I can still hear you! But my experience has been that the good ones don't leave your ears ringing. Of course there's a limit to everything. However I never turn the amp up to clipping. It's surprising how big an amp you can tolerate following this rule. Soon as the it starts clipping you lose everything anyway so what's the point? |
Csontos . . . to a point, . . . just to a point. On rare occassion, I've cranked it up ALL THE WAY when rockin'.
A couple times I chcked my Radio Shack SPL meter -- SPLs were pushing 100-115dbs. You don't have to be an ENT doc to know that listening to music at those SPL levels, even for 15 minutes, can permenently damage one's ears. And yes, I did hear distortion -- but it wasn't coming from my rig, it was coming from my ears.
Just my humble opinion. |
Another thing I've noticed about amps is that the better they are, the higher the volume you can tolerate. Although this stands to reason, it's especially significant among higher end ones since you would not expect there to be an issue with fatigue. But it seems to be the non-fatiguing ones that can be comfortably turned up to realistically live volumes for a long time. Those amps coincidentally also always seem to have great specs and they always sound good. I suppose they're the honest ones. |
Let me throw my 2 cents into the DF can. I have asked about DF in numerous threads, read Atmasphere's white paper on voltage and power paradigm amps, conversed with Al, Ralph and other techies about the issue. I even called ARC and spoke with Len or Cal.
By way of background, my ARC tube amp has a DF of only 8, which is certainly in the "lowish" DF range that Al spoke about re many tube amps.
I'm not an EE, so take this with a grain of NaCl. Synthesizing everything I've read and heard, it is not realistic to predict bass slam or extention based on DF as a stand alone factor. Indeed, many of our techncial members and ARC have said that DF is just one among many design variables that are considered and balanced when designing an amp. IOW, it's the whole picture that is considered.
Does my ARC amp have the best, most super-duper extented and tight-assed bass? Haven't a clue. But the amp match with my speakers, plus me also using a self powered sub woofer (1500 watts/4500 watts on a transients) for bass at 50 Hz and below produces a nice low end product that I enjoy. And yes, sometimes I trip the circuit breakers when I'm rockin' or gettin' yelled at by my SO because the music is shakin' the casa.
I suppose, the bottom line is that if it sounds good, it is good!!
DF is a tough subject to really grasp for us non-techies. Maybe in my next life, I'll have the I.Q. to be an EE and design audio equipment. Just hope there's a hobby left on the next go-around.
Cheers and Happy Holidays! |
After years of playing around with high-end gear, I am now inclined to largely agree with the OP. In my experience, the speakers ability to sound good in the listeners' designated space is by-far the most critical aspect of achieving good sound. I do believe amps need to have sufficient power for the speakers and operate quietly, i.e. high S/N ratio, but if amps have comparable specs in these areas, they generally sound similar to me. I love my VAC gear, but I've owned and heard less expensive amps/pres that I could easily live with. Lots of marketing hype in this hobby. |
Stewie,
Whether you like or don't like Walker's ideas, you still don't have to buy his products. They are two very different issues, aren't they? You can say
"controlling vibration and paying attention to quality cables"
are worthwhile subjects and still come to your own conclusions as to how (or even whether) you will address them. As to dollars and "value," every consumer wrestles with that balance on their own. And in the world of
high-end audio, the perception of value can widely differ, among us.
The post was started by someone who might not be familiar
with the concepts in that article, and that was my only purpose in
referencing it. |
With due respect to Sgordon1, Walker Audio peddles among other things, a "Reference Record Clamp" made of no more than $10 worth of brass and $5 worth of lathe-work, for $1750, a "Talisman Magnetic Optimizer" for $275, and vibration pads and points for $500 a set. This handily disqualifies Walker Audio from dispensing advice that's "simple and straightforward."
Sgordon1
The very best article I have read about system enhancement is on the Walker Audio site. Simple, and straight-forward.
