From Electrocompaniet ECI4 to Purify, Hypex, ICEpower etc etc etc

[MAB]

Because what I get with the EQ I would like to get directly from the amp, without subsequent manipulations and interventions.

Perhaps read the test on page page 78:
https://americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf
Differences between competently designed amps are inaudible, unless you want to believe and are allowed to peek.

You need a really funky amp to have frequency response deviations large enough to call "EQ".
On the other hand, room interactions are many dB.

 

[antcollinet]

Because what I get with the EQ I would like to get directly from the amp, without subsequent manipulations and interventions.

That is an expensive, cumbersome, trial and error approach which is unlikely to give you as good a result as using EQ.

 

[Hear Here]

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but... Compared side by side with fast switching, or just impressions from listening sessions far apart in time? Level matched to +/-0.1dB? Blind?

I don´t doubt that the valve amp could have a "signature" of sorts, and some non-valve amps might be designed deliberately to give you a funky frequency response. But AHB1 vs. M33? That sounds... suspicious. Feel free to call me a grumpy naysayer, but in this case my money would be on suboptimal comparison conditions.

I mean, you could get a "truly massive" difference if one of the amps was pushed hard into clipping while the other was happily operating in its comfort zone. Or if the residual noise in one of the amps was large enough to give an annoying amount of hiss from a setup with a specific gain structure and speaker sensitivity.

But those two things have nothing to do with the frequency response of the amps.

I'm sure you've been to many live orchestral concerts - no loudspeakers, just musical instruments and maybe human voices. Perhaps at the same hall with the same music but different conductors or orchestras. When you leave the concert you and your friends are likely to comment on the enjoyment factor you've experienced that evening and, almost invariably you'll all agree that that concert was wonderful and much more enjoyable than the one last week - or maybe vice versa. There's often no apparent reason for this, but agreement amongst yourselves is very likely. No one was measuring the performance because the concert wasn't arranged to be measured - it was presented for entertainment and preferably an enjoyable entertainment.

Some equipment or systems, manage what some orchestras / performances achieve and other equipment or systems somehow just miss the spot! They fall down for probably unmeasurable reasons and don't manage to deliver quite the same enjoyment factor. My guess is that you won't agree with that?

In the case of the 2 amps I mentioned, neither was under any strain with no residual noise or even the slightest hiss. The speakers are Avantgarde Duo XDs. These are 18 ohms and a claimed 107 dB, so they couldn't be much easier to drive. The amps concerned can deliver 100 watts and 200 watts into 8 ohms, so both were idling along (probably delivering 5-10 watts) and under no stress whatsoever.

During the 3+ months I owned the Benchmark, many audio-aware visitors were invited to listen and comment. In my room and with my speakers and without knowing whether the SETs or the BM were powering the speakers, there was universal disappointment with the latter. I agreed wholeheartedly with them and at the time wrote a long description of my experience on another forum. This presented a problem for me as I had bought this amp unheard (as it was new to the UK market) from a dealer 400 miles away, after rave review from a fellow AG owner with bottomless pockets.

It was only because of this lack of enjoyment factor that I returned the amp to the dealer (who very kindly offered a full-value credit note) and I started on my extended trials of alternative amps. It genuinely surprised me that several amps in this mid-price range could sound so different. I'm not able to explain why, but some amps sounded quite different from others, despite operating with the same source and the same speakers in the same room. In fact, I had previously believed that a good amp was a good amp and they should sound very much the same as each other. It was this series of extended home trials that contradicted this belief. Although not as pronounced as the difference in sound from one speaker to another, amp choice is also something that requires a careful listening session.

I wouldn't dream of calling you "a grumpy naysayer", but the tests were not done in "suboptimal comparison conditions". Same room, same source and same speakers, plus same ears and often the same fellow music lovers to compare notes with. The big bonus of all these listening tests is that I now have a great amp that provides a very high enjoyment factor. Listening sessions now tend to result in the volume being turned up, rather than turned down! What could be better?

 

[SIY]

but the tests were not done in "suboptimal comparison conditions".

With no controls, they are as sub-optimal as it gets. Maybe one day, out of curiosity, you'll try this again with matched levels and no peeking, which is far more optimal for actual sound comparisons. I suspect you'll be surprised at what happens when you have to rely on your ears alone.

 

[Killingbeans]

I'm sure you've been to many live orchestral concerts - no loudspeakers, just musical instruments and maybe human voices. Perhaps at the same hall with the same music but different conductors or orchestras. When you leave the concert you and your friends are likely to comment on the enjoyment factor you've experienced that evening and, almost invariably you'll all agree that that concert was wonderful and much more enjoyable than the one last week - or maybe vice versa. There's often no apparent reason for this, but agreement amongst yourselves is very likely. No one was measuring the performance because the concert wasn't arranged to be measured - it was presented for entertainment and preferably an enjoyable entertainment.

Some equipment or systems, manage what some orchestras / performances achieve and other equipment or systems somehow just miss the spot! They fall down for probably unmeasurable reasons and don't manage to deliver quite the same enjoyment factor. My guess is that you won't agree with that?

I agree that some playback setups actually perform in a way that "miss the spot", but it's always measurable when they do so.

In the cases where "the spot is missed" without any measurable explanation, it's extremely likely to be caused by human factors, such as mood or expectations.

In the case of the 2 amps I mentioned, neither was under any strain with no residual noise or even the slightest hiss. The speakers are Avantgarde Duo XDs. These are 18 ohms and a claimed 107 dB, so they couldn't be much easier to drive. The amps concerned can deliver 100 watts and 200 watts into 8 ohms, so both were idling along (probably delivering 5-10 watts) and under no stress whatsoever.

Alright, in that case the lack of proper level matching would be an obvious suspect. Either that or good old cognitive bias.

And if the amps weren't directly A/B'ed, but just auditioned for some time each, the pesky limitations of echoic memory are at a very high risk of giving false impressions.

During the 3+ months I owned the Benchmark, many audio-aware visitors were invited to listen and comment. In my room and with my speakers and without knowing whether the SETs or the BM were powering the speakers, there was universal disappointment with the latter. I agreed wholeheartedly with them and at the time wrote a long description of my experience on another forum. This presented a problem for me as I had bought this amp unheard (as it was new to the UK market) from a dealer 400 miles away, after rave review from a fellow AG owner with bottomless pockets.

Clever Hans effect. Your visitors didn't know what amp was playing, but I bet you did yourself. It's likely that you gave them subconscious clues of what to expect.

Either that, or they simply told you what they assessed would give the least social tension.

It was only because of this lack of enjoyment factor that I returned the amp to the dealer (who very kindly offered a full-value credit note) and I started on my extended trials of alternative amps. It genuinely surprised me that several amps in this mid-price range could sound so different. I'm not able to explain why, but some amps sounded quite different from others, despite operating with the same source and the same speakers in the same room. In fact, I had previously believed that a good amp was a good amp and they should sound very much the same as each other. It was this series of extended home trials that contradicted this belief. Although not as pronounced as the difference in sound from one speaker to another, amp choice is also something that requires a careful listening session.

I'm not that surprised. Our brains can screw us over in lots of ways.

I wouldn't dream of calling you "a grumpy naysayer", but the tests were not done in "suboptimal comparison conditions". Same room, same source and same speakers, plus same ears and often the same fellow music lovers to compare notes with.

In this case "suboptimal comparison conditions" means no level matching with a mutimeter, no switching between the amps in less than 3 seconds, no attempt at making sure that neither the test subjects nor the test administrator knew what amp was playing at any point in time, and no repeated attempts at identifying the amps blindly done enough times to show statistical significance.

At the very least the level matching and the fast switching should have been done.

I'm pretty sure that would have been enough to make the "truly massive difference" wither away to nearly nothing.

The big bonus of all these listening tests is that I now have a great amp that provides a very high enjoyment factor. Listening sessions now tend to result in the volume being turned up, rather than turned down! What could be better?

Absolutely. The enjoyment is what matters the most in the end.

Just saying there's a lot of hoops you can avoid having to jump through to reach that point.

Although, the hoop jumping itself seems to be a huge part of what makes this hobby fun for most people

 

[antcollinet]

Some equipment or systems, manage what some orchestras / performances achieve and other equipment or systems somehow just miss the spot!

Sorry - you are comparing apples with thermo-nuclear ICBM's here. There is just no analogy where different experiences of live concerts has any bearing to different experiences of audio reproduction equipment.

 

[Jim Taylor]

During the 3+ months I owned the Benchmark, many audio-aware visitors were invited to listen and comment. In my room and with my speakers and without knowing whether the SETs or the BM were powering the speakers, there was universal disappointment with the latter.

A truly well-designed amplifier (and there are many), working within its power envelope, will not have any native "sound". IOW, what comes out is the same as what went in, only at a different power level.

To find out how to do critical comparison listening (blind testing), please view this.

Jim

 

[Hear Here]

A truly well-designed amplifier (and there are many), working within its power envelope, will not have any native "sound". IOW, what comes out is the same as what went in, only at a different power level.

To find out how to do critical comparison listening (blind testing), please view this.

Jim

Thank you Jim.

I'm sure you'll agree that, if a component in one's system fails to deliver the sound one wants (and other comparable components can), the best thing to do is cut one's losses and sell it - however well it may sound in other users' systems, or performs on the bench.

For me, when conducting my multi-amp extended tests (at home and in my system), there were 3 amps that failed the essential enjoyment factor requirement - the Benchmark, the Quad Platinum and the Sugden FPA-4. Most of the others delivered very acceptable sound quality, but for me the NAD won out, not only because of its excellent sound quality but other considerations such as its numerous additional features, its reasonable price, its low fuel consumption and very importantly for a unit that includes a streamer, its control app. As I said before, I was surprised that there was so much audible difference in this selection of amps. Whether those differences would lead to different decisions by others is another matter, but I was not alone in finding those 3 amps in particular lacking and so they were not kept.

 

[Verig]

Perhaps read the test on page page 78:
https://americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf
Differences between competently designed amps are inaudible, unless you want to believe and are allowed to peek..

Loving that Pioneer receiver with all the buttons and even eq. So decidedly not high-end.

 

[Killingbeans]

I'm sure you'll agree that, if a component in one's system fails to deliver the sound one wants (and other comparable components can), the best thing to do is cut one's losses and sell it - however well it may sound in other users' systems, or performs on the bench.

Depends on how powerfull the cognitive bias preventing you from enjoying the gear is.

If you're lucky, you can do some "burn-in" (the brain plasticity kind) and get past the hurdle over time.

Or maybe the visual design language of the gear is just terrible in your eyes (subconsciously), and it will color your auditory perception no matter what you do. Other kinds of bias can very likely have the same level of stranglehold. In those cases it is, as you say, probably best to get rid of it.

But please don't start spreading rumors about this having anything to do with the performance of the gear.

For me, when conducting my multi-amp extended tests (at home and in my system), there were 3 amps that failed the essential enjoyment factor requirement - the Benchmark, the Quad Platinum and the Sugden FPA-4. Most of the others delivered very acceptable sound quality, but for me the NAD won out, not only because of its excellent sound quality but other considerations such as its numerous additional features, its reasonable price, its low fuel consumption and very importantly for a unit that includes a streamer, its control app. As I said before, I was surprised that there was so much audible difference in this selection of amps. Whether those differences would lead to different decisions by others is another matter, but I was not alone in finding those 3 amps in particular lacking and so they were not kept.

I get the sense that you choose to ignore everything I wrote ealier

Not trying to start a fight. Only pointing out that the "contradiction of belief", you've mentioned, is at very, very high risk of being nothing but clouded judgement. Not because you lack skill or intelligence, but simply because you have a human brain just like the rest of us. And those brains are notorious for screwing us over in these ways.

 

[Jim Taylor]

I'm sure you'll agree that, if a component in one's system fails to deliver the sound one wants (and other comparable components can), the best thing to do is cut one's losses and sell it - however well it may sound in other users' systems, or performs on the bench.

No, I don't agree with that.

Reading what you have posted, I must come to the conclusion that you do not want neutral and accurate sound, but an affected sound. ("affected" in this case means "artificial or pretentious." The root is the same as for the word "affection".)

Depending on the particular characteristics of the sound that you wish to achieve, this can be done with computerized apps based on DSP. The result will be MUCH, MUCH cheaper, and MUCH, MUCH more versatile. Different apps will allow you to experiment with various types and levels of distortions and modified frequency responses, and do so with the option of instantly returning to neutral as a reference.

Changing out components cannot do that inexpensively, cannot do that predictably, and in some cases cannot do that at all.

I hope you will take seriously the information about cognitive (and other) biases posted here. Biases are very real, they are very powerful, and they are impossible to eliminate. All we can do is make efforts to control them ... which is what the Scientific Method is all about.

Jim

 

[Hear Here]

Depends on how powerfull the cognitive bias preventing you from enjoying the gear is.

If you're lucky, you can do some "burn-in" (the brain plasticity kind) and get past the hurdle over time.

Or maybe the visual design language of the gear is just terrible in your eyes (subconsciously), and it will color your auditory perception no matter what you do. Other kinds of bias can very likely have the same level of stranglehold. In those cases it is, as you say, probably best to get rid of it.

But please don't start spreading rumors about this having anything to do with the performance of the gear.



I get the sense that you choose to ignore everything I wrote ealier

Not trying to start a fight. Only pointing out that the "contradiction of belief", you've mentioned, is at very, very high risk of being nothing but clouded judgement. Not because you lack skill or intelligence, but simply because you have a human brain just like the rest of us. And those brains are notorious for screwing us over in these ways.

No, I don't agree with that.

Reading what you have posted, I must come to the conclusion that you do not want neutral and accurate sound, but an affected sound. ("affected" in this case means "artificial or pretentious." The root is the same as for the word "affection".)

Depending on the particular characteristics of the sound that you wish to achieve, this can be done with computerized apps based on DSP. The result will be MUCH, MUCH cheaper, and MUCH, MUCH more versatile. Different apps will allow you to experiment with various types and levels of distortions and modified frequency responses, and do so with the option of instantly returning to neutral as a reference.

Changing out components cannot do that inexpensively, cannot do that predictably, and in some cases cannot do that at all.

I hope you will take seriously the information about cognitive (and other) biases posted here. Biases are very real, they are very powerful, and they are impossible to eliminate. All we can do is make efforts to control them ... which is what the Scientific Method is all about.

Jim

I think it's best if I leave both of you to your own theoretical beliefs.

For me (and I suggest most music lovers), we want to hear music delivered in as exciting and enjoyable a way as the original performance did, and the unexplained differences between 2 very good-measuring amps remains just that - unexplained. I liked the looks and features of the BM amp (particularly its gain options) and I had it in my system for several months, but none of this encouraged me to keep this "bland" amp where the tendency was to turn down the volume - not to increase it. This despite the fact that I'd already bought it and was truly hoping it would eventually prove my initial thoughts wrong.

How can 2 so well-measuring amps sound so different? This is the question I have difficulty either explaining myself, or getting anyone else to explain. The suggestion is that it's imaginary. Perhaps no explanation is necessary - they are both great amps and they have different sound signatures despite both measuring well. Perhaps it's the difference between an Audi and a BMW or Mercedez Benz. They both have similar specs, but their real-world enjoyment factors (the driving experiences) are quite different. Vive la difference, as otherwise we'd all be using the same car and the same amplifier. How boring that would be!

It's probably time I should graciously bow out of this particular discussion. Thanks for the points you've raised though.

 

[SIY]

I think it's best if I leave both of you to your own theoretical beliefs.

