Yamaha AX-700
Sogono
If there is one thing the recent amp comparison at Sunshine Stereo has
done is increase people's curiosity and interest with the Yamaha AX-700.
Unfortunately, a check with the Yamaha dealer, did not give me any info
on this amp. Has anyone actually seen, read about, this amp? Where is
this sold? And how much?
Francis
Stewart Pinkerton
Sogono <Sog...@fc.emc.com.ph> writes:
According to Steve Makis 'clarification' post, he bought it used some
years ago for $100, so it's presumably not a current model. I'd guess
the $500 rec. retail AX-590 would be a good current substitute if anyone
else wants to try this kind of thing.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | If you can't measure what you're making,
A S P Consulting | how do you know when you've got it made?
(44) 1509 880112 |
Bruce Goldberg
According to Yamaha's web pages, their current line of integrated amps
includes the AX-570, which Stewart mentioned originally, and the
AX-490. You can check it out at www.yamaha.com
Bruce
"The LP Lover's Guide to San Francisco"
http://www.webcom.com/bg63
Sogono <Sog...@fc.emc.com.ph> wrote:
>If there is one thing the recent amp comparison at Sunshine Stereo has
>done is increase people's curiosity and interest with the Yamaha AX-700.
>Unfortunately, a check with the Yamaha dealer, did not give me any info
>on this amp. Has anyone actually seen, read about, this amp? Where is
>this sold? And how much?
>Francis
Michael Wong
In article <50f2b3$c...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk
says...
>According to Steve Makis 'clarification' post, he bought it used some
>years ago for $100, so it's presumably not a current model. I'd guess
>the $500 rec. retail AX-590 would be a good current substitute if anyone
>else wants to try this kind of thing.
Yamaha greatly decreased the build quality of their integrated amp series the
year after the AX-700/U went out of production, so their current AX-590 is
probably not an identical replica of the old AX-700/U although people are
certainly free to blind-test them and see for themselves whether they sound as
good as their favourite $12,000 monoblocks :)
Anyway, that line of amps was a bit of an anomaly in Yamaha's line because it
didn't have a lot of features, didn't understand their unified remote system,
didn't have its own remote, and was much better built than the amps they've
built since, and that's why the "oh, it was just an el cheapo amp I randomly
picked up used for $100" line sounds suspicious to me.
Liming M. Voo
Michael Wong (Michae...@sar.hookup.net) wrote:
: In article <50f2b3$c...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk
: says...
The RX-770 receiver is an old model and still sold currently. IT has 2
chennels and can be used as a preamp. It is likely that this is similar to
AX-700 plus a tuner. List price is $549. Has anyone listened to this one?
Stewart Pinkerton
Michae...@sar.hookup.net (Michael Wong) writes:
>Yamaha greatly decreased the build quality of their integrated amp series the
>year after the AX-700/U went out of production, so their current AX-590 is
>probably not an identical replica of the old AX-700/U although people are
>certainly free to blind-test them and see for themselves whether they sound as
>good as their favourite $12,000 monoblocks :)
>Anyway, that line of amps was a bit of an anomaly in Yamaha's line because it
>didn't have a lot of features, didn't understand their unified remote system,
>didn't have its own remote, and was much better built than the amps they've
>built since, and that's why the "oh, it was just an el cheapo amp I randomly
>picked up used for $100" line sounds suspicious to me.
That's not what Steve Maki said, he said it was the only one he had with
level and balance controls. I take it your point is that Maki 'cheated'
because it's perfectly reasonable to suppose that a six year old
mass-market integrated amp (complete with loudness control) will sound
just like a pair of the latest and best $12,000 monoblocs from Pass
Labs, because 'they don't build them like they used to'. Do you have any
conception of just how PATHETIC that sounds?
Dana Bunner
Liming M. Voo wrote:
>
> Michael Wong (Michae...@sar.hookup.net) wrote:
> : In article <50f2b3$c...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk
> : says...
>
> : >According to Steve Makis 'clarification' post, he bought it used some
> : >years ago for $100, so it's presumably not a current model. I'd guess
> : >the $500 rec. retail AX-590 would be a good current substitute if anyone
> : >else wants to try this kind of thing.
>
> : year after the AX-700/U went out of production, so their current AX-590 is
> : probably not an identical replica of the old AX-700/U
> : Anyway, that line of amps was a bit of an anomaly in Yamaha's line because it
> : didn't have a lot of features, didn't understand their unified remote system,
> : didn't have its own remote, and was much better built than the amps they've
> : built since, and that's why the "oh, it was just an el cheapo amp I randomly
> : picked up used for $100" line sounds suspicious to me.
I have complete confidence in Maki's choice of amps and totally believe
him.
Was the AX-700 a decent Japanese amp in its day, I think yes. I
remember
looking at them and thinking that they were one of the best choices
of the mass-fi products. However I believe the difference between them
and competing products from Onkyo and Harmon-Kardon were minor. And I
think that in an ABX test, that it would be EXTREMELY difficult to
differentiate between these Yamahas and say a NAD 314, unless they were
driving inefficient speakers to loud volumes.
Continuing on this issue, I also believe these Yamahas would rank below
several mid-fi amps on the market today, such as products from Rotel,
Creek, Audiolab, and certains models from Arcam to name a few.
So this is not a camoflagued "killer" amp (unless Maki & friends
covertly upgraded the internals, which I have no reason to suspect
they did). It is simply a decent early-90's mass-fi integrated amp.
I purchased a Yamaha top-of-the-line receiver in the mid-80's due to
believing then that the amp section was better than competing brands
and have been listening to it for 10 years. But in direct in-home
comparisons vs a Creek 4240SE, I liked the Creek better.
> The RX-770 receiver is an old model and still sold currently. IT has 2
> chennels and can be used as a preamp. It is likely that this is similar to
> AX-700 plus a tuner. List price is $549. Has anyone listened to this one?
I suspect the amp section of the RX-770 is somewhat cheapened as
compared
to the AX-700. They add a tuner (and I think a few more buttons) and
sell it at a lower price (in the face of a yen that is stronger today
than 5 years ago).
Dana
Kevin@UPSCALEaudio
The Yamaha AX700 retailed for $599 in 1991.
In article <50f1tk$f...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Best Regards,
Kevin Deal
UPSCALE
Audio/Home Theater/Rare Tubes
(909) 931-9686 8AM-6PM PDT
Fine Tubes from Telefunken,
Amperex, NV Philips, Mullard
Armand
In article <50f2b3$c...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) says:
>
>Sogono <Sog...@fc.emc.com.ph> writes:
>
>>If there is one thing the recent amp comparison at Sunshine Stereo has
>>done is increase people's curiosity and interest with the Yamaha AX-700.
>>Unfortunately, a check with the Yamaha dealer, did not give me any info
>>on this amp. Has anyone actually seen, read about, this amp? Where is
>>this sold? And how much?
>
>years ago for $100, so it's presumably not a current model. I'd guess
>the $500 rec. retail AX-590 would be a good current substitute if anyone
>else wants to try this kind of thing.
Funny. Howard Ferstler just e-mailed me explaining that Noosaine had this
thing in his basement for 10yrs. acoording to a conversation he had with him.
Conficting statements. Not that it matters.
Armand
Michael Wong
In article <50gps7$1...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk
says...
>>Anyway, that line of amps was a bit of an anomaly in Yamaha's line because it
>>didn't have a lot of features, didn't understand their unified remote system,
>>didn't have its own remote, and was much better built than the amps they've
>>built since, and that's why the "oh, it was just an el cheapo amp I randomly
>>picked up used for $100" line sounds suspicious to me.
>
>level and balance controls. I take it your point is that Maki 'cheated'
>because it's perfectly reasonable to suppose that a six year old
>mass-market integrated amp (complete with loudness control) will sound
>just like a pair of the latest and best $12,000 monoblocs from Pass
>Labs, because 'they don't build them like they used to'. Do you have any
>conception of just how PATHETIC that sounds?
Stop constructing this strawman. I'm not saying that the PASS amps are worth
it; in fact, I've stated numerous times on this newsgroup and others in full
public view that I would NEVER buy those amplifiers even if I won the lottery.
All I'm saying is that there are two theories being attacked here: #1) cheapie
mass-market amps sound just as good as high end amps under most situations, and
#2) "high end of the low end" or "low end of the high end" amps like that
Yamaha, an Adcom, a NAD, etc. sound just as good as high end amps under most
situations.