http://walkeraudio.com/evaluating-components/ |
Well I've got some serious comparisons to make now. More like research. Not sure what to think. |
My understanding is the benefits of higher damping is also speaker
dependant. Some speakers are more naturally damped thmselves. Also
speakers that are tube friendly also tend to have higher input impedance. |
What other factors are in play regarding bass definition? In addition to the distortion-related issues I mentioned earlier, the quality of the power supply design certainly figures to be a significant factor. In part because a great deal of the energy in most music tends to occur in the bass region. In part also because it is not uncommon for the impedance of dynamic speakers to reach low magnitudes at some frequencies in the bass region, and to also have significantly capacitive phase angles at some frequencies in that region. Each of those factors can be hard for many amplifiers to handle without adverse sonic effects, and even more so if they both occur at the same frequencies. Best regards, -- Al |
In that case my experience is only coincidental or it is all just in my head. What other factors are in play regarding bass definition? |
Michael (Swampwalker), thanks for noticing that. My first response indeed addressed the claim in Peter's preceding post that: When you go from a damping factor of up to 500 and compare that to an amp with 1000 or more, you're talking about audible extension of another full octave on the bottom end. However, my second response also applied to the somewhat revised assertion in his subsequent post that: The amps I have with df 0f 1000 do indeed produce discernible notes a full octave lower than the others. The others have the extension alright, but notes are not articulately discernible. Regarding Peter's response to that post: So I'm assuming (guessing) that that effective df of 20 is more likely to be achieved with an amp that has a very high published capability? The reference by Atmasphere to a damping factor of 20 refers to the damping factor of the amplifier itself. I don't have a lot of experience with tubes but they do have a reputation for soft, muddy inarticulate bass. Note that I referred to high quality tube amps. Certainly many of them, having damping factors of less than 10, can produce extremely good full-range bass with many high quality essentially full-range speakers. Just peruse the system descriptions here at A'gon for evidence of that. Given that the speaker sees far less actual damping than what the amp itself produces, does it not stand to reason that practically, the more the amp is capable of, the more the speaker will effectively see regardless of what is accurately representative in numbers? In the case of a dynamic speaker, the combination of crossover inductor resistance and speaker cable resistance will be much greater than the 0.016 ohm amplifier output impedance which, as I previously indicated, corresponds to an amplifier damping factor of 500. If the amplifier damping factor is increased to 1000: (a)The overall damping factor will therefore only be increased by a very small amount. (b)The DF 500 amplifier already provides a DF that is way more than adequate, per Atmasphere's statements and per the results that a great many people have obtained with tube (and other) amplifiers having very low DF. (c)Even if 500 DF were not already beyond the point of overkill, its effects on overall DF would be so miniscule as to provide no basis for a presumption that a perception of better defined bass with a 1000 DF amplifier is in fact due to the difference in DF. Are you suggesting that an ss amp capable of optimally controlling the speaker will have a downside effectively cancelling out it's benefit? No, I am suggesting that once the DF is high enough to optimally control the speaker further increases in DF will not control it any more optimally. Whether or not further increases in DF will have significant downsides depends on the particular design. Best regards, -- Al |
|
I would also point out that there is a difference between bass articulation and/or tightness and bass extension. While Csontos initially mentioned an additional octave of audible extension, his later posts talk about tight, quick bass w discernable differentiation between different notes. I believe Al was responding to the initial suggestion that a high damping factor will provide more bass extension. |
Alright. Given that the speaker sees far less actual damping than what the amp itself produces, does it not stand to reason that practically, the more the amp is capable of, the more the speaker will effectively see regardless of what is accurately representative in numbers? Btw, the amp in question here is the Acoustat TNT200 which is a pure fet class A/B amp. I don't have a lot of experience with tubes but they do have a reputation for soft, muddy inarticulate bass. I read Ralph's post on this and I believe it 100%. I have no choice. So I'm assuming (guessing) that that effective df of 20 is more likely to be achieved with an amp that has a very high published capability? Who cares what that number is as long as it represents the amp's potential to deliver the goods, so to speak. Are you suggesting that an ss amp capable of optimally controlling the speaker will have a downside effectively cancelling out it's benefit? |
Peter, consider the fact that many and probably most high quality tube amplifiers have damping factors that are less than 10. I don't think that anyone would deny that there are a lot of users out there with expensive, high quality, essentially full range dynamic speakers who obtain outstanding bass response with suitably chosen tube amplifiers.
And some speakers, such as many electrostatics whose impedance is high in the bass region and descends from there as frequency increases, will provide much better bass when paired with a tube amplifier having a low damping factor than with a solid state amplifier having a high damping factor.
Atmasphere has said in a number of threads in the past that no speaker in existence requires a damping factor greater than about 20. I don't have the background to agree or disagree with that specific number, but given the resistances of speaker cables and crossover inductors that I referred to, I would have to say that if 20 is not the number, it is certainly no greater than about 200, and probably a good deal less than that.
Beyond that point increases in damping factor are simply overkill, as I see it. Which is not to say that your perceptions are incorrect. It is simply to say that there are countless other design variables which may have played a role in contributing to what you perceived.
