# Is there a real benefit to preamps or two channel amps in HT?



## Rambo4 (Jan 25, 2008)

This is more of a general question, as it gnaws at me a bit because I don't quite understand the benefit to your system to have these amps hooked up. 

From my own experience I have a dedicated room and a 7.1 HK 635 receiver that puts out 75 watts of quality power to all speakers, and the max I can stand volume-wise is around the -15dB mark. I guess what I would like to know is how would it benefit someone to purchase more power, if you already cannot max out your volume without much discomfort. :hush:

Again, I have never looked into this type of equipment much, but as I read posts on this forum, I get curious and would like to find out more. And given that I am sure there is a logical reason to purchase an amp, preamp, etc. where would one look to research an entry level amp? 

Or save money for a better receiver and be done with it. :dontknow:


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

Well, back in the “old days” it was said that your amplifier section was pretty much maxed out with the volume knob at about the halfway mark. I.e., visualizing a level meter that swings up and down with program material, further increases were merely pushing the “down” signal up against the ceiling (otherwise known as clipping).

Not sure how well that translates to modern equipment with digital volume controls, but the theory should be the same. So, if you’re never getting your volume control passed the half-way mark (I’d determine that by min. and max. readings on the digital volume indicator) you’re probably fine. 

Keep in mind that if you do get an outboard amp, the conventional wisdom is that you have to double current power or it’s not worthwhile.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Rambo4 (Jan 25, 2008)

Thanks for cutting through some of the jargon, Wayne. I felt I may be missing out. I always had amps in my car stereo days, but turning the stereo past one quarter would render you immobile. I prefer quality to quantity nowadays, so it's good to know amps for home theater aren't a complete necessity.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

In order to get "better" sound quality when going with amps and pre amps you need to look at spending allot more. Most receivers in the $600+ range have very good amplification built in. Going with separates once in this range is in my opinion a waist of money. The only advantage with a separate amp is on the mains as this relieves the receiver of some of the load and alows the other 5 channels to get the full power available as some movies these days will use all 7 channels simultaneously at fairly good levels taxing the power supply in the receiver.


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2008)

Well I'll chime in. Although I'm a relative noob to home theatre, I do have some experience with speakers and amps.

If we knew what speakers you're using we could also tell if your receiver is putting out adequate power. For example if you're pushing 75w into speakers that are expecting to see 200w of power and you're running at moderate to high levels(which -15dB generally is in a digital receiver) you could be significantly under powering the speakers. For average volume program material you're probably fine, but when that big explosion hits the amp needs to draw more power in order to reproduce the sound. If this transient requires more power than the 75w it's capable of, then it goes into clipping. This sounds bad and is potentially hazardous to your amp and speakers. If you're running into 20w speakers this scenario likely won't be an issue.

However there is the subjective sound quality issue that dedicated amplifiers sound better than IC based amps in all in one receiver amp combos, and that bi-amping can sound better than using an active crossover. However as tony eluded to, it starts to take way more money and you run into the law of diminishing returns. 

I'm not really sure what the best bang for the buck would be in the entry level. Some of the more sought after amps come from Bryston, McIntosh, Crown, Krell etc. Any one of these will be multiple thousands of dollars for a surround setup.


----------



## Rambo4 (Jan 25, 2008)

Thanks for chiming in.  The speakers are all Athena Audition Series bookshelf speakers... As-B2's, As-B1's. Center is AS-C1, and surrounds are As-R1.2's.

Average around 91dB sensitivity, and power handling around the 150 watt area. About double of what the Harman is pushing.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

With that sensitivity and at 150watts your HK will probably be fine although if running a movie with alot of surround use it will most likely run out of steam well below the 75watt output. HK is good at rating there amps properly so it should be fairly accurate to 75watts.


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2008)

Yeah what Tony said. You probably have enough power for those speakers as long as you're running not to hot. However also like Tony said, if you're running a bit louder and particularly if there is a lot of surround information, you would probably be running your amp into clipping at least on louder parts of the program. Not only will this sound bad, but over time could be damaging to both your amp and your speakers.


----------



## PT800 (Feb 19, 2008)

One thing you didn't mention is the size of your room.
I also have the 635, but I power 5 of the channels with a Parasound 220wpc amp, the speakers are rated for 250w. Only the rear channels are powered by the HK. In a room 3130(sliding doors closed)~6400 cuft. Counting subs, 4100w total.
For most movie channels, I've got the master volume between -20 ~ -15. The speakers are rated @ 91db, and have a quite smooth top end, not edgey.
So even though the HK is conservtively rated, if your room is quite large it would help to use more power.


----------



## Rambo4 (Jan 25, 2008)

I never thought of it that way... I have a 18 x 14 x 8 ft room. So a little over 2000 cubic ft.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2008)

Well I'll have to disagree with you somewhat here DS-21. If you're running speakers that are significantly more powerful than your amp, you will suffer significant loss of performance. Now you could upgrade your receiver yes, but most modern receivers don't offer enough power to run larger speakers. For example here at work, we have a cheap yamaha receiver then going into QSC power amps to run some 12" 2 way speakers. The yamaha(or almost all modern receivers) doesn't have nearly enough power to run those speakers. particularly when we have to jack it up a little bit to impress clients. 

As you said this can also be the case for smaller but less efficient speakers as well. Dynaudios for example are famously inefficient but sound amazing. In order to power many of them to their maximum potential they would require an external amp.

Also when you do run discrete components they often are of higher quality than all in one solutions. Now this will give you marginally better return for a much higher investment, but still an improvement. Your always fighting against the law of diminishing returns, but it is hardly a silly waste of money, at least if you're striving for the highest audio quality.


----------



## Rambo4 (Jan 25, 2008)

> Also when you do run discrete components they often are of higher quality than all in one solutions. Now this will give you marginally better return for a much higher investment, but still an improvement. Your always fighting against the law of diminishing returns, but it is hardly a silly waste of money, at least if you're striving for the highest audio quality


.

I can see your point, I suspect I would really get the "most" out my setup this way. But when the price of an amp is close to that of my receiver and speakers together (@$2000), I am a bit hesitant. If I find one second hand for the right price I will likely go that route, but until then I will stick with what I have. For the sake of my marriage. :whistling:

Having had amps in my car stereo days, I am a bit concerned with the amount of hiss that would come through as a result of upping the power? I assume nowadays the quality amplifiers for the home have no issue at all with this.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Rambo4 said:


> .
> I am a bit concerned with the amount of hiss that would come through as a result of upping the power? I assume nowadays the quality amplifiers for the home have no issue at all with this.


If you have the input levels and the gain structure right there is usually no issue with this.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2008)

DS-21 said:


> As for preamps, the main benefit (in addition to the above) is that separates are the traditional audiophile route, so your system will have greater audiophile appeal.


Just a decent pre amp will sound better than most receivers used as pre amps. It is not an "audiophile" thing, it is about better sound. One has to look at what they want to do with their system, 2 Ch or HT? For 2 Ch, using a receiver is a good starting block for those on a limited budget. But for improvement in sound quality separate pre amps and power amps will never be beat by a receiver. Will it cost more, probably, but it is up to each person to decide if the cost is worth it. Nobody can decide that for you.



> The main disadvantage is that it's generally cheaper today to buy a new fully-featured, sonically transparent AVR than to buy a new preamp.


No component is sonically transparent - *every* component has their own signature which they add to the sound throughout the entire chain. And the biggest culprit to corrupt your sound, your room.



> Otherwise, adding a separate amp to a receiver a silly waste of money.


Now this I agree with to a point....unless one is upgrading parts of their system at a time. The power amps may come first, then a new processor (HT) or pre amp (2ch).

Remember there are Pre Amps out there with HT passthrough, so one can have a 2CH setup but also be able to integrate HT into it.

But if one is completely into the HT thing, then there is no need for a 2ch pre amp.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

dtb300 said:


> Just a decent pre amp will sound better than most receivers used as pre amps. It is not an "audiophile" thing, it is about better sound. ..... But for improvement in sound quality separate pre amps and power amps will never be beat by a receiver. Will it cost more, probably


This was the case up until about 3 years ago but is no longer. I would challenge anybody to prove that separates "sound" better than a good quality $700 or more HTR. On paper they may look better but in real life use I highly doubt this unless as I have stated before you spend a huge amount more.

The mass production of parts used in building all of the HTR's and pre-pro equipment has lowerd the cost of the high quality DA's and such that this is no longer true. I have a close friend who has a Sunfire Pre Pro along with a Sunfire multi channel amp and neither he or myself can hear any difference between my system or his.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2008)

tonyvdb said:


> This was the case up untill about 3 years ago but is no longer. I would challenge anybody to prove that separates "sound" better than a good quality $700 or more HTR. On paper they may look better but in real life use I highly doubt this unless as I have stated before you spend a huge amount more.


I have heard many a Pre-Power Amp combo costing almost the same as the Yamaha, Denon, Onkyo HTR stuff and the 2ch sound quality is much better - more like the real thing - but never the equivalent of the real thing. An example was an ARC LS-2 and a Sunfire Amp (2ch) (person spent under $1000 for them) which was against a Yamaha RX-V2500 with a modified Sony CD Player as the source.

But the REAL question here is can one HEAR the differences. If you cannot hear anything, then love your HTR's and move on as it really does not matter what someone else thinks of your setup, it is yours to love or hate.

Yes you can spend SIGNIFICANT amounts of money on separates, but one has to decide if it is worth it or not. And like hearing the difference, the amount you decide to spend is all personal preference.



> The mass production of parts used in building all of the HTR's and pre-pro equipment has lowerd the cost of the high quality DA's and such that this is no longer true. I have a close friend who has a Sunfire Pre Pro along with a Sunfire multi channel amp and neither he or myself can hear any difference between my system or his.


Quality DA's? Are you talking about DAC's (Digital-Analog Converters) here? If so, there is SO MUCH more to it than just the DAC's.

For your tests, you have done side by side comparisons with the same speakers, in the same room with the same source, with the same cables, with the same power and have determined their sound is exactly the same??? Just curious on how your did your testing and comparisons other than just your opinions on the sound. And how do you base your opinions on the sound you are hearing? Just what you think it should sound like or do you use a Movie Theater - plain jane, IMAX 180 like in Boston, live music - what venues, un-amplified, amplified, singers, acoustical, electric, piano, etc.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

dtb300 said:


> Just curious on how your did your testing and comparisons other than just your opinions on the sound. And how do you base your opinions on the sound you are hearing?


I'm not trying to start any sort of debate here so lets keep this nice.

Im really referring to the entire signal path not just the DACs etc. 
He was so impressed with how good the Onkyo sounded that he sold his equipment and bought an Onkyo 875 and put the money he saved towards a projector. His system sounds just as good as before in his and my opinion.
I fully agree that separates can sound better but at a significant cost over all with little gain in quality as some of already said.
The new receivers like the Onkyo 805 have a Pure Direct mode for two channel listening and this works fantