@mirolab and @mikesfinest Thanks guys! |
@tablejockey
Is no one else alarmed that on the consumer side of things that there really are no standards?
Its all very, very subjective and arbitrary.
We can all pretty much agree on good albums, quality recordings, good performances and good pressings/releases. We can all comment on and generally hear the merits of digital vs analog or tube vs SS even though we may have preferences.
We agree on things that can be done with speaker placement and room treatment that do improve the likelihood of quality home playback.
Why are there no ubiquitous sound reproduction solutions spanning production and home consumption?
Electrostatics are not found in recording or mastering studios. Giant tube-based amps are generally not to be found it professional settings. You are more likely to find cone-based speakers, sometime concentric/coaxial drivers and definitely solid state amps in recording/mixing/mastering environments.
What we do in our home systems is kinda bonkers compared to the professional world.
Just go to any audio show or convention. It’s rediculous! It’s like comparing apples to asteroids...
Everybody is cool with this? |
Please reread my original post when time permits. I am not looking for ‘the best’, I am looking for all of your opinions on ‘standards’, amplifiers that can be used as a basis for standards and/or as common points of reference.
|
I just think we’ve got to be able to come up with some common ground and some reference standards....
We need ‘yard sticks’ for all the subjective experiences we are always batting about.
To make sure we are all talking about the same things and in the same proportions wouldn’t it be excellent to be able to point to a certain amp and say “amp A is a very good example of____________” (holographic imaging, correct scale, large scale, small scale, swing, musicality, tone, forward imaging, recessed imaging, layering, tempo/rhythm, etc...)
Am I making sense?
|
And just because this industry has been ‘the wild west’ for so long doesn’t mean it has to continue this way.
Honest so much of it is agreed to voodoo and kept that way so very well off people can keep enjoying spending more and more money.
Let’s start getting some solid points of common reference so both the industry and its consumers can make more meaningful investments.
...and generally people who use the term ‘silly’ are usually ‘snooty’. |
@cleeds yes I know we have some very exacting measures when it comes to the functional testing of gear.
But do we know what causes our perceptions of certain gear? Have we defined enough our language about those perceptions? What you call ‘tonality’ I may call ‘tuneful’ or ‘natural’. What does ‘musical’ mean when we hear it in an amp and is that the same as ‘swing’ and what about that amp causes this perception? Is ‘holographic’ sound the same as ‘an excellent 3-dimensional sound stage’? What causes the perception of height or image scale with a given amplifier? What causes ‘inner detail’ or ‘good sense of tempo’ or ‘good rhythm’ in an amp?
Do we know why there are supposed synergies between certain audio components? Can we begin to make better predictions when it comes to gear choices?
We need more commonly decided upon points of reference that is for sure.
|
@2psyop
Why is this a silly question?
We have defined many standard measures in the world. Why is it silly to want to further define our ability to communicate about the qualities of audio reproduction?
If we can begin to agree on (not love, like, prefer, feel) certain pieces of gear that define/embody/reliably produce certain qualities of sound reproduction (both ‘good’ and ‘bad’) then we can all communicate more clearly about what we love/like/prefer and we can help those who build speakers, amps, etc further refine their craft and our listening enjoyment.
It would make many of our discussions less about ourselves and more about growing each other’s awareness and hopefully growing this industry.
We really need a heck of a lot more common frames of reference in audiophilia land! |
So since we exist in what is quite possibly an infinite universe, does this mean we should give up defining things?
The rules, standards, measures we have today took time to form. In the early 1800’s electricity was explained as a fluid. In the late 1800’s and into the 1900’s we believed in luminiferous aether to explain light transmitting through a vacuum. And on topic, the first amplifiers were designed and implemented only about 100 years ago.
There is much left to define and possibly even more left to discover when it comes to amplifier design and how they affect audio reproduction.
Interesting how many are against what really can be seen as a scientific pursuit. I am only interested in further refining our definitions and language regarding the effects we hear in audio reproduction. To do so we will need some benchmarks. (Most of us can point to the sky and say that’s blue, we might experience it differently and some may not even see the blue but having that reference gives us all a greater ability to speak to each other regarding other colors and/or shades of blue). If we can do this more definitively with audio gear quite possibly we can build better amps or choose with better knowledge appropriate synergies of gear. Perhaps one day an amp can be made that can be tuned to your preferences.
Many recording studios still have Yamaha NS-10 near-field monitors in their control rooms. A good example of a solid point of reference in the audio world.
You mention ‘better’....And really what is ‘better’ anyway? Are you simply going to settle for saying “‘better’ is whatever I like now.” Cus that’s what a lot of this industry seems to be. New. Different. Better.