One very major design variable which comes to mind is that amplifiers having damping factors in the 1000 kind of area are commonly Class D amplifiers, while those in the 150 area you mentioned are commonly Class AB amplifiers. Obviously that would be an apples to oranges comparison.
Also, everything else being equal, if greater amounts of feedback are used in a design a result will be a significant lowering of output impedance/increase in damping factor. The increased feedback will ALSO result in a decrease in Total Harmonic Distortion, which can be expected to make some notes more "articulately discernable," to use your words. Some of the downsides of increased feedback, though, being increases in Transient Intermodulation Distortion, and the possibility of increases in certain odd-order harmonic distortion components that are particularly objectionable.
For that and other reasons, as I indicated earlier it seems conceivable that in SOME designs a degree of commonality may exist between the design factors which result in sonic differences such as those you perceived, and the design factors which result in damping factor differences. But although a cause and effect relation between extremely high damping factors and better defined bass is not infrequently cited in some marketing literature, and is a belief that is shared by a lot of audiophiles, it is a misconception IMO. One that has the potential to steer other audiophiles who may be contemplating an amplifier purchase in the wrong direction.
Best regards,
-- Al |
I know what Al is saying is correct theoretically from what I read, and I think I understand whybut I have to wonder sometimes also.
I do not have as many data points as Csontos, but I have noted a clear correlation between extreme differences in damping factor of amps I have used and major differences in sound along the lines Csontos describes (better dynamics and articulation of details overall though I am not sure that better low end extension is necessarily part of what I hear) with my larger OHM Walsh (wave bending) speakers in particular, which have a reputation of benefiting from high damping perhaps more so than many conventional dynamic box designs.
I think I have even noticed something similar with my smaller Dynaudio Contour 1.3 mkii monitors.
In my case I'm talking about going from a 120w/ch (Class A or A/B, not sure) amp with <50 damping (Musical Fidelity A3CR) to 500 w/ch and 1000 damping (BelCanto Ref1000m). Of course, the whole amp design did change, so big difference there! Lots of possible factors to consider. I sought an amp with 50 damping minimum, but had no concerns about going higher in that the effects would only be in the direction desired, to whatever extent. The first time I listened after changing the amp, the difference is sound was one of the biggest and clearest (for the better) I have ever heard with any system component change. It was a total sonic transformation that I would have to attribute to much better accuracy and retrieval of detail, whatever the technical reason. I'm sure increased damping is at least part of the reason, but I also suspect that damping factor of 1000 may be more of an insurance policy than anything else.
I believe that most top performing systems have some sort of similar over the top technological insurance policy or policies in play as a precaution just to make sure no corners are inadvertently cut. 500 w/ch and 1000 damping that went with it were two of mine. |
Okay Al, thank you. I have amps with damping factors of 150, 400, 500, 700, and 1000. My understanding is that there is a direct correlation with this number to bottom end control. My experience is that the higher the number, the sharper, more articulate the bass response is. The amps I have with df 0f 1000 do indeed produce discernible notes a full octave lower than the others. The others have the extension alright, but notes are not articulately discernible. Can you please elaborate a little more on this? Or just cut to the quick and tell me it's all in my head. |
When you go from a damping factor of up to 500 and compare that to an amp with 1000 or more, you're talking about audible extension of another full octave on the bottom end. That's no subtle difference. Peter, I would respectfully disagree with that. A damping factor of 500 is equivalent to an output impedance of: (8 ohms)/500 = 0.016 ohms. The resistances of the speaker cables and the internal wiring of the speakers, and the resistance(s) of the inductor(s) in the crossover networks, will add up to considerably more than that in almost all cases, limiting the effective damping factor that both amplifiers can provide to far less than 500. Also, there is no direct relationship between damping factor and bottom octave extension. If an amplifier having a damping factor of 1000 sounds different than one having a damping factor of 500, and it often will, the reason is not the difference in damping factor. Although the differences in sonics and the differences in damping factor may have some degree of commonality in their causes. Regards, -- Al |
When you go from a damping factor of up to 500 and compare that to an amp with 1000 or more, you're talking about audible extension of another full octave on the bottom end. That's no subtle difference. That goes for top end rise times also. Going from above 2u sec to below is easily recognizable, given all other performance parameters are of a high standard. As the OP's question refers to similar specs, it stands to reason differences will be subtle at best. |
The very best article I have read about system enhancement is on the Walker Audio site. Simple, and straight-forward.
http://walkeraudio.com/evaluating-components/ |
"It depends on where you are coming from and where you are going. "
THat's a good answer! |
It depends on where you are coming from and where you are going. |
Try adjusting your room acoustics with products from companies like RealTraps, TubeTraps or RPG Diffusor Systems. Then you will be able to hear the subtle changes in different Amps and cables, etc. Proper room treatment lets you hear the equipment, rather than the room. |
|
"Just have fun."
