advertisement


What makes a great amplifier?

What makes a great amplifier is low distortion.

Does that sound good?

Well, people like what they like. And we like different things, have different goals, listen in a different room, prefer different music.
Since audiophilia is less about high fidelity and more about how good it sounds it is ultimately a personal call.
 
I'd start by accepting that it's about creating an illusion in your specific environment (and maximum enjoyment), not 'perfect' reproduction. Peter Walker's famous definition can lead you down the measurement rabbit hole to endless upgrades, and (worse) to hearing the equipment rather than the music. Listen, at home, to as wide a variety as possible, and trust your ears.

I and many others find that higher fidelity equipment does equate, for us, personally, to more musical enjoyment.

So even though "Peter Walker's famous definition can lead you down the measurement rabbit hole to endless upgrades" it is just as likely that a "trust your ears" approach "can lead you down a rabbit hole of endless upgrades" too.
In fact I believe that listening complemented by measurements is a short-cut to better sound (by reducing the potential candidates list) and it saves you money.
 
I and many others find that higher fidelity equipment does equate, for us, personally, to more musical enjoyment.

So even though "Peter Walker's famous definition can lead you down the measurement rabbit hole to endless upgrades" it is just as likely that a "trust your ears" approach "can lead you down a rabbit hole of endless upgrades" too.
In fact I believe that listening complemented by measurements is a short-cut to better sound (by reducing the potential candidates list) and it saves you money.

Totally see where you are coming from, and on face value there is much to be said for applying the idea of starting from a short list of equipment that measures well, and whittling it down from there.

I would offer though, that applying a sieve like this discounts a lot of interesting gear that may be more to the listener's liking. Many years ago, I went to step up from my Nait 1, and auditioned a 42/90, Ion Systems integrated/ps and a Linn Intek, with my Proac Super Tablettes, at Portsmouth hifi. I bought the (not much liked on forums) Intek, much to the salesman's obvious disapproval. The Naim stuff came in last. All based on how much I enjoyed the music.
 
Totally see where you are coming from, and on face value there is much to be said for applying the idea of starting from a short list of equipment that measures well, and whittling it down from there.

I would offer though, that applying a sieve like this discounts a lot of interesting gear that may be more to the listener's liking. Many years ago, I went to step up from my Nait 1, and auditioned a 42/90, Ion Systems integrated/ps and a Linn Intek, with my Proac Super Tablettes, at Portsmouth hifi. I bought the (not much liked on forums) Intek, much to the salesman's obvious disapproval. The Naim stuff came in last. All based on how much I enjoyed the music.

I agree that initially it is wise to broaden the scope.
Once you have determine where one's preference lies one can combine listening with measurements for shortlisting.

And let's not forget that one's taste in music and also in "presentation" is not static, it usually changes with time/age.
 
My thoughts are that speakers and room are far more important, unless the amplifier is a really bad design (and, yes, I've owned one of those). But as with everything audio, it's largely a matter of personal taste. I (briefly) owned a highly regarded, well-reviewed, British integrated amp. To me, it sounded awful, but that doesn't mean that it would have sounded awful in a different room, with different speakers, and a different pair of ears.

I don't know, I've owned a few amplifiers that were irredeemably awful, and at the time had about 17 different pairs of speakers to choose from and several different spaces to try them in. Yes, speakers and room is the first interface to get right.
 
So are you saying that as long as an amplifier is capable of driving the speakers to their maximum SPL without audible distortion, then they all sound the same?
Pretty much. Good quality drivers, with matched amps that work. Active has a lot of advantages. I hear far more into the mix with my current set up than I ever did with my previous, more costly, stack of separates. I listen to more music, it just works.
 
Look it up. ATC explain it pretty well.

Well I’m on their consumer page and I don’t see it, but I’m always missing stuff that’s staring me in the face. Don’t put yourself out but if you have a spare minute to find a link to what you’re thinking of, I’d appreciate it.

I should say I’m interested because when I do eventually decide I want to explore some more hifi, I think it may well be active speakers
 
Well I’m on their consumer page and I don’t see it, but I’m always missing stuff that’s staring me in the face. Don’t put yourself out but if you have a spare minute to find a link to what you’re thinking of, I’d appreciate it.

I should say I’m interested because when I do eventually decide I want to explore some more hifi, I think it may well be active speakers
They have all the specs on the website & explain the advantages of active (less distortion, higher signal to noise etc). Passive crossovers are not ideal. I just don’t like hassle & faff; not sure why I had a naim system for so long;)
 
According to Peter Walker (Quad) "the perfect amplifier is a straight wire with gain"

That means as little distortion as possible added to the signal.

Peter Walker was good at marketing. That line is a perfect abstraction...
 
Peter Walker was good at marketing. That line is a perfect abstraction...

Brits in general are good at marketing. Alan Shaw, Rob Watts, Ivor Tiefenbrun, Julian Vereker... Bob Stuart.

But Walker sounds quite lucid to me.

