Amps admittedly designed by Nelson to have a particular sound and not necessarily transparent..I also have a Pass First Watt M2 and a Pass Clone VFET DIY amp that I like a lot.
Amps admittedly designed by Nelson to have a particular sound and not necessarily transparent..I also have a Pass First Watt M2 and a Pass Clone VFET DIY amp that I like a lot.
It has been discussed many times that musicians tend to not buy high end stereos, and it's been said they can replace the things that may be missing from cheap rigs with their built-in knowledge of how things should sound, etc. So how may this extend to musicians that do have great systems and what they are hearing, or not. That's all so confusing to me since I'm not a musician and and have a hard time playing the radio.It looks to me that his listening experiences are mostly based on sighted listening experiences.
Genelec anno 1989
1034a amplifier weight: 71 kg
1034a amplifier SNR (b, m, t): 101 dB, 105 dB, 106 dB
1034a THD: <= 0,05%
Genelec anno 1998-2000
1034a amplifier weight: 30 kg
1034a amplifier SNR (b, m, t): >=100 dB, >=100 dB, >= 100 dB
1034a THD: <= 0,05%
Definitely although to me, it will always make it sound worse, not better than another in the way audiophiles perceive.
Here's an example of a 20+ year-old, not terribly expensive amp that
These amps were quite far from SOTA even for their time, though.
I was thinking of the Quad 303 when I wrote the above. It was launched in 1967. When used within it's capabilities, with loudspeakers of the era which were 8-15 ohms, it was, and still is, transparent.So let's not let ourselfs get trapped in the box that subjectivists attempt to put us in, "All amps sound the same".
All amps do not sound the same, and how close they approach the level of technical excellence that they could be called "audibly transparent" has been improving over the years. How well they can handle difficult loads and all the rest is great today but there are still amps being made that will fail to be perfect with some speakers, and some designed to have a house sound on purpose. Many builders were passing the test in 1980-90s, but many still failing back then.
So yea, most amps have sounded the same for many years, if, if and if.
That's probably pushing things a bit, if there were transparent amps in the 60s, they were very few indeed..
Some admittedly so. The M2 has a 'third order harmonic' character. VFET's have a combination of second order dominant with some third.Amps admittedly designed by Nelson to have a particular sound and not necessarily transparent..
I suppose I need to be lashed now with zip cord and sent to do penance to WBF limbo until I atone for my sins and atrocities.
I don't know what CJ amp you have but here is a set of Stereophile measurements for a CJ Premier Eleven stereo tube amp from 1994. The low end roundness and warmth you speak of sounds a lot like the high harmonic distortion at LF.I don't mean to turn the conversation from SS to tube amps, but some of the conversation here has me thinking about something that has puzzled me.
I use some old Conrad Johnson tube amps and they have stayed in my system for decades because whenever I try to switch over to a solid state amp I just don't seem to enjoy the sound as much, so inevitably I go back to the tube amps.
The fact none of this was done level-matched and blinded (I often inserted a Bryston 4B ST) may render my question moot in the minds of many here. That's cool, I understand.
But given that even "hard nosed objectivists" have argued over the years that tube amps can audibly color the sound (if designed to), and given even in the notorious Carver challenge, Bob Carver had to fiddle around with the SS amp to get it doing what the CJ tube amp was doing...it at least seems plausible that my tube amp sounds different than the SS amps I've tried.
And IF it's the case this amp has a sonic signature, I'm still not sure how this works. I know that some tube designs are more reactive with certain types of speaker loads, so it's possible the tube amp will cause some variations in the frequency response - essentially acting as a form of EQ.
And also there is the overload/clipping factors, the idea that a tube amp when pushed to it's limits will start distorting in ways an SS amp won't, adding a certain character to the sound.
That stuff makes sense to me. The only thing is that it seems to me my amps have a very consistent character...no matter what speaker I put them on, and no matter what the volume. A thickening and rounding of tone, with a sort of slight "glow" to the sound, and a smoothing of high frequencies. I frankly can not recreate this with an EQ (I've tried, I had the Z-Systems RDP 1 digital EQ for many years - which I tried with a few different SS amps).
So if I heard this sonic character whether I put the amps on an easy load speaker, or a diabolically difficult load (I have had speakers across the range), and at any volume, I wonder what accounts for the consistent sense of ease, added roundness/softness/richness/glow to the sound that seems to carry through all those changes.
Again...until a good blind test I know "it's your imagination" can't be ruled out. But is there any plausible way a tube amp would maintain a different sonic character from an SS amp, even with different speaker loads and under the volume as which clipping occurs? I very, very rarely play my music loud - I'm probably barely getting out of the several watts range.
All the same also applies to my old Eico HF-81 14W integrated tube amp. It just seems to do the same thing to the sound no matter what speaker I put on it, and whatever the volume.
I've seen people allude to the transformers in tube amps as a source of coloration. Could that be it?
I don't know what CJ amp you have but here is a set of Stereophile measurements for a CJ stereo tube amp from 1994. The low end roundness and warmth you speak of sounds a lot like the high harmonic distortion at LF.
View attachment 29063
SS amps won't have this, and frequency response EQ won't recreate it.
Couldn't get the link to paste from my phone. Here it is: https://www.stereophile.com/content/conrad-johnson-premier-eleven-power-amplifier-measurementsDo you have a link to the full measurements please? Got me interested...
Couldn't get the link to paste from my phone. Here it is: https://www.stereophile.com/content/conrad-johnson-premier-eleven-power-amplifier-measurements
While I understand that to many here unless it can be proven objectively it isn’t a fact, or for that matter reality, unfortunately I think that there is still a great deal in audio and in music particularly that the current science misses. Ok, my flame suit is now on and at max protection level, lol.
Nonetheless, to get to MattHooper’s point about his older CJ amps, I think that the CJ is actually hiding detail and resolution...which is not audible unless one compares it with the same recording through a more resolving amplifier. Then, and only then, will the difference become apparent as to what the latest thinking in tube design is vs. his older CJ amp.
It really is very difficult to realize the deficiencies in amps and other pieces of gear, until such time as they are brought to the fore by other, more resolving pieces. All IMHO.
Or blind assumptions attributed to beliefs....that primarily have nothing to do with the ability of one's hearing acumen...or belief of a lack thereof.If you want a summary of the hazards of sighted listening for evaluation, here it is.