Today's silly question; why should amplifiers sound different?

This smells a bit like a cop-out, I must say. What titian's system costs is beside the point. You raised the question whether there are any differences at all between amps. Why not let titian's system show you? Afraid you might hear a difference and then not be content with your system any more?

In any case, I've been mulling over (my memory of) some of your posts. The only way I can reconcile your experience and mine is that you have been trying to find differences where they aren't. I agree that except in extreme cases , tonal differences between amps are quite small, and will certainly be inconsequential compared to the rather gross variation between loudspeakers. But there are other areas where the differences will not be quite so small: the ability to show ritardandi and accelerandi in a piece of music, how easy it is to distinguish two instruments playing in unison, whether you can understand the words a singer is singing, things like that.

Maybe you could start on something that should be interesting: bring your CD player along to titian. If his and yours don't sound different, titian should be glad that you will be saving him tons of money. If he hears a difference and you don't, why don't you let him describe what he hears and try to follow his descriptions?

 

Why do amps sound different ? multitude of reasons really, however there are 3 basic ingrediants that are required, to produce an amp that is a good one

Power supply, overrated by a factor of 50%, quality components, logical structure, and board layout
Output stages, wheather % feedback, zero feedback, biased and class 'a' staged or valved
Case work, construction, & attention to internal microphonics.
Plus decent outside hardware, binding posts/xlr/rca sockets.

follow these basic guidlines, coupled with the main board/input sections can be adapted to forefil the sound you may be after.
As for the tripath chipsets, They can 'adjust' the sound from boom and tizz to ultra Levinson. and all from the same box, with minimal alterations)
Many amplifier sounds are derived by accident not design (well initially the designer may have started with a certain sound in mind, but ends up with some thing completely different, however none the less valid.) then the actually person who 'constructed' this specific sound, then adopts as their 'House/own' sound
However Digital amplification is the way forward, simple equation here.
More power output for<>less power consumed<>smaller package<>virtually zero heat<>decent sound<>greater flexibility<>can be adapter for a mulituple uses including telecoms<>cheaper to produce.
There will still be a strong market for Valves and specialist class 'a' equipment, however wheather pwm or full digital signal transmission til the speakers, the furture is fast becoming digital.

 

Are we really sure we are all emotionally prepared for this debate?

Do not click on this link if you dont like DBT.

 

Johns Naim wrote

Hi John,

I can certainly see where they are coming from, the digital amps I have heard are certainly very good and closer to the valve sound than conventional solid state amps. If I had a solid state amp it would certaily be a digital one. However, I'd still take my AR valve amp over a digital one. For me, valves seem to have a 'rightness' especially in the midrange that is hard to beat.

Cheers, Robbo

 

Wolfy, spectacular

With regards to so called Digital amplification, I would agree that it will dominate the mass market. Isaac, you seem to have missed out the originator of the commercial pure digital amp, TACT

The pure digital amps sound so radically different to what you have heard before that I personally would not guarantee their acceptance in the audiophile world. Put it this way, the DBT boys would have difficulty ignoring these!

Also it would be misleading to bunch Class T and pure digital amps together. Whilst they both use DSP, they do so in very different fashions and of course Class T cannot convert PCM to PWM.

 

Well, at the recent Heathrow show the Tact room was very poor, so perhaps you're right.

-- Ian

 

Shame!
That's why speakers don't seem to do bass properly any more
Bleedin' Changing Rooms!

 

Ian,

I did not go in. But I know of a few studio engineers who were VERY impressed, whilst they thought the likes of AN to be very poor. So again it's a case of musicality, personal preferences, and listening for yourself. My point was that most people don't want the barenaked truth, and certain aspects of the pure digital amps that i have heard, suggest they get close to that. If they evolve, they will IMO get frighteningly close, but I personally doubt there's a market for it.

 

When I was in the Tact room, Peter Wossisname was doing a with and without room correction comparison, using some double bass music. The double bass had more of the natural decay of the real instrument without the correction than with it. With the correction it sounded like a good modern CD recording, clean, quiet, with very tightly defined bass notes with very rapid decay; without the correction it was closer to the sound of the live instrument, so I don't think it's quite the case of the "barenaked truth". It's itself no more than a sonic preference, just as much as is a preference for Audio Note, or whomever.

