Do Amplifiers Sound Different?

[LikeCoiledSteel]

Aussie Geoff here,

I have copied this thread from Club B&W and renamed it as it contains an interesting sub-topic (that took over the whole thread for a while) of the (time old) arguments about "do amplifiers sound different?". Enjoy - but please play nice!

Hi Guys,
I have a chance to pick up an older McIntosh MC7106 amp (circa 1992). My setup is B&W CDM7NT's for fronts, CDMCNT ccenter, and CDM1NT's for surrounds.

They are currently amped as follows
CDM7NT - Krell Kav 250a (250 x 2 Watt)
CDMCNT - Outlaw M200 (200 x 1Watt)
CDM1NT - Adcom 535 (60 x 2 Watts)

I would like to either consolidat into 1 amp of quality for discrete 2 channel and 5.1 HT. I love the control of the Krell but do not think I need that calibre amp for surrounds. The McIntosh MC7106 is a 6 channel 100 watt amp that can also be bridges for 320 watt (8ohm) x 3. 4 x 100 + 320x1. 2x 100 + 320x2. Very flexible.

How many guys use Mac with thier B&W's? I assume it is a warm sound compared to a very neutral Krell sound? I have heard great things about Mac amps an wonder how they compare with Classe, Bryston etc. Would 100 Mcintosh watts compete with 100 Krell, Classe watts?

My other amp options is just to get another Krell 3 channel amp or trade mine in for a 5 channel. Any suggestions?
Thanks, Steel

[jericho]

Hi Steel,

I also use Mac with my new B&W's and a$I compared with Krell, Classé, and Mark and Levinson.Either way you go, you can not go wrong I think.It's a question of taste!!

Jericho

[jim777]

I have the MA6500 with B&W 703's. I think that it is 120W in 8 ohms. Anyway it is loud enough for me!! IMHO B&W & mac are a match made in heaven. It is a perfect match if you want something that sounds "musical" yet detailed. It is a warm sound, with no harsh highs; but don't be wrong the highs & details are still there. Depends if you want to listen to music or to the details

And with power guard, you can use your full 100 Watts without being afraid of clipping.

If that is what you are looking for, you can't go wrong with mac!

[WI Rotel]

All the amps you have mentioned are fine indeed. But Rotel gives the same performance for less. Amps are not mystery boxes that give sound magical properties, the job of the amp is to amplify the incoming sinal without adding of substracting anything from it. An excellent amp as all of these are will do exactly that regardless of frequency or current demand. Rotel is less expensive because they manufacture their own transformers thus saving a very large chunk of change upfront. Sonically all, these amps are equal, and pretty much flawless, the only difference, is price. Observed differences among them have more to do with input sensitivities and and component matching, thus the best way to know which is best for your existing system is to try them out with your components. Better yet, if buying an amp from a certain manufacturer, also buy their respective pre/pro thus ensuring that the whole system matches as the manufacturer intended.

[jim777]

McIntosh also manufacture their transformers. The reason an audio company does that is because it is an important part of the amp and they want control over that process.

Next, if he has a deal on an older mac, he won't loose a penny. He can buy it, use it for years, then sell it for a profit :B

And my dealer had only two brands at that time; Rotel and mac. (Now he also has the great Rega brand). I compared both (using the RCD1072 as source) and the mac was an easy winner, not subtle at all. I hope you also compared both yourself, or that you will do yourself that favor

On the other hand, my friends that have Yamaha or Sony receivers are happy with them; so I wonder when is an amp "not perfect" if it has enough power?

[kurtholz]

But Rotel gives the same performance for less.

I would assume you haven't listened to any other amps, i had a Rotel for a short while, the 1095, i switched to the Krell Home theater standard, the difference is significant, also the McIntosh is a superb amplifier, it is like comparing a Chevy to a Mercedes, they both have 4 wheels and a motor, but they do the same thing significantly different

do the McIntosh, it's a whole different world than the Rotel ,

Kurt

[WI Rotel]

I would assume you haven't listened to any other amps, i had a Rotel for a short while, the 1095, i switched to the Krell Home theater standard, the difference is significant, also the McIntosh is a superb amplifier, it is like comparing a Chevy to a Mercedes, they both have 4 wheels and a motor, but they do the same thing significantly different

do the McIntosh, it's a whole different world than the Rotel ,

Kurt

:laughat:

Maybe its the money down the drain that makes a pretty noise.
The Rotel RMB1095 is in every known hifi reviewers best amplifier list regardless of price. Maybe yours was broken!

[akhter]

:laughat:

Maybe its the money down the drain that makes a pretty noise.
The Rotel RMB1095 is in every known hifi reviewers best amplifier list regardless of price. Maybe yours was broken!

I beg to differ...I compared the Rotel separates with Arcam and Mac...all side by side using same speakers (B&W N804) and CD player (Marantz). Mac was way better but much more expensive. Arcam was actually cheaper and sounded better atleast to me. I went with the Arcam AVR 300 + N804.

[BTB]

:laughat:

Maybe its the money down the drain that makes a pretty noise.

No, I tend to think that maybe people subjectively decide on what sounds best to them based on their own tatses and experience.

I agree that Rotel make good value for money products, but sometimes (often in mid to high end audio) you do get what you pay for.

[Ade]

Just to tack on and to add to the mêlée...

All modern solid state amps sound the same while being used within their clipping limits. Besides styling and designer branding the price differences are down to the larger transformers and caps that raise the clipping limits and allow for much larger transient loads to be satisfied before clipping.

Every reliable level matched blind test I've read about reach the same conclusion; when sighted bias is removed from the equation, no one can tell the difference between one amp and another. There are even people out there offering large cash prizes for those that can tell the difference; no one has won them yet.

Any differences you do hear will be down to incorrect level matching - I've read that even a 0.5 dB difference can make the amps sound very different, more "lively", greater "clarity" etc.

There are plenty of tests and research on this - just google.

Just my 2p worth.

Oh and Doc, play nice - where's that bedside manner?

[style]

???? + $ = better sound!!!!!

Sorry but this is a very "bad thinking",

Rotel rmb1095 is sure not so good as the McIntosh, Krell,... Ok, but differenz
is only for a machinery,... and not for the human hearing

i'm sorry but so many money spend dont pay ¨!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kurtholz]

:laughat:

Maybe its the money down the drain that makes a pretty noise.
The Rotel RMB1095 is in every known hifi reviewers best amplifier list regardless of price. Maybe yours was broken!

Well, I don't feel the need to get into a pissing war over an obvious difference, but have you seen a review that compared Rotel to a Krell,McIntosh etc that it was favored

again, have you had both in your house and heard both,I have had the McIntosh, the Krell, and the Ritel, and heard them thru my 802D's, it's a no brainer

until you can hear them , i would put more wieght on what you hear than what you read

Kurt

[WI Rotel]

Well, I don't feel the need to get into a pissing war over an obvious difference, but have you seen a review that compared Rotel to a Krell,McIntosh etc that it was favored

again, have you had both in your house and heard both,I have had the McIntosh, the Krell, and the Ritel, and heard them thru my 802D's, it's a no brainer

until you can hear them , i would put more wieght on what you hear than what you read

Kurt

How about the legendary Robert Deutsch?
http://www.rotel.com/reviews/pdfs/po...sght-feb01.pdf

or if that is not enough

what about EJ Foster?

http://www.rotel.com/reviews/pdfs/po...udio-mar00.PDF

It's not a pissing contest at all. Its about how to get the best sound without spending the most money!
There is no denying Macs, Krells, Classes, Brystons and their ilk are truly fine components but they are in no uncertain terms vastly overpriced. Significant is hardly a term I would use separate the performance difference between these components, subtle and subjective are entirely more appropriate. :later:

[JimTW]

After listening to Rotel, Krell, McIntosh, and Classe equipment, using 805S, 804S,
803S, 803D, 802D, and Nautilus 800 here are my observations according to my own
ears...

Rotel offers good bang for the buck, but does not come close to McIntosh and Classe.
Krell is more punchy, brighter than McIntosh, with Classe being the most laid back
and warm. (As a side note, I found the 803D with McIntosh a little bright for my
ears, as well as the Krell and 803S combo.)

So, really, it boils down to personal taste and the amount of money you're willing to
part with. Personally, I like very laid back sound, and if I wanted bass, I'd just get
a high quality subwoofer.

[jim777]

What about transient response, listener fatigue, etc. No real clear specs for that. The mac wins over the rotel on these items (and others), at ANY volume. I'm not saying that the mac is a little more dynamic or something like that, it sounds better than the rotels and ANY volume. I'll say it again to be clear: the mac sounds better than the rotel even is the mac is player a few dB lower than the rotel.

And the mac won't clip, ever. How about the other amps? How do you know that you are at the max? On the mac, the meters are a good indication and the little power guard lights will tell you that you pushed it to the max and that it is "compressing" the sound (instead of clipping it!). You can press vol- once and voilà.

But I agree that rotel is great value. I'm just saying that the mac too; you really get extra satisfaction (sound and all) for the extra $. Especially a used mac amp - if you don't like it, sell it the price you paid, or more! That is value

[Eliav]

After listening to Rotel, Krell, McIntosh, and Classe equipment, using 805S, 804S,
803S, 803D, 802D, and Nautilus 800 here are my observations according to my own
ears...

Rotel offers good bang for the buck, but does not come close to McIntosh and Classe.
Krell is more punchy, brighter than McIntosh, with Classe being the most laid back
and warm. (As a side note, I found the 803D with McIntosh a little bright for my
ears, as well as the Krell and 803S combo.)

So, really, it boils down to personal taste and the amount of money you're willing to
part with. Personally, I like very laid back sound, and if I wanted bass, I'd just get
a high quality subwoofer.

Hi Guys
I have both Rotel 1095 and Classe monoblocks ( CAM400) driving B&W803s. All of you who think that "all amps are the same" are invited to listen a/b to the difference between amps, and I mean DIFFERENCE. not intending to bad mouth Rotel , I think they ARE great value for the money( hence I still am keeping it ) they however are not in the same league with the top league ones.
Regards

[stewfoo]

lol I probably felt the same way as WI Rotel... Until I bought Classe as well..... I am no audiophile and have bad ears..... Even my non-discerning ears hear a huge difference.... BTw I had the 1095 too

[WI Rotel]

The RMB 1095 is 2000 bucks a similarly powerful bryston is 6000, we are talking here of audio differences that are barely discernible using the worlds most expressive and expensive speakers. I really don't think those ethreal differences are worth on tenth of the price differential. If the price differential were 100 bucks well then the story would be different but for twice or three times what is already a heady price, its just inane. Again reffer to the reviews by 2 of the world,s most respected audiophile ears!

[Ade]

Hi Guys
I have both Rotel 1095 and Classe monoblocks ( CAM400) driving B&W803s. All of you who think that "all amps are the same" are invited to listen a/b to the difference between amps, and I mean DIFFERENCE. not intending to bad mouth Rotel , I think they ARE great value for the money( hence I still am keeping it ) they however are not in the same league with the top league ones.
Regards

Funny thing, I was reading a thread on audioholics this morning that went a similar way to this one and a guy there was absolutely convinced that two amps he was comparing were "night and day" as they say - the same words were used there as I've seen here, "brighter" etc. He then decided to level match them with an SPL meter and surprise, surprise, afterwards there was no DIFFERENCE in sound between the two.

When it comes to modern SS amps you pay for power, build quality, and the brand name not a difference in sound, it's as simple as that.

And I’m not quite sure why I bother to even get involved in these discussions as they almost always end the same way and no one changes their opinion no matter how many articles or blinds tests are waved around even if they’re written by audio engineers that build these things. Oh well.

[kurtholz]

WIRotel

Well, i think you should read both of those reviews, as obviously you won't "listen" to the other choices, but both reviews are clear, they basically say the same thing,

Rotel hasnt changed much for the last 25 years, good for home theater, pretty much plain vanilla, ( these are quote's)

Rotel is good bang for the buck, like a Subaru, or a Maxima, is it cutting edge the best

NO

is it the best

NO

is it in the same class as components costing twice as much

NO

compare a Corvette to a Ferrari, the Ferrari costs 3 times as much, yet basically has the same horsepower, and top speed, what makes it cost more? you either get it or you don't

i doubt you get it, you want to feel good about your Rotel, and regardless of what you "read", you will stick with it,doesn't matter to me, i can afford better, so i bought better, Rotel, like both reviewers say, is good for what you pay,

i agree, it's good, but it's not the best, won't ever compete with the best,

I am not saying it is junk, it just is what it is, it's a $2500 amplifier that compared to a $7500 amplifier is not a fair comparison, everyone knows there is a diminishing return on investment in Hi-fi or any other category of goods

can you taste the difference between a $2000 bottle of wine versus a $20, can you see the difference in a $6000 Brioni suit versus a $250 suit ( i don't even know a brand in that category) but you get the point, you either appreciate and allow yourself to experience the best or don't, it's a personal choice we all make

i know guy's who have Denon and Sony, you could never convince them there are better components out there,

don't be offended, but until you can expand your tastes to the finer things, or get in a position to be able to, then you won't ever grow or truly enjoy what is out there,life is short, do some real exploring, there are differences in the upper end of Hi-fi, as in all aspects of life

as for reviews, they offer a guideline to go on, i prefer what i hear as to what i read,and having had a Rotel, there top of the line product's, i found them lacking that minor difference that i wanted for me, i'm glad your happy, i just wanted better and could afford it.

good luck

Kurt

[Karma]

HI WI,
I'm not going to try to argue your point of view. On this forum, you have heard it all before and clearly rejected the opposite view. My only suggestion is to consider trading in your ears for higher end models which have some suggestion of audio talent. The only virtue with your opinion is you can be happy with less---much less. At least you save money. But don't try to push your lack on others who really do appreciate the art of fine sound and are willing to pay for it.

Sparky

[jim777]

HI WI,
I'm not going to try to argue your point of view. On this forum, you have heard it all before and clearly rejected the opposite view. My only suggestion is to consider trading in your ears for higher end models which have some suggestion of audio talent. The only virtue with your opinion is you can be happy with less---much less. At least you save money. But don't try to push your lack on others who really do appreciate the art of fine sound and are willing to pay for it.

Sparky

Well said. I'm still under the impression that WI just didn't take a few hours to try for himself. Lucky him, I need a mac to get a smile on my face - it is the "minimum" system that makes me want to listen to music four hours

[Fraise]

:laughat:

Maybe its the money down the drain that makes a pretty noise.
The Rotel RMB1095 is in every known hifi reviewers best amplifier list regardless of price. Maybe yours was broken!

i'm sorry...can you please post links to every single one of these reviews comment? While i'm sure Rotel is an Excellent value (read:reasonable performance, great price) they are in my opinion at least, by far not the best. Could i have saved some money by buying a rotel instead of a classe? sure. while i'm at it why not save even more money and buy a panasonic mini system? sure the performance isnt as good but look at all the money you've saved. :roll:

[WI Rotel]

I guess there are some reading difficulties among some of our fellows for them here is the conclusion of Deutsch from the horse's mouth:

" There are several amplifiers out there that sound better than the Rotel but to get one of similar output would mean an outlay of several times its price, money that in most cases would yield greater sonic improvement if spent on other parts of the system"

I find it hard to describe it in any simpler terms. Yes you can find better sound than a rotel if you spend the down payment of a house on it but your the difference is so miniscule that money is definitely better spent and will be more sonically rewarded if you spent it on other parts of the system. Comprendez vous, verstehen sie???. How can i make it any clearer without owners of such rarefied brands wanting to commit sepuko :rofl: :scareboo:

[Eliav]

I guess there are some reading difficulties among some of our fellows for them here is the conclusion of Deutsch from the horse's mouth:

" There are several amplifiers out there that sound better than the Rotel but to get one of similar output would mean an outlay of several times its price, money that in most cases would yield greater sonic improvement if spent on other parts of the system"

I find it hard to describe it in any simpler terms. Yes you can find better sound than a rotel if you spend the down payment of a house on it but your the difference is so miniscule that money is definitely better spent and will be more sonically rewarded if you spent it on other parts of the system. Comprendez vous, verstehen sie???. How can i make it any clearer without owners of such rarefied brands wanting to commit sepuko :rofl: :scareboo:

You got it guys ? get a mini panasonic amp with a b&w 800d, that's the way to go ! :B

[WI Rotel]

You got it guys ? get a mini panasonic amp with a b&w 800d, that's the way to go ! :B

Can't face reality in the face of overwhelming facts you could have been Saddam's minister of information, the famous Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, "What tanks? Our forces are crushing the infidel crusaders as we speak? the next picture was an m1 rolling over the podium he was standing on 10 minutes later! People like you simply make me laugh :rofl:

[jim777]

Can't face reality in the face of overwhelming facts you could have been Saddam's minister of information, the famous Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, "What tanks? Our forces are crushing the infidel crusaders as we speak? the next picture was an m1 rolling over the podium he was standing on 10 minutes later! People like you simply make me laugh :rofl:

Please no "military" discussions here, I don't believe a word they say either...

[jayhawk75]

Hi Guys,
I have a chance to pick up an older McIntosh MC7106 amp (circa 1992). My setup is B&W CDM7NT's for fronts, CDMCNT ccenter, and CDM1NT's for surrounds.

I would like to either consolidat into 1 amp of quality for discrete 2 channel and 5.1 HT. I love the control of the Krell but do not think I need that calibre amp for surrounds. The McIntosh MC7106 is a 6 channel 100 watt amp that can also be bridges for 320 watt (8ohm) x 3. 4 x 100 + 320x1. 2x 100 + 320x2. Very flexible.

How many guys use Mac with thier B&W's? I assume it is a warm sound compared to a very neutral Krell sound? I have heard great things about Mac amps an wonder how they compare with Classe, Bryston etc. Would 100 Mcintosh watts compete with 100 Krell, Classe watts?

My other amp options is just to get another Krell 3 channel amp or trade mine in for a 5 channel. Any suggestions?
Thanks, Steel

you will be happy with any of the manufacturers you are looking at. i think that the real question is right now you are flexible with multiple amps and you are consolidating to one losing the flexibility. if you are going to stay the route i would consider buying the top of the line reciever for one of any mfg.
however anyone that is a visitor to this site knows that upgraditous quickly sets in and consolidation makes it difficult to tweak the shortcomings. also remember in cozy ht setting the mac meters are very distracting.

[kurtholz]

WI Rotel

I think sepuko is appropriate for your transgressions , please go to www.nihontoya.com and pick one out, i will give you a special discount just to speed things up

hahahahhahha

glad you are happy with your Rotel, it's fine equipment, for what it is

:-)

Kurt

[WI Rotel]

you will be happy with any of the manufacturers you are looking at. i think that the real question is right now you are flexible with multiple amps and you are consolidating to one losing the flexibility. if you are going to stay the route i would consider buying the top of the line reciever for one of any mfg.
however anyone that is a visitor to this site knows that upgraditous quickly sets in and consolidation makes it difficult to tweak the shortcomings. also remember in cozy ht setting the mac meters are very distracting.

That's the spirit. good info without banners :T

[AptosJeff]

WI Rotel and Ade,

If you like the Rotels, that's great, but don't assume everyone else hears the same thing you do. I will say they have bang for the buck. But for me they just don't do it, and I am not an expensive amp connoissuer.

