all good amps sound the same ?

[E-Stat]

Got you covered my friend.

Cool. I like clarity.

2. The speakers are 16 ohm. The 18 awg is more than ample for the runs here. The runs from each amp are probably within a foot of one another, and the final run to each speaker is being handled by a single pair of 14 awg cable - which is the same whether A amp or B amp is switched.

I refer not to cable impedance but the effects of capacitance and inductance on the speaker's crossover. My stats for example, are quite sensitive to inductance. Especially the large quantities found in your rig.

Besides, if the variables between each of the two amplifier connections were that great, wouldn't that exacerbate differences in SQ between the two amps?

What you end up doing (like the bogus interconnect test) is dumb down the overall experience to both.

NOTE: No paralleling going on here. I only have a single pair of speakers in this system.

I refer to the interconnects running to the two amplifiers simultaneously. What the preamp's output stage sees is a parallel (much lower impedance) connection with the two amplifiers.

 

[ken kantor]

If you understand the concept behind negative feedback, you realize that corrective difference products are constantly sent back through the input to *fix* the errors that have already occurred previously through the input and output stages. They have nothing to do with the original source and differ from one amplifier design to another based upon a range of factors. You are corrupting each with the other's apparent "corrective signal". It would be like comparing two visual images while the lenses of your nearsighted friend are now mixed with the lenses you use to correct your nearsightedness.

You are no longer comparing an amplifier's response by itself to another amplifier's response by itself.


And therein lies the problem and the fallacy of isolation.

Did you read the reference I made to the interconnect comparison test?

That is so far from correct that it is barely worth refuting. It is just plain, utterly wrong. No gray area, or debate need apply.

-k

 

[ken kantor]

Oh no. It was a very flawed, unscientific test.

What I could do is use Audacity to convert a few recordings to mono and hook one amp up to the right channel and a different one to the left channel and use the balance control to go back and forth. That's about as close to giving each amp a fair shot as I can do.

Congratulations! That's excellent given what a competitive market that is.

Thanks!

-k

 

[HypnoToad]

Bob Carver anyone?

And if one type of (power) amp sounded a lot better than another I would still be using the tube amp I sold.

 

[ken kantor]

Why would he need to do that?

If all amps sound the same, the entire premise of tweaking one amp to sound like another just seems pointless. Plug in any two non-defective amps, level match them, and you just won the Carver Challenge.

Here we go again! Who ever said, "All amps sound the same?"

Sorry, but what I posted is widely considered established fact. Watching the 25,000 or so people who don't believe it desperately search for loopholes or flaws in the reasoning is getting amusing.

Nothing posted in this thread has not long ago been considered by researchers before coming to a conclusion.

-k

 

[ken kantor]

I'm familiar with the challenge, what I question is the need to ever have done the challenge.

Many experts, some right here in this thread, claim that ABX blind comparisons between level matched, non-defective amps demonstrate that there is no difference.

If that's true, why would there ever be a need for something like the Carver Challenge? Take any two non-defective amps, level match them, and nobody can hear the difference. You just won the Carver Challenge! Why would you need 48 hours of tweaking?

He was comparing an accurate amp to an inaccurate, but good sounding amp. To make them equal, he had to degrade the accuracy of the SS amp to match the characteristics of the tube amp.

-k

 

[ken kantor]

Sure it is. Amps sound different because of the profound differences in engineering approach. I submit that the (audible) distortion spectra of Nelson's SIT-1 using a single stage class A no feedback amp using a single transistor is quite different from that of the bridged class AB (suspect more B than A based upon weight and output) amp found in a Lunchbox.


I live for the real world. How about you?


Assumptive straw man arguments don't serve your purpose. I'm only too happy to answer any questions you may have about what I think or what I value.


That sound great. I don't measure the success of a company driven by passion using the gauge of revenue alone. First Watt is similar in that regard.


Significantly less than that of Bose. What do you think?