Good advice.
Different strokes for different folks.....dude! |
I think the right question is, "Under what conditions will I be able to
hear a difference, when changing equipment?". When this becomes
the issue, then the equipment, and whatever dollars it represents,
is relegated to a different role. What do I mean?
Instead of searching for the Holy Grail, or the one piece or
combination of pieces that will be most satisfying, I suggest
you focus on two variables, only. And they may not have occured to
you, or been mentioned to you, yet!
The first one is the organ you use when you listen to music...
yes, your ears! I recently discovered that a cleaning kit from
Rite Aid made it possible for me to experience more of an emotional
connection to the music. Sure, I thought my ears were clean,
but those canals go pretty deep, I learned. Another option
is a professional cleaning, which I last had done over twenty years ago!
The next point of attack, with exactly the gear you already own,
is "vibration control." All electronic pieces are subject to internal
as well as external vibration. What are you doing to address this?
IMO, the finer your gear, the more you will be able to appreciate
the effects of the proper treatment, in this area.
The challenge is, this will take a bit of time and effort.
The retail store is selling the high dollar gear because that generates
the most profit, for them. They might not want to talk about
the lower cost alternatives that can efficiently improve your sound.
Wouldn't you rather be happy with what you currently own,
and have the feeling that you are absolutely getting the most benefit
from each piece?
What to do? There are posts here, that address vibration control,
from manufacturers such as Stillpoints, Symposium, Marigo, and BDR.
And you might pay attention to the rack or furniture
that is supporting your equipment, and holding your cables.
There are online and catalog retailers (Music Direct, Audio Advisors,
The Cable Company) that can open up your world to many different options. And you may even choose to audition them, with the ability to return them if you are not happy.
Lastly, check out Jim Smith's book, "Get Better Sound."
I can't imagine anyone with an open mind who has failed to
glean some great ideas from this book.
"Just have fun." For me, it is very rewarding to initiate a
change that improves the listening experience, and does not involve
spending a ton of money! This way, the journey can be as
enjoyable as the destination... |
Marakanetz has morphed into Ebm, dude !!!!!! |
"Although I do not hear any difference in preamp/amp/cabling, it does not mean that a difference does not exist."
Actually, that's exactly what it means.
Cheers |
Would not add much to all of the above, but I do envy your being able to demo such fine gear. Especially in your home. What you ended up with is a dream come true system for many.
My experience has always been speakers make the largest and most discernible revelation.
Your maturing "audio ear" will detect differences in many other facets over time. Even then it may be of little concern over other aspects of a given component. Choices between the good stuff is often not just about sound, but look and feel, build and philosophies. |
Ecsrun, your simple cable swap should make it clear to you that all the above, though well intentioned, means practically nothing when it comes to your and your wives ears. YOU heard the difference with YOUR own ears when YOU made the cable change.
Still the voices declare that what you just did matters not. Trust in your own self, take advice when asked, experiment at will and be prepared, when asking something, to hear something else.
Some here have very strong beliefs as to what is the most important aspect, what influences sound the most, what matters little, if not at all. You'll eventually find yourself in complete disagreement with most and in agreement with few.
Enjoy yourself here and at home while listening.
All the best,
Nonoise |
I agree with most of what has been said here, learning to train your ears how to listen, et al. While this does help you hear more differences, you may eventually regret spending time trying to develop skills that will lead to unhappiness. Just enjoy the music, don't try to find faults that may or may not exist.
While I also agree with the "top 3" as many have stated here, I would change the order.
1) The Recording
2) Speaker/room interface
3) Speakers
The rest of the gear varies the sound on a much smaller scale. IMHO, coming in at a distant 4th would be the preamplifier. Personally, I've found it much more difficult to find a preamplifier that pleases me than an amp, source or cables. I don't know why.
I do know that I've never heard a preamp with built in dac that I have liked though. However, I haven't heard your C50. I have heard the MC275, that is a nice amp. In fact that was the first tube amp I ever heard, probably about 25 years ago, I remember it making me smile. :) |
|
Right amp for the speakers is another big one. |
rlwainwright speaks the truth!! If you accomplished 1,2 & 3 you are 95 % "there" in terms of real life sonic happiness. That last 5% is expensive and fussy and I have not yet found it yet either but pleased with what I have none the less. |
What RLwainwright said:
"We have a winner!! Differences between speakers are *huge* compared to that found in good-quality, well-constructed equipment and cabling. You are much better served by improving the following:
1) Speakers
2) Speaker/room interface
3) Source materials
Improving these 3 items will result in significant improvements. All the rest is mucking about the fringes."
