughly disagree with the no improvement after spending $600-$800.
This is totally independent of the watts\\power topic.
Regardless of the watts an amp puts out, quality components inside any piece of audio gear do matter.
Plus as others have stated it greatly matters what size your room is, how loud you want to crank it, what kind of music you listen to and how difficult a load your speaker presents.
Taking amp wattage as an isolated yard stick of performance is meaningless.

No your right, my $6-800 number is kinda pulled out of my a$$ no doubt. yymv if you have 2-4ohm speakers to deal with and/or go ahead and choose the worst choice you can find in the price range.

But apples to apples, say limit it to 88db+ 8 ohm speakers and a 5.1 or maybe 7.1 setup with equal sub support on both sides of the equation I think blind abx on a large sample of experienced users would yield similar results up to the highest rms of the lower powered (and presumably cheaper) receiver.

woah woah..

first of all, how would i measure clarity and color?
please dont get me started on laboratory-grade measuring equipment.
that stuff can get detailed and sensitive enough to stop functioning properly when there is too much static in the air.

if you are calling me a fool because i believe that the total harmonic distortion values are not the absolute best way to test an amplifier.. that would be fine if you told me the amps where being reported with real numbers that have a valid say.

my receiver says it puts out 100 watts in stereo at 0.09% total harmonic distortion.
when the receiver is put into surround sound mode, the total harmonic distortion changes to 0.7%
i can hear a difference when i switch from 2ch to surround sound.

a total harmonic distortion value does not necessarily express that the amplifier can reproduce transients.

having good harmonics means the amplifier will have a good sonic signature.
this is good to have when you want to experience strong 3D fade/balance effects.

having good transients means the midranges will produce vocals with extra clarity and detail.

a generic step by step process:
first, you stop clipping the soundwave until it starts to sound like something that can be understood.
then, you continue to clean up those soundwaves until the sound gets more clarity (good harmonics) this is where the amplifier starts to gain the ability to play more than one thing at a time.
finally, you need the amplifier to have a reaction time fast enough to play the itty-bitty details (good transients) this is where the amplifier will start to gain the ability to play more 'zoomed-in' realistic.

an amplifier that has low harmonic distortion, but cannot play transients well.. the amplifier wont reproduce the sound of a guitar pick touching the string with high resolution detail.

an amplifier that has high harmonic distortion, but CAN play transients well.. the sound of the guitar pick touching the string will be louder and more detailed.


those giant paper woofers used at concerts usually have high amounts of transient detail with less harmonic ability.
you dont want a whole lot of harmonics on those speakers because it will cause the speakers to move in and out more.
that is why you can hear lots of little details from the microphones as the band members pick up their guitars and get ready to start playing music.
they are massive chunks of transients.. and if those chunks get any bigger, they will be known as harmonics.



most DJ equipment that you hear at the bar will have decent harmonic distortion values.. but they literally dont have any transients.
that is why the speakers sound extra rich and almost muddy.
they use the giant chunk size to throw the sound far away from the speaker.



do i care if the amplifier can send large pulses of electricity to the speaker without distortion? yes
do i care if the amplifier can send tiny 'sparks' to the speaker? yes


if you wanna go on and on about how low your harmonic distortion is, then you need to fill up the entire room with bass and be proud at how accurate the bass is when you feel it with the hair on your arms (or your pants and t-shirt)

that doesnt say anything about being able to play details that the midrange and tweeter need to sound superb.

having all that low distortion for the bass doesnt do any good if the midrange and tweeter are lifeless.
you dont even need audiophile woofers to know the difference.. sure, it helps.
but any mid-grade midrange is enough to inform you of the difference.

i think i picked a perfect example with the guitar pick touching the string.
that is where the life and realism is for the midrange and treble.
harmonic distortion is the life and realism for the woofer and subwoofer.

low harmonic distortion doesnt mean the amplifier can reproduce transients.
so why do i care about low harmonic distortion numbers?
wouldnt you expect the amplifier to have transients if the harmonic distortion was low enough?
and if you brought the amplifier home and realized that the midrange details are not as good as you wanted.. wouldnt you be upset?


i think you aimed the punch in the right direction.
people's wallets and ego's are paying for sonic scenary.. not midrange/tweeter details.

i am downright scared to buy another receiver, because i dont want to waste the time and gasoline to keep bringing the receiver back to the store.
online shipping is even worse..!
if you find a good deal and the amplifier isnt good enough, you gotta pay to ship it back.
you already had to wait 3-4 days for the thing to arrive.. now you have to wait another 3-4 days for the thing to get sent back.
then another 3-4 days for the next selection to arrive.


if audio was mud..
the clipping distortion is how big the chunks of mud are.
the harmonic distortion is how much mud gets spread across the floor because of the chunks of mud.
and transient distortion is how much of the mud you can smell in the air.

transients are literally that small.
and if you want high resolution audio, you need details in the sonic signature and the midrange/tweeter.


unfortunately, there is no specification that tells us if the amplifier can play transients.

all you need to measure these distortions are speakers that you know are capable of playing details when requested.
i think its a lot harder to find a 12 inch woofer that will play transients compared to any mid-grade midrange.

i would bring my own speaker and my own music to test the receiver or amplifier.. that way i know what to listen for and should be able to come to a conclusion in less than 60 seconds.

similar is quite the word to use and get past without much notice.
its true, if you dont know what you are listening for.. the output should be the same.

no sense in comparing a $500 amp with a generic off-brand $150 amp
unless that generic amp is creating magic, but how long will it last before age kicks in?

you said 'apples to apples'
try different amps that have the same wattage and the same harmonic distortion.
if you do that, you are listening deeply for any differences of the components inside on the circuit board.

since the harmonics are the same, you shouldnt be listening to bass.
i would stick to the midrange and vocals.

Phantom is using an Onkyo so it must be a killer system right? It doesn't even matter what speakers he uses as long as he has an Onkyo right?

It's really fun watching you take on all of AVS. Keep up the good work. I'm still waiting for the day you post something factual.

Well, let's take an example.

Let's say I want to test the difference between two CD players. I can buy the identical CDs, put them in both, synchronize them and then play. I then run both outputs into a pre-amp and then switch between them to hear a difference. This is an AB test. There is no "X" in there. I am testing to see if I can detect any difference between them.

For ABX, I would need to have a specialized switching box. That box needs to play A and then when I hit the switch, play either A or B. More importantly, I now need to keep track of these events and have the user formally vote using a computer program. You can't decide anything until the results are collected and tabulated.

In contrast, in the A/B test at any time I can declare victory or surrender depending on whether I hear a difference or not respectively.

Now, people have built specialized ABX switches and computer software to go with that. The issue with that then becomes what will you do with the results? If you want to use it to convince the subjective audiophiles, they will push back on your ABX black box and its relays as having a noticeable impact on the small fidelity differences one is trying to measure. A variation of Heisenberg principal would be at play here with the test fixture potentially impacting the outcome.

Some people will argue that apparatus is transparent. If that is the case, why bother with the test? If stuff like that doesn't impact audio, then are we not already damning the audiophile equipment? If so, then why bother with any testing? We have already made up our mind!

In my book, if you get good results out of AB tests, you are already ahead of 99.99% of the world population which doesn't bother to do any blind testing . So I don't shed any tear that ABX is not being used. That said, when it is easy to do such as when testing computer files, ABX can be a powerful tool to find the people who are for example, just randomly voting.

Hope this makes it more clear.

Actually, it is perfectly OK to train yourself for such a test. Indeed, better results come out of being trained. There is nothing wrong for example for someone to do the test sighted many, many times and then do it blind.

We call this "over training" and is helpful in that you become familiar with all the nuances of the music and what the equipment is doing to it.

As an example, the same 10 or so MPEG audio test tracks are used to develop audio compression algorithms and were used to develop MP3, AAC, WMA, etc. And listeners such as myself have listened to them thousands of times . That experience allows the person to instantly identify what is wrong. Bias is ruled out because the actual test is blind. And expert listeners are paid to provide unbiased feedback for product/algorithm development.

I don't know of their hearing ability one way or the other. But at least the author of the paper, has credentials in human audio testing and because of that, benefit of doubt needs to be given that withheld.


Well, we have an example of their testing saying they found no difference and many cases where they found differences. So if they want only one outcome, then how did the other come about?

To be sure, despite general assumption, there is bias in blind testing. The bias is not in picking one product or outcome -- that is not usually possible due to blind nature of the testing. The bias is there because we want to be right! In the interest of being right, we tend to vote differently than what we may have actually heard. Statistics helps us weed out some of this but not all in my opinion.


The purpose of proper audio testing is to take a human being and turn him into a reliable instrument. Our frailty makes this challenging. We have some tools on this front such as blind testing. As long as we know how to use them intelligently we can get useful data.

What we can't do is just dismiss the data on the inference that there could be something wrong. You have to show evidence. You say you know about electronics. If you do, then there is one thing you could pick on in that area. Do you know what that is?

i'm a little upset that i didnt say anything much about woofers and subwoofers being able to play transient details.
they can do it too.. and its what makes car subwoofers different.
some of the muddy subs have a hard time keeping up with the harmonics
but other subs do the harmonics quite easily.
then there are even better subs that play transients.

infinity subwoofers get overly excited about harmonics.. and that causes them to smear the harmonics and the transients.
kicker subwoofers arent really impressed by harmonics.. you have to wake them up and get them into their comfort zone, but if the sub is comfortable enough.. you just might hear some transients.
the subs are a decent buy that really help magnify the problem of amplifiers that dont put out clean and clear power.

my guess is that the kicker subs require a big box to keep the frequency response.. and that means the box is too big to provide enough vacuum pressure to stop the cone.
they are a box builders wet dream because they require trial and error.
but if you get the box right, the speakers are cheap to buy and readily available.
its as if the speakers are 'ready' all the time.. too much ready and not enough acting upon the request.

the infinity's are not enough ready.. and too much acting when requested.
but some of their higher quality subs add some 'ready' into the mix, and it makes the speaker sound of higher quality.



ANYWAYS..

there is something important to note about capacitors and their ability to release energy (especially when grouped together with other components)

you have different electrical pulse lengths
one for the subwoofer
one for the woofer
one for the midrange
one for the tweeter

you also have different electrical pulse widths
one for each as mentioned directly above.

pulse length amounts to the difference between harmonics and transients.
pulse width is the amount of amplitude for the length.

long lengths will allow your woofers to rumble because the size of the pulse or 'chunk' is large.
the short lengths allow the woofers to increase their resolution.

an example.. you have a knob that goes from 0 to 1,000
okay.. 0 to 1,000 is a lot of numbers in between.
but are there 1,000 clicks or only 500?
1,000 clicks = control of the details (more transients/more details)
0 to 1,000 = control of the situation as a whole (more harmonics / more base)

both of them increase the resolution of the audio.. they simply do it differently.

remember that we are talking about capacitors.
they need to build up lots of muscle.. but do it cleanly (harmonics)
but they cant move slow like a person who is all muscle and no brains.. they have to control those muscles with intelligent thought and quick movements (transients)


i wouldnt want an amplifier that is all muscle and slow as a turtle.
and i dont think i would want an amplifier that has no muscle and is fast like a rabbit.
but i wouldnt want to meet in the middle if my only choice was to meet in the middle or lean towards one or the other.

i would lean towards less muscle and faster.. because that will help my midrange detail.
movies are mostly about vocals.. which come from the midrange.
music is half about vocals.. half about the instruments.. and then another half about what the words are actually saying.
(or is it what the instruments are actually saying? )

the examples say how capacitors are supposed to get big muscles.. but also be soft and gentle enough to hold a fairy in their hand.

people usually already know.. those who have really really big muscles, they cant move their arms and legs very fast.
its usually the person with the smaller muscles that moves faster.

capacitors have to do both.. and some setups do it better than others.

^^^

i'm just curious... do you think if you pile it high and deep enough, it might make your "thoughts" true?

"muscular" and "faster"?

i may be a mullet, but even this mullet thinks we are being trolled...

anwaypasible=amirm?

I am starting to think maybe?

^^^

nah... agree or disagree with him, amir is a real pro who has been around a long time and wouldn't do that...

i'm trying to decide if i should rub some of barry bonds' "flaxseed oil" on my amp to make it more "muscular"... but i'm afraid that i'll bind it up and take away it's "fastness"... what do you guys think?

it's a bit scary that this person is also beginning to spread their "wisdom" in other threads....

I attended the CES this year in Las Vegas. The high end audio exhibits in the The Venetian hotel had at least 200 playing exhibits using turntables, cartridges, and tube amplifiers which cost at least 100 grand. I thought to myself: how in the world can they justify that when blind testing shows that we can't hear the difference between those and a $1000 receiver. And looking at all those high end exhibits I realized that an awful lot of people are spending an awful lot of money, that they have to be justifying some how. At least some of you guys have shown me their thought processes.

I am a speaker guy, and I know (I believe) that we can hear the differences between speakers going way up into the five figures. And for me, and I presume most of us, if we cannot hear the difference in the best controlled blind testings of electronics over a thousand dollars (in the size rooms that we have), I know where I am putting my money.

Paranoid delusions............ maybe?

The inherent flaw is the belief that people have to justify what they spend money on to anyone other than themselves (or perhaps maybe SO).

Bingo!! That is exactly what it comes down to. If it ever became common knowledge that the electronics in amps, DACs CD/DVD/ BD players (not to mention the entire cable industy) has reached a point of refinement making them indistinguishable a whole industry would suffer greatly. Please don’t take this wrong. I am not saying any cheap unit sounds as good as any other. What I am saying is that you hit the audible brick wall of being indistinguishable at a relatively low price point now days. If the people that design, make, sale and write about this stuff don’t continue to propetuate their pseudo science then ultimately they understand they will be out of business.

Ahhh...now I understand what you meant. Without the right apparatus ABX test method is difficult to duplicate.

You could be on to the next big tweak in the market! Amps steroids!

I just thought of something else, that reference to the "Vette ZR 1" above (although I prefer a Z4) brings up another very important factor. You get that gorgeous looking sweet thing up to your pad, and you get those tubes a glowin, that 5 inch high 40 pound turntable a movin, and those 6 foot high speakers a purrin, (even an unsophisticated sweet thing knows big bucks when she sees them) and your work is done for you.

All I need is my charm, although the glow given off by the four 6L6GCs and 5AR4 do have a certain allure.

What a beautiful setup. Rated at what about 15 to 20 watts max. Nothing sounds like the tubes especially for our trusty turntables. AH, the good old days when the dynamics were there.

Yep I am, its an 876 and the last AVR that Onkyo made that didn't come with a boatload of problems. Everything since then every model they have put out is loaded with some problem or another and I wouldn't recommend one to an enemy. Thats from the lowest model to their highest. Just think of only the very small percentage of members here who complain about them and then multiply by a thousand or so of the people who have them and don't know any better. At this stage a Sony ES is a better value. At least their CSR's will try to help you with any problem. JMHO. Like it or not.

The guy that worked up this one says should be good for about 30, maybe 35 watts. It was orignally a Magnavox 185 but it has been completely reworked and about all that's left of that are the chassis and tube sockets.

Of course, this is the antithesis of a very powerful amp by most standards although a SET guy may argue it's about 10X more than you need.

I don't want to change the thrust of this thread, but I just got on it; and I didn't realize that my Onkyo TX-SR 608 had problems. Could someone please just give me a citation to where I can find them (a specific citation please, not something I have to wade through thousand posts to find) thanks.

If your Onkyo does not have issues now, why worry about it?