Pre-amp vs. amp sound quality impact

[Dmac43]

I had an Emotiva XPA-3 amp, and when I upgraded to a Parasound Halo A21 I was convinced that an amp upgrade yields more significant improvements. But more recently I upgraded my preamp to a Schiit Audio Freya + and my jaw hit the floor. Caveat, the XPA-3 really wasn't much of an amp as far as SQ goes.

So, as long has you have at least a decent mid-fi amp(and I think it's easier to build a decent amp these days, at least for cheaper money), an upgrade at preamp can give more bang for buck. Not guaranteed, but generally speaking. I will say that if you've got a Parasound P5, the Freya+ will eat it for lunch sound quality wise. While you're at it, sell your mid fi amp (Parasound Classic, Adcom SE amp, Nad or other budget design) and get the Schiit Vidar. Not a giant killer, but definitely a mid fi killer.

Now back to your thread arguing.

So replace all your gear with a pile of Schiit?

 

[Nickit]

I had an Emotiva XPA-3 amp, and when I upgraded to a Parasound Halo A21 I was convinced that an amp upgrade yields more significant improvements. But more recently I upgraded my preamp to a Schiit Audio Freya + and my jaw hit the floor. Caveat, the XPA-3 really wasn't much of an amp as far as SQ goes.

So, as long has you have at least a decent mid-fi amp(and I think it's easier to build a decent amp these days, at least for cheaper money), an upgrade at preamp can give more bang for buck. Not guaranteed, but generally speaking. I will say that if you've got a Parasound P5, the Freya+ will eat it for lunch sound quality wise. While you're at it, sell your mid fi amp (Parasound Classic, Adcom SE amp, Nad or other budget design) and get the Schiit Vidar. Not a giant killer, but definitely a mid fi killer.

Now back to your thread arguing.

So what made your jaw drop all that way? Specifically, I mean.

 

[runnin']

So replace all your gear with a pile of Schiit?

Only if, A) you have a budget or mid fi gear that you're disappointed with and B), Making SQ gains is your main priority. If your priority is bells and whistles, Schiit doesn't build feature laden gear.

 

[runnin']

So what made your jaw drop all that way? Specifically, I mean.

Bass, highs, depth of soundstage, air and a realism that I've never heard with my previous budget Emotiva, Parasound, Nad and Adcom gear. I guess basically it boils down to more detail across the frequency range that gives more texture to bass, and accuracy and air to highs. Vocals just sound like the person is in the room. The sum total can give chills.

From what I've read, the Schiit stuff approaches high fidelity performance that can easily cost $3000+ per component from the boutique brands. But it doesn't quite achieve that level of SQ. Like maybe 95% of the high end. It's all subjective, and for some a load of bunk. They'll be happy with an AVR and the amount of money they saved, and if that's what makes them happy, more power to them.

Okay, time for more scoffing. If you chuckle at after market cables, and use crap from Amazon or Monoprice, your gains will be somewhat subdued. That's because it turns out that the analog music signal is actually fragile, and little things can dull or subdue the fine detail and resolution. Its why Schiit's approach of using mainly discrete circuits(what the boutique brands have commonly used and charged a premium for) and minimizing extraneous features and add ons is effective.

 

[fill35u]

Re making tubes sounding solid state... what aspects of the amp did Bob Carver manipulate to make it sound 'tube like'?

In the production models, Carver used added output resistance and/or a signal proportional to the output current added into the negative feedback. Both methods reduced the damping factor, simulating the higher output impedance of tube amps.

it's been so long that I don't recall specifics of that test

https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/673awsi/index.html

http://thecarversite.com/yetanother...TIC%20bob%20carver%20(carver%20challange).pdf

https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge

 

[SterlingOne]

Perhaps the following page on Sony's website for support might assist:

https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/audio-components-receivers-amplifiers/ta-e9000es

Video standards seem to change so frequently in terms of formats, channels, room correction, etc. I enjoy our HT but am content with a 5.1 system. Don't know where I'd put all the speakers required for an object related 9.1.6 system!

Sony has not supported the TA-E9000ES for many years, so, unless my local electronics repair shop can come to my aid should my unit need service, I suppose I will be in the market for a new Pre-pro, which would replace both TA-E and TA-P units. I too am content with 5.1, although Dolby Atmos as demonstrated to me I believe would enhance movie pleasure.