I personally believe that #1 is completely wrong, and I was pointing out that
this particular ABX test was NOT proof of #1 because it was a test between a
"high end of the low end" amp and a high end amp, rather than a low end amp and
a high end amp. However, I have always believed in #2 (except for the fact
that you have to move somewhat higher than the brands I mentioned if you want
very high output power), and I believe this test to be proof that #2 is
correct.
If someone says this test proves that a high-end amp manufactured by Yamaha or
Onkyo can match an overpriced underpowered PASS unit, I'm perfectly in
agreement. But if someone says that a shitty Technics A/V receiver will ALSO
match an overpriced underpowered PASS unit, than I am NOT in agreement because
this test did not cover that situation, and even the most brazen objectivist
would have to concede that the really cheap amps are so MEASURABLY bad that
they SHOULD sound worse (when an amp claims freq. response of 20Hz to 20kHz +/-
3dB which looks more like a speaker response than an amp response, what idiot
would believe otherwise?). Gene likes to claim that any el cheapo Kenwood
should sound as good as a Krell and he seems to believe that this test proved
him right, and I was attempting to show that it did NOT.
I've seen people (including you) describing this AX-700 as "high-feedbacked"
and as having a remote control, when in fact neither is the case. I'm just
trying to clarify here that I believe in "high end of the low end" or "low end
of the high end" when it comes to amplifiers and that this test was a
validation of that belief, but that Gene and others like him cannot take it to
mean that high-feedbacked amps or amps with shitty underbuilt power supplies
are indistinguishable from amps without those handicaps.
Peter Oen
mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) wrote:
[snip]
->
-> Funny. Howard Ferstler just e-mailed me explaining that Noosaine had this
-> thing in his basement for 10yrs. acoording to a conversation he had with him.
-> Conficting statements. Not that it matters.
-> Armand
Can someone check if that particular model was around in '86? BTW - maybe Steve
Maki bought it used from Tom Nousaine for $100. They are friends after all,
quite a few of my friends have components that used to belong to me at one time.
--
Peter Oen
po...@pacbell.net
Stewart Pinkerton
Michae...@sar.hookup.net (Michael Wong) writes:
>If someone says this test proves that a high-end amp manufactured by Yamaha or
>Onkyo can match an overpriced underpowered PASS unit, I'm perfectly in
>agreement.
Interesting concept - Yamaha and Onkyo as makers of high-end amps! I
guess you mean an amp at the top of their ranges. Overpriced perhaps,
but the Aleph 1 is a 200 watt monobloc, how much power do you consider
adequate?! Are you suggesting that a Krell 'FPB' 300S would have fared
better? Certainly Zip didn't think so, since he's been telling everyone
the Pass Alephs sound much better than Krell.
>But if someone says that a shitty Technics A/V receiver will ALSO
>match an overpriced underpowered PASS unit, than I am NOT in agreement because
>this test did not cover that situation, and even the most brazen objectivist
>would have to concede that the really cheap amps are so MEASURABLY bad that
>they SHOULD sound worse (when an amp claims freq. response of 20Hz to 20kHz +/-
>3dB which looks more like a speaker response than an amp response, what idiot
>would believe otherwise?). Gene likes to claim that any el cheapo Kenwood
>should sound as good as a Krell and he seems to believe that this test proved
>him right, and I was attempting to show that it did NOT.
No argument there, it's always been possible to make a really bad amp at
ANY price level, but I think the point being made here was whether or
not Zip could tell the difference between two 'competently designed'
amps at vastly different prices. On this occasion he couldn't. I don't
even Gene has ever claimed that you couldn't pick out an amp with a poor
measured response, that's his usual get-out clause!
>I've seen people (including you) describing this AX-700 as "high-feedbacked"
>and as having a remote control, when in fact neither is the case.
Nope, I have NEVER described the AX-700 as high-feedback although I did
intially assume it had a remote control (it DOES have a loudness control
though!).
>I'm just
>trying to clarify here that I believe in "high end of the low end" or "low end
>of the high end" when it comes to amplifiers and that this test was a
>validation of that belief, but that Gene and others like him cannot take it to
>mean that high-feedbacked amps or amps with shitty underbuilt power supplies
>are indistinguishable from amps without those handicaps.
Try not to use generalisations you don't understand. There is nothing
wrong with feedback if it is applied to an already linear and wideband
circuit, as exemplified by the Audiolab range. The current capability of
the power supply will determine the ultimate 'stiffness' of the power
rails and hence how well the amplifier can drive low loads, but a
smaller supply may in fact be more agile and provide better sound within
the limits of a lower power capability. Brute force is not everything
(unless you consider the Aleph 1s 200 watts 'underpowered', in which
case perhaps for you it is).
There are those who would argue that the Naim NAIT 3 is one of the
best-sounding amps on the market at any price, but it has a 30 watt
limit, so driving 80dB/watt speakers with one would not be sensible.
Firth of Fifth
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> Michae...@sar.hookup.net (Michael Wong) writes:
>
> >If someone says this test proves that a high-end amp manufactured by Yamaha or
> >Onkyo can match an overpriced underpowered PASS unit, I'm perfectly in
> >agreement.
>
> Interesting concept - Yamaha and Onkyo as makers of high-end amps! I
> guess you mean an amp at the top of their ranges. Overpriced perhaps,
There is truth in it, actually. My old Onkyo TV-SX515PRO receiver really
had killer sound for the money ($395!) and the fact it had Pro-Logic and
multi-room capability was icing on the cake. I'm afraid we can't
overlook the benefits of the economics of scale of Japanese audio
manufacturers.
Brian
Steve Maki
mo...@voicenet.com says...
>Funny. Howard Ferstler just e-mailed me explaining that Noosaine had this
>thing in his basement for 10yrs. acoording to a conversation he had with him.
>Conficting statements. Not that it matters.
>Armand
I just emailed Howard asking him to correct that. Totally wrong.
It sits at this very moment in MY dingy basement (my amplifier room),
where it has been for the last 3 years or so driving my D28's.
BTW, am thinking of putting it up for sale :-)
It should very soon even have it's volume knob back, if Zip comes
through and ships it back to me (would not fit in my suitcase with
the knob on).
--
Steve Maki K8LX
ste...@w8hd.org
Jeff Tricarico
Gee, there's goes the market for all our precious Yamaha, Onkyo, and Sony
receivers. Just when all us real hi-fi people thought we had our secret safely
stored in our computers, some pseudo-audiophile goes and gives away
the bank.
Now, instead of paying $300 for full sound and gadgets like tone controls, while
the lead ears pay $5000 and $10,000 for fancy named preamp and amps and the like,
I'm sure Yamaha, Onkyo, and Sony are all going to raise their prices to
at least $500.
Oh, woe is me!!!
--
Jeff Tricarico
Email: g...@cc.bellcore.com
-------------------------------------
Stewart Pinkerton
g...@cc.bellcore.com (Jeff Tricarico) writes:
Tell me about it! Many years ago I was about to close a deal on an early
Ferrari 308, whose owner didn't like the fact that it had a 'cheap'
plastic body, when some filthy swine in Car did an article on buying
used Ferraris, pointing out that this model was a fantastic bargain.
When I went back to finalise, the price had gone up three grand!!!
Armand
In article <50i5vf$3...@gnews2.voicenet.com>, mo...@voicenet.com (Armand) says:
>
>In article <50f2b3$c...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) says:
>>
>>Sogono <Sog...@fc.emc.com.ph> writes:
>>
>>>If there is one thing the recent amp comparison at Sunshine Stereo has
>>>done is increase people's curiosity and interest with the Yamaha AX-700.
>>>Unfortunately, a check with the Yamaha dealer, did not give me any info
>>>on this amp. Has anyone actually seen, read about, this amp? Where is
>>>this sold? And how much?
>>
>>According to Steve Makis 'clarification' post, he bought it used some
>>years ago for $100, so it's presumably not a current model. I'd guess
>>the $500 rec. retail AX-590 would be a good current substitute if anyone
>>else wants to try this kind of thing.
>
>thing in his basement for 10yrs. acoording to a conversation he had with him.
>Conficting statements. Not that it matters.
>Armand
Mr. Ferstler just e-mailed me again. He was mistaken. The amp was Maki's.
Armand
John Butler
Firth of Fifth writes:
|>
|> There is truth in it, actually. My old Onkyo TV-SX515PRO receiver really
|> had killer sound for the money ($395!) and the fact it had Pro-Logic and
|> multi-room capability was icing on the cake. I'm afraid we can't
|> overlook the benefits of the economics of scale of Japanese audio
|> manufacturers.
|>
|> Brian
... to which g...@cc.bellcore.com (Jeff Tricarico) replies:
> Gee, there's goes the market for all our precious Yamaha, Onkyo, and Sony
> receivers. Just when all us real hi-fi people thought we had our secret
> safely stored in our computers, some pseudo-audiophile goes and gives away
> the bank.
Actually, most if not all Japanese mass-market electronics mfrs. DO make
very high-priced esoteric high-end gear. They just don't export it.
A Stereophile writeup of an international audio show three years ago
pictured and described a pair of Sony monoblock amps priced at $12,000 US,
but were not for export.
Twenty years ago when I worked at a high end store where we sold Crown,
Accuphase, Marantz Pro, Phase Linear, Luxman, etc., one of the nicest
stacks of separates was Kenwood! It had a fantastic tuner. Sequerra had
just released the first hand-wired frequency synthesized tuner for $2500
(these were 1975 dollars!). Kenwood soon followed up with the first first
IC-based frequency synthesizing tuner. It sold for $600 in 1975,
definitely a high-end tuner, and better than just about anything BUT the
Sequerra at the time.
And Yamaha had one of the earlier MOSFET amps in the mid-70's at close to
$2000, which was definitely high end at the time. The matching pre-amp
was considered one of the best money could buy.
I have a Kenwood CD player from 1988 that has a die-cast metal
transport, anti-jitter circuitry (some of the earliest), hand-trimmed
Burr-Brown
16-bit (state of the art at the time) DACs, all-discrete analog
stage, multiple power supplies, and co-ax digital output. It has
since proved
to be a decent transport as well. I got it on closeout just before
Kenwood stopped exporting their nicer CD players.
John Butler
Steve Maki writes:
> I just emailed Howard asking him to correct that. Totally wrong.
> It sits at this very moment in MY dingy basement (my amplifier room),
> where it has been for the last 3 years or so driving my D28's.
What are D28's?
Peter Oen
ste...@w8hd.org (Steve Maki) wrote:
[snip]
->
-> I just emailed Howard asking him to correct that. Totally wrong.
-> It sits at this very moment in MY dingy basement (my amplifier room),
-> where it has been for the last 3 years or so driving my D28's.
->
-> BTW, am thinking of putting it up for sale :-)
Would you take $6,000 for it??? 8-O
->
-> It should very soon even have it's volume knob back, if Zip comes
-> through and ships it back to me (would not fit in my suitcase with
-> the knob on).
Okay, only $5,000 without the knob.
->
-> --
-> Steve Maki K8LX
-> ste...@w8hd.org
->
--
Peter Oen
po...@pacbell.net
Michael Wong
In article <50kusf$s...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk
says...
>>If someone says this test proves that a high-end amp manufactured by
>>Yamaha or Onkyo can match an overpriced underpowered PASS unit, I'm
>>perfectly in agreement.
>Interesting concept - Yamaha and Onkyo as makers of high-end amps! I
>guess you mean an amp at the top of their ranges. Overpriced perhaps,
>but the Aleph 1 is a 200 watt monobloc, how much power do you consider
>adequate?! Are you suggesting that a Krell 'FPB' 300S would have fared
>better? Certainly Zip didn't think so, since he's been telling everyone
>the Pass Alephs sound much better than Krell.
Perhaps I should have clarified that statement somewhat. Of course, you were
right and by "high end" I meant THEIR high end as opposed to "high end" in
general, and by underpowered I meant that they were underpowered in relation to
their price (or overpriced in relation to their power, or a little of both).
>>But if someone says that a shitty Technics A/V receiver will ALSO
>>match an overpriced underpowered PASS unit, than I am NOT in agreement
>No argument there, it's always been possible to make a really bad amp at
>ANY price level, but I think the point being made here was whether or
>not Zip could tell the difference between two 'competently designed'
>amps at vastly different prices. On this occasion he couldn't. I don't
>even Gene has ever claimed that you couldn't pick out an amp with a poor
>measured response, that's his usual get-out clause!
Gene will never say, in so many words, that all amps sound the same. But he
WILL say that people should select amplifiers based on features rather than
sound quality, which is just a roundabout way of saying it while retaining the
legalistic ability to claim he never said anything of the sort. He does the
same sort of thing regarding CD players. Maybe he was a lawyer at some point
in his life, hmmm?
>>I've seen people (including you) describing this AX-700 as "high-feedbacked"
>>and as having a remote control, when in fact neither is the case.
>Nope, I have NEVER described the AX-700 as high-feedback although I did
>intially assume it had a remote control (it DOES have a loudness control
>though!).
I stand corrected; I KNEW I saw you claiming that it was an garden-variety amp
with a remote control and I saw posts referring to it as high-feedbacked, which
I must have mistakenly attributed to you. About the loudness control though,
why would the presence of a loudness switch be detrimental to sound quality?
Those Yamahas have "CD Direct" and "tone bypass" switches which completely
bypass the entire set of loudness and tone controls, so it's not as if the mere
presence of the loudness control should affect the sound quality even in
audiophile theory.
>>I'm just trying to clarify here that I believe in "high end of the low
>>end" or "low end of the high end" when it comes to amplifiers and that
>>this test was a validation of that belief, but that Gene and others
>>like him cannot take it to mean that high-feedbacked amps or amps with
>>shitty underbuilt power supplies are indistinguishable from amps without
>>those handicaps.
>Try not to use generalisations you don't understand. There is nothing
>wrong with feedback if it is applied to an already linear and wideband
>circuit, as exemplified by the Audiolab range. The current capability of
>the power supply will determine the ultimate 'stiffness' of the power
>rails and hence how well the amplifier can drive low loads, but a
>smaller supply may in fact be more agile and provide better sound within
>the limits of a lower power capability. Brute force is not everything
>(unless you consider the Aleph 1s 200 watts 'underpowered', in which
>case perhaps for you it is).
You can nitpick my precise DESCRIPTION of what a shitty amp is like inside if
you wish, and I admit that I am an M.E. rather than an E.E. so I'm hardly an
expert on how to build these things. But my general point was that shitty amps
ARE distinguishable from good amps and that this test did nothing to prove or
disprove that theory even though some people appear to feel that it did. But
by all means, please feel free to describe more accurately what constitutes a
shitty amp :)
>There are those who would argue that the Naim NAIT 3 is one of the
>best-sounding amps on the market at any price, but it has a 30 watt
>limit, so driving 80dB/watt speakers with one would not be sensible.
I never EVER understood the Naims. I knew a guy with a little 15 watt/ch Naim
once and we tried comparing it with my Yamaha (I had an AX-900/U at the time),
and I couldn't detect a difference for the life of me, except that his amp cost
a lot more than mine and couldn't deliver as much power. I think that was one
of the core experiences that made me decide you have to move up from the junk
bin when it comes to amps, but you don't have to move too FAR up.
Gene
In article <50oi3k$5...@icarus.lon.hookup.net>, Michae...@sar.hookup.net
wrote:
>Gene will never say, in so many words, that all amps sound the same. But
he
>WILL say that people should select amplifiers based on features rather
than
>sound quality, which is just a roundabout way of saying it while
retaining the
>
>legalistic ability to claim he never said anything of the sort. He does
the
>same sort of thing regarding CD players. Maybe he was a lawyer at some
point
>in his life, hmmm?
You seem to make it a nasty habit of trying to deliberately misunderstand
what I said. I am simply putting a priority on the factors one should
consider, and placing sound quality on the low end of the scale in audio
electronics because it is not a significant factor, not that it is
non-existent. There are situations where audible differences may exist (as
I have explained in the past in the messages you conveniently ignore), but
for most users it shouldn't be an overriding factor (because in many
instances, NOT ALL, the perceived differences do not exist).
The Zip amplifier test is simply one more bit of evidence that confirms
precisely what I said.
-----
Peace,
Gene
Peace,
Gene Steinberg
Author, "Using America Online"
Stewart Pinkerton
BlackM...@msn.com (John Butler) writes:
>Steve Maki writes:
>> I just emailed Howard asking him to correct that. Totally wrong.