But can you really prove it? Or does everyone just really like feeling special and/or unique supposedly hearing ‘the better’ with their feelings (and lighter pockets)? I know I do....but really, I want more than feelies. I want to know and define WHY different amplifiers do different things. And I am wondering if there are any benchmarks out there. That’s all.
Can no one point to a particular amp and say “it has great tone.” How about, “this amp creates a holographic soundstage in most instances.” Or “this Amplifier has really great swing to it”.
How about that, can we come up with a list of amps that people think demonstrate particular qualities in amplification?
For example, I have a zh270 and it is an example of an amplifier capable of holographic reproduction. I also have a BAT VK-500 and it is a great example of tone and effortless reproduction.
Yes I was hoping for one amp that is competent in most respects, but examples of amplifiers that excel at particular aspects will do as well.
|
Ok ok ok....so I also think in trying to define an amp that is a common/standard point of reference, the amp needs to be somewhat common and affordable.
Again I am not looking for the ‘perfect’ amp, I am looking for us to define an amp that does everything pretty well and consistently, and is something that pros and consumers have heard and can agree on as a competent piece of gear.
My goal: I am interested in being able to talk more specifically and exactingly about the different qualities we know and love in audio amplification. To do this we all need a common point of reference. It does not need to be perfect but must produce most or all of the qualities inherent in ‘quality’ amplification.
Why would this be adventageous? For one we could begin to define ‘how much more’ or ‘how much better’ one amp does something vs the common reference amplifier. This would help us make better choices and would probably even hep designers zero in on how to evolve certain qualities in amplification.
Adcom? Yamaha? Hafler?
There has got to be an amp that you could ‘live with’ that pros and consumer can agree upon. Come on people!
Once we define/decide on this common reference amp we can all start doing so serious exploration!!! |
It just seems like people really don’t care about taking care of each other anymore... Much easier to mock and dismiss. Fend for yourself, good luck, audition, try, buy, buy buy.... Very very comfortable spending money for the next best thing.
Some of us are not wealthy. Some of us are audiophiles out here on our own. It is not an extravagance. It is something we simply must do. And I think it can be done way more systematically from top to bottom.
....because there are so many types of bread and ways to slice it we need at least as many knives? I think we can do better.
And if we want this industry to grow and to support our favorite designers we constantly need to bring new people in and help to educate them. |
@noble100 nope I’m not looking to buy an amp. I am looking for Audiogon users, audio pros and audio consumers, to come together and define an amp by which all others can be measured. That amp does not need to be perfect, but it needs to be competent, consistent, reasonably affordable and something we all can/could/will have a chance to hear.
Like I said before, so much talk about audio reproduction is like comparing apples to asteroids. You’ve got $100,000 setups and $1,000 setups. I am not rich, but by starting to work to define our language and descriptions better it’ll be a lot easier for the masses to gain entry into audiophile land. Our descriptions will have more meaning and choices will be easier to make. |
I haven’t listened to a McIntosh yet in my setup. I have been very curious to hear what so many rave about.
What is a good place to start with McIntosh amps, something that can handle 1ohm loads. Right now I have Kappa 7 and 8’s and Yamaha NS-10’s available. At the moment whatever amp comes into my system needs to handle low ohms just to be safe. I have Kappa 9’s but those things are rediculous. |
Tim I am not beating around any bush.
I’d love to hear some McIntosh gear. It’d be helpful to hear a McIntosh amp that can handle my current speakers. This is a pleasant aside to my primary goal.
My primary goal for beginning this post was: I wish to define for the whole audio community one or more common, competant, reliable, well executed, sonically comprehensive, reasonably affordable amplifiers that we can begin to use as ‘reference amplifiers’ to judge other amplifiers by. That’s it.
I am interested in hearing the Audiogon community’s continued thoughts. |
Gentlemen, I am well aware of ‘the dance’ that is assembling audio reproduction gear. But we need to start somewhere and so far in my experience amplifiers are the heart and soul of any system. Speakers are a close second. Power quality is third.
And honestly, still being relatively new to serious audiophilia, ‘the dance’ seems more like a slow-motion mosh pit than any dance I’ve ever seen.
I am 44 and a professional visual FX artist. I know art. I know tech. I know some engineering. Audiophile land is a weird wild world and not always forthcoming or inviting. It’d be nice if we worked together to help each other out. |
@noble100
My primary goal for beginning this post was: I wish to define for the whole audio community one or more common, competant, reliable, well executed, sonically comprehensive, reasonably affordable amplifiers that we can begin to use as ‘reference amplifiers’ to judge other amplifiers by. That’s it.