Kurt, jim and others have made some good points in this thread. I think you are being a bit dismissive of them and some of the rest of us by saying we are not objective. There is plenty of subjectivity in audio, but there really is a great variety in our hearing capabilities, and how we process what we hear. The differences in our hearing is real, but A-B tests are not too helpful in bringing out some of these things. As an elect engineer with >20 years experience in hardware, software and physics, I have a great respect for objectivity, but this is about a subjective experience. You have to listen!

[BTB]

Aptos Jeff

Thanks...an intelligent response. I couldn't agree more.

I've encountered the windy opinions of Ade before, seems he's found some playmates... guys, isn't there a conspiracy theory site or something for you to visit instead?

Perhaps you could start one? Call it "The great hi fi amplifier and cable conspiracy" and only allow membership to 100% intelligent, objective human beings like yourself. That way you wouldn't have to bother with the rest of us twits and our foolish trust in our own ears & subjective opinions.

I'm sure the two of you will be happier there...

[Ade]

WI Rotel and Ade,

If you like the Rotels, that's great, but don't assume everyone else hears the same thing you do. I will say they have bang for the buck. But for me they just don't do it, and I am not an expensive amp connoissuer.

Hi Jeff,

just for the record, as far as I'm concerned Rotel is no different than any other amp with a price/performance ratio.

Kurt, jim and others have made some good points in this thread. I think you are being a bit dismissive of them and some of the rest of us by saying we are not objective. There is plenty of subjectivity in audio, but there really is a great variety in our hearing capabilities, and how we process what we hear. The differences in our hearing is real, but A-B tests are not too helpful in bringing out some of these things. As an elect engineer with >20 years experience in hardware, software and physics, I have a great respect for objectivity, but this is about a subjective experience. You have to listen!

And as a computer scientist with >20 years of experience and who has worked at CERN (you know, that HEP place) I can assure you that a lot of the subjectivity you're talking about has more to do with psychology than physics and no matter how many degrees you have you can still fall foul of sighted bias and every effect that has on the hearing.

And hey, I'm trying to be informative rather than dismissive and hopefully less abrasive than Doc there. And I fully appreciate that people do hear a difference, it's just a fact that the difference they hear is either down to unmatched SPL levels (and no, if the difference is minimal it won't sound louder but it may very well sound different, brighter, clearer, etc) or the difference is between people's ears and does not emanate from the speaker. That has been shown to be the case time and again by properly run level matched blind testing.

Take a read of this by Ian Masters; http://www.mastersonaudio.com/audio/20020901.htm

And some further reading of interest;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiophile
and http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...ples/index.php

Unfortunately the site hosting the PDF of the infamous Stereo Review amp test is down - that's referenced both in the Ian Masters link and in the wikipedia link.

[DeepEndX]

Currently I own Krell MCX750 and Rotel RB 1090 driving B&W 800D and B&W HTM1D respectively. I started with Rotel RB1090. One day, I am still debating is it a good or bad move (sometimes what you don't know can't hurt), I went back to my B&W dealer and demo Classe CAM 400 and Krell MCX 750 with 800D's. The sound of Classe and Krell just blew me away. Classe had a soft, neutral, detail sound, and controlled the 800D very well. Under low volume, the music was extremely detailed and soft. Under high volume, the music was well controlled, detailed, dynamic, silky, and easy to the ears. Krell had a very strong punch in the bass, extremely dynamic, and sounds brighter on treble than the Rotel or Classe. Under low volume or high volume, Krell amp had so much reserved power that's amazing. At the end, I bought the Krell MCX750 and moved my Rotel RB1090 to drive my center channel speaker (i know it's a little unbalance while I listen to multi-channel sacd) due to personal preferences.

In conclusion, there are huge differences between all three amps. Each amplifier has it's own flavor. So the best way to consider what amp you want to purchase is to listen yourself. Rotel is considered to be mid-high level amp and bang for the buck. From my ears, Classe/Krell are definitely high-end amp and much better. Is Classe 4x or Krell 8x better than the Rotel (price/performance ratio)? My answer would be no. But to my ears, Classe/Krell are at least 2x better. So when it comes down to it, like any commodity, are you willing to pay 4-8x premium for the 50% improvement (like the previous post between ferrari and corvette)? I made my choice.