>> It sits at this very moment in MY dingy basement (my amplifier room),
>> where it has been for the last 3 years or so driving my D28's.
>What are D28's?
It's a Dynaudio 28mm tweeter, isn't it? Steve did previously say he used
this thing to drive his tweeters.
Armand
In article <00001ec4...@msn.com>, BlackM...@msn.com (John Butler) says:
>
>Steve Maki writes:
>
>
>> I just emailed Howard asking him to correct that. Totally wrong.
>> It sits at this very moment in MY dingy basement (my amplifier room),
>> where it has been for the last 3 years or so driving my D28's.
>
>What are D28's?
I think it's a Chevy.
Armand
No it's a tweeter. Probably a Dynaudio or KEF.
BATMAN
I'd like to share that whatever hardware you may have, you're not deriving
100 per cent of its potential until you have got your room accoustics right
and with the help of a skilled audio specialist to tune your system, such
as putting on conditioner/filter/damping devices on your components, you
are missing a helluva lot of good quality music.
I just had that someone who treated my room and system a couple of days ago
with amazing results. There was no component upgrade, just a tilting of my
room tunes here and there and application of some damping devices on
speaker cables, power cords and the like, and the improvement was like an
entire system upgrade.
So fellow hi fi members, I urge you all to stop the hardware upgrade for a
while and focus on your room and system tuning.
Good Luck!
Armand
Holy Even Order Harmonic Distortion Batman! You sure all this "conditioning"
didn't "condition" the highs right out of your system? Don't respond to this
question until you've listened for the looooooong term. In fact, during this time,
make sure you remove the devices, listen, re-install them etc. Then if you still believe
that the changes were an improvement, tell me exactly what was added to your
system. I really would want to know, seriously.
Commisioner Gordon
Richard M. Anderson
>But if someone says that a shitty Technics A/V receiver will
>ALSO match an overpriced underpowered PASS unit
If you look inside a Yamaha and a Technics, you'll see they bear
very little resemblance to each other. My first receiver was a
70wpc Yamaha CR1020 which I bought after seeing the pressboard
bottom on a 100wpc Technics.
sinc;
Rich
Richard M. Anderson
>I'm afraid we can't
>overlook the benefits of the economics of scale of Japanese
>audio
>manufacturers.
If Pass were to duplicate the Onkyo 919 receiver or the Denon
AVR3000, it would cost the consumer about $6000 each to buy them.
In their upper end, the Japanese provide very good value for the
money.
Derek Fong
Black Mongoose writes:
> Actually, most if not all Japanese mass-market electronics mfrs. DO make
> very high-priced esoteric high-end gear. They just don't export it.
For point of reference, in my mid-fi budget, I found the Yamaha TX-950
tuner was better than comparably priced Adcom, Rotel and NAD units.
-derek
Michael Wong
In article <50or59$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ge...@aol.com says...
>>Gene will never say, in so many words, that all amps sound the same.
>>But he WILL say that people should select amplifiers based on features
>>rather than sound quality, which is just a roundabout way of saying
>>it while retaining the legalistic ability to claim he never said
>>anything of the sort. He does the same sort of thing regarding CD
>>players. Maybe he was a lawyer at some point in his life, hmmm?
>You seem to make it a nasty habit of trying to deliberately misunderstand
>what I said. I am simply putting a priority on the factors one should
>consider, and placing sound quality on the low end of the scale in audio
>electronics because it is not a significant factor, not that it is
>non-existent. There are situations where audible differences may exist (as
>I have explained in the past in the messages you conveniently ignore), but
>for most users it shouldn't be an overriding factor (because in many
>instances, NOT ALL, the perceived differences do not exist).
Then all you are doing is describing your own personal priorities when buying
stereo equipment rather than "separating truth from reality" as you are fond of
saying. You admit that there may be differences between certain brands and
models of amplifiers and CD players, but you insist that your personal
valuation of these differences as not "significant" should be adopted by every
person in the universe, even though most people interested in high end audio
place sound quality first and EVERYTHING else second.
>The Zip amplifier test is simply one more bit of evidence that confirms
>precisely what I said.
No, it confirms that Yamaha's near top of the line AX-700 amplifier from six
years ago sounds almost identical to a very expensive PASS amplifier. That in
no way confirms your belief that sound quality is an insignificant factor when
selecting electronics. Like most technically and scientifically ignorant
people, you obviously don't know how to properly evaluate the results of a
test. Assuming that there was nothing wrong with the test procedure, this
shows that Yamaha's AX-700 sounds very good, perhaps as good as the PASS (at
least, it does through those speakers). This would suggest one of two
conclusions: #1) the Yamaha is better than everyone expected, #2) the Pass is
overpriced, or a combination of the above. However, your extrapolation (that
all amps of all prices from all manufacturers therefore sound pretty much the
same and you should buy exclusively based on features) is totally unwarranted
and not at all supported by the experiment.
Gene Steinberg
Michael Wong wrote:
>
> Then all you are doing is describing your own personal priorities when buying
> stereo equipment rather than "separating truth from reality" as you are fond of
> saying. You admit that there may be differences between certain brands and
> models of amplifiers and CD players, but you insist that your personal
> valuation of these differences as not "significant" should be adopted by every
> person in the universe, even though most people interested in high end audio
> place sound quality first and EVERYTHING else second.
>
Well, here's the problem. In a level matched, double blind comparisons,
must claims of audible differences among components cannot be confirmed.
Where they are found--and it doesn't happen very often--there are easily
measurable reasons. So the statement stands: Since most audible
differences among electronics are not proven, it should not be a
significant factor in selecting items in these product categories.
That's what the evidence shows, and nobody in this newsgroup has
produced any that disproves this.
> No, it confirms that Yamaha's near top of the line AX-700 amplifier from six
> years ago sounds almost identical to a very expensive PASS amplifier. That in
> no way confirms your belief that sound quality is an insignificant factor when
> selecting electronics. Like most technically and scientifically ignorant
> people, you obviously don't know how to properly evaluate the results of a
> test. Assuming that there was nothing wrong with the test procedure, this
> shows that Yamaha's AX-700 sounds very good, perhaps as good as the PASS (at
> least, it does through those speakers). This would suggest one of two
> conclusions: #1) the Yamaha is better than everyone expected, #2) the Pass is
> overpriced, or a combination of the above. However, your extrapolation (that
> all amps of all prices from all manufacturers therefore sound pretty much the
> same and you should buy exclusively based on features) is totally unwarranted
> and not at all supported by the experiment.
The experiment is just one more example of tests that have been run
since the early 1980s, showing precisely the same sort of results. You
cannot just look at it as just one test, but as part of a consistent
body of evidence. That's why I spend so much time insisting you study up
on the subject, so you won't be making this unfounded pronouncements.
Of course Zip has tried to put a spin in the situation, coming up with
his "excuse of the week" why he couldn't hear that which he previously
claimed anyone who wasn't deaf could hear. But I'm sure most people
aren't taking any of that too seriously.
--
Peace
Gene
Stewart Pinkerton
Michae...@sar.hookup.net (Michael Wong) writes:
>Then all you are doing is describing your own personal priorities when buying
>stereo equipment rather than "separating truth from reality" as you are fond of
>saying. You admit that there may be differences between certain brands and
>models of amplifiers and CD players, but you insist that your personal
>valuation of these differences as not "significant" should be adopted by every
>person in the universe, even though most people interested in high end audio
>place sound quality first and EVERYTHING else second.
Well that's a pretty sweeping generalisation for which there is very
little evidence. Most people who actually BUY high-end audio appear to
place fancy nametags and 'battleship' build construction VERY high on
the prority list, along with fashion (else why upgrade every year? Amps
have not changed significantly for a LONG time!) Let's say you have a
budget of $15,000, enough for a true high-end system, I think most would
agree. Anyone who pretends he's PRIMARILY interested in sound quality
and has not spent $10,000 or more on the speakers is either lying, deaf
or terminally gullible. But they're just boring boxes.............
>>The Zip amplifier test is simply one more bit of evidence that confirms
>>precisely what I said.
>No, it confirms that Yamaha's near top of the line AX-700 amplifier from six
>years ago sounds almost identical to a very expensive PASS amplifier. That in
>no way confirms your belief that sound quality is an insignificant factor when
>selecting electronics. Like most technically and scientifically ignorant
>people, you obviously don't know how to properly evaluate the results of a
>test. Assuming that there was nothing wrong with the test procedure, this
>shows that Yamaha's AX-700 sounds very good, perhaps as good as the PASS (at
>least, it does through those speakers). This would suggest one of two
>conclusions: #1) the Yamaha is better than everyone expected, #2) the Pass is
>overpriced, or a combination of the above. However, your extrapolation (that
>all amps of all prices from all manufacturers therefore sound pretty much the
>same and you should buy exclusively based on features) is totally unwarranted
>and not at all supported by the experiment.
Well, let's look at this a little more closely. The very experienced Zip
has frequently claimed (even today!) that the Pass amps 'just blow away'
other well-respected makers such as Krell, so - allowing for a little
'dealers hype' - perhaps we should take it that the Pass is at worst not
noticeably inferior to other 'high-end' amps. Now, Yamaha amps are well
regarded by many people but are not thought of as magic 'killer' amps
and indeed the AX-700 is not some famous classic, just another good
mid-price integrated amp.
It seems to me that it's not an unreasonable INTERpolation pricewise
that a McCormack, Classe or Sumo will most likely sound better than the
Yamaha if not quite so good as the Pass, or at least there's not likely
to be a BIG difference. It therefore follows that a choice between a
Classe CA200 driving Thiel CS5is and a pair of Pass Aleph 1.2s driving
Thiel CS2 2s is not too hard to make, no? Get real Michael, big bucks
amps just aren't worth the money unless you have a totally unlimited
budget, and most likely not even then!
Dana Bunner
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> Let's say you have a
> budget of $15,000, enough for a true high-end system, I think most would
> agree. Anyone who pretends he's PRIMARILY interested in sound quality
> and has not spent $10,000 or more on the speakers is either lying, deaf
> or terminally gullible. But they're just boring boxes.............
> It seems to me that it's not an unreasonable INTERpolation pricewise
> that a McCormack, Classe or Sumo will most likely sound better than the
> Yamaha if not quite so good as the Pass, or at least there's not likely
> to be a BIG difference. It therefore follows that a choice between a
> Classe CA200 driving Thiel CS5is and a pair of Pass Aleph 1.2s driving
> Thiel CS2 2s is not too hard to make, no? Get real Michael, big bucks
> amps just aren't worth the money unless you have a totally unlimited
> budget, and most likely not even then!
Why limit your discussion to just amps?
People are dropping thousands of dollars on speaker cables,
interconnects,
various magical devices to lay on top of their equipment, power cords,
racks, and fancy feet underneath their equipment.
Heck in many $15,000 systems, I would not be surprised to find at least
a
couple thousand going into the assorted goodies listed above. How's
about comparing the net effect of all of these tweaks vis a vis dropping
the money into better speakers?
Which of the two systems below do you think would sound better?
A) Best electronics you can buy for $8,000. $2,000 in cables, cones,
stones, etc.. Best $5,000 speakers on the market.
B) Best electronics you can buy for $4,500. $500 in cables, etc..
Best $10,000 speakers on the market.
I'd pick B).
Dana
Curtis J. Simon
Once, my wife and I were looking for a CHEAP tuner. We compared
a discontinued Phillips $200 tuner with a $350 Adcom tuner. We
did not do blind ABX testing, but both my wife and I thought the
Phillips had a better balanced sound, while the Adcom had a distinctly
crisp, thin midrange. We bought the Phillips. (I was not going
to blow good money on a tuner when the only decent station [public --
did you have to ask?] compresses the hell out of its signal
and overlays everything with a nice grunge throughout the
frequency spectrum).
Curt Simon
Note: Opinions are my own.
Rndmtn
Yamaha does not make the same quality of stuff as say a Sanyo. Nope,
definitely better. One must also remember that many of Yamaha's stuff is
considered solid midfi. Low-fi is low-fi and they generally measure bad,
sound bad, and more importantly to me, have questionable power supplies.
Question. If you had an electrostatic that dipped down into 1 ohms or
whatever obscene thing, would you opt for a Yamaha? I don't think the
Yamaha engineer was designing the stuff to reliably run with such a load.
Martin Logans and Apogees are notorious for being really nasty loads. If
I had one of those things, I would opt for the Pass just on the premise
that it won't blow up. I am pretty damn sure that the Pass amp has a
stable power supply that won't melt when meeting the mean 1 ohm gods.
I also have had an experience with an esoteric solid core cable that
proceeded to blow out the fuses of my Creek when I powered things up.
(And no, there were no shorts.) Regardless of whatever objectivists say,
blowing fuses is not my idea of fun. Fortunately, the Creek is designed
that way and it was no big deal. Now I live with Kimber stuff.
Regardless of what Gene or any other objectivist might say, (funny how
objectivist seems to emulate the verb-to object) there are differences
IMHO between equipment. A Honda and a Ferrari are basically cars. They
do the same things--get you there. How you get there is important too.
The one thing that does bother me is that many of the Low-Fi stuff out
there is rated at the max versus Hi-fi stuff is rated pretty low in
comparison to actual watts the damn thing can muster. I remember
comparing my Creek to my friend's Fisher. When running some Early Polks
(the only Polks I ever liked), my friend was totally annoyed that I could
out pound his so called 100 watt receiver with my 50 watt integrated.
Those specs must have been wrong or the damn rack system just plain
sucked.
Things are not simple. To blanketly state that any Low-Fi system sound
better than Hi-Fi is rather questionable. The quality of products out
there varies by many degrees. The variations in quality would logically
become more diverse on the lower end of the market. There are audiophile
gems everywhere. Hey, wasn't there a big brohahaaaa over a Radio Shack CD
player once?
One must always look at things holistically. Anything could possibly
sound decent. Sheezzz, I heard some Sony ES stuff that wasn't bad at all.
I usually hate Sony because it dies to fast for my taste. Which returns
to the idea of good power supplies etc. We are building systems not using
just one thing. Synergy is more important than anything else. If
something works, use it. If it doesn't or it dies, don't.
If the Yamaha works, cool. Actually, I think the Creek would make a
better choice. Hard to kill. Sounds great.
My 2 Centavos
eneg ton
chaos
It is too clear and so it is hard to see.
A dunce once searched for a fire with a lighted lantern.
Had he known what fire was,
He would have cooked his rice much sooner.
--E'kai--
Stewart Pinkerton
rnd...@aol.com (Rndmtn) writes:
>Question. If you had an electrostatic that dipped down into 1 ohms or
>whatever obscene thing, would you opt for a Yamaha?
No, and not any kind of single-ended amp either.
>I don't think the
>Yamaha engineer was designing the stuff to reliably run with such a load.
>Martin Logans and Apogees are notorious for being really nasty loads.
However, notoriety is not fact. The M-L designs only drop really low
above 20kHz, where there isn't much signal power, and modern Apogee
panels are a pretty resistive 3-4 ohm load, low but not amp-killers like
the old Scintilla. A Yamaha AX-570 WILL drive Duetta Signatures to high
levels without fuss (trust me on this!).
>If
>I had one of those things, I would opt for the Pass just on the premise
>that it won't blow up. I am pretty damn sure that the Pass amp has a
>stable power supply that won't melt when meeting the mean 1 ohm gods.
Not true, the only Alephs which will handle loads below 4 ohms at full
power are the original Aleph 0 and 1 designs, which have a 'push-pull'
backup to drive low loads as push-pull class AB amps (not commonly
realised by the single-ended faithful!). The latest two-stage designs do
not share this ability. Note Zip claims he used the Duntech Marquis
because it's an easy amplifier load and would be 'fairer to the Yamaha'.
Believe it if you like!
>I also have had an experience with an esoteric solid core cable that
>proceeded to blow out the fuses of my Creek when I powered things up.
>(And no, there were no shorts.) Regardless of whatever objectivists say,
>blowing fuses is not my idea of fun. Fortunately, the Creek is designed
>that way and it was no big deal. Now I live with Kimber stuff.
Don't feel bad, it would have smoked a Naim amp too :-(
epotter
>
> >an esoteric solid core cable that
> Don't feel bad, it would have smoked a Naim amp too :-(
>
> Hello, would one of you explain, please. Why did the cable blow the fuses?
Was the speaker of really low impedance?
No criticism of anyone implied here, just honestly puzzled.
>
>
Michael Wong
In article <511btg$m...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>, pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk
says...
>>least, it does through those speakers). This would suggest one of two
>>conclusions: #1) the Yamaha is better than everyone expected, #2) the Pass is
>>overpriced, or a combination of the above. However, your extrapolation (that
>>all amps of all prices from all manufacturers therefore sound pretty much the
>>same and you should buy exclusively based on features) is totally unwarranted
>>and not at all supported by the experiment.
>Well, let's look at this a little more closely. The very experienced Zip
>has frequently claimed (even today!) that the Pass amps 'just blow away'
>other well-respected makers such as Krell, so - allowing for a little
>'dealers hype' - perhaps we should take it that the Pass is at worst not
>noticeably inferior to other 'high-end' amps. Now, Yamaha amps are well
>regarded by many people but are not thought of as magic 'killer' amps
>and indeed the AX-700 is not some famous classic, just another good
>mid-price integrated amp.
By high end standards, the AX-700 is a cheapie amp (doesn't have pure silver
solder and cost over $5000? Junk!). By budget audiophile standards, the
AX-700 is a good midpriced integrated amp. By the standards of the Cerwin-Vega
and Kenwood crowd, the AX-700 is an outrageously overpriced amp with precious
few features ($600 for a 110W/ch amp with no remote and no surround? How
horrifying! I can get a 100W/ch A/V receiver with remote for $500!). The
terms which you use to describe the amp depend entirely on the context.
>It seems to me that it's not an unreasonable INTERpolation pricewise
>that a McCormack, Classe or Sumo will most likely sound better than the
>Yamaha if not quite so good as the Pass, or at least there's not likely
>to be a BIG difference. It therefore follows that a choice between a
>Classe CA200 driving Thiel CS5is and a pair of Pass Aleph 1.2s driving
>Thiel CS2 2s is not too hard to make, no? Get real Michael, big bucks
>amps just aren't worth the money unless you have a totally unlimited
>budget, and most likely not even then!
Why are you trying to argue with points that I'm not making? The only point I
was trying to make was that although super high end amps may not be worth it (a
point which you apparently agreed with), that doesn't mean someone can buy the
absolute cheapest amp he can find and assume that it will sound exactly like,
for instance, a Krell (or for that matter, a Bryston or even a top of the line
Yamaha). Do you disagree with that statement?
Richard M. Anderson
>Zip has tried to put a spin in the situation, coming
>up with his "excuse of the week" why he couldn't hear that which
>he
>previously claimed anyone who wasn't deaf could hear. But I'm sure
>most people aren't taking any of that too seriously.
Mr. Zipser sells the Pass amps. He does not sell Yamaha. Yamaha
is much cheaper. There's no way he's going to slight the Pass for
the benefit of the Yamaha or truth. Anyone taking his excuses
seriously is insane. Another point; That old Yamaha probably sold
for $600 about 10? years ago. You can buy a 80wpc Yamaha
integrated amp for around $275 now. Of course the quality of the
old equipment is better. Despite the drop in price of (some)
electronic components and economies of scale, the older amp cost
much more than the newer one. My old Yamaha CR2020 receiver circa
1979 made mincemeat out of my Yamaha RX-V870 (1993). Both cost
about $700 at the time of thier purchase.
sinc;
Rich
Richard M. Anderson
> the Pass is
> overpriced
BINGO!!!!!
Stewart Pinkerton
Michae...@sar.hookup.net (Michael Wong) writes:
>Why are you trying to argue with points that I'm not making? The only point I
>was trying to make was that although super high end amps may not be worth it (a
>point which you apparently agreed with), that doesn't mean someone can buy the
>absolute cheapest amp he can find and assume that it will sound exactly like,
>for instance, a Krell (or for that matter, a Bryston or even a top of the line
>Yamaha). Do you disagree with that statement?
Nope, there is of course a lower limit on parts cost to make a really
good amplifier, and amps like the Yamaha AX-590 and Sony TA-FA3ES
represent the rock-bottom price end of high-quality amplification.
There's certainly no way a full-featured $500 A/V receiver can match
those guys for sound quality.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | If you can't measure what you're making,
A S P Consulting | how do you know when you've got it made?
(44) 1509 880112 |
"I canna change the laws o' physics" - the other Scotty
idk...@smart.net
> Gene Steinberg <Ge...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
Since most audible
> differences among electronics are not proven, it should not be a
> significant factor in selecting items in these product categories.
Thanks for the quantum leap in logic!!!!!!
Michael Wong
In article <32340F...@worldnet.att.net>, Ge...@worldnet.att.net says...
>Well, here's the problem. In a level matched, double blind comparisons,
>must claims of audible differences among components cannot be confirmed.
>Where they are found--and it doesn't happen very often--there are easily
>differences among electronics are not proven, it should not be a
>significant factor in selecting items in these product categories.
>produced any that disproves this.
No, the evidence shows that amps which measure nearly alike will tend to
perform nearly alike. It does not show that a lousy amp will sound like a good
amp. You are greatly extending the scope of the conclusions which you can draw
from experimental results because you don't appear to have a complete grasp of
the scientific method.
>The experiment is just one more example of tests that have been run
>since the early 1980s, showing precisely the same sort of results. You
>cannot just look at it as just one test, but as part of a consistent
>body of evidence. That's why I spend so much time insisting you study up
>on the subject, so you won't be making this unfounded pronouncements.
Yes, it is one more example. It is a test of two high quality amplifiers, one
of high quality and one of super high quality. I've said before that I don't
personally feel there's a point going from high quality to super high quality,
but that does not justify your extrapolation that there will ALSO be no
difference between LOW quality and high quality amplifiers. I've been trying
to make this distinction to you for along time, and you have always ignored it
by citing studies which compared high quality amps to even higher quality amps,
apparently not recognizing the point which I'm trying to make.
>Of course Zip has tried to put a spin in the situation, coming up with
>his "excuse of the week" why he couldn't hear that which he previously
>claimed anyone who wasn't deaf could hear. But I'm sure most people
>aren't taking any of that too seriously.
I'm not, but even before the test I wasn't exactly thrilled about the idea of
$12,000 monoblock amplifiers unless they came bundled with a car.
Gene Steinberg
Michael Wong wrote:
>
>
> No, the evidence shows that amps which measure nearly alike will tend to
> perform nearly alike. It does not show that a lousy amp will sound like a good
> amp. You are greatly extending the scope of the conclusions which you can draw
> from experimental results because you don't appear to have a complete grasp of
> the scientific method.
>
What it also shows is that you really haven't read much about the
subject (yeah, I know about the four hour trip to the library that you
provide as an excuse).
Most amps (receivers, integrated, separates) have low distortion and a
flat frequency response in their power range. A few exotic amps
don't--do we call them lousy? Some people who read this newsgroup like
those amps because their lousy performance results in a stylized sound
that they prefer.
The question is what do you consider lousy?
Do you consider an amp lousy if it self-destructs in a couple of years?
Well, I would, even if it didn't sound any different when it did work.
Or one that doesn't have enough power to drive a specific speaker?
Depends on whether you have the speaker they cannot work with.
Or how about those amps made to mimic a tube amp (thus not having a flat
frequency response into a regular speaker load)? Are they lousy? Nope,
but they'll sound different.
So we go back to what I stated about what amps would sound the same in a
double-blind, level matched test. And it still covers most amps not run
into clipping.
But what's more important here is whether you can produce a single
controlled listening test that disputes this?
Oh yeah, you cannot get to the library. Well, even if you did, you'd
still fail to produce any contrary evidence.
--
Peace
Gene
Stewart Pinkerton
mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
>Stewart Pinkerton (a...@borealis.com) wrote:
>]
>]There's certainly no way a full-featured $500 A/V receiver can match
>]those guys for sound quality.
> Did I misread you, or you just stated that you will be
> able to tell 500 $ Yamaha integrated amp apart from
> $500 A/V receiver with remote and Christmas -tree lights,
> in double blind, level matched test ?
You got me! I guess I did say that - I'll give it a try sometime.
Sebastien P. McIntyre
In article <5163u7$1...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>
pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) writes:
>
> (...)
>
>Nope, there is of course a lower limit on parts cost to make a really
>good amplifier, and amps like the Yamaha AX-590 and Sony TA-FA3ES
>represent the rock-bottom price end of high-quality amplification.
