• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

all good amps sound the same ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
before i read through too much of this...

Most of it has to do with how the amp is calibrated, e.g., my pioneer is set up to where the amp section is setup to run full on...regardless of volume...so it sounds punchy and awesome!..your mileage may vary....
 
Silly me. After all these years of spending money on different power amps, they must've all been defective which would explain why they all sounded different. :smoke:
 
it also has some to do with the pre amp. and no they dont sound all the same either...fter all both my c70 yammie and my 2000x were deposed by a home theather reciever with pre outs...pioneer VSX 9500s to be exact...why? the pioneer just sounds better...even with the pre outs to power amp...
 
Topology

It is an interesting question which deserves serious discussion. One which goes beyond "I think there is a difference so there is!"

I have given this question much thought and the fair amount of study. I think there is a discernible difference and the difference is the result of the designer's chosen topology. There seems to be broad agreement, for example, that there is a distinctive Marantz sound and a distinctive Sansui sound – and Nelson Pass's minimalistic class A designs also have a distinctive sound of their own, which many people love! Rod Elliott has a variety of superbly designed amplifiers and preamps, at least one of which has an amazingly devoted following… The P3A? Can't remember :-). People with much better ears than I say it has a remarkable sound.

And I believe that the topology extends down to the particular amplifying devices – tubes have a sound of their own, as do mosfets and jfets and the various "chipamps". I have a few chip amps and think they're great – but I find the sound too bright and harsh; and I wonder if that is because they are much more accurate than the old stuff I'm used to listening to? Is that wonderful "brown sound" the result of hundreds of components gracefully gliding out of spec over so many years? :-). Are some things better when they are not new, precisely because they are not new?

And I have always found it interesting that Douglas Self's probably brilliantly designed (I'm not well-schooled enough to know just how "brilliant" it is…) "Blameless amplifier" never found a place in the list of classic amplifier designs. Was it so close to being a straight wire with gain that it had little sonic interest?

I would love to hear comments on these questions from those of you – and there are many! – With better minds than mine.
 
Dclapp said:
It is an interesting question which deserves serious discussion. One which goes beyond "I think there is a difference so there is!"

I have given this question much thought and the fair amount of study. I think there is a discernible difference and the difference is the result of the designer's chosen topology. There seems to be broad agreement, for example, that there is a distinctive Marantz sound and a distinctive Sansui sound – and Nelson Pass's minimalistic class A designs also have a distinctive sound of their own, which many people love! Rod Elliott has a variety of superbly designed amplifiers and preamps, at least one of which has an amazingly devoted following… The P3A? Can't remember :-). People with much better ears than I say it has a remarkable sound.

And I believe that the topology extends down to the particular amplifying devices – tubes have a sound of their own, as do mosfets and jfets and the various "chipamps". I have a few chip amps and think they're great – but I find the sound too bright and harsh; and I wonder if that is because they are much more accurate than the old stuff I'm used to listening to? Is that wonderful "brown sound" the result of hundreds of components gracefully gliding out of spec over so many years? :-). Are some things better when they are not new, precisely because they are not new?

And I have always found it interesting that Douglas Self's probably brilliantly designed (I'm not well-schooled enough to know just how "brilliant" it is…) "Blameless amplifier" never found a place in the list of classic amplifier designs. Was it so close to being a straight wire with gain that it had little sonic interest?

I would love to hear comments on these questions from those of you – and there are many! – With better minds than mine.
Click to expand...

Another 'straight wire with gain' to add to the list is Susan Parker's 'Zeus' impedance amplifier with or without tubes.
 
I believe the future of audio will lie in speaker development and room treatments, but that's my opinion.

Earlier this evening I did compare two amps, an Acurus A150 and a Crown XLS2000, and both did sound different. The XLS2000 had better defined mids and tighter bass. This could be because the A150 is 20 years old and may have some component drift. Or it could be due to several other reasons. I'm really not sure. But there was a difference.
 
I have every G.A.S. amp except Godzilla, Meridian 105 monos, Acoustat TNT200s, H.K. Citation 16, Linn 2250, Leach LSR&D Superamp monos, SAR Labs Little Wallys, Bedini 100/100, and have owned many others. All high quality gear and they all sound different but they all sound good. If 'good' is the operative, then they all sound exactly the same.
 
E-Stat said:
We must live in different worlds. I happen to think Nelson Pass is quite a gifted designer and the concepts behind of his work are shared by many other companies who make high performance gear.

I'll take gear produced by Pass Labs, Audio Research, VTL, Ayre, etc. any day over clinical sounding high feedback designs from companies like Halcro, Bryston, McIntosh, etc. I've been listening to gear since the 70s and find a different reality than yours.

To each his own.
Click to expand...