I am interested in hearing the Audiogon community’s continued thoughts.
@2psyop Thanks for understanding me. |
@efort
thanks so much for your input. I would think a lot of 60’s and 70’s production used McIntosh...moving towards Yamaha in the 1980’s.
I think we need to consider amplifiers that were used in producing much of the music we like, and speakers.
I have three sets of speakers, I have the infinity Kappas, Yamaha NS-10’s and JBL 4312a Control Monitors. I like using studio monitors to really hear what’s going on in my system.
|
@noble100
Tim,
I am in amplifier heaven!!! Here is the list of amplifiers I have at home right now:
Spectron Musician III mk2 (calls D designed by John Ulrich the same guy who designed my Kappas)
David Berning zh270
Balanced Audio Technology Vk-200 and VK-500 with BAT PAK
Conrad Johnson MF-2275
Electron Kinetics Eagle 2
Carver Signature Sunfire
Yamaha p2050
Yamaha p2150
Crown XLS 1500 (x2)
Crown 1502 (x2)
This isn't some secret hunt for better amps for my Kappas. No I really am trying to ask us all to collectively come up with some amps that we can use as benchmarks for discussing in more detail the qualities elucidated by signal amplification. That's it.
There must be amplifiers in the world that work well with almost any speaker and are consistent competent performers that are also reasonably affordable. Defining some excellent examples and quite possibly some poor examples would help us all communicate better in terms of degrees about the qualities of any given amplifier in comparison to our benchmark amplifiers.
Once we all have common frame of reference we can begin to talk in more detail about the qualities of signal amplification. We can easily say things like, "This amplifier creates a stereo image 2x as wide as our benchmark amplifier." Or "This amplifier has great damping, I'd say its about 10-20 better than our benchmark amplifier."
Of the amplifiers I have and/or have heard, (that are reasonably affordable) I'd say these amps should be in contention for places as 'benchmark amplifiers':
1) Carver Signature Sunfire (the inglorious everyman audiophile champ)
2) Adcom GFA 555 II (best midbass and just easy to listen to)
3) Yamaha p2150 (clean quick honest controlled)
4) Crown XLS 1500 (really a great option for beginning audiophiles!)
...the Carver might not be 'affordable' but it might already be 'the' unofficial benchmark amplifier out there in the world (again 'benchmark' meaning it elucidates all the qualities of quality amplification, is reasonably affordable, can play nice with any/all speakers, is competent and consistent). The Carver has tone, pace, quickness, some swing and some live feel, handles frequency extremes and any/all volume demands, has somewhat above average spatial qualities, it can relax and/or jump. It can feel a little thick or sluggish in the bass sometimes, but other than that, not much bad you can say about it.
So Tim, am I making myself more clear? I want us all to try really hard to begin to compare apples to apples, although I know we all have trouble sometimes seeing the forest for the trees.
|
...not trying to frustrate anyone. I am very thankful for this community for all its hues and shades and even its dark corners. I love it even more for the brilliant, colorful characters you run into along the way.
Home reproduction of audio is unlike any other pursuit. We never can go to a museum and see the way it was intended. We are responsible for reconstituting a recorded event as it suits us. And that is very, very unique in terms of 'art appreciation'.
But it is 'frustration' that I am trying to get at, to chip away at. Gaining entry to high end audio is not easy or even friendly, sometimes it's not even fun. It's mad scientists practicing alchemy in dimmed rooms. Yet there is so much verifiable science involved. However we only apply the science as an initial hurdle and then sometimes when it suits us. Mainly we rely on 'synergies' and 'feels'. And I am fine with this for the most part because there is art in all of this as well.
I'm oddly mixed in a sense, having a Bachelor of Fine Arts and Masters of Science degrees and i do use computers (science/technology) to make animated features (art) all day long. Art and science certainly do mix and when mixed properly can make us 'feel'.
I started my deep dive into this stuff in 2009 and more intensely since 2015. I am still astonished everyday at how arbitrary and expensive it all is. I care about the health of this industry because I believe mental and spiritual improvement, (dare i say pure joy!) can be found in meditating on and experiencing excellent music as reproduced by our own hard-won 'spiritual machines'. I think more people should have access to quality audio reproduction and that it would benefit the planet.
To this end I am looking for a more direct road to audio Nirvana--not for myself but for others. I would like to make sure more people find easier entry into audiophile land. This is why I'd very much like all of you passionate audio nuts to help me define things a bit better. Lets figure out how to put some metrics to our subjective experiences. Lets see what synergies excite and concentrate certain qualities we love.
I think it is worth while and should eventually create less frustration. |