>
>those guys for sound quality.
Mr. Pinkerton,
The same could be said of these amps when you compare them to
the Bryston 4B. It all depends on the load (speakers, material
reproduced and level). Operate these amps (Bryston included)
within the operative limits of the receiver in a level-matched
manner, ABX them (preferably with non-hungover listeners :) ) and
post the results. Thrill us!
--
,
Sebastien Playing: "The Yee-Haw Factor"
Bela Fleck & The Flecktones
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Sebastien P. McIntyre wrote:
> Sebastien Playing: "The Yee-Haw Factor"
> Bela Fleck & The Flecktones
Sebastian:
I like Celtic Melody. Amazing bass!
Zip
Michael Wong
In article <32381A...@worldnet.att.net>, Ge...@worldnet.att.net says...
>The question is what do you consider lousy?
>
>Do you consider an amp lousy if it self-destructs in a couple of years?
>Well, I would, even if it didn't sound any different when it did work.
I would consider that amp lousy.
>Or one that doesn't have enough power to drive a specific speaker?
>Depends on whether you have the speaker they cannot work with.
I would consider an amp lousy if it can't drive a typical speaker at the sort
of power levels that you would expect from its 8 ohm power rating, and that
sort of amp is not as uncommon as you suggest. I know a guy with a brand
spanking new Technics A/V receiver that shuts down whenever he turns it up (it
never gets anywhere near as loud as his old Harman-Kardon 50wpc amp did), and
no, it isn't defective or damaged (at least, the repairman said there was
nothing wrong with it, so my friend has no options). It shuts down because
it's a lousy amp (I think the model number is SA-550GX but I could be wrong),
and the fact that it SUPPOSEDLY generates 100wpc into 8 ohms doesn't change the
reality that it can't go as loud as a 50wpc competing amp before it overloads
and shuts down.
What's my friend supposed to do? He can't get it fixed because there's nothing
wrong with it, he can't get it replaced at the dealer because there's nothing
wrong with it (and he bought it from one of those superstores), and he probably
would lose a lot of money if he turned around and tried to sell it on the used
equipment market. But I forgot ... all amps sound the same so he made the
right choice, buying entirely based on features.
BTW, he doesn't have exotic speakers with wild impedance curves either; he's
got lousy speakers to go with his lousy amp; Bose.
>So we go back to what I stated about what amps would sound the same in a
>double-blind, level matched test. And it still covers most amps not run
>into clipping.
But take two 100wpc amps into two identical pairs of speakers, and you can't
guarantee that the real-world clipping level for the two amps will be the same,
in spite of the fact that they have identical frequency response and 8 ohm
power ratings. By restricting your tests to "no clip" conditions, you negate
the effect that not all 100wpc amps are the same, because some of them overload
so much earlier.
>But what's more important here is whether you can produce a single
>controlled listening test that disputes this?
Is it really necessary to perform blind tests to determine that one can
distinguish between an amp that overloads prematurely and an amp that doesn't?
Let's see- one amp suddenly goes silent, and the other amp keeps going.
Pretty hard to level-match that comparison, isn't it?
>Oh yeah, you cannot get to the library. Well, even if you did, you'd
>still fail to produce any contrary evidence.
Perhaps you could explain my friend's unfortunate experience, then. Oh yes, I
forgot; I couldn't match the levels between the 50wpc Harman Kardon and the
100wpc Technics because the Technics was shut down. Maybe if I turned the H-K
off, its volume output would be identical to the overloaded Technics, and HEY!
You're right! I wouldn't be able to distinguish between them! Hooray.
Gene Steinberg
Michael Wong wrote:
>
>
> But take two 100wpc amps into two identical pairs of speakers, and you can't
> guarantee that the real-world clipping level for the two amps will be the same,
> in spite of the fact that they have identical frequency response and 8 ohm
> power ratings. By restricting your tests to "no clip" conditions, you negate
> the effect that not all 100wpc amps are the same, because some of them overload
> so much earlier.
>
You are trying to misdirect the discussion into an issue where we
probably do not totally disagree. I simply stated that sound is not a
significant factor in choosing amps. Power delivery is, and you are
correct that two amps, both rated at 100 watts per channel by standard
methods may differ in what they can handle in the real world. One may
provide greater power headroom, the other may produce greater power into
lower impedances, and thus work better with certain loudspeakers.
Yes, output power is an important factor to consider, not just into 8
ohms but, if need be, into 4 ohms as well. And I haven't said otherwise
(in fact that's one of the factors I've mentioned in terms of making an
amplifier purchase). That, reliability and general feature set are more
important than considerations of sonic attributes, since most of the
claims of the latter cannot be confirmed.
--
Peace
Gene
Stewart Pinkerton
"Sebastien P. McIntyre" <NA...@music.mus.polymtl.ca> writes:
>>Nope, there is of course a lower limit on parts cost to make a really
>>good amplifier, and amps like the Yamaha AX-590 and Sony TA-FA3ES
>>represent the rock-bottom price end of high-quality amplification.
>>
>>There's certainly no way a full-featured $500 A/V receiver can match
>>those guys for sound quality.
> Mr. Pinkerton,
> The same could be said of these amps when you compare them to
> the Bryston 4B. It all depends on the load (speakers, material
> reproduced and level). Operate these amps (Bryston included)
> within the operative limits of the receiver in a level-matched
> manner, ABX them (preferably with non-hungover listeners :) ) and
> post the results. Thrill us!
Oh, c'mon Sebastien, be nice. The Bryston amps are a bit rough but
they're not quite as bad as a 'Circuit City Special' receiver! Well,
maybe in a blind test they might sound the same but that surely can't be
right? :-)
Sebastien P. McIntyre
In article <51bpl5$m...@newsgate.dircon.co.uk>
pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk (Stewart Pinkerton) writes:
>"Sebastien P. McIntyre" <NA...@music.mus.polymtl.ca> writes:
>
>>>There's certainly no way a full-featured $500 A/V receiver can match
>>>those guys for sound quality.
>
>> Mr. Pinkerton,
>
>> The same could be said of these amps when you compare them to
>> the Bryston 4B. It all depends on the load (speakers, material
>> reproduced and level). Operate these amps (Bryston included)
>> within the operative limits of the receiver in a level-matched
>> manner, ABX them (preferably with non-hungover listeners :) ) and
>> post the results. Thrill us!
>
>Oh, c'mon Sebastien, be nice. The Bryston amps are a bit rough but
>they're not quite as bad as a 'Circuit City Special' receiver! Well,
>maybe in a blind test they might sound the same but that surely can't be
>right? :-)
Sorry, no patriotic pride at work here. Bryston amps are made in
Higher Canada (or English Canada, an old British colony), not
Lower Canada (Quebec francais). But if you dare ABX SimAudio
or Classe amps, I'm sure it won't be a null. ;-)
--
,
Sebastien
Sebastien P. McIntyre
In article <3238e...@eclipse.wincom.net>
b...@ciaccess.com (Michael Wong) writes:
>In article <32381A...@worldnet.att.net>, Ge...@worldnet.att.net says...
>>The question is what do you consider lousy?
>
>
>>Or one that doesn't have enough power to drive a specific speaker?
>>Depends on whether you have the speaker they cannot work with.
>
>I would consider an amp lousy if it can't drive a typical speaker at the sort
>of power levels that you would expect from its 8 ohm power rating, and that
>sort of amp is not as uncommon as you suggest.
First, your statement puts words in Mr. Steinberg's mouth. You seem
to confuse inadequate power to drive a particular load with actual
power not being as claimed by the amp manufacturer.
After a recent recrudescence of statements like yours, I decided to
scan the reviews of amps/receivers which were published in mainstream
audio magazines over the last 10-12 years. From what I read (product
reviews and general comments by the reviewers), your contention that
the actual power being _lower_ than that claimed is frequent is
unsupported. I have yet to find one. So, outside anecdotal evidence,
could you give references to product reviews (one will do) supporting
your statement? (stereo channels).