[Aussie Geoff]

Guys,

At this point I decided to create the separate thread that you see here as we are clearly way way of the B&W McIntosh topic!

My personal opinsion is the range of opinions (though well presented) is predictable. Some argue, pointing at reviews (there are a few cherished ones that get referred to all over these internet forums) where blind tests have found no difference. I am surprised that (so far!) no one has linked to the other reviews and threads that compare amps and claim lots of differences... Indeed that is the heart of most stereo and HT magazine reviews! Equally others say "well I have owned (or own now) different amps and they sound different to me". Given time I would expect the posts from people who have bought a high end amp and since compared to a cheaper amp and found (for their ears) no difference! In my experience these views are (generally) fairly entrenched - people who can hear a difference will pay money for better amps, those that don't think the others are fooling themselves.

The best solution is not solved on an internet forum but for believers or non-believers to take the time to comparatively listen for themselves.... I would highly recommend this! Personally having spent way too much time listening I’m in the camp that there are differences, especially between high quality and low quality amps and especially driving demanding speakers, so I search for value and buy what I can “hear” as the best bang for the buck for my ears. I’m happy if people can hear or want to afford more. Equally if you can’t hear a difference, then indeed, why spend the money!.

Generally I thank people for their politeness (though there have been some posts that were borderline argumentative).

Enjoy! (but play nice)

Geoff

[AptosJeff]

Geoff,

Thanks for the voice of reason. Considering the activity level here yesterday, I'd vote for a new thread.

Aussie geoff here - Done - this is now the new thread

[jayhawk75]

i personally think we should digress to b&w always performs better with mac tube.

[AptosJeff]

Ade,
Thanks for the links. I havn't seen all those, but am familiar with most of the arguments. There are some good points to be made on both sides of this issue. A lot of audiophiles do fool themselves about what they really hear, and it often comes down to how much money they have to spend (or have spent) on something.

One thing I mean about people's hearing being different is related to how they process what is heard. I wouldn't call it psychology, but more what the cortex is doing with the inputs from the cochlea. This is complicated stuff and as with most types of perception, there is quite a range of capabilities among individuals. I think A-B comparisons are very useful, but don't think they can reveal everything.

Maybe someone will start a thread where we can discuss in more depth.
Jeff

[Russ L]

I try to compensate for my intellectual and visual biases etc. whem I audition new equipment. Just live in the moment as much as possible and try to forget my preference for the look of Rotel and Classe. Forget my preference for the "British" Sound in Amps. Just try to concentrate on my perception of sound. But this only goes so far because without past experience you can't make judgements... the proverbial blank piece of paper. But Cognitive psychology aside, my dealer demos his high end B&Ws with McIntosh Amps because they kick butt!:T

[Ade]

Ade,
Thanks for the links. I havn't seen all those, but am familiar with most of the arguments. There are some good points to be made on both sides of this issue. A lot of audiophiles do fool themselves about what they really hear, and it often comes down to how much money they have to spend (or have spent) on something.

One thing I mean about people's hearing being different is related to how they process what is heard. I wouldn't call it psychology, but more what the cortex is doing with the inputs from the cochlea. This is complicated stuff and as with most types of perception, there is quite a range of capabilities among individuals. I think A-B comparisons are very useful, but don't think they can reveal everything.

Maybe someone will start a thread where we can discuss in more depth.
Jeff

Yes, the mind is a weird and wonderful thing...

And yes (apparently) research does indicate that we sort of hear differently; see this thread at AVS that references a study. I can't find the original study though so for all we know that could have been faked.

However, having said that, other research has shown that when sighted bias has been removed people will generally gravitate towards speakers with the same sort of response curve - the flatter the better. So even if we all perceive what we hear differently, in a broad sense most of us will tend to prefer the same sort of things acoustically.

