"bright" and "warm" receivers (1 Viewer)

[Paul S]

On my above mention of the $10,000.00 challenge at the Audioholics web site, first go to the forums section and then click on "amplifier sound". There you will find mention of the $10,000 challenge to compare amplifier sounds.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Like Chu, I don't give any credence to those who claim to hear differences in how amplifiers "sound."

 

[PaulDA]

Is it possible, though, that various implementations of the analogue stages of a receiver or integrated amp might be the cause of an amp's "sound"--different op-amps or other solutions like Marantz' HDAM in their higher end equipment? As to amps themselves, I agree that they should be as transparent as possible. However, have not some tube amps been shown to have a "coloured" sound, either through deliberate or unintential design characteristics, characteristics not supposed to be found in solid state designs? Just curious.

 

[Tim O...]

Based upon much of what was said above, the logical conclusion is that the vast majority of people are hearing things that aren't there or are tricking themselves into believing that 2 amps sound different from one another. I find that hard to believe.

I can understand that 2 amps that have been calibrated and EQ'd to produce the same amount of distortion and the same FR *should* sound the same. If that were indeed true, then entirely all of the differences that 1000s (if not millions) of people are hearing between different amplifiers are simply due to differences in THD and FR. If that were indeed true, then all one would need to do is go out and find the cheapest possible receiver/amplifier that could adequately drive one's speakers and properly EQ it, thereby saving several $1000s of dollars. Is the situation as simple as that? When I heard a noticeably warmer, clearer, and less fatiguing sound between my entry level Sony and my HK 525, was the warmth simply a matter of the HK's FR being slightly boosted in the bass frequencies? And what about the clearer and less fatiguing sound? Was I imagining that?

Because of the inherently reproduced nature of audio, I find it hard to believe that the complex processing and signal routing, differently done by different manufacturers, doesn't have some effect on a receiver's sound. But, maybe it really is as simple as described above and we're all just deluding ourselves. I'm seriously wondering if that's the case.

 

[Nathan Stohler]

Tim,

That's the argument I was hearing on the other message board I spoke of earlier. "If that were true, we'd all buy the cheapest receiver we could!"

We all know there is more to a receiver than frequency response. Power (which you alluded to), build quality, inputs/outputs, video up-conversion, multi-channel capability, multi-zone capability, auto-EQ, aesthetics, DSP modes, decoders, overall design, etc. are just a few of the things we consider when buying a receiver.

As for "warmth", my understanding is that yes, it is just a matter of a boost in the lower frequencies, and "fatiguing" is often used to describe a "bright" system.

The portion of the review I posted above was for an entry-level Sony receiver, which was shown to have very flat response (all the way from the analog/digital inputs to the speaker outputs). So, at least in an analytical sense, the Sony seems to do a good job of processing/amplifying a signal without "coloring" the sound. Of course, another part of the review uses fluffy language to describe the reviewer's impression of the sound of the receiver. I take this part with a grain of salt because it's subjective (I don't care if a reviewer thinks a receiver is lacking a certain "boogy factor"). I've also read a thread on this forum where members disagreed on whether certain product lines were "warm" or "bright".

A gentleman on the other message board told me that I had probably become accustomed to cheap equipment like Sony (he claimed that Sony has a specific sound that appeals to some people, much like Bose speakers which accentuate the mid-range) and he hoped that one day I would have the opportunity to listen to some better equipment.

--Nathan

 

[Tim O...]

It could be that there really is no difference between receivers once all "tweakable" factors have been adjusted and equalized. I just find it hard to fathom that that's actually the case, with all of the processing and "degrading" of the signal that goes on inside the box, and the fact that different chips, processors, components, etc. are used by different companies. If it's really this straightforward and just a matter of THD and FR, why don't all the manufacturers just use the same internal components? (And I do know that several of them do use the same components.) Is that all marketing, I wonder, or do they really feel (know?) that different chips have different performance?

If it really is this straightforward, the people who drop several $1000s on big ticket receivers and amps (for the sound quality, not for the added features, ins/outs, etc.) must (should?) feel quite foolish.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Comparing apples to apples is tough, but I happen to have two receivers, both rated at 65 watts per channel and both with "analog bypass" paths. The first is a Sony Model No. I-can't-remember (my first pro-logic receiver) and the second is an Outlaw 1050.

As much as I'd differ to Jack and Chu, both of whom know way more about this stuff than I do, I gotta say that the difference isn't even subtle!

Or is it just a case of no double-blinding, and my mind playing tricks on me?

 

[Shiu]

We can debate this forever. I owned a Sony STR-DA4ES for about 18 months before I traded it in for a Denon AVR-3805. People say Sony receivers are bright, Denon receivers are neutral/warm. Since I traded the Sony in, I could not do any A-B comparison. Based on memory, I do not perceive the expected "step-up" in sound quality. I do find the Denon slightly quieter, and has a higher output in the subwoofer channel. This is not important because it can be taken care of by calibrating it with a SPL meter. Other than that, I felt the sound quality of the two receivers so similar that I am sure I would fail to tell them apart in a double blind test. In both cases, I did perceive improvement (I had to listen hard and look for the difference) in sound quality when they were hooked to my separate power amplifier. Based on S&V tests, both receivers have similar and excellent (in excess of 200W into 4 ohms) two channel outputs. The Sony is 8 pounds heavier. I am quite sure I can hear the difference between an entry level Sony and my 3805. I also think I can tell the difference betweeen a HKAVR430 or lower and my 3805 using my relatively inefficient speakers. I am equally sure that I would fail a double blind test on my 3805 with a HKAVR630, Yamaha RX-V2500, or some of the Pioneer Elite models. I did past my last hearing test and I know I have no significant hearing loss (yet). That's just my experience and opinin to certain extent. I know it is totally subjective.

 

[Paul S]

Shiu, if you are quite sure that you can hear the difference between an entry level Sony and your 3805 why not go and take the $10,000 challenge mentioned in the Audioholics link above and walk away with the money. It should be quite easy to do. It would certainly be worth a few hours of your time to collect 10 grand.

 

[Chu Gai]

Need more details Rich as to what you did and how the amps were run. Things like level matching, ensuring that neither amp was being driven beyond its parameters, and all that good stuff.
Even if two amps or receivers are indistinguishable in terms of a controlled test, that doesn't mean that they are suitable to drive the speakers you have or might be considering. If you get a pair of ML's with its whacky impedance drop in the high frequencies, don't think for a moment that's not going to give most receivers and a fair share of amps out there coronaries. Complex impedance curves and phase angles of speakers can tax a receiver causing it to misbehave in an audible fashion. The type of music you listen to and the volumes will or ought to, dictate some consideration of the power supply in what you buy.
Me, I believe, and have as my personal preference, amps with power. Massive, clean power. Enough power so that if Florida calls me up and says we need more power for an upcoming electrocution, my amp will help out because I've got gobs to spare. Maybe its because I'm an American. Damned if I know. I can respect smart bombs and how they finesse things. I'm in complete awe of napalm though. Just smells like victory, eh?

 

[Tim O...]

I'm going to expose the limits of my knowledge here, but this is something I want to know. I've read explanations of it before but I'm still not completely clear on it.

What is the advantage (if any) of a receiver/amplifier with high current capability? Harman Kardon (and other HK owners) wants me to believe that although my 525 is only rated at 70 Wpc, all channels driven, it favourably compares or even surpasses competing models in terms of output and sound quality because of its HCC: +/- 45 amps. What exactly does this mean and how does a receiver/amp's current capacity affect output levels, sound quality, distortion, etc.? As I said above, unless my mind played tricks on me, I noticed significantly more output, and *clean* output, over my previous Sony DE685 (I think that was the model #). I also noticed a fuller, richer sound. I know that the HK's 70 Wpc was "honest" compared to the Sony's 100 Wpc (IOW, all channels driven, 20-20,000 Hz). But does the higher current capacity play a role here and if so, what is it?

 

[Shiu]

Paul, if I fail to tell the difference, do I have to pay them?

Anyway, my Energy Veritas 2.3i are not very efficient. When I A-B them at the dealer's place with a pair of the Energy C-9, every time I switched to the Veritas, I had to turn the volume (ARCAM-AVR300) up by about 5 dB. I think an entry level Sony (the DE series) would have hard time driving the Veritas.

 

[Shiu]

I think you are right since you are referring to the Sony's DE models. If you compare the 525 to a Sony STR-DA4,5, or 7ES, then I would say that the 525's all channel output will be as good, or better than the Sony 4,5 or 7ES. However, based on lab test measurements that I have read over the past two years my guess is that the 525's 1 & 2 channel output will be significantly less than those Sony ES models. Those Sony ES models have hugh heat sinks. The HK's 45A ratings are not continuous ratings. It is likely that the Sony ES models can deliver high currents on short burst basis. HK tends to emphasize their high current capability and all channel driven power. Still, if you read the fine prints of their product literature, they are not designed for driving 4 ohm speakers.

 

[Paul S]

Shiu, read through all links provided about the challenge, Article 13 reads as follows:

13. Cost to take the test is $100.00. $300.00 for people representing companies. Payable in advance, scheduled appointments only. Done correctly the test takes several hours.

Shiu, I don't see how you can possibly say you can tell the difference in amps when you aren't even listening to them on a matched volume a/b setup. Anyone will always pick the loudest sounding amp as best sounding every time which is why volume between amps has to be perfectly matched when making any comparisons. Also switching has to be instantaneous. You can't listen to one amp and then listen to another several minutes later. Aural memory is something in the order of several seconds at best.

 

[Chu Gai]

Which is why men always forget what their wives told them to pick up at the store.

 

[PaulDA]

I would like to throw in, for consideration, the following hypothesis:

When comparing amps to amps (separates), adjusting for level matching and other variables (using the same speakers, whichever they might be), telling one from another in a double blind test is probably impossible.

However, when comparing receivers to receivers, the presence of increasingly complex electronics physically attached to the amps (not connected by interconnects), coupled with the fact that in many receivers it is difficult, if not impossible (despite the presence of "Pure Audio" switches--and only a minority of receivers have this feature) to completely disable the DSPs (in the old days, STEREO was not a DSP, but today it is on most receivers), makes it likelier that the confluence of amplification and electronics could generate a "sonic signature" that could be (I'm not betting on the likelihood, though) identified in a double blind test.

Discuss.

 

[Tim O...]

I would generally agree with that Paul.

 

[Martin Rendall]

First, I would like to point out that the subject should have been:

"revealing" and "dull" receivers

Even the terms we use colour our perceptions of what is good and what isn't.


I put it too you that the goal should be to have the most pleasing sound. That is, you should be able to subjectively "like" one amp over the other, consistently in a DBT, even with a few seconds or minutes between amps. If you can't, that is to say, if you need an aural memory to determine a difference (supposing for a moment that you can in fact do this), then I claim that the differences are inconsequential, and you should consider other factors, such as price, better impedence handling, and even wattage, feature set (for receivers), and the like.

And a room treatment will have the largest effect on "detailed" versus "dull" - way more than an amp or even the speakers (excepting a few obvious exceptions, like horns).

Thoughts?

Martin.

 

[Martin Rendall]

I also want to point out that the $10000 challenge has been widely critized for setting up conditions where it would be unlikely for anybody to determine a difference even if one amplifier were truly inferior to the other.

Suppose for a second that there differences between two amplifiers.

The idea is that amplifiers will differ at the edge of their tolerances, such as at full power output, or with difficult to drive impedence curves. The challenge deliberately keeps both amplifiers well below such tolerances, keeping the "better" amplifier restricted to performing at a level comfortable to the "worse" amplifier. Now compare them, and the argument goes that of course they will sound very close to each other. But what happens if you turn them both up 25dB, or swap in some MLs?

Anyway, I thought it worth mentioning.

Martin.

 

[DanaA]

Exactly. An amp is largely defined by how it does when pushed
under load. If they establish parameters which circumvent this, they can only truly come to findings which are accurate within the limitations they tested under.

Besides, there are a lot of other factors that need to be considered when buying: price, warranty, flexibility, customer service, reliability, etc. Even the dimensions and appearance need to be considered in a lot of setups.

I would never buy a product under the guise that every 100 watt/channel amp will perform the same.