Jon_Logan
Addicted Member
Of course they do.
There is gain for one.
However, the distortion added to the signal - gain is vanishingly small.
What makes the most impact in sound quality
- Thread starter AngelRa
- Start date
Of course they do.
There is gain for one.
However, the distortion added to the signal - gain is vanishingly small.
kconnor
Well-Known Member
Great amplifiers do NOT add any change to the input.
That is the paradigm but it is seldom if ever realized. Some amps come closer to the ideal than others do. If what you say is true then that Class A tube amplifier of yours should be the first candidate for the dumpster. Tube amps are notorious for imparting a sonic signature on the output when interfacing with the complex load that a speaker presents. Please do some research and I’ll bet there will be less sarcasm in your next post.
That is the paradigm but it is seldom if ever realized. Some amps come closer to the ideal than others do. If what you say is true then that Class A tube amplifier of yours should be the first candidate for the dumpster. Tube amps are notorious for imparting a sonic signature on the output when interfacing with the complex load that a speaker presents. Please do some research and I’ll bet there will be less sarcasm in your next post.
GlobalWarming
Super Member
I hear what I hear and that is what I hear......
bowtie427ss
Lunatic Member
............ and this is exactly why my answer to the OP's question/thread title as it's worded is still "the listener's perception". Absolutely nothing has more impact on the quality of what you hear than your perception of it.I hear what I hear and that is what I hear......
As it is phrased, the question is about as objective as asking what makes a piece of art beautiful.
Had the OP asked which "component" made the most difference, i would refrain from answering such a question as it begs for speculation, and the answer is likely to be different for every system, and it's listening space of which the question is asked.
Just my .02 y'all understand..................
Except for gain the clear aim is that amps do not add any change to the sound of the signal input.
Everybody can choose to misunderstand anything.
"dolph"
This is why measurements don't really do us any favours.
If you had done some high quality masterings, your'd have experienced how your ears would rule over the instruments when picking references.
"dolph"
Back to the original topic...I think one thing that can really help with one's enjoyment of their system is to go out and frequently listen to live music, be it amplified rock and roll or unamplified classical or jazz. Doing this gives me my own reference point for how my system sounds, without worrying too much about specs (simply because worrying about specs isn't enjoyable to me, like it is for others..not passing judgment at all, btw). I'll hear a violin and think "yep, that sounds like the real violins I've heard" without worrying about whether or not distortion or whatever is causing the illusion. I'll hear a saxophone live and think "that's not a polite sound at all. It's brash. It's harsh" and take that memory with me when I audition gear.
Having memories of real, live music gives me a goal for performance that, while admittedly completely subjective, at least results in a system that is convincingly real...to me.
Having memories of real, live music gives me a goal for performance that, while admittedly completely subjective, at least results in a system that is convincingly real...to me.
Brett a
~◦●○o0o○●◦~
This is geographic I think. There are seven high-end 2-channel retail shops within a 90min drive from my house---that I know about. (By high-end, I mean a place where you can go to listen to gear from Krell, Conrad Johnson, McCormack, Cambridge Audio, Rotel, B&W, Wilson, Theil, Mac, NAD, Music Hall, Shanling, Focal, Dali, Rega, etc, etc.)
iLUVanalog
Addicted Member
the sound quality you get from your set-up...good or bad...is totally dependent on what you play on it.
you can have a multi-million dollar system, but if you play a crappy recording, it's going to sound like **** anyway.
you can have a multi-million dollar system, but if you play a crappy recording, it's going to sound like **** anyway.
Agreed. If I wasn't able to visit any of the many different high end shops in the Chicago area, I'd have a much different understanding of the state of the audio industry, and of where my own system stands in relation to it. Another one of the nice things about living in a major metro area...among other, not so nice things (traffic, crime...).
And if the type of music you like is often not recorded in the highest quality, having the most revealing system on the planet might not be the best goal for you, unless you're more interested in the sound of your system, instead of hearing the music you like portrayed in the best possible light.
Hey Marc, could I get a clarification of terminology from you? You continually talk about "source first" and "speaker first" camps. However, you also say that most of the "source first" guys have better speakers than the "speaker first" guys. I'm wondering what you actually mean by "source first".
Do you mean that the source is the most important part of the chain and will trump having lower quality stuff downstream? If so, this seems to be contradicted by the "source first" guys having the highest of high end speakers. If the source were the only component that really mattered there wouldn't be any need for those speakers.
Or do you mean that these folks (and you) start with a superb source and then work downstream to put together a chain of components worthy of the source?
You've stated several times that you're "source first" but you seem to have a real bias against the "speaker first" crew. You seem to say that all they do is sit around and upgrade speakers without regard to the source. If the first explanation above is what you think of as "source first" then I suppose this definition of "speaker first" would fit. However, if you are working from the second definition of "source first" then it seems you're unfairly condemning the "speaker first" guys. It would seem that, working from the 2nd definition, a "speaker first" guy would start with a superb pair of speakers and then work backwards to feed it the best signal possible and could conceivably come up with the exact same system as a "source first" approach.
It kind of looks like you use the first definition for the "speaker first" camp and the second for the "source first" camp.
I'm not trying to attack you or anything, just looking for clarification. I may have misunderstood some of what you've said in the past and I want to get the story straight.
Do you mean that the source is the most important part of the chain and will trump having lower quality stuff downstream? If so, this seems to be contradicted by the "source first" guys having the highest of high end speakers. If the source were the only component that really mattered there wouldn't be any need for those speakers.
Or do you mean that these folks (and you) start with a superb source and then work downstream to put together a chain of components worthy of the source?
You've stated several times that you're "source first" but you seem to have a real bias against the "speaker first" crew. You seem to say that all they do is sit around and upgrade speakers without regard to the source. If the first explanation above is what you think of as "source first" then I suppose this definition of "speaker first" would fit. However, if you are working from the second definition of "source first" then it seems you're unfairly condemning the "speaker first" guys. It would seem that, working from the 2nd definition, a "speaker first" guy would start with a superb pair of speakers and then work backwards to feed it the best signal possible and could conceivably come up with the exact same system as a "source first" approach.
It kind of looks like you use the first definition for the "speaker first" camp and the second for the "source first" camp.
I'm not trying to attack you or anything, just looking for clarification. I may have misunderstood some of what you've said in the past and I want to get the story straight.
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
All amplifiers have a transfer function. It is the sum total of all distortions and deviations from a straight wire with gain. Carver amps with TFM in their model number have been "voiced" to sound close to the Carver Silver Seven's. They, (Silver Sevens) by all reports are extremely good amps.TF?
That was good one.
Great amplifiers do NOT add any change to the input.
The trick about High Fidelity is, weirdly enough, Fidelity.
So let's just hold on to your TF for a second, but no more than that.
All those amps with more or less TF, whether it happens by adding character or removing details, would, in my terminology, easy make it to the dumpster.
"dolph"
Transfer function
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A transfer function (also known as the network function) is a mathematical representation, in terms of spatial or temporal frequency, of the relation between the input and output of a (linear time-invariant) system. With optical imaging devices, for example, it is the Fourier transform of the point spread function (hence a function of spatial frequency) i.e. the intensity distribution caused by a point object in the field of view.
All that mathematical formulars and measurement approach doesn't really make it sound any better and frankly, I don't really care if one or another Amp is "Reported" being good.
"dolph"
I went to listen to a buddy's system the other day and he asked me how good it sounded. I told him I couldn't say, because I forgot my SPL meter.
I'm joking. Just trying to lighten the mood ya'll.
Uh John, don't quit your day job.
Nik, I don't think you're getting what Joe is saying. Every amplifier has a transfer function. It's just the output divided by the input. It's a way to show what the amp is doing. A perfect transfer function for an amp would be a a straight line at a higher level than the input. Whether a perfect transfer function is aurally appealing is up to the listener.
The reality is that the best amplifier for one set of speakers won't be the same as the best amplifier for another. Many higher power amps simply have too much gain and too high noise to interface with very efficient speakers. I run into this with tube amps, even. It's best to scale the amplification to match the speakers, so that the amplifier is working in its optimal linear range. There's definitely a reason why people use smaller class A amplifiers with 100dB+ sensitive speakers played in a home environment.