What about having the amp repaired?now when your amp breaks you get to buy a new amp AND a new speaker
What about having the amp repaired?now when your amp breaks you get to buy a new amp AND a new speaker
That may be less expensive, but it will certainly be less fun.What about having the amp repaired?
Well you'd have to define what you mean by resolution for an amplifier - in terms of normal amplifier metrics.Has there been an amplifier made in the past 5 years at a similar price point (or less) that beats the Benchmark AHB2 in resolution?
The Benchmark is a fine amplifier for sure, one of the very best that can be purchased today.I've had my AHB2 for the past four years and one of the things I am most appreciative of is its transparency; not just in extracting the finest detail in recordings but even down to exposing differences in cables, DACs, playback software etc. I would love to be able to measure these audible differences when switching upstream components to confirm what I'm hearing but I do not have proper measuring equipment. (With the AHB2, it's obvious when a certain recording played thru my chain with DAC "A" doesn't extract the level of detail that DAC "B" can. That is to say there's more detail in the recording that I am missing with a different DAC. It's not noise from either DAC. But this is an entirely different discussion...)
I think the differences I am hearing with XLR cables might have something to do with its design, electrical characteristics or perhaps one having higher capacitance. For example, using a pair of 6ft. Canare L-4E6S straight from my DAC to the AHB2, I am hearing a boomier bass whereas with my 6ft pair of Belden 1800F cables the bass is thinner, not as overly present (which lines up with other owners' experience) but there is a tad bit of transient overshoot. I think that is to be expected between cables used for microphone/live stage use vs digital connections. It's been awhile since I've reviewed the spec sheets but I recall there were measurements that correlate to what I've heard.The Benchmark is a fine amplifier for sure, one of the very best that can be purchased today.
That said, if your hearing differences in cables and DAC's, unless one of them is seriously compromised against known standards that have been in place for decades, what your hearing is what your eyes tell you to hear.. I suggest using some friends to hold tightly bias controled DBT listening so as not to let improper procedures lead you down a fictional path.
Good Luck.
I think I elaborated in the rest of my post what I meant by resolution.Well you'd have to define what you mean by resolution for an amplifier - in terms of normal amplifier metrics.
If correct (and I don't believe it is) why would you ever use a cable in your system with known electrical characteristic that would modify the linearity of it's response?For example, using a pair of 6ft. Canare L-4E6S straight from my DAC to the AHB2, I am hearing a boomier bass whereas with my 6ft pair of Belden 1800F cables the bass is thinner, not as overly present (which lines up with other owners' experience) but there is a tad bit of transient overshoot. I think that is to be expected between cables used for microphone/live stage use vs digital connections.
Your letting your assumptions and eyes affect what you hear.I think that is to be expected between cables used for microphone/live stage use vs digital connections. It's been awhile since I've reviewed the spec sheets but I recall there were measurements that correlate to what I've heard.
Thing is - for any line level audio cable of even vaguely sensible design (and I don't know of any that are not sensible) There are no electrical characteristics (Resistance, capacitance or inductance) sufficient to make an audible difference.I understand folks here call into question folks' subjective findings and the usual audiophile lingo to describe them, but I do think the differences I speak of are probably explainable when looking at the specifications and design.
I wouldn't and supposedly neither cable should affect the linearity of the response. As to sighted bias, I am not sure that is involved in my assessment of the differences here because I'm wholly indifferent to either cable and not trying to justify a $10K cable purchase (which neither of these two cables come anywhere near that). I was just speculating that perhaps I'm using them outside of their intended use case (one which really should be for microphone use only) which might cause these audible anomalies.If correct (and I don't believe it is) why would you ever use a cable in your system with known electrical characteristic that would modify the linearity of it's response?
Higher capacitance cables can cause high frequencies to rolloff but those are usually runs >100m or if the source impedance is high. Amir measured this before.Not even to high audio frequencies, and certainly not an audible difference to low frequencies such as those bass effects you describe.
There are electrical differences between L-4E6S and 1800F, but these won't result in an audible difference in sound (unless there's something very strange with your DAC).I think the differences I am hearing with XLR cables might have something to do with its design, electrical characteristics or perhaps one having higher capacitance. For example, using a pair of 6ft. Canare L-4E6S straight from my DAC to the AHB2, I am hearing a boomier bass whereas with my 6ft pair of Belden 1800F cables the bass is thinner, not as overly present (which lines up with other owners' experience) but there is a tad bit of transient overshoot. I think that is to be expected between cables used for microphone/live stage use vs digital connections. It's been awhile since I've reviewed the spec sheets but I recall there were measurements that correlate to what I've heard.
I understand folks here call into question folks' subjective findings and the usual audiophile lingo to describe them, but I do think the differences I speak of are probably explainable when looking at the specifications and design.
In regards to DAC differences it depends, some can be obvious and others a lot harder to notice. But this is heading in the subjective territory this forum frowns on so I will stop here, but I found the AHB2 to be exceptional at revealing these differences (even the minute ones) among other amplifiers I've tried in its price class and below.
I think I elaborated in the rest of my post what I meant by resolution.
Your sighted bias is subconscious and not subject to your awareness.As to sighted bias, I am not sure that is involved in my assessment of the differences here because I'm wholly indifferent to either cable and not trying to justify a $10K cable purchase
I'm aware of that but the poster did say my "eyes" affected what I hear. (BTW If there's a clinician here who would like to perform a psychoanalytic evaluation to bring to light these subconscious biases, I'll be lounged in the listening chair ready)Your sighted bias is subconscious and not subject to your awareness.
Part of Kal's background:I'm aware of that but the poster did say my "eyes" affected what I hear. (BTW If there's a clinician here who would like to perform a psychoanalytic evaluation to bring to light these subconscious biases, I'll be lounged in the listening chair ready)
But this stretch of conversation has detoured far from my original question, which was simply if there has been a new amplifier in the past couple of years that bests the AHB2 out in detail retrieval. Some amplifiers were mentioned that I will need to further review when I get the time.
It might even go a bit further back than you think.But this stretch of conversation has detoured far from my original question, which was simply if there has been a new amplifier in the past couple of years that bests the AHB2 out in detail retrieval. Some amplifiers were mentioned that I will need to further review when I get the time.
In a word, no. The AHB2's noise and distortion levels are so far below audibility that there is no audible improvement that can be achieved.But this stretch of conversation has detoured far from my original question, which was simply if there has been a new amplifier in the past couple of years that bests the AHB2 out in detail retrieval. Some amplifiers were mentioned that I will need to further review when I get the time.
Well exactly - are you using 100m runs of cable? And that is only the high frequencies.Higher capacitance cables can cause high frequencies to rolloff but those are usually runs >100m or if the source impedance is high. Amir measured this before.