What's wrong? Nuforce/Capri no better than Sunfire


Preface: this is regarding 2 channel analogue SQ.
OK. I know it's very early in the comparison process, and I've "only" critically listened for 2-3 hours. But whereas listening to speakers has shown clear differences (to a point), and the move up the B&W ladder from 9NTs to N803s was SIGNIFICANT, I'm at a loss on the amp/preamp. The jump from my old $4k Pioneer flagship HT rcvr to the Sunfire TGA5200 was very significant. Less significant but noticeable was the jump from the Pio as preamp to the Sunfire TGP5 as pre. I then read a lot about how a good 2 channel pre would crush an HT pre/pro. So I got the Jeff Rowland Capri. Have listened for quite some time and struggled mightily to justify the Capri, but I just don't hear ANY major improvement. Maybe some VERY subtle things, but I can't even be sure of that. I also read that a good 2 channel amp would crush a multi-channel amp. So I just picked up the Nuforce ref 9SEv2, and I've gone back and forth with the TGA5200, unscientifically, but again, I don't hear any major difference, whether through the Capri or the Sunfire TGP5. Am I just missing "golden ears" and reached the audio equivalent of the Peter Principal" (rising to my level of incompetence)? Is the Sunfire stuff just that good? Is the old claim that all good amps/preamps should sound similar true? It just strikes me as odd that so many people on these audio boards hear huge differences and I don't. What's wrong?
jeffkad
Tholt: The differences between great components and mediocre components are not subtle. If the difference is subtle, the component is not worth the money. There is something else that will provide a real difference (and probably for less money).

Don't buy in to the view that only a "wise, experienced audiophile" can hear the differences between components. Such words are spoken by people who have paid too much for gear that they don't even know is inferior. Many of the revered names in audio don't deserve the reputation they have.

If the difference is important and worth paying for, your wife or girlfriend will be able to hear it immediately. Using her as the reference point will save you a lot of money.

OTOH, deferring to the views of people on this board will usually cost you a lot of money, while providing you little or no benefit.

If the difference is not immediately clear, the component is not worth the money.
If the difference is not immediately clear, the component
is not worth the money.
Jimjoyce25 (Threads | Answers)

Jim, I absolutely agree.
I have to agree with Jim. I really struggle with the concept of having to learn how to hear , and needing long periods of time to begin to hear subtle differences. Yes, some things like fatigue set in over time, but by and large, if the differences are so subtle that they are not "reasonably" readily apparent (a mild concession to time), then you have to question the value of that particular piece of equipment IN YOUR SYSTEM.

Although this will probably create more debate, let me clarify my point on learning to hear. This means, to me, trying to learn to hear beyond the obvious things that will stand out as an immediate change, ie, clarity, detail, accuracy of voice/timbre, pin point imaging, bass depth, overall fullness/leaness of sound. Then there are the more emotional aspects, like being "drawn into the music", or the "musicality" or the "toe tapping" experience. To Jim's point, I was looking for any of these things to jump out at me so I could decide which of these pieces made the music sound better TO ME, albeit with the expectation that the exceptionally well regarded, well reviewed, more costly, dedicated-to-2 channel pieces would clearly show improvement. That they haven't is surprising, and to be honest, disappointing. However, and Tvad and I are square on this now, it is not torture, and it has not discouraged me. I'm getting great sound now, and I'm going to continue to try to improve the sound quality, while enjoying what I have. I may be at a point where I can't hear improvements even if they are subjectively there. It could be my ears, my room, or my system synergy. The exploration will go on to try to determine this. I do believe that everyone is different, and some are just THAT much more sensitive to frequencies, to acoustics, to change, than others. And that sensitivity may have thresholds or plateaus beyond which they are no longer sensitive, or maybe even more sensitive. If you don't get frustrated, cajoled or bullied along the way, the process is actually fun, as long as the bottom line is consistent: THE MUSIC SOUNDS GOOD.
Jeffkad, I truly hope I haven't bullied you, although I admit cajoling you a little.

I do believe based on your shared exprience here that the Sunfire equipment seems to be a good match for you.

Since you've expressed some desire to understand why you aren't hearing what you believe you should be hearing, I have offered some suggestions. If my suggestions have in any way come across as elitist or preachy, then I apologize for not communicating the ideas more effectively. Sometimes, it's difficult to have a discussion on a written page rather than face to face. Meanings are sometimes misconstrued.

Have fun.
Jim, thanks for your input. IME, improvements have been more subtle then not. For the many upgrades and tweaks I've been through, I can count on one hand what I would call both immediate and significant upgrades. I guess it depends also on what your ideas of subtle or significant are with this hobby, though I think we can all agree in a general sense.

My experience has prob been repeated many times before -- each new/better piece brings a small improvement, over time the sum is greater then the whole was before. Certainly my stereo now is significantly better then when I started. Tvad, thanks for your insights.