> I know a guy with a brand
>spanking new Technics A/V receiver that shuts down whenever he turns it up (it
>never gets anywhere near as loud as his old Harman-Kardon 50wpc amp did), and
>no, it isn't defective or damaged (at least, the repairman said there was
>nothing wrong with it, so my friend has no options). It shuts down because
>it's a lousy amp (I think the model number is SA-550GX but I could be wrong),
>and the fact that it SUPPOSEDLY generates 100wpc into 8 ohms doesn't change the
>reality that it can't go as loud as a 50wpc competing amp before it overloads
>and shuts down.
Please post all relevent technical info about the Technics and H-K
receivers, Bose speakers and musical material reproduced during
"overload leading to shutdown" (also, make sure to include model
numbers).
> (...) But I forgot ... all amps sound the same so he made the
>right choice, buying entirely based on features.
... all amps _not overloading from input signals_ "sound" the same...
(<small print> Some restrictions apply. :) )
>>So we go back to what I stated about what amps would sound the same in a
>>double-blind, level matched test. And it still covers most amps not run
>>into clipping.
>
>But take two 100wpc amps into two identical pairs of speakers, and you can't
>guarantee that the real-world clipping level for the two amps will be the same,
>in spite of the fact that they have identical frequency response and 8 ohm
>power ratings. By restricting your tests to "no clip" conditions, you negate
>the effect that not all 100wpc amps are the same, because some of them overload
>so much earlier.
While there's no magic in "output power at clipping", there's some
in _rated_ power and it's called __arbitrariness__... (Remember that
some of the specs touted, often incorrectly, on salesfloors, e.g.
clipping and dynamic headroom (dB), are referenced to _rated_ power,
so the lower the _rated_ power, the higher these headrooms :) ). This
is one good reason not to rely entirely on manufacturer specs in BLTs,
but to monitor the actual waveform at the output terminals to make
sure the amps aren't driven into clipping. In Joe Blow's listening
room however, there's no monitoring equipment but psychoacoustics is
at work: there's a 3-6 dBW "cushion" before audibility of clipping,
which means that an amp can overload in output power two to four times
(depending on the type of musical material being reproduced) its
unclipped power before clipped and unclipped sounds can be reliably
perceived as different (reason: _subjective_ loudness is mostly
related to average, not peak, sound levels).
SOURCE: "Loudspeaker Power Needs", Roy Allison, Stereo Review,
Sept. 1973, pp. 69-73.
>>But what's more important here is whether you can produce a single
>>controlled listening test that disputes this?
>
>Is it really necessary to perform blind tests to determine that one can
>distinguish between an amp that overloads prematurely and an amp that doesn't?
> Let's see- one amp suddenly goes silent, and the other amp keeps going.
>Pretty hard to level-match that comparison, isn't it?
>
>>Oh yeah, you cannot get to the library. Well, even if you did, you'd
>>still fail to produce any contrary evidence.
>
>Perhaps you could explain my friend's unfortunate experience, then. Oh yes, I
>forgot; I couldn't match the levels between the 50wpc Harman Kardon and the
>100wpc Technics because the Technics was shut down. Maybe if I turned the H-K
>off, its volume output would be identical to the overloaded Technics, and HEY!
> You're right! I wouldn't be able to distinguish between them! Hooray.
Methinks you're clutching at straws. Again.
--
,
Sebastien Playing: "If You Could Read My Mind"
Gordon Lightfoot
Sebastien P. McIntyre
In article <3238D3...@netrunner.net>
"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@netrunner.net> writes:
>
>Sebastien P. McIntyre wrote:
>
>> Sebastien Playing: "The Yee-Haw Factor"
>> Bela Fleck & The Flecktones
>
Vic Wooten and "Future Man" always throw out authoritative bass. You
have to like this kind of bass though... When mixed with high-pitch
electric banjo and "synth" harp, it means hard work at both ends of
the basilar membranes. :)
--
,
Sebastien Playing: "Flight Of The Cosmic Hippo"
Andy Sheen
>>>>> "epotter" == epotter <epo...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>>
>> >an esoteric solid core cable that
>> Don't feel bad, it would have smoked a Naim amp too :-(
>>
>> Hello, would one of you explain, please. Why did the cable blow the fuses?
epotter> Was the speaker of really low impedance?
epotter> No criticism of anyone implied here, just honestly puzzled.
No, it's nothing to do with impedance of the speaker, but the design
of the output stage of the amplifier. Naim amps (in particular) are
essentially "unstable" designs (at high frequencies). They have no
output inductor to surpress this behaviour and rely on the cable to
supply the few mH of inductance necessary to stop the amp
oscillating. Naim recommend multistranded parallel cable (i.e. NACA-5)
which provides this inductance load. Litz type cables have a
relatively high capacitance and relatively low inductance thus causing
the amps to oscillate (wildly) in the couple of hundred kHz region.
Since the amps have no fuses (as far as I remember) in anything but
the mains cable and they have beefy power supplies, the output
transistors just blow up (after dumping lots of heat into the
heatsink!!). Trust me, I know....
Eviudently, the reason for all this is that the amps sound better this
way. Following the instructions (and advice of the well trained
dealer) should avoid all problems :-)
Andy
Michael Wong
In article <16SEP96.00...@music.mus.polymtl.ca>,
NA...@music.mus.polymtl.ca says...
>>I know a guy with a brand spanking new Technics A/V receiver that shuts
>>down whenever he turns it up (it
>>never gets anywhere near as loud as his old Harman-Kardon 50wpc amp did), and
>>no, it isn't defective or damaged (at least, the repairman said there was
>>nothing wrong with it, so my friend has no options). It shuts down because
>>it's a lousy amp (I think the model number is SA-550GX but I could be wrong),
>>and the fact that it SUPPOSEDLY generates 100wpc into 8 ohms doesn't
>>change the reality that it can't go as loud as a 50wpc competing amp
>>before it overloads and shuts down.
> Please post all relevent technical info about the Technics and H-K
> receivers, Bose speakers and musical material reproduced during
> "overload leading to shutdown" (also, make sure to include model
> numbers).
I believe I already posted the Technics model number, unless my memory is
faulty, the Bose speakers are 301's, and I don't have the H-K model number
although I do know that its spec sheet rates it for 50 watts per channel. It
shuts down on bass notes or impulses on any musical material that contains this
sort of information, although we only tried various rock and roll CD's like
Pink Floyd, Metallica, and Tesla.
>>But take two 100wpc amps into two identical pairs of speakers, and you can't
>>guarantee that the real-world clipping level for the two amps will be the
>>same, in spite of the fact that they have identical frequency response and
>>8 ohm power ratings. By restricting your tests to "no clip" conditions,
>>you negate the effect that not all 100wpc amps are the same, because some
>>of them overload so much earlier.
> While there's no magic in "output power at clipping", there's some
> in _rated_ power and it's called __arbitrariness__... (Remember that
> some of the specs touted, often incorrectly, on salesfloors, e.g.
> clipping and dynamic headroom (dB), are referenced to _rated_ power,
> so the lower the _rated_ power, the higher these headrooms :) ). This
> is one good reason not to rely entirely on manufacturer specs in BLTs,
> but to monitor the actual waveform at the output terminals to make
> sure the amps aren't driven into clipping. In Joe Blow's listening
> room however, there's no monitoring equipment but psychoacoustics is
> at work: there's a 3-6 dBW "cushion" before audibility of clipping,
> which means that an amp can overload in output power two to four times
> (depending on the type of musical material being reproduced) its
> unclipped power before clipped and unclipped sounds can be reliably
> perceived as different (reason: _subjective_ loudness is mostly
> related to average, not peak, sound levels).
>
> SOURCE: "Loudspeaker Power Needs", Roy Allison, Stereo Review,
> Sept. 1973, pp. 69-73.
Audibility of clipping is one thing. Overload and shutdown is another. I
don't doubt that we might not have been able to discern exactly when one or
both of the amps started clipping, IF they in fact were clipping at all. But
to the best of our knowledge, neither amp was clipping; one of them simply
overloaded and shut completely down. Audibility of shutdowns is fairly well
recognized, even if there is some dispute about audibility of clipping.
> Methinks you're clutching at straws. Again.
How about you go and explain to my friend here that he actually made the right
purchase with his "Old Faithful Shutdown" A/V receiver? Frankly, HE's the only
one clutching at straws right now, thanks to the mass-market idea that ANY amp
rated for 100wpc into 8 ohms will do for the average guy.
Of course, since you don't own one of these junk amps, you have the luxury of
not having to worry about that part of the market or incorporate it into any of
your discussions.