If objective measurements are disregarded, it is inevitable that poor amplifiers will be produced, some so bad that their defects are unquestionably audible. In recent reviews it was easy to find a £795 preamplifier (Counterpoint SA7) that boasted a feeble 12dB disc overload margin, (another preamp costing £2040 struggled up to 15dB ( Burmester 838/846) and another, costing £1550 that could only manage a 1kHz distortion performance of 1%; a lack of linearity that would have caused consternation ten years ago (Quicksilver). However, by paying £5700 one could inch this down to 0.3% (Audio Research M100-2 monoblocs). This does not mean it is impossible to buy an 'audiophile'amplifier that measures well; another example would be the preamplifier/power amplifier combination that provides a very respectable disc overload margin of 31 dB and 1 kHz rated-power distortion below 0.003%; the total cost being £725 (Audiolab 8000C/8000P). I believe this to be a representative sample, and we appear to be in the paradoxical situation that the most expensive equipment provides the worst objective performance. Whatever the rights and wrongs of subjective assessment, I think that most people would agree that this is a strange state of affairs. Finally, it is surely a morally ambiguous position to persuade non-technical people that to get a really good sound they have to buy £2000 preamps and so on, when both technical orthodoxy and common sense indicate that this is quite unnecessary.
Click to expand...
~ Douglas Self (a truly great designer)
 
Superampman said:
But is it possible for two different amps to even have absolutely identical specs? Also, isn't nfb primarily responsible for the general characteristic differences between ss and tube amps? Can you please explain the influence if any, of nfb on TIM?
Click to expand...

Good questions.

TIM? Are people still talking about that? It was a big deal when I was an undergraduate. Then various people demonstrated that Otala's math was wrong, and that it was almost impossible to drive an amp to TIM under any listening conditions; it can only be done at ultrasonic frequencies.

So, given that TIM effectively doesn't exist on signals below 50 KHz, it is immaterial what negative feedback does to it. Anyway, negative feedback increases TIM only in the special case of a wideband front end coupled with a low slew rate output stage, which I would call a design error. Assuming the standard practice of putting a zero in the first stage, NFB reduces TIM.

I admit, it has been many, many years since I paid attention to this, and I might be wrong about some details. But, I am not wrong about TIM being essentially impossible to get in the audio band.

To my understanding, the main differences between tube and transistor amps are traceable to the existence of an output transformer, and especially its impact on output impedance, along with power supply regulation issues. Since I make guitar amps now, this is a question I have revisited in detail.

-k
 
E-Stat said:
Thank you professor for recapping Audio 101.



Easier perhaps. Have you ever found a *perfect* amplifier? If so, what is it?
Click to expand...

??? I don't see what was wrong with mentioning the issue of transduction. It is a key factor. You can't create a bode plot for a transducer.

Perfect amp? That's a silly question.

I have found many amps that do an effectively perfect job amplifying a signal above their noise floor and below their clipping limit. In my listening rooms I have used a Dynaco 410, a Crown Microtech, an Aragon 4004, a Krell KST-100 and various pro sound amps, essentially interchangeably.

I say, "effectively," because of the existence of Just Noticeable Differences. There are well-known limits to what the ear can hear.

-k
 
E-Stat said:
We must live in different worlds. I happen to think Nelson Pass is quite a gifted designer and the concepts behind of his work are shared by many other companies who make high performance gear.

I'll take gear produced by Pass Labs, Audio Research, VTL, Ayre, etc. any day over clinical sounding high feedback designs from companies like Halcro, Bryston, McIntosh, etc. I've been listening to gear since the 70s and find a different reality than yours.

To each his own.

Edit: I wish you the best of success selling Lunchboxes.
Click to expand...

I might rather listen to them, too. But, that is not here nor there when talking about whether two different solid state amps sound identical, now is it?

As to Nelson Pass.... a gifted designer for sure, but not a scientist or theoretician. I tried to read his paper on feedback. It was prima facie impossible. By, "high performance" you really mean, "high priced." The performance is what is being debated.

Thanks! Just last week we sold a bunch to ZZ Top (again), Mick Fleetwood, George Benson, Slash and Streisand's band. And Guitar Center. We broke $1M two years ago, and we are tiny. (Since, the concept of "many other companies" is important to you... What do you suppose the sum total of non-feedback amps sold last year was?)

-k
 
Last edited:
fredgarvin said:
Silly stuff. Certainly, speakers have far more variability in their sound, but if you can't hear differences in amps than you are wasting your time and ours with your audio opinions based on poor hearing.
Click to expand...

Actually, I have really excellent hearing, as any reviewer I've ever listened with will attest. In fact, I've made my living from my ears for many years, and am widely respected for them, in mastering suites, recording studios and design labs. You should try paying the mortgage on your hearing abilities some time. Yours is a totally childish and ridiculous comment. But thanks!

-k
 
Last edited:
Dr. Morbius said:
I believe the future of audio will lie in speaker development and room treatments, but that's my opinion.