 

[DaveVoorhis]

A waveform doesn't have to repeat to be a sine wave. A portion of a sine wave is still a sine wave.

A straight line between two points is not a portion of ANY sine wave.

True. But we're not talking about a straight line between two points. We're talking about a portion of a sine wave. Mathematically speaking, we're talking about the points determined by a set of values t in a range of time by the sine wave formula A sin(2πft +

), where t is a point in time, f is the frequency, A is the amplitude, and

is the phase. That set of points won't be a straight line, but some portion of a sine wave.

"Imprecision" is only meaningful in terms of technological or computational limits.

Preposterous.

No, it's true, because "precision" or "accuracy" are characteristics of measurements, which are dependent on technology or computation, even if trivially simple like the "technology" of determining whether a stick is the same length as your finger or not. The point is that human models and measurements of physics are subject to degrees of precision or levels of accuracy. Nature -- physics -- is not. It simply is. A tree can't be imprecise. A sound doesn't lack precision. It's only when we examine these things -- measure them and model them -- that precision becomes relevant.

That's the point - it's a model, and no longer mathematically certain. Did you give the .pdf a glance?

I read the whole thing, and whilst it's not really my area, it is a subject with which I have some -- now quite distant -- professional familiarity.

I do now wonder if we're talking past each other a bit, because I suspect we'd agree on the fundamentals. I'll try to clarify what I think is our positions.

The original issue was whether or not every waveform can be precisely described in terms of adding a set of n sine waves.

Physically and mathematically, it can, but only as an abstract ideal. In other words, it's what happens in the physical world -- as part of the mathematical reality that we inhabit -- but it's computationally infeasible to perfectly model. (Note that "perfectly model" is a whole can of worms, in terms of computation and numerical representation, that I'm not going to open here.)

I was referring to the the physical world. In the physical world, every waveform is the addition of a set of n sine waves.

I think you were referring to modelling or computing or measuring the physical world. In the modelled world, where we try to compute equivalences to the physical world, it is computationally infeasible (i.e., takes too long or too much memory) to perfectly model the physical world. There are waveforms where n sine waves would require an n too big, or a numeric precision too large, and thus the process would be too slow or take too much memory (or both) to model beyond some specified degree of precision.

In other words, for some real-world calculations -- for example, those that go on inside the digital filter in a DAC with EQ capabilities -- it is technically and computationally infeasible to sum a nearly infinite series of arbitrary-precision sine waves. Instead, we use efficient approximations like a Fast Fourier Transform algorithm. Those are indeed imprecise, as they are approximations that rely both on numeric representations that are inherently imprecise (usually IEEE 754 floating point) and methods like segmentation -- as shown in your PDF -- to be practically computed.

In short, the real world -- the one that we can only model in an imprecise fashion with computational devices -- is not subject to such limits. In the physical world, every waveform is perfectly represented by addition of n sine waves. Unfortunately, our calculators are too small and imprecise to perfectly model it.

 

[Dmac43]

Only if, A) you have a budget or mid fi gear that you're disappointed with and B), Making SQ gains is your main priority. If your priority is bells and whistles, Schiit doesn't build feature laden gear.

I know, I was using their sense of humor. On my budget I’m looking at Schiit, I just ordered a Mani phono pre, and will be purchasing a Loki eq, and a vali2 tube hybrid, running in that order into my Adcom 545 to B&W 602s3

 

[Nickit]

Bass, highs, depth of soundstage, air and a realism that I've never heard with my previous budget Emotiva, Parasound, Nad and Adcom gear. I guess basically it boils down to more detail across the frequency range that gives more texture to bass, and accuracy and air to highs. Vocals just sound like the person is in the room. The sum total can give chills.

From what I've read, the Schiit stuff approaches high fidelity performance that can easily cost $3000+ per component from the boutique brands. But it doesn't quite achieve that level of SQ. Like maybe 95% of the high end. It's all subjective, and for some a load of bunk. They'll be happy with an AVR and the amount of money they saved, and if that's what makes them happy, more power to them.

Okay, time for more scoffing. If you chuckle at after market cables, and use crap from Amazon or Monoprice, your gains will be somewhat subdued. That's because it turns out that the analog music signal is actually fragile, and little things can dull or subdue the fine detail and resolution. Its why Schiit's approach of using mainly discrete circuits(what the boutique brands have commonly used and charged a premium for) and minimizing extraneous features and add ons is effective.

My findings were pretty much the same when I added a tube preamp to my SS amp. The terms we use to describe SQ are hard to quantify, but was curious to get what I could from your experience. I looked at the Schitt but as I wasn't convinced tubes were all that picked up something used, but well regarded, for cheap. Do you play CDs through your system? A/B testing between an SS amp and the one with the tube front has I can hear a lot of difference and it really has tamed the harshness of many discs in my collection.

 

[Nickit]

If you chuckle at after market cables, and use crap from Amazon or Monoprice, your gains will be somewhat subdued. That's because the analog music signal is actually fragile, and little things can dull or subdue the fine detail and resolution. Its why Schiit's approach of using mainly discrete circuits(what the boutique brands have commonly used and charged a premium for) and minimizing extraneous features and add ons is effective.

Oh, boy. A trouble maker . This going to turn into a wire debate, too? I'll start: Hasn't it been pretty well established in blind testing that no one can tell the difference?

 

[E-Stat]

Sony has not supported the TA-E9000ES for many years, so, unless my local electronics repair shop can come to my aid should my unit need service,

I was thinking the "Technical Manual" download was a service manual, but alas it is not.

 

[runnin']

My findings were pretty much the same when I added a tube preamp to my SS amp. The terms we use to describe SQ are hard to quantify, but was curious to get what I could from your experience. I looked at the Schitt but as I wasn't convinced tubes were all that picked up something used, but well regarded, for cheap. Do you play CDs through your system? A/B testing between an SS amp and the one with the tube front has I can hear a lot of difference and it really has tamed the harshness of many discs in my collection.

Yep, I play cds as well as my itunes(!) collection. I can hear a difference with the tubes but with the Freya it's more subtle. I think Schiit has selected tubes that don't swing widely into tube sound but are more subdued. That's what I've read others say as well. I should add I'm not a tube guy at all, and I don't plan on going down that rabbit hole by starting a tube collection(where's that evil laugh coming from?), but I like what I'm hearing for sure.

BTW, sorry guys, I'm not trying to swing this thread into a cable debate. I just put it out there for those willing to try something new, and if you've got something besides a receiver or entry level integrateds and speakers.

 

[justjed2]

I just spent about 4 hours spinning LPs with a tube pre-amp and SS amplification. It was about as good as anything I have ever heard, and better than a lot of systems I've heard. The tubes add a character to the sound that SS lacks, in my opinion. Whether that's good or bad is subjective, I don't have a problem with it because I'm not trying to make the music sound live, but rather to make it sound good. To me. I've succeeded, but it was not an easy path to success. Y'all can argue about this as long as you want to, I'm gonna go play some more music....

 

[Nickit]

BTW, sorry guys, I'm not trying to swing this thread into a cable debate. I just put it out there for those willing to try something new, and if you've got something besides a receiver or entry level integrateds and speakers.

This one jumped the rails a while ago, so don't think it matters.

 

[E-Stat]

This one jumped the rails a while ago, so don't think it matters.

Attitude started by at least #73.

 

[sqlsavior]

I do now wonder if we're talking past each other a bit, because I suspect we'd agree on the fundamentals.

I suspect that we would, as well. I have always heard the statement we are debating with the word 'repeating' included as a qualifier. I was introduced to computational difficulties in an eye-opening Numerical Methods class years ago. I was talking about a straight line between two points as something to try to model, as an illustration of the difficulties. The tiniest portion of the biggest sine wave is still curved, not straight. So, you would need an infinite number of them, infinitely short, to be exact. The oft-illustrated example of a square wave that can be constructed from a fundamental plus more and more harmonics works because the waveform is repeating, and because we are allowed an infinite number of them.

I believe there is a fundamental difference between an infinite number of sine waves with a defined relationship, and an infinite number of model segments. Using something akin to the mathematical notion of a 'limit', we can get exact answers for the former, but not the latter, AFAIK.

Thank you for taking the time to think about my meaning, and to elaborate upon yours in your thoughtful post.

 

[ehoove]

You know, this BS has been going on long enough! I am a fairly easy going Moderator, but if you can't respect another members opinions without the personal attacks etc. you are posting in the wrong website! This AK and members are expected to act like it.
Thread closed!
Sorry,
Jim