-- Ian

 

umm.. the Tact room was IMO the second worst sounding room at the whole show. Really bad IMO. Thin. Nasty. Like a tranny radio alarm clock.

The audionote room, one of the better ones.

If studio engineers liked it the other way round, then their views on what sounds good are entirely different to mine.

Of course, that doesnt mean TACT/DALI cant sound a lot better than that (setup, different room, different settings etc).. (better being more to my liking of course)

 

Hey, we all have personal preferences. I'm not going to defend the Tact setup, you either like it or not, no problem if you don't.

The natural decay that you talk about Ian, could just as easily be the signature of a room with average reverb time as opposed to a studio with it's controlled acoustics. It depends entirely how it was miked etc it is impossible to say for sure. What the Tact does do is to strip away the time smear of the listening room. Not everyone (myself included) neccessarily likes the results, but engineers seem to feel it's very faithful.

 

Sure, it's all about preference. But I'm sympathetic to Peter Qvortrup's view that the most "accurate" of two systems is the one that reveals differences between recordings; the Tact gear that I've heard, at Bristol last year (where it was sounding quite impressive) and Heathrow this (where it wasn't) seems to homogenise the source material, probably for the reason you suggest. Everything sounds precise and clean. I can see why a recording engineer may like this effect, but to me it's definitely a colouration.

-- Ian

 

Not at all a cop-out. And the cost is not at all beside the point. GrahamN (a notoriously fussy listener) found that at £3000-4000, CD players take another jump upwards in performance. All the hi-fi I own comes to about £4000. I'm simply not at that altitude.

Titian's is a super-dooper high-end system and my miserable little amps all put together probably couldn't make his speakers stir - he has some gigantic Krell for the two sub-woofers alone! And I have heard his system before and it's the best I've ever heard, but I simply have to be content with what I've got, because I'm not in that price bracket and I never will be. I simply can't afford discontentment!

Titian's CD player is a four-box affair costing about a squillion francs. I have no problems about CD players sounding different - I bought mine after a long session of comparative listening, and I was surprised at how different they sounded. However, had I heard any of the candidates alone, I would have been perfectly happy with each. And I think that sums me up - I listen to the music, not the equipment, and if the music is reproduced with reasonable fidelity, I'm happy. Which, as I said above, is just as well, because I'd spend my time chasing after rainbows, as do many hi-fi enthusiasts.

 

Rainbow aquistion accomplished captain and well under the squillion euro budget

 

Good to hear, Tone!

 

Mmm. Ian, I think prolonged exposure to such a system might make you change your mind on that, I mean living with it for six months or so (although I wouln't put you through that!)

My experience suggests the opposite, that by reducing the effect of your listening room, you actually hear more of the recorded acoustic, making differences far more overt.

I often describe this as a "you are there" experience as opposed to the "they are here" one that we are used to. But to live with it over a period of time, is to apreciate this for what it can do. In particular, live recordings, unconstrained by your domestic enviroment, have an uncanny ability to portray the size of the arena. Pink Floyd's Pulse for instance genuinely convinced that my small room had been transformed into a large open air arena. Eva Cassidy singing live again brought forth a completelt different acoustic, but no less realistic.

Studio albums could show the recording booth, differences in miking were very evident. In fact, the descrimination between acoustics and recordings is for me the Tact system's greatest strength. But I certainly understand people being turned off by it, all hifi is compromise and personal preference. I myself enjoy a less precise, more engaging flow to my music, hence no longer using the setup. But for soundstage and acoustic recreation, I have never heard better, regardless of cost.

 

Tone,

It doesnt suit you saying it all sounds the same just because you cannot afford it...

Just yesterday I went to audition a zilion euro system, SF Stradivari, Halcro pre + powers, Krell CDP and Nordost Valhalla, I will never buy any of those components, but they sure sound better then mine...

 

Antonio, thats is rather disappointing sir,

I haven't heard the Stad's so can't comment on those, have heard the rest, and very underwhelming mate, especially the Halcro's (surprising that). as for valhalla, do you wish to buy mine?, I still have a power chord left?, and the speaker cable you can keep, you can do better for a lot less

 

What were they using for the other four channels Antonio

 

Total cost about £50K I would imagine. I heard it too and I thought it sounded good but no better than any number of £5-6K systems I've heard. Total waste of money IMO

Michael.