Two Type of sound and listener preference are there more?

seanheis1, you assume that people who like exact (analytical) sound don't seek emotions.  Read below, especially response 2:

OP:

I don't pretend to be a professional reviewer (in fact this is the first time I've been moved to review any equipment), so can't explain exactly the differences, but it was akin to listening to a live acoustic performance versus listening to music through loudspeakers. The difference was not slight - it was dramatic. There is no "tingle factor" and no goose-bumps when listening with the Benchmark. If anyone says that the Benchmark is more accurate - frankly I don't care - I listen to music with my ears, not an oscilloscope! It was dull and lifeless by comparison. If you listen to live music there's inevitably background noise (you're sharing the auditorium with other people) and the acoustics are possibly not as good as a recording studio, but despite all the drawbacks, live music is so much more exciting to listen to. Similarly with the valve amps, an evening listening to music is thoroughly enjoyable. With the Benchmark it was little better than loud background music. Furthermore, the inclination was to turn down the volume of the Benchmark and turn up the SETs - inaccuracies, slight background noise and all! Music should be a thrilling experience and the Benchmark sadly doesn't offer thrills.

Response1 (John Siau):

Peter,

This is John Siau, VP of Benchmark.

Thanks for taking the time to document your experience with the Benchmark AHB2.

The AHB2 is well suited to use with high-efficiency speakers. The low noise allows noise-free operation with very high efficiency speakers.

Of equal importance, the AHB2 virtually eliminates the zero-crossing distortion that is normally produced conventional Class AB push-pull output stages. This is especially important for high efficiency speakers because the amplifier will spend so much time in low power region where crossover distortion can become most audible. The AHB2 behaves like a Class-A amplifier in that it is free from this very objectionable form of distortion.

But the AHB2 isn't for everyone. If you prefer an amplifier that enhances your listening experience then the AHB2 is not for you.

Your SET amplifier is specifically intended to add the euphonic qualities produced by the single-ended tube topology. This specific character is produced by the unique non-linearities that are characteristic of single-ended tube topology. The SET topology provides significant coloring of the music in a way that many people enjoy. If this is what you prefer, then you will be very unhappy with most other power amplifiers.

The AHB2 and SET amplifiers are on the very opposite end of the spectrum. You are completely correct when you say that the difference is dramatic.

The AHB2 is a much different listening experience. In contrast to an SET amplifier, the AHB2 is designed to be virtually distortion-free. The output of the AHB2 will sound exactly like the input. The AHB2 will not enhance or improve what goes in.

Please understand that this is a mater of taste. Many people enjoy the coloration produced by SET amplifiers.

Amplifiers can fall into three categories:

1) Amplifiers that add nothing to the audio
2) Amplifiers that add musically-disturbing distortion
3) Amplifiers that add musically pleasing coloration

The AHB2 falls into category 1, your SET amplifier falls into category 3.

Technically "coloration" is distortion but I think the word "distortion" gives a completely misleading description of something that may actually enhance the sound.

Again, it comes down to a matter of preference.

Response 2:

My experience with the Benchmark AHB2 driving sensitive speakers is somewhat different. In my current setup with Benchmark DAC2 HGC/AHB2, I am driving a pair of Klipschorns with a 105 dB sensitivity so in that sense they would be comparable to the Avantgarde speakers.

In my 25 years of of experience with mostly tube amplifiers of all sorts, I have never come across a more emotionally involving amplifier than the AHB2. It is exactly because it doesn't "interpret" the music by adding coloration or any artificial sense of ambience or reverberation that it is so fascinating to listen to. The AHB2's ability to reproduce the timbre and texture of acoustic instruments is beyond anything I have experienced before - just listen to brass or woodwind! - and the precision with which it reveals the actual acoustic properties of the recording venue, whether it be a small café or a concert hall, is second to none. At least to my ears. I think what captured my attention from the very first instant was how honest and genuine the sound is. If it is in the recording, it is there, otherwise not.

This amplifier keeps me on the edge of my seat in excitement and anticipation even with recordings that I have known for years and not thought very highly of, so in my view it is the very antithesis of boring. I don't remember having ever been so moved by reproduced music as with this Benchmark combo. FYI, I almost exclusively listen to classical music and much of it in hi-rez, but I have to say that well-recorded CDs are also much more enjoyable and listenable now than before.

Seanheis, dude way way off.

The type of sound your prefer has nothing to do with your brain being analytical or not.

It has to do with taste and expectations as well as experience. 

Why does one person love vanilla while another one likes chocolate?

In the case of sound, some people compare everything to the question of "how does it sound compared to the real experience of the instrument, this type of listener craves the life like experience and it is about being one with what is actually there. Unflavored, unfiltered, reality. If the recording sounds bad don't play it. 

Vs.

The listener who feels that the experience has to be pleasing overall first, and if the recording is bad, they flavor their systems by choosing components that mirror their tastes. Reality isn't as important as being able to relax into the experience. Processing is less of an issue, it is about turning off the brain's processing and giving into the experience.

Think of it as having a really fine steak, listener A will relish the flavor of the steak maybe with a dash of salt and pepper, listner B will add Ketchup and A1 sauce to make an amalgem of flavors. Unmaked and unfiltered. Changing what is there to match personal tastes.

Not a dig at carnivores or how you like eating your steak it is to illustrate a point. 

Fun thread.

Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor

Type One: Detail, clarity, soundstage, the high resolution/accuracy camp. People who fall into this camp are trying to reproduce the absolute sound and use live music as their guide.

Live music in the recording studio or live music in a venue? 

For me, there are a handful of factors that create a live music feeling....like the band is playing in my room. 

They are:

1.  Dipole radiation pattern. 

2. No crossover above around 1500 hz.

3. No enclosed (box) speakers

4. SET or SEP amp. Or pure Class A. A simple design with little or no  NFB is preferred. 

5. A room that is not totally dead. The room needs some energy that is not absorbed.  

6. A much smaller factor but still relevant is the DAC. NOS or R2R are IME closer to live music than Delta Sigma.  

I find the distinction made in the OP to be too artificial to apply to myself, or many other audiophiles that I know.

Much of what is mentioned isn’t mutually exclusive. For instance, I find most often “real” to entail “more musical.”

Whenever I listen to live voices/instruments my overriding impression is how much more seductively rich they are in virtually all the things I prize. There is so much more in terms of body, harmonic/timbral richness and ease when listening to a real voice, violin, cello, trombone or whatever. The versions through most hi fi systems sound so reduced, electronic and tonally bleached.

It’s even true of lots of amplified music. If the amplification/speaker system is of decent quality I hear far more character and richness even in a single synth or electric guitar than in a home hi fi system.


However, few affordable home systems could recreate the impact of amplified shows and our ears probably wouldn’t want those sound levels every day anyway.
So I’m not expected my a recreation of hat type of live experience.

But the way I find myself stopped in the street to listen to a live instrument being played, due to the richness of the sound, is my touchstone for the type of qualities I value in high end audio: timbral complexity, richness, ease, body, organic character. (Not to mention dynamics that communicate the zeal of a performance).

To that end I’ve always found myself preferring the type of tube amplification that increased to my ear those qualities.
Someone who was sticking to the division created by the OP would likely read my use of an older Conrad Johnson amp (Premier 12s) from the time they were thought as classically “tubey” as indicating I am simply trying to sweeten the sound instead of going for a “warts and all” experience of the sources. Hence I’d be put in the “musical not real” camp. But that’s not correct: I use such amplification because every time I compared to solid state amps the tube amp version struck my ears as sound more realistic - more rounded, organic, more ease, etc.

So I have no qualms about introducing certain types of distortion into my system but it’s in the service of making the sound closer to what I hear in real life, which is also to me “more musical.”

I suspect this whole debate, a debate that pits one camp against another camp is probably a holdover from the 80s when such limited views of audio were developed and promulgated by audio magazines and reviewers and audiophiles. What is needed, I submit, is a paradigm shift away from these rather cliche views of sound and sound preferences toward a new definition of great or ideal sound, if there can be such a thing. And what is it audiophiles are really trying to achieve. Start with the premise we’re stuck with the recordings we’ve got, there’s no going back, for better or worse, and try to figure what is still wrong with playback system that keeps holding us back. There’s nothing that can be done with overly compressed CDs and vinyl save reissuing them in restored dynamics but that appears rather unlikely. Not everyone listens to iPods. But the die is cast.