And then there are the biomechanics of it all - we are all made of the same stuff in generally the same way so everyone's hearing is physically restricted to the same frequencies and sensitivities. Audiophile "Golden ears" just don't exist I'm afraid and there are definite limits at which distortion is inaudible to all of us.

[BTB]

Ade..

I remember a short while ago I responded to one of your posts, in a debate very much like this one... one that had long since gone way off the point of the original thread. As I said back then... we all understand the skeptics platform, none of the things you're saying haven't all been heard before.

It certainly is wise to maintain a measure of objectivity, otherwise you may well become the victim of some of the more "crackpot" myths that abound in the world of audio. But really man, it does all get a bit tiresome after a while. I'm not picking a fight or trying to insult you, I admire you dedication to the "truth"... but the point has already been made. Thanks.

Please try to accept that some (probably most) of us, simply listen to, and buy what we like and what sounds good to us. Sure, mistakes are made, opinions are biased etc, etc... but that's all part of the fun. Making sweeping assumptions about what people can and can't hear, and quoting papers and reviews as "evidence" of your viewpoint is probably not really as clever as it may seem, and it isn't always fun. You are certainly entitled to your standpoint, but it's really just coming out sounding confrontational & purposefully antagonistic.

Sorry if I'm talking out of turn here, not trying to be rude or anything, but simply as one forum member to another, let's try and keep things open minded. :W

[Ade]

Sorry if I'm talking out of turn here, not trying to be rude or anything, but simply as one forum member to another, let's try and keep things open minded. :W

No worries - I don't get offended easily and I certainly don't intend to be abrasive or even antagonistic but I do have to say that if someone is voicing an opinion from one side of the fence then surely those of us on the other side should also have the opportunity to be heard too? Right?

And btw, as strange as this may seem, us “objectivists” tend to listen and enjoy as well.

[Ade]

Oh yes, and I'd like to add to Geoff that I wouldn't mind at all is you split this off into a more appropriate thread somewhere - it's probably a good idea given that sensitivities tend to get a little bent out of shape when subjects like this are raised.

[Aussie Geoff]

Guys,

This is the new thread now! with all posts intact... Have fun! Play nice!

Geoff

[Karma]

HI All,
Having been an audio professional and an audiophile for a long time, this discussion is old news to me. I have no doubt that the opinions expressed here are honest and well intended. So, why such different views? Is it all due to to folks hearing what they want to hear? Perhaps some of it is---on both sides of the issue.

I think there is something much more significant going on. Why would we assume that we are all endowed with equal hearing? Why would we think that someone else will hear exactly what we are hearing? I see no reason to assume that. After all, we are all demonstrably different in all other physical aspects of our bodies. Some have great voices, some are heavy and others slight, some are blessed with great coordination and others are not, some have perfect pitch and others are tone deaf. The list goes on and on. Why would individual differences not be present with our hearing?

The great audio reviewers I have been around all have wonderful and discriminating hearing. They are the Golden Ears. But they are not all the same. They each have their individual preferences and presumably different hearing talents. Thus, they will express differences in equipment in different ways. Sometimes the differences are rather extreme. Tom Norton tends to dismiss tube equipment always favoring solid state sound while Dick Olsher would not be caught dead with a solid state amp in his reference system. They are both great reviewers with significantly different tastes. While I tend to fall into Dick's camp, my HT system is Krell based. But my main 2 channel system is tube based. In my opinion, the tubes sound better but that is not the point of this post.

So what does all this speculation mean? Simply this: intense discussions about amplifier sound should be taken with hearing differences in mind. The hearing talented among us will naturally have strong opinions about their choices. Those who have less discriminating hearing will never understand why a person would be willing to pay the huge prices for the best equipment. Why? Because they cannot hear the differences. This is not about taste. It's about talent.

One more thing. The concept of price/performance ratio has no more meaning here than it does in F1 racing. While diminishing returns come into play, you still get what you pay for. It's a cosmic law.

Sparky