I don't judge the enjoyment of a Ruth's Chris steak by how many hamburgers McDonald's sells. Similarly, sales volume is not among the criteria by which I judge the ability of an audio component to reproduce the experience of live, unamplified music. Is that one of yours? As for an audio company, I do value innovation and longevity in the marketplace.

In your Stereophile interview, you indicated that you want to make "value-driven products. I think that approach has suited you quite well over the years with what you've designed and produced. Keep up the good work in that corner of the market!

I think you have lost sight of my original point. I have never discussed whether different types of amp sound the same or different, and under what conditions.

Cheap shot noted... but if you read the interview more carefully, you will see that what I said was that NHT was attempting to attain high end performance at midfi prices, and I also discussed how that might be possible to do. Same thing for ZT. Do you think the big names that are buying ZT are looking for a bargain?? No, they are looking for the best possible amp they can find for a given application.

Actually, I would prefer to leave my own products out of the discussion, as I am not objective about them, and hate shilling.

-k

 

[ken kantor]

Thank you providing your frame of reference and commentary.

I understand fully now.

You have zero idea of my frame of reference, what I have owned and do own, and the various views I have held over the years.

Since I was a young kid, I have been obsessed with music and audio. I was 7 when I attempted my first amp mod. (It failed.) When you were playing touch football in junior high, I was in my garage building a tube amp and a guitar multieffects box. When you were learning to drive, I was building and modding Dynakits, and my first self-designed turntable and arm, and a really crappy speaker using parts I pulled from my Dad's console. Learned to play three instruments; played (poorly) in orchestra and band. When you were out dating, I was tweaking my stereo, and trying to improve the Hafler surround extractor. Learning recording. I earned college money doing design work for a dozen Boston companies, and took every audio-related course I could. Worked summers in an audio research lab. Got a "minor" in music. Played in an early art punk band. When I graduated, I did not follow my peers into the emerging world of digital and computers, and worked for local audio companies. Went back to grad school to study music, art and performance. Did my thesis and post-grad fellowship on the historical impact of telecommunications technology on music and art. By 30, I had the corner office at what, at the time, was the largest speaker company in the US. When you were starting a family, I was starting an audio company. Still love my work, and have taken two one week vacations in 20 years.

I've released two albums of original music, and mastered four commercial records. Recorded perhaps ten. Designed the monitoring system for the San Francisco Symphony and worked in the studio with many classical and rock artists. Was a contributing editor at Audio and High Fidelity, technical editor and columnist at Etown and Audio Video Interiors. I have spent countless hours listening to the home systems of Gordon Holt, (who also visited me), Larry Archibald, Julian Hirsch, Michael Fremer, Bob Harley, Corey Greenberg, Alvin Gold, Martin Colloms and many others, including most key high end reviewers and audio clubs around the world. I have heard experimental systems at ATT, BBN, NASA and Delta that would make you weep. I spearheaded International Jensen's efforts to buy high end brands, and so visited with many of the most esteemed smaller brands in the US and Europe. Over the years, I have built midfi systems for myself and the tweakiest high performance systems, too. Oh, and at one year's big AES convention, I won the prize at a listening competition sponsored by TDK to try and distinguish between a music source and a recording of that source done on their best tape. Got all my trials 100%.

I am >not< posting this as an appeal to authority, or to suggest it makes me correct. I am posting it so you will have a better idea of my, "frame of reference." I am pretty sure I have done far more critical listening, to a much wider range of products, than you have. And I put food on the table by the quality of my listening decisions.

-k

 

[yostie70]

FWIW -

I've been playing around with an amplifier switcher I just installed in my vintage rig.

It allows true real time A/Bing between two amps I have, one SS, the other tube - MC 2505 & MC 240 - both 1960s McIntosh.

After considerable experimentation, strain and patience - I find it impossible to distinguish between the two amplifiers - using both audio test signals as well as a variety of program material - and from different sources.

