External amplification: I'm convinced (1 Viewer)

[Steve_D]

Jaleel,
Explain to me how in testing many different amplifiers (all on hand and owned) in my system the ones I thought would win did not?
Explain to me how my wife heard a clear difference and had a clear preference even though she was motivated to not hear a difference due to price?
Night and day. A difference would have to be night and day for my wife to hear it. She did.
And, BTW, yes I did level match using an SPL meter.
Your double blind theory cannot account for having preferences that are different from what you were pre-biased for.
------------------
Link Removed

 

[Mark C.]

Oh My! I didn't know I was going to trigger this amount of discussion.
Charles: I'm the original poster and, no, I did not recalibrate my speakers after switching power sources.
Jaleel: My wife would agree with you. She shrugged her shoulders while listening to the HT with the Rotel amp powering it and said it didn't sound better, only louder. Yet she sat down and watched the entire Roy Orbison concert DVD any way, her feet tapping the entire time.
My personal impression: The Nak is a high-quality receiver (that's why I bought it) yet it's limited when really pushed. The Rotel power allowed my B&W speakers to really open up, showing me what they can really do. I'm fighting the impulse to buy a Rotel RSP-976 pre/pro along with the 1075 Rotel amp. A buddy of mine already wants to buy my Nak if I go that way. Must fight impulse....must fight impulse...

 

[Charles Gurganus]

Mark, I was not trying to be a smart alec or anything like that, but when I read your original post and you mentioned the rears had more activity than with the receiver, what popped in my mind was "he needs to recalibrate using the spl meter". Even adding a 2 channel amp for the mains only would require a complete spl recalabration to assure level matching for ALL speakers.
Now as for the double blind test stuff?????? Sure, it would be nice to do, but in reality it is a VERY difficult thing to accomplish for most of us. You would, at the very least, have to have a switcher that would allow you to easily go from one setup to the other without ANY time going by. Your auditory memory just isn't reliable enough to determine which is better in most typical home theaters. Since in most cases we are using the preouts from a receiver to the add on amp, you would have to disconnect the preouts from the receiver, then disconnect the speaker wires from the add on amp and THEN connect the speaker wires back to the receiver. By the time you did all of this and then switched back, too much time would have passed for any TEST to mean much.

 

[Shane Martin]

This is gonna get ugly. Every seperate amp discussion ends up with Jaleel telling folks they won't hear a difference because they aren't doing a fricking double blind test. WTF?
Is there one person besides Jaleel that cares?
Let's leave Jaleel alone and move onto a meaningful discussion on why we are happy with our seperates and why we don't care why we are hearing them

 

[Charles Gurganus]

I agree Shane. I just thought about how difficult it would be to do such a A/B blind test at home, given the situation. It would be an almost impossible task and I just wanted to point that out and maybe STOP THIS MADNESS. I personally have gone from a Sony 800es receiver (80 wpc front and 40 wpc rear in pro logic), to 3 + 2 amp setup (B&K ST1400 and B&K ST1430)-- then used a HK PA5800 to biamp my mains plus used the B&K ST1400 for the rears---to my current setup which is a Sherbourn 5/1500 biamp setup plus the B&K ST1400 for the rears----at each stage I think the improvement was obvious, regardless of any A/B test. I was just trying to turn the table.

 

[JaleelK]

I knew Jaleel would drop in on this discussion.
Its time for those of us unfortunate souls, who own separates, to throw our amps & processors into the sea and get receivers instead.
I for one have done a level matched test with my receiver using its internal amps and external amps and guess what? It sounded different to me with the external amps having more detail and a deeper soundstage. This was done at about 45db SPL. I can state for certain it was NOT a placebo effect. Many others will state the same experience. So unless someone can provide quantitative data otherwise, your opinions are just that. Opinions. This is the reason why many people prefer separates and not only for configuration flexibility.
----------------
I was mostly referring to amps having very little detectable effect on sound quality. There are advantages to owning separates over receivers,one of which is flexibilty,
but to argue that amps make the type of dramatic differences in sound qualtity, as discribed by the original
poster, is very suspect to me.
Others have always claimed to hear differences between so-called mid-fi amps (in receivers) and so-called high-end amps, but when put to the test(double blind and level matched), they always seem to fail, why is this? Why when listening to a mid-fi amp vs. high-end amp the differences seem so noticeable (when you know which is the mid-fi and which is the high-fi amp) but when the test is made blind you can those alleged difference seem to disappear.

 

[Alex F.]

Jaleel:
You conveniently ignored my question about your own blind testing. Again, what were the results?
As I've written here in times past, I HAVE participated in multiple such tests. I HAVE consistently differentiated between power amps. Often, quite easily. In your own words, "Why is this?"

 

[Richard Burzynski]

2 questions at hand:
* Will external amp make receiver (w/ preouts) sound better?
Yes. Most seem to agree on this.
* How does receiver (used as prepro) compare to "real" prepro?
This is much more subjective, there are many factors. And to a degree, maybe pointless to those on a budget.
One thing we can all agree on? The external amp will help you now with your receiver. And, you can keep your amp after you move onto your next receiver (as a prepro) or prepro.
Now go buy that amp.

Rich B.

 

[Bryan Acevedo]

Why doesn't Denon or Onkyo or Krell just make a receiver that has these high quality amps built in? I mean is there something that makes it physically impossible to do this?
Couldn't Krell just combine its pre/pro and one of its 5 channel amps into one receiver? If you left the two power supplies separate, it should be no different, should it? Would it just be too big? Too expensive? I would think that the gains in direct signal paths with no external interconnects would help in sound quality (as someone else mentioned). But would putting them in the same chassis cause noise problems. I mean real noise problems, not in theory, but in real life. Wouldn't noise pickup in the interconnects be more of a concern?
Is it because you lose that upgrade path? But what if the pre/pro was also upgradable? In my mind, this would be better for someone like me, who just wants one box in the rack, and no more spaghetti wires behind the rack. And, a direct connection that the manufacturer controls is better than any wire I am going to buy (maybe).
Maybe someone can shed some light on this.
Thanks,
Bryan
[Edited last by Bryan Acevedo on August 15, 2001 at 01:53 PM]

 

[Paul_Psutka]

I'm not sure why everyone is so against Jaleel's comments. Paradigm (loudspeaker company) also feel that level-matched double blind listening tests are the only way to accurately compare loudspeakers. I'm sure many others agree with this method.

 

[BruceD]

As to external amplifiers, that's all I ever had with my Technics SH500 DD/DTS processor.
But, I will say that when I tested two different amplifiers in my own listening room, I did hear differences between the two. And yes they were level matched at 75dB SPL.
The two 5 channel amps were well broken in demo versions of the ATI 1505 and the Parasound 1205A which I could get for exactly the same price. I primarily did the listening tests in stereo with just my two main speakers Dynaudio Contour 2.8 towers (list $5800) silk fabric dome tweeters.
Now, you would probably think I picked the amp I liked better, which was the ATI, because it's output jacks and overall quality finish was much better.
But I must say the sound of the ATI was just too harsh in the upper mid-range and the highs with my speakers. I preferred the sound of the Parasound, even though I really didn't like it with it's rack-mount bracket front plate. The Parasound had really silky mids to highs and tighter bass than the ATI.
So, for me, my initial biases didn't seem to rule what I heard. Just IMHO
BruceD

 

[RobertW]

i've auditioned ati's, and am currently running a parasound 1500a for 2 channel, and your listening results are almost exactly the same conclusions i came to. not level matched, and no real biases toward either one, the parasound just sounds better with my brand of speakers.

 

[Alex F.]

Paul:
You may be missing the point. Many companies perform blind testing. It can be a useful tool in evaluating audio products. But it is always done in combination with slow, careful, sighted analysis. I'm not aware of one company that releases a product based purely on results achieved via blind testing.
Jaleel, on the other hand, insists (based on no apparent personal experience) that all amplifiers possess the same sonic signature. He insists also (again, based on no apparent personal experience) that the only useful way to test components is through the blind method.
Further, he says that nobody is able to differentiate between amplifiers in a blind test, which is untrue, utterly ridiculous, and laughably funny. In addition, whenever somebody on HTF wishes to have a serious discussion about amplifier performance, he insults the intelligence of others by claiming that audible differences are the product of one's imagination.
Finally, he refuses to discuss what experience he has in evaluating amplifiers (zero?). Nor does he ever mention what amplifiers he has listened to extensively or owned (any?).
Yet, armed with his vast experience on the subject, he feels qualified to "advise" others.

 

[DaleB]

I find BruceD's own evaluation quite interesting. I say that because I have read several different reviews that tend to agree with his impressions of the Parasound amp.
It is most striking when one considers the reviewing publications, including Bruce, all likely have different systems they are using to perform their evaluations.
Yet, certain characteristics like the "silky highs" and "tight bass" were noted by all reviewers. Those are two traits most would consider to be positive in an amp.
But not all products seems to be that 'characteristic' if you will. And you will read differing viewpoints in various reviews of those products.
That's when 'reviews' tend to sway me, when all tend to find the same qualities, especially if they agree with my own assessment, of course!
I did want to add there is a place for blind studies. But mostly with equipment where differences are not easily discernable in a just an A/B comparison. Whether it's lemonade or amplifiers, blind studies are only accurate with a fair sized population, and not just 1 or 2 people, or they don't have much siginificance.
[Edited last by DaleB on August 16, 2001 at 10:06 AM]

 

[BruceD]

In my previous reply I forgot to state that in my listening comparison I used a 2-channel Parasound 1100D Direct pre-amp for my listening tests from a CD player.
This meant my CD player was connected to Parasound preamp, and the Technics processor was also connected to the Parasound preamp. L&R Main Output from the Parasound preamp was connected to the L&R Input on the 5 channel amp.
Center and Surround Output from the Technics processor were connected directly to the 5 channel amp, and the processor sub out went to a powered sub (M&K MX700).
BruceD

 

[Michael P]

Wow Alex,in my opinion your last comments really went beyond a friendly conversation. Why are some of you all so threatened by Jaleel comments about this subject. If you think it sounds better than buy it. But before I told someone to go out and spend thousands of dollars to upgrade the system I'd want to make sure that it really was an upgrade. If you are so sure that the external amps will definitely make the system sound better than why won't you do a blind, or for that matter double blind test. If it still sounds better, then you are all set, if it doesn't sound better, then don't buy the separates. Don't critisize someone for stating the fact that without some kind of direct comparison, it is very difficult to acurately determine which one is better. Jaleel's initial comments questioned the AMAZING improvement Mark saw, not that there might be a small difference. He also did not seem to be saying that 2 different amps would sound exactly the same, but rather, there should be only slight differences between them, not huge differences. D

 

[Mike Knapp]

The only people that claim there is no difference between receivers and separates are those with receivers.
Mike

 

[Michael P]

Hmm, I dont think anyone here has claimed that integrated units are the same as seperates, but maybe I missed that post. What is being said by a couple of people here is #1 Some top end integrated units are better than some lower end seperates. #2 If you are still using your receiver for a preamp, while adding external amplifiers, one would expect to see small if any improvements, unless your receiver's amp section was underpowered to begin with, which of course depends on your speaker set up and other things. #3 If you are going to claim huge advantages by adding an external amplifier, why not do a blind test to make sure that you aren't being bitten by the more must be better bug....... I just think getting mad at people who ask you to prove your claims in an objective manner is silly, and makes you sound like someone who is desperately trying to justify why they just dropped the cost of a HDTV on a couple of new amps.

 

[Martice]

The MAIN differences I hear in amps and most receivers that I've heard is in dynamics, control and headroom. I think the warmer sound some may claim to hear can be attributed to the lack of distortion a good amp has less of, as opposed to a lesser amp struggling to fill the bill. These distortions may lead one to believe that one amp is brighter due to more distortion or beleive that another is warmer due to lack of distortion presented by another one. With less distortion you may hear more depth and soundstage because there is less getting between you and the recording especially if the rest of your system is on the same level of performance. No matter what you call them, differences or changes or even a tonal characteristics, I believe that I do hear more or even less information between amps when compared. However, I do believe that just like a CD player or pre amp may play a part in the differences we believe we hear, I also believe that the placebo effect can be a factor in our overall judgement of what we listen too.
------------------
What if it gets no better than this!?!
[Edited last by Martice on August 16, 2001 at 06:04 PM]

 

[Jeremy Hegna]

"Why are some of you all so threatened by Jaleel comments about this subject."
Michael,
I don't think "threatened" is the appropriate word...maybe annoyed would be a better description of Jaleel's comments.
It seems to come up way to often in these educational discussions. DBTs have their place, certainly. In the case of whether or not amplifier A sounds better than amp B, it may not be necessary for the testing procedure to be completely blind or level matched, etc.
There is a reason that Mark Levinson and Krell amplifiers cost more than a Rotel or Parasound amplifier. The former have bigger power supplies, better capacitors, better resistors, better everything. Since manufacturers use different quality parts inside, sonic differences will be apparent even to the novice listener. Most noticably with lower impedence speakers. At relatively low volumes, it may be a bit harder to decipher the differences, but at moderate to high levels, the amplifiers signature will be heard good or bad.
There is definitely a difference in the sound of integrated receivers...why would it be so hard to be able to hear the differences in amplifiers?
That said, I believe that there is a law of diminishing returns applied to buying $10-100,000 amps, but that's because I can't afford to buy them. If I was in the position to invest in these types of high priced amps, I'm sure the difference would be apparent.
Just talk to any older audiophiles that have been in this hobby for some time....The guy with Mark Levinson mono blocks would easily be able to tell the difference between them and a Marantz mono-block.
Just MHO.
Jeremy