Do amplifiers really sound the same?

[Werner]

I rank this claim right up there with people not being able to tell the difference between Caruso and a Victrola.

Of course. The meaning of 'transparency' changes over the ages.

The first mechanical recording/playback means were found to be transparent by many simply because there was nothing else/older to compare against and no prior experience in the listeners. (If I asked my 8-year old if the ESL-63s sound the same as the DC-4s he would probably say yes ... [*]).

Today we talk about transparency as if we have achieved it, yet with full soundfield recreation at home as criterion all systems would fail spectacularly.


The Quad anecdote is just that, and the underlying test severely flawed.
Either these 50 303s were all operated as intended (i.e. driving speaker-like loads), in which case the chain would be -50dB at 30Hz (that's audible), or 49 303s were not driving their intended load, and thus were cheating. Even then part of the circuit's bandwidth limitation would accumulate to something audible.

Put in its historic context, what Quad probably (I wasn't there) demonstrated was that chaining 50 303s gave a significantly better performance than chaining 50 IIs.


[* But the 5-years old would probably insist on a comparison with his Pioneers.]

 

[spxy]

If you seriously believe that a switch lessens transparency or that connecting two power amps affects the pre-amp, then nothing will convince you. Nothing with any science attached anyway. Carry on with your dlusions.



S.

I was asking questions about the test and looking for answers...remember your own beliefs on "transparency" are based on listening tests not the figures....

Do we know that switches are transparent and that having multiple amps connected and playing does not effect the overall performance other then determining this with with listening test as described earlier?

 

[keiron99]

I think it was ajoke....

Silver, bright, lead dull?

S.

I do often wonder, in sighted tests, how much the physical appearance of a component influences the perception. I'm sure it must. I would wager that shiny metallic boxes are probably considered "bright" sounding, and olde worlde wood would be considered "warm". It'd be an interesting experiment.

 

[sergeauckland]

Of course. The meaning of 'transparency' changes over the ages.

The first mechanical recording/playback means were found to be transparent by many simply because there was nothing else/older to compare against and no prior experience in the listeners. (If I asked my 8-year old if the ESL-63s sound the same as the DC-4s he would probably say yes ... [*]).

Today we talk about transparency as if we have achieved it, yet with full soundfield recreation at home as criterion all systems would fail spectacularly.


The Quad anecdote is just that, and the underlying test severely flawed.
Either these 50 303s were all operated as intended (i.e. driving speaker-like loads), in which case the chain would be -50dB at 30Hz (that's audible), or 49 303s were not driving their intended load, and thus were cheating. Even then part of the circuit's bandwidth limitation would accumulate to something audible.

Put in its historic context, what Quad probably (I wasn't there) demonstrated was that chaining 50 303s gave a significantly better performance than chaining 50 IIs.


[* But the 5-years old would probably insist on a comparison with his Pioneers.]

Transparency as shown by a straight-wire bypass test isn't relative as something is either as transparent as a bit of wire or it isn't. In the 1950s very few amplifier were, now few amplifiers aren't, but the standard, that of comparing the amplifier to a short length of wire still remains the same. Of course those who ask what wire, as all wire sounds different, or what switch, as all switches sound different will never accept basic science.

As to the QUAD 50x 303 ad, yes it was cheating as the 303 weren't driving a loudspeaker level load, but an attenuator, presumably high impedance, such that the low frequency cut-off due to the series coupling capacitor wasn't there.

However that was made clear (to those who understood the implications) in the advert, and it passed the ASA. It was meant as a light-hearted dig at those other manufacturers who were already beginning to advertise on the basis of subjective sound rather than transparency. It wasn't to be taken seriously, but of course if one thinks about it, whether it's one amplifier or 100 amplifiers, the concept of transparency, to me, is theonly one that matters when choosing an amplifier. Everything else, like looks, reputation and price come after satisfying the basic requirement for transparency.

S.

 

[spxy]

I do often wonder, in sighted tests, how much the physical appearance of a component influences the perception. I'm sure it must. I would wager that shiny metallic boxes are probably considered "bright" sounding, and olde worlde wood would be considered "warm". It'd be an interesting experiment.

It cant much, no one here has pointed to a mechanism for that.

Even in sighted test you aren't always looking at or being aware of what is being tested.

What does often happen is people misinterpret results according to their beliefs or the environment they are in. Where you hear things that are not there a biological mechanism must cause this.

 

[Kraus]

I apologise if I missed this from earlier in the thread.

Instead of introducing the word 'transparency' to squabble over could the objectivists just state:
(points will be given if you can absolutely agree on these)

What measurements are important and what specification in each measured area do you consider the minimum acceptable?

How are measurements of frequency response done on an amplifier and, if driving a dummy load, would you expect these results to be subject to variation when driving different speaker models?

Why did you buy the amplifier you own and, if you ran a hifi shop, why did you carry a range of amplifiers that you knew to sound the same?

 

[James]

There is no accepted standard for transparency, nor is there an industry definition of hifi.

 

[hammeredklavier]

There is no accepted standard for transparency

Really? It's about time there was then.

 

[Barrymagrec]

There is no accepted standard for transparency, nor is there an industry definition of hifi.

I seem to remember there was a DIN standard for hi fi some years ago - don`t think it really caught on though.

 

[sergeauckland]

I apologise if I missed this from earlier in the thread.