It's not "theoretical" or "belief" when it's backed by more than half a century of experimental results.

 

[MAB]

Loving that Pioneer receiver with all the buttons and even eq. So decidedly not high-end.

I love the old advertisements. Page 2 with the Pioneer Elite, followed by a sea of Realistic speakers.
The ADS Atelier on page 15, and very interesting Allison speakers also bring back great memories.

And of course the amp test is classic. Not to say amps are identical. Like noise, I did a simple test of a few amps with a compression driver:

Topping PA5 II Stereo Amplifier Review

Please report on your findings. Perhaps if you use the stock psu with a regulator this may help, with sufficient capacitance to prevent voltage sag at high volumes 1 - what makes you think there is voltage sag? 2 - The stock PSU is probably already regulated. 3 - Even if there were voltage sag...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Noise does matter in that application.

OP has a very nice amp (and very nice speakers), I assume it's working properly and hasn't developed an issue. No way any of the new amps under consideration is going to sound different, let alone improved. With those speakers, there are legions of amps that will sound identical up to the point of audible clipping.

The only thing we have no idea about is OP's room, which of course leads to an honest discussion DSP / room correction and room treatment.

The associated equipment and music is not really relevant. Except to say I love a list bookended by Pat Metheny and Rush!

 

[Jim Taylor]

I think it's best if I leave both of you to your own theoretical beliefs.

For me (and I suggest most music lovers), we want to hear music delivered in as exciting and enjoyable a way as the original performance did, and the unexplained differences between 2 very good-measuring amps remains just that - unexplained. I liked the looks and features of the BM amp (particularly its gain options) and I had it in my system for several months, but none of this encouraged me to keep this "bland" amp where the tendency was to turn down the volume - not to increase it. This despite the fact that I'd already bought it and was truly hoping it would eventually prove my initial thoughts wrong.

How can 2 so well-measuring amps sound so different? This is the question I have difficulty either explaining myself, or getting anyone else to explain. The suggestion is that it's imaginary. Perhaps no explanation is necessary - they are both great amps and they have different sound signatures despite both measuring well. Perhaps it's the difference between an Audi and a BMW or Mercedez Benz. They both have similar specs, but their real-world enjoyment factors (the driving experiences) are quite different. Vive la difference, as otherwise we'd all be using the same car and the same amplifier. How boring that would be!

It's probably time I should graciously bow out of this particular discussion. Thanks for the points you've raised though.

Your behavior is quite disturbing.

You have been given information on the correct way to test whether differences you believe to be real actually are real or not.
You have been given information on human biases, and how they relate to audio reception.
You have been informed by several people here that they understand your assurance, that they had similar points of view, and that they now understand better.
You show no signs as having attempted a blind test.
You show no signs of understanding - or even reading about - the role of bias in human perception.
You stubbornly hold to a position that has been explained to you as being unsupportable (and that the attendant tests would prove that).
You have also been given information on methods to modify the music (any music) to be in line with your subjective preferences.

On top of that, you denigrate the results of years of objective scientific comparisons as "theoretical", while holding your subjective results as real.

Your behavior is similar to that of a troll.

Please read the information you have been given, and take this opportunity to LEARN ... believe me, it won't hurt.

Jim

 

[Killingbeans]

Please read the information you have been given, and take this opportunity to LEARN ... believe me, it won't hurt.

I wouldn't hold my breath. When he says:

Perhaps no explanation is necessary - they are both great amps and they have different sound signatures despite both measuring well.

I take that as: "I find the idea of looking for an actually plausible explanation to be offensive, and I'd much prefer to simply stick to my own beliefs."

You can bring a horse to water...

 

[Winemaker]

The associated equipment and music is not really relevant. Except to say I love a list bookended by Pat Metheny and Rush!

Yes, I like them a lot, as do the omnipresent Pink Floyd, AC/DC, Iron Maiden, Matteo Mancuso and his band, but also Beethoven, Mozart, Paganini, Liszt and the immense Bach.