That's it. |
This is too easy:
yes
yes
yes
nothing |
Escrun,
(to quote Morpheus, in The Matrix, upon Neos awakening)
Welcome to the real world. :-)
All the best,
Nonoise |
Ecsrun,
I wish that I had your problem...I would have a lot more money in the bank. |
You should be aware that short term a/b comparisons will not always detect a difference in sound. You need to listen to many recordings over weeks and sometimes months to pick out differences that might be present.
Alan |
I'm also in agreement that over time you're going to be able to better distinguish key characteristics of the sound, and as a result, you'll get better at picking out what appeals to you most.
However, at the end of the day you always need to trust what you're hearing. So the answer to #2 should always be a big "NO". |
Thank you for the replies so far..
When we had the smaller speaker wire (below min. specs according to mcintosh), some sounds did not come from the same locations. For example, a bird chirping in the background of a song seemed to be coming directly from the speaker itself. Swapping cables to the larger 12AWG (meeting mcintosh minimum specs), changed it so that the sounds of the birds felt like they were transported 2-3 feet away from the speaker and much more distinct. It was easily reproducible. |
A lot depends on the equipment that was compared. If of similar design, its reasonable to expect that the differences will be slight. This is why many transistor amps sound the same. |
I agree also with most of what has already been posted.
Years ago when I was just starting out in this hobby I listened to two CD players in the shop. The salesman kept mentioning differences in the music I couldn't hear.
I brought both of them home and thought the more expensive one sounded better...maybe. So I had my wife swap players (input select on my preamp) and I would try to guess which was playing. The first several times I got it right but felt like I was almost guessing. Then it hit me clearly, I could tell the differences immediately. In fact, where in the beginning I needed 15 - 30 seconds before I guessed, at the end I just walked in the room and knew for certain even before I sat down.
I believe that once you get very used to the sound of your system you'll hear differences in the components, but probably never as much as speakers. |
Ability to discern differences via hearing can be developed and refined over time. FOcus and desire is needed. Most "audiophiles" tend towards this. But there is no rule that says one must or should if they are getting by fine as is. GEtting by fine means the sound quality serves the purpose of enjoying the music. IF you are enjoying what you hear sound quality-wise, then you are fine. If not, then some additional refinement might be desirable as discussed but it will likley take some time and dedication. It may or may not be worth it. That is what matters. It can be a difficult endeavor to master! So many variables beyond the gear like recording quality, room acoustics, expectations (hopefully realistic, unrealistic expectations can be a curse), etc. |
Onhwy61, are you telling us that you cannot develop your senses? My neighbor who suffered blindness 6 years ago will beg to differ as he has developed his sense of hearing that today just amazes me. |
To piggyback something Elizabeth stated, audiophiles exaggerate very subtle differences and use hyperbole to describe these really small differences.
The idea that you need to develop your listening skills is silly. It is not so much listening, but more of being able to describe what you hear in words. Is being able to talk like an audiophile a social skill you want to develop? |
>> Let me just get this out of the way and say it up front.. While the speakers (and their placement in my room) seemed to make a huge difference, the amp, preamp, and cables do not seem to make any discernable difference to me or my wife. <<
We have a winner!! Differences between speakers are *huge* compared to that found in good-quality, well-constructed equipment and cabling. You are much better served by improving the following:
1) Speakers
2) Speaker/room interface
3) Source materials
Improving these 3 items will result in significant improvements. All the rest is mucking about the fringes.
You have a nice setup and seem to have discovered the basic truths on your own - good on ya! For now, I would simply sit back and enjoy that system...
-RW- |
I agree with all the above and yet have to ask, are the non differences you and your wife hearing not worth considering or are you not hearing them at all?
A trained ear will detect even subtle differences, previous comments not withstanding. You could be experiencing a "can't see the forest for the trees" moment. Simple as that.
This can all be overwhelming to the uninitiated and keep in mind that most of us have been doing this for the better part of our lives (a sad thing to admit).
:-)
All the best,
Nonoise |
I agree with all that has been said by the others above. I would add that the quality of the recording makes a big difference in how easy or difficult it is to hear subtle differences. The better and more lifelike the recording, the easier it becomes. And once you have "locked in" on a difference using high quality recordings, it will become more readily perceivable on lesser recordings.
Regards,
-- Al |