Instead of introducing the word 'transparency' to squabble over could the objectivists just state:
(points will be given if you can absolutely agree on these)

What measurements are important and what specification in each measured area do you consider the minimum acceptable?

How are measurements of frequency response done on an amplifier and, if driving a dummy load, would you expect these results to be subject to variation when driving different speaker models?

Why did you buy the amplifier you own and, if you ran a hifi shop, why did you carry a range of amplifiers that you knew to sound the same?

For transparency in an amplifier I would expect to see the following:-

Distortion (THD, IMD, Beat Note) at all levels, at all frequencies and all permitted loads to be <0.1%

Frequency response to within 1dB 20Hz -20kHz

Noise unweighted <-90dB relative to full level, -100dB if the amplifier is to be used with electronic crossovers such that there is no filtering after the power amp.

If these figures are met, then I would expect transpparency driving any loudspaker that presents a load that is within the designer's specification for that amplifier.

As to the amps Iown, Behringer A500s, I bought them because they met the above criteria for the loads I was prsenting them with and they were cheaper than anything else, even used.

As to the shop, I carried amplifier brands like Quad, Meridian, Mission, Marantz, Musical Fidelty, Denon, as they offered different facilities (including looks) and power outputs at different price points. As to sonic differences, I left those to my customers. I didn't carry any valve amplifiers or the sillier SS amps.

S.

 

[sergeauckland]

There is no accepted standard for transparency, nor is there an industry definition of hifi.

Yes there is, the straight-wire bypass test.

S.

 

[sergeauckland]

I seem to remember there was a DIN standard for hi fi some years ago - don`t think it really caught on though.

DIN 45-500 was a good attempt at defining the minimum standards for something to be called HiFi in Germany. As it was a minimum standard, the "real" HiFi industry ignored it, as they were clearly well over that standard, whilst the "Ghetto blaster" industry (not that they were called that then) ignored it as they couldn't meet it anyway.

Incidentally, a fair few of today's Hyper-expensive valve amplifiers wouldn't meet DIN 45-500!

Neverthless, it stopped the silliness we get now of £19.99 all-in-ones from Argos being described as HiFi.

S.

 

[avole]

It's a question of scale. Amplifiers are rarely perfectly linear, just as the technically perfect lens does not exist.


No, it's a tool for recording an image. I have several cameras and I don't consider myself an artist.


Both are technical means to subjective performance. I think the analogue is a lot stronger than you'd care to accept.

I can't put it any more clearly.

With a camera you, the man or woman behind the lens, chose what picture to take, when and where. You then print, view on a screen, whatever, it doesn't matter. You have CREATED the image.

With HiFi, of which an amplifier a significant part, you listen to music that SOMEONE ELSE has created. You have no input into the creation process.

Therefore, there is no analogy. I'm defining analogy as:

"1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine."

 

[hammeredklavier]

Iown, Behringer A500s, I bought them because they met the above criteria for the loads I was prsenting them with and they were cheaper than anything else, even used.

How long have you had them? Just interested in longer term reliability.

 

[James]

I can't put it any more clearly.

With a camera you, the man or woman behind the lens, chose what picture to take, when and where. You then print, view on a screen, whatever, it doesn't matter. You have CREATED the image.

With HiFi, of which an amplifier a significant part, you listen to music that SOMEONE ELSE has created. You have no input into the creation process.

Therefore, there is no analogy. I'm defining analogy as:

"1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine."

We will just have to agree to disagree. The photographic image is a facsimile of the real thing, and the job of the camera (artistic flair aside) is to capture the image accurately, just as it is the job of the hifi to reproduce accurately what's on the source media. Both are reproduction systems that require a degree of 'accuracy' to be fit for purpose, but their results are largely judged on subjective merit.

 

[James]

Yes there is, the straight-wire bypass test.

How do you do a straight-wire bypass test for loudspeakers, CD-players or record players? The amplifier is only part of the hifi chain, even if it's the strongest link. I maintain there is no measurable standard for hifi transparency.

 

[avole]

We will just have to agree to disagree. The photographic image is a facsimile of the real thing, and the job of the camera (artistic flair aside) is to capture the image accurately, just as it is the job of the hifi to reproduce accurately what's on the source media. Both are reproduction systems that require a degree of 'accuracy' to be fit for purpose, but their results are largely judged on subjective merit.

No. You don't create the music, record it, produce it, press it or make it available for download.

Can you not see the difference?

 

[spxy]

Yes there is, the straight-wire bypass test.

S.

which is exactly the test we are questioning at this point.

does the "straight-wire bypass test" demonstrate transparency or does the act of testing reduce the overall transparency of the system thus obscuring transparency?

 

[sergeauckland]

which is exactly the test we are questioning at this point.

does the "straight-wire bypass test" demonstrate transparency or does the act of testing reduce the overall transparency of the system thus obscuring transparency?

Whatever. Are you deliberately being obtuse, or does it just come naturally?

S.

 

[sergeauckland]

How long have you had them? Just interested in longer term reliability.

I've had them about 6 months, so too early to tell. However, having got inside the box, they seem well built and run cool so I would expect them to be as reliable as any other similar product. I did short out the output once when running at full power, and the amp just went into protection,with no damage whatsoever.

With Behringer products in general, I now have some 30 units of various products, both personally and at the Radio Station. The ones I use professionally are in use 24/7 and have been for some 3-5 years with no failures to date. Others are used more occasionally, my three A500s, the DEQ2496 and DCX2496 are pretty much used daily.

S.