Earlier this evening I did compare two amps, an Acurus A150 and a Crown XLS2000, and both did sound different. The XLS2000 had better defined mids and tighter bass. This could be because the A150 is 20 years old and may have some component drift. Or it could be due to several other reasons. I'm really not sure. But there was a difference.
Click to expand...

Did you level match exactly?

-k
 
There is one way to make two amps sound exactly the same, if you have the knowledge, skill and patience to do it. Take the output from one, and feed it into a dual-trace oscilloscope. Then take the output from the second one, invert it, and combine the two output signals. Feed both amps the exact same signal input (a variety of music from various pre-amps), and tweak one or both of the amps until the result is a straight line. At that point, you'll have two amps that --no matter what their type or design-- will sound exactly the same.

Bob Carver famously did exactly that, within 48 hours, to win a challenge posed by a magazine. He made solid state "clones" of two very famous tube amps (I think one was a Conrad Johnson), and in blind listening tests, the "experts" cound not tell the difference between the SS and the tube amps.
 
Two good amps sound the same? Never!

Even a Sansui AU-919 sounds a lot different from a Pioneer SA-9800.
The latter has far greater extended highs and lows,and whilst not been as truthful to the source as the Sansui it sure sounds a lot different... In some cases much nicer on certain recordings.
Both these were released at around the same time,and also had more-or-less the same MRRP... So,do all amps sound the same even in their same class/budget? Of course not!

According to reviews from experts,the Accuphase E-600 is the best sounding integrated ever made... Subjective of course,but never the less,why even begin to design an amp that costs £10,000.00 if there's hardly any difference between any of 'em,which is clearly not the case.

Sure,speakers and headphones can make a huge difference to the end results,but the amp is at the very heart of the system,therefore the better the quality that gets put through,the better quality that comes out.
 
Last edited:
Could the differences in sound be attributed to the synergy of the entire system? The amp is one component in the chain, and how it drives the speakers, with their variable impedance over the frequency range could make them sound different? Similarly for the input source, if using a turn table?
 
Arkay said:
There is one way to make two amps sound exactly the same, if you have the knowledge, skill and patience to do it. Take the output from one, and feed it into a dual-trace oscilloscope. Then take the output from the second one, invert it, and combine the two output signals. Feed both amps the exact same signal input (a variety of music from various pre-amps), and tweak one or both of the amps until the result is a straight line. At that point, you'll have two amps that --no matter what their type or design-- will sound exactly the same.

Bob Carver famously did exactly that, within 48 hours, to win a challenge posed by a magazine. He made solid state "clones" of two very famous tube amps (I think one was a Conrad Johnson), and in blind listening tests, the "experts" cound not tell the difference between the SS and the tube amps.
Click to expand...

Finally something interesting in this thread.
 
whoaru99 said:
Why should amps sound different, if the point of an amp is to simply take what comes in and make it larger going out?

If it largely alters the sound wouldn't that border on defective?
Click to expand...

Does a tube amp with 300B's sound like a Bipolar class A/B transistor amp? Not in a million years. Which one is defective?

ALL amps, speakers and sources are defective in one way or another. The closest approach to the original sound is at a live performance. Anything other than that is defective.
 
ken kantor said:
??? I don't see what was wrong with mentioning the issue of transduction. It is a key factor. You can't create a bode plot for a transducer.

Perfect amp? That's a silly question.

I have found many amps that do an effectively perfect job amplifying a signal above their noise floor and below their clipping limit. In my listening rooms I have used a Dynaco 410, a Crown Microtech, an Aragon 4004, a Krell KST-100 and various pro sound amps, essentially interchangeably.

I say, "effectively," because of the existence of Just Noticeable Differences. There are well-known limits to what the ear can hear.

-k
Click to expand...

Thank you Ken. But isn't it those Just Noticeable Differences that are the focus of this discussion and that drive this hobby for audiophiles and designers alike? It seems your statement is a prime example of the subjective nature surrounding this endless debate. I find it curious you did not mention IMD in your explanation.
 
Arkay said:
There is one way to make two amps sound exactly the same, if you have the knowledge, skill and patience to do it. Take the output from one, and feed it into a dual-trace oscilloscope. Then take the output from the second one, invert it, and combine the two output signals. Feed both amps the exact same signal input (a variety of music from various pre-amps), and tweak one or both of the amps until the result is a straight line. At that point, you'll have two amps that --no matter what their type or design-- will sound exactly the same.

Bob Carver famously did exactly that, within 48 hours, to win a challenge posed by a magazine. He made solid state "clones" of two very famous tube amps (I think one was a Conrad Johnson), and in blind listening tests, the "experts" cound not tell the difference between the SS and the tube amps.
Click to expand...
I collected a few surplus Tektronix 560 series o'scopes several years ago with a variety of plug-ins (inc the dynode calibrator) to play with X/Y audio differentials but never got around to it. Many of the 560s will take identical modules in both axis for X/Y which is what made them interesting.
IIRC, Carver succeeded in matched short-term listening comparisons tho' longer term listening revealed some audible differences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom