Benchmark ABH2 Replacement

[DSJR]

Any evidence that it actually does?

Of course not - and it doesn't really matter anyway as in yours and others' eyes, it's obviously my brain interpreting what I hear and being dictated to by what I see... Maybe it is, but every time I 'hear' one of these maker's amps I get the same vibe for some reason

I'd love to know if one of these new sooooper doooooper chip amps of consistent performance costing a couple of hundred dollars or less was dressed to the nines with brushed gold front, rosewood colour case and sexy meters and given a several grand or more price tag, would audiophiles say they sounded better even if the connectors were unchanged yet skilfully disguised round the back? Maybe they would and that would be more ammunition for the arch-objectivists to be even more smug

I hope the OP listens to more music than ever and once this thread is done, he can forget about the Benchmark which, for whatever reason, didn't quite hit the spot for whatever (visual?) reason. Had I the money and aspiration to own another passive amp-speaker system rather than return to actives, I'd be happy with either frankly

Please may I politely suggest that practically all of us have sighted listening at home (maybe not in the studio which is a different thing in many ways) and our listening experience I'd suggest, encompasses many sensory combinations. Maybe Accuphase worked this out decades ago and set about making products which give great sensory satisfaction even before the product is powered up and used for purpose?

 

[Purité Audio]

I haven’t forgiven you for inventing ‘PRAT’ and the Linn ‘foot tap’.
Keith

 

[MAB]

Tell you what, why don't you BUY an Accuphase amp

Ha, that's so funny. Can I try too? "No, YOU buy an Accuphase."

Does the taunt imply that if I can't afford it, I don't count? Does the fact I used to sell Accuphase put me back in the elite category of counting? Actually, the dual-chassis Transport/DAC in our shop never sold so technically it just got listened to, does that count? How about nobody in the store, golden ears and all, could tell the differences between the Accuphase and an Adcom DAC or any other CD player for that matter, does that count? Maybe I worked in a store full of Bozos.

and listen for yourself if you have any half decent passive speakers to drive it into and, while you're at it, measure the thing to see how it distorts (or not) up top compared to say, a modern Naim, which still seems to sound 'different' for some reason despite improvements over the last fifty years (actually, I believe it's measurable but none of their dealers will accept that).

Wow, you believe a lot and verify nothing in that run-on sentence.

 

[Bjorn]

It would be a bit of a pain to set up, but really not too difficult or expensive to get a switching box to set up ABX test with a friend controlling. Of course if they sound the same then the switch box will be blamed.

Yes. It's a proper listening test it comes down to. But not easy for people to perform.

 

[SIY]

I'd love to know if one of these new sooooper doooooper chip amps of consistent performance costing a couple of hundred dollars or less was dressed to the nines with brushed gold front, rosewood colour case and sexy meters and given a several grand or more price tag, would audiophiles say they sounded better even if the connectors were unchanged yet skilfully disguised round the back?

I'm sure that's been done. IIRC, there was a Levinson product like that (not a power amp, but still). I've certainly done it as a joke with visible glowing tubes and an LM1875 buried under the chassis. The comments I got were delightful.

 

[MaxBuck]

If someone believes that listening to music while gazing lovingly at one's bright, shiny Accuphase amplifier is a more pleasurable experience than listening to the same music while looking at a Benchmark ABH2, who am I to argue with them?

 

[DSJR]

Ha, that's so funny. Can I try too? "No, YOU buy an Accuphase."

Does the taunt imply that if I can't afford it, I don't count? Does the fact I used to sell Accuphase put me back in the elite category of counting? Actually, the dual-chassis Transport/DAC in our shop never sold so technically it just got listened to, does that count? How about nobody in the store, golden ears and all, could tell the differences between the Accuphase and an Adcom DAC or any other CD player for that matter, does that count? Maybe I worked in a store full of Bozos.

Wow, you believe a lot and verify nothing in that run-on sentence.

Not sure how I can verify the things I've experienced and yes, I've sold both brands at various times and compared them pretty recently.

No matter, it's up to you lot, if you disbelieve the OP's findings, to prove him deluded/wrong or whatever. He feels the Accuphase does it for him but he dares to suggest it sounds different to him. Now moving forward as as he's sold his Benchmark amp apparently, someone interested needs to do a proper comparison blind, to prove him (and maybe me too ) totally deluded and well, wrong in what we hear, or think we hear.

I was talking Accuphase amps by the way. Their CD player and dac are ludicrously expensive and although they 'sounded' fine the couple of occasions I heard them, I feel I know by now how price tags on digital gear means nothing, bearing in mind a $200/£250 dac with balanced outs from one of the usual suspects is perfectly transparent and should 'sound the same' as their lavish one costing many thousands. My local Accuphase stocking audio salon now sells Wiim products, but I bet they'd never ever directly compare them sighted, let alone 'blind.'

 

[MAB]

Not sure how I can verify the things I've experienced and yes, I've sold both brands at various times and compared them pretty recently.

No matter, it's up to you lot, if you disbelieve the OP's findings, to prove him deluded/wrong or whatever. He feels the Accuphase does it for him but he dares to suggest it sounds different to him. Now moving forward as as he's sold his Benchmark amp apparently, someone interested needs to do a proper comparison blind, to prove him (and maybe me too ) totally deluded and well, wrong in what we hear, or think we hear.

I was talking Accuphase amps by the way. Their CD player and dac are ludicrously expensive and although they 'sounded' fine the couple of occasions I heard them, I feel I know by now how price tags on digital gear means nothing, bearing in mind a $200/£250 dac with balanced outs from one of the usual suspects is perfectly transparent and should 'sound the same' as their lavish one costing many thousands. My local Accuphase stocking audio salon now sells Wiim products, but I bet they'd never ever directly compare them sighted, let alone 'blind.'

Accuphase make great gear, top to bottom, that's my experience. If I was posting in SuperBestAudioMysticism.com I would agree with you regarding the validity of my opinions. But not here.

 

[dlaloum]

Without measurements impossible to say, components attain characteristics ‘silky, smooth’ through convoluted Chinese whispers rather than their actual performance.
As long as the OP is happy although arguably he could have achieved a far greater improvement in SQ changing his speakers or looking at their interaction with the room.
Keith

What metrics would you associate with 'silky, smooth'? and on what basis?

The terms are a description that many of us can associate with... and therefore a useful albeit subjective measure - if you wish to be measurement centric, then you need to find that metric which measures that aspect which when present (or absent?) results in listeners describing the sound as 'silky, smooth'.
Many of the subjective descriptions are well understood and consistent across audio populations.... so they clearly have meaning!

 

[dlaloum]

You alluded in an earlier post that there is much more going on, I recommend you learn what is actually going on.

I agree - but that may not be as simple as you imply....
Knowing there is a gap in ones knowledge, is the first step, filling that gap can be difficult... especially if it is something that has not been explored thoroughly before.

The translation between experience/perception of sound, and measurements has only been crudely mapped.

 

[MAB]

What metrics would you associate with 'silky, smooth'? and on what basis?

The terms are a description that many of us can associate with... and therefore a useful albeit subjective measure - if you wish to be measurement centric, then you need to find that metric which measures that aspect which when present (or absent?) results in listeners describing the sound as 'silky, smooth'.
Many of the subjective descriptions are well understood and consistent across audio populations.... so they clearly have meaning!

Except that the illusion of 'silky smoothness' seems to be something everybody can use as a subjective description, even when they have facts totally wrong. ANd that's what is happening.

I agree - but that may not be as simple as you imply....
Knowing there is a gap in ones knowledge, is the first step, filling that gap can be difficult... especially if it is something that has not been explored thoroughly before.

The translation between experience/perception of sound, and measurements has only been crudely mapped.

The interaction of an amplifier's output impedance with a complex speaker load is not one of those crudely mapped enduring mysteries though.

 

[dlaloum]

Except that the illusion of 'silky smoothness' seems to be something everybody can use as a subjective description, even when they have facts totally wrong. ANd that's what is happening.

The interaction of an amplifier's output impedance with a complex speaker load is not one of those crudely mapped enduring mysteries though.

We understand in signal terms what happens in the interaction between amplifier and speaker - yes.

The gap is, we don't have a clear mapping between an acoustic signal "in the air" and the way it is then perceived.
And being a perception issue... it requires studies that include decently large population groups.

 

[MAB]

We understand in signal terms what happens in the interaction between amplifier and speaker - yes.

The gap is, we don't have a clear mapping between an acoustic signal "in the air" and the way it is then perceived.
And being a perception issue... it requires studies that include decently large population groups.

The question of perception is why people hallucinate as if their ears heard actual differences when none exist or the differences are far below our threshold of perception. Not that the ear hears sounds that exist but we can't measure.

Audio Listening Test That Fooled the Hollywood Sapphire Group

Some of the most highly trained audiophiles in the industry were asked to do a blind “A-B” listening comparison test of two audio circuits. Were they able to hear a difference, or were they fooled?

www.audioholics.com

And we can't even tell the difference between a Futterman and a Pioneer receiver, see on page 87:

https://americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf

And, yeah, we hallucinate:

Robotically-induced auditory-verbal hallucinations: combining self-monitoring and strong perceptual priors | Psychological Medicine | Cambridge Core

Robotically-induced auditory-verbal hallucinations: combining self-monitoring and strong perceptual priors - Volume 54 Issue 3

www.cambridge.org

 

[Chrispy]

Such amp listening prowess professed in this thread with so little backup.....

 

[Purité Audio]

What metrics would you associate with 'silky, smooth'? and on what basis?

The terms are a description that many of us can associate with... and therefore a useful albeit subjective measure - if you wish to be measurement centric, then you need to find that metric which measures that aspect which when present (or absent?) results in listeners describing the sound as 'silky, smooth'.
Many of the subjective descriptions are well understood and consistent across audio populations.... so they clearly have meaning!

I don’t believe they have any meaning, and that this type of descriptor is a form of mild mass hysteria, someone ( a reviewer most likely) casually associates a product with a description and then that association is mindlessly repeated.
Accuphase silky , Naim has ‘prat’ without any actual technical reason.
Keith

 

[DSJR]

I haven’t forgiven you for inventing ‘PRAT’ and the Linn ‘foot tap’.
Keith

Wasn't me - blame Colloms for that

I'm the tune dem bod, singing along with the songs to this day and listening to the beauty in how instruments are played and how they harmonise with each other in a well produced mix This is me nowadays

 

[Purité Audio]

I’ll add ‘tune dem’ to your list of misdemeanours.
Keith

 

[DSJR]

I don’t believe they have any meaning, and that this type of descriptor is a form of mild mass hysteria, someone ( a reviewer most likely) casually associates a product with a description and then that association is mindlessly repeated.
Accuphase silky , Naim has ‘prat’ without any actual technical reason.
Keith

Maybe far less now in current products, but Naim in the 80s when all this kicked off, had a mix of high (-70dB or so) distortion with odd order predominating according to reviews and especially IMD artefacts, band limiting and a crude preamp design (I was told by an engineer) which wasn't the quietest. The 110, 140 and 250 power amp hard clipped (less so the 120, 160, 180 and early Naits with unregulated supplies). Their snaic interconnects had no internal screening which limited separation and subjectively, this gave an over-wide centre image and narrowed left-right (I adapted a snaic to use on a reasonably benign Quad 405-2 and made it 'sound' more Naim-like compared to a proper dual-screened interconnect).

I dunno chaps, you lot haven't lived Isn't it great that today, we can select and buy well performing amps (good power and reasonable load immunity) more or less as appliances to do the job in the same way we do dacs now. Let those who can afford to, indulge themselves. As for me if I needed a new amp system (I don't, fortunately), I've now had some experience of the current spec Quad Artera products and love them inspite/because of the now 'mature' power amp designs. They 'feel' nice and solid too and the remote isn't too difficult to get one's head around... The UK service department continues to this day as well.

 

[Purité Audio]

So just poorly engineered yet listeners appeared to like them, that pretty much sums up audiophilia.
It would be interesting to get a Naim amp of that period to Amir.
Their ‘unity Atom didn’t break any records.

Naim Uniti Atom Review (Streamer & Amp)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Naim Uniti Atom streamer, DAC and integrated amplifier. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $3,799. The overall industry design is attractive and has a high-end look to it. Alas, every part of the unit has an ultra sharp edge from...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Keith

 

[pogo]

If Benchmark numbers are a little high compared to what Soundstage and Stereophile measured that is one thing. However when I try to make sense of the Stereo.de numbers they seem low by about a factor of two (I tried to show this in a table earlier in the thread). Why don't you use the Soundstage numbers when trying to make your case? Not that it matters a great deal to those of us who believe moderately high DF is sufficient, but maybe people would be more willing to engage with you if you use numbers that are clear and make sense.

What many people forget is that a speaker also changes its impedance depending on the volume/transient signal. Denon, for example, has understood this: Link
The output impedance of an amplifier can also change depending on the amplifier design with the volume.
The measured values from STEREO are just as valid as all other measurements. They were all measured under different conditions and STEREO simply takes a more realistic approach.