We designed our valve amplifier, manufactured it, and put it on the market, and never actually listened to it. In fact, the same applies to the 303 and the 405.
People say, 'Well that's disgusting, you ought to have listened to it.'
However, we do a certain amount of listening tests, but they are for specific things.
We listen to the differential distortion - does a certain thing matter?
You've got to have a listening test to sort out whether it matters.
You've got to do tests to sort out whether rumble is likely to overload pickup inputs, or whether very high frequency stuff coming out of the pickup due to record scratch is going to disturb the control unit.
But we aren't sitting down listening to Beethoven's Fifth and saying, 'That amplifier sounds better, let's change a resistor or two. Oh yes, that's now better still.'
We never sit down and listen to a music record through an amplifier in the design stage.
We listen to funny noises, funny distortions, and see whether these things are going to matter, to get a subjective assessment.
But we don't actually listen to program material at all.
 
Well I’m on their consumer page and I don’t see it, but I’m always missing stuff that’s staring me in the face. Don’t put yourself out but if you have a spare minute to find a link to what you’re thinking of, I’d appreciate it.

I should say I’m interested because when I do eventually decide I want to explore some more hifi, I think it may well be active speakers

Here you go:
http://atcloudspeakers.co.uk/active-amplification/
 
But isn't it "a straight wire with gain" exactly the right goal for designing and making a great amplifier? If not what would that goal be?

It might be useful as a maxim, but it’s not a goal as such because it can’t actually exist. It’s useful in the same way as KISS is, but to attach it to one’s products is marketing spiel. There’s lots of wires in a Quad amp!

All I mean is that it masks all the compromises and decisions that actually go into making an amplifier, and the variety of differing topologies and approaches that actually exist as a result.

There is no such thing as a perfect amplifier, in other words.
 
Peter Walker was good at marketing. That line is a perfect abstraction...

Total tosh! The ideal is a "straight wire with gain" and P J Walker was no marketing bullshitter. Quite the opposite. Like myself he was someone who report the facts and the truth no matter how "off message" it is to whatever fad actually is this years message. Some may remember a "Bod" Quad advert basically saying that whatever the latest fad is they just use engineering and that the THD of the 405 is so far below audibility as to be less than the random movement of electrons in the speaker cable or some such. It starts something like "SID?, TID?, 0.5%? 0.0005%?" as the main heading and goes on to "I hear this months crop of resistors sound hard and brittle" as a bit of a Micky take on the subjectivists...
 
It might be useful as a maxim, but it’s not a goal as such because it can’t actually exist. It’s useful in the same way as KISS is, but to attach it to one’s products is marketing spiel. There’s lots of wires in a Quad amp!

All I mean is that it masks all the compromises and decisions that actually go into making an amplifier, and the variety of differing topologies and approaches that actually exist as a result.

There is no such thing as a perfect amplifier, in other words.
Yes - but that's true of every piece of engineering. So you still set the right goal(s) for the product and see how close you can get with the resources and technology available. That you always fall short is never a good reason to abandon the right goal. My question still stands about whether there is another goal for a great amplifier. I can't think of one towards which you can work with engineering rather than a finger in the air.
 
Total tosh! The ideal is a "straight wire with gain" and P J Walker was no marketing bullshitter. Quite the opposite. Like myself he was someone who report the facts and the truth no matter how "off message" it is to whatever fad actually is this years message. Some may remember a "Bod" Quad advert basically saying that whatever the latest fad is they just use engineering and that the THD of the 405 is so far below audibility as to be less than the random movement of electrons in the speaker cable or some such. It starts something like "SID?, TID?, 0.5%? 0.0005%?" as the main heading and goes on to "I hear this months crop of resistors sound hard and brittle" as a bit of a Micky take on the subjectivists...

Apologies, I was going to add something about Walker as a designer as i didn’t want to suggest he was only slogans. Far from it, his designs are acknowledged and I’ve had and enjoyed many of them.

It’s the slogan itself and the way it is endlessly repeated that I was taking aim at. It might well be the ideal but it’s never reached is it, so the question is what compromises and decisions have been made along the way and what does the amplifier sound like as a result? Again, the rest of the system is significant - I’ve used Quad amps to great effect in some systems and found them lacking in others...
 
Apologies, I was going to add something about Walker as a designer as i didn’t want to suggest he was only slogans. Far from it, his designs are acknowledged and I’ve had and enjoyed many of them.

It’s the slogan itself and the way it is endlessly repeated that I was taking aim at. It might well be the ideal but it’s never reached is it, so the question is what compromises and decisions have been made along the way and what does the amplifier sound like as a result? Again, the rest of the system is significant - I’ve used Quad amps to great effect in some systems and found them lacking in others...

Isn't the job of an amplifier to increase the amplitude of the input signal?
If so then the idea of "a straight wire with gain" doesn't sound too off, if you accept that cables won't add nor remove anything from the signal.
 


advertisement


Back
Top