So indistinguishable in fact, I actually double checked to make sure the switcher was working correctly!

I reserve the right to amend my position at a future point as I'm still in the process of testing - but this is what I have to report thus far. We'll chalk it up to that they're both from the same mfgr from the same decade. SO - I plan on swapping another amp - a Japanese receiver of the 1980s - in the form of a Proton D940 I've had since new.

This is a completely different design than that of the other two and from a completely different era. Stay tuned for that later...

Anybody interested in having a go is more than welcome to take the challenge - Scranton PA area. Send PM.

Just a friendly warning - prepare to be humbled.

So does this mean that the same input is nothing more than amplified by the amplifier.......... w/o modification ?
Sarcasm implied
Not to you tho 62caddy

 

[E-Stat]

I think you have lost sight of my original point.

That the use of corrective feedback is the "Gold Standard for amplifier accuracy"?

I have never discussed whether different types of amp sound the same or different, and under what conditions.

That is a curious response based upon your earlier comments.

Cheap shot noted...

My apologies for referencing the page on your website highlighting your work and comments from the interview if you consider that taking a "cheap shot". I think there is a great deal of value with providing cost effective means for more folks to enjoy music. Lots more folks will enjoy the $299 Lunchbox than a similarly priced set of interconnects. But, that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

When traveling, an iPad and Shure IEMs are my constant companion. And honestly, the most significant improvement I've made in my listening experience in years was replacing CD players/changers in two systems with Squeezebox Touch units. They provide immediate access to my entire digital library - of various bit depths and sample rates. I have re-discovered a lot of forgotten jewels in my collection that only surfaced when I started random play.

 

[yostie70]

I really don't get it. Input signal. Amplify it .... as it is......... output it as original as possible with nothing more than amplitude change. No ?

 

[E-Stat]

You have zero idea of my frame of reference, what I have owned and do own, and the various views I have held over the years.

I based that comment upon what you mentioned in post # 50. Perhaps I assumed you were referring to the present rather than the past. So, what do you use today?

When you were learning to drive, I was building and modding Dynakits...

That's funny, so was I! I built an FM-5 at age 15 and a PAT-5 a couple of years later. It wasn't until I was 18 that I modded a few amplifiers based upon what I saw Frank Van Alstine did. I discovered I greatly preferred listening to music than fiddling with electronics.

I have spent countless hours listening to the home systems of Gordon Holt, (who also visited me), Larry Archibald, Julian Hirsch, Michael Fremer, Bob Harley, Corey Greenberg, Alvin Gold, Martin Colloms and many others, including most key high end reviewers and audio clubs around the world.

We'll pass on Julian Hirsch's system! About what timeframe did you visit Sea Cliff and what did you think? I've always enjoyed the visits there over the past thirty years. They have recalibrated my frame of reference on more than one occasion. I really enjoyed spending Saturday evenings in college with the guys from the shop listening to the owner's Dayton-Wrights or to Dr. Cooledge's fine system of that day. It is from that experience that I became a fan of full range electrostats. I also learned quite a bit about music and got free tickets to the ASO.

I am pretty sure I have done far more critical listening, to a much wider range of products, than you have.

Which makes your comments from post #50 all the more paradoxical.

 

[Superampman]

You have zero idea of my frame of reference, what I have owned and do own, and the various views I have held over the years.

Since I was a young kid, I have been obsessed with music and audio. I was 7 when I attempted my first amp mod. (It failed.) When you were playing touch football in junior high, I was in my garage building a tube amp and a guitar multieffects box. When you were learning to drive, I was building and modding Dynakits, and my first self-designed turntable and arm, and a really crappy speaker using parts I pulled from my Dad's console. Learned to play three instruments; played (poorly) in orchestra and band. When you were out dating, I was tweaking my stereo, and trying to improve the Hafler surround extractor. Learning recording. I earned college money doing design work for a dozen Boston companies, and took every audio-related course I could. Worked summers in an audio research lab. Got a "minor" in music. Played in an early art punk band. When I graduated, I did not follow my peers into the emerging world of digital and computers, and worked for local audio companies. Went back to grad school to study music, art and performance. Did my thesis and post-grad fellowship on the historical impact of telecommunications technology on music and art. By 30, I had the corner office at what, at the time, was the largest speaker company in the US. When you were starting a family, I was starting an audio company. Still love my work, and have taken two one week vacations in 20 years.

I've released two albums of original music, and mastered four commercial records. Recorded perhaps ten. Designed the monitoring system for the San Francisco Symphony and worked in the studio with many classical and rock artists. Was a contributing editor at Audio and High Fidelity, technical editor and columnist at Etown and Audio Video Interiors. I have spent countless hours listening to the home systems of Gordon Holt, (who also visited me), Larry Archibald, Julian Hirsch, Michael Fremer, Bob Harley, Corey Greenberg, Alvin Gold, Martin Colloms and many others, including most key high end reviewers and audio clubs around the world. I have heard experimental systems at ATT, BBN, NASA and Delta that would make you weep. I spearheaded International Jensen's efforts to buy high end brands, and so visited with many of the most esteemed smaller brands in the US and Europe. Over the years, I have built midfi systems for myself and the tweakiest high performance systems, too.

I am >not< posting this as an appeal to authority, or to suggest it makes me correct. I am posting it so you will have a better idea of my, "frame of reference." I am pretty sure I have done far more critical listening, to a much wider range of products, than you have. And I put food on the table by the quality of my listening decisions.

-k

My goodness, save something for yourself. This isn't Haight Ashbury. You are one of the few whose extensive knowledge is obvious. I just wish you'd elaborate on some of your statements a little sooner than controversy.

 

[audiodon]

One comment I forgot to add is that having worked in engineering environments has taught me that there are different perspectives on the design side from the user side.

That being a given, let's not chase away anyone who can provide a perspective we may not have ourselves just because we disagree. I appreciate multiple perspectives. Learning to welcome multiple perspectives helps me grow in this hobby.

Agreeing to disagree can be done politely and when done that way has more authority.

 

[yostie70]

Helllllllloooooooooooooooo !

 

[chicks]

It is from that experience that I became a fan of full range electrostats.

Which ones do you run? Mine are QUAD ESL-63s. Love 'em.

 

[E-Stat]

Which ones do you run? Mine are QUAD ESL-63s. Love 'em.

Quads are certainly nice and I've heard 57s, the Levinson HQD system and most recently, some 2905s. I suspect that you and I share a heightened sensitivity to coherency.

I use Sound Lab U-1s in the main system and Acoustat 1+1s in the garage. Bought my first Acoustats in '77.

Click link for more info and pics if you're interested.

 

[chicks]

Cool. There were some Acoustat's on the local CL the other day, not that I'm looking. Dunno about the coherency bit, but I love what they do for jazz, jazz vocals in particular. Not a rocker, which is good, since the '63s don't rock hard.

Oh, and Rick Rubin's Johnny Cash albums sound pretty good through 'em, too!

 

[ken kantor]

Cool. There were some Acoustat's on the local CL the other day, not that I'm looking. Dunno about the coherency bit, but I love what they do for jazz, jazz vocals in particular. Not a rocker, which is good, since the '63s don't rock hard.

Oh, and Rick Rubin's Johnny Cash albums sound pretty good through 'em, too!

OK, this topic, fun though it may be, went from garden variety procrastination to consumption of entire day.

I am defeated. But, I shall return!!

-k

 

[E-Stat]

That is so far from correct that it is barely worth refuting. It is just plain, utterly wrong. No gray area, or debate need apply.

How did I miss this?

Feel free to call Frank Van Alstine a liar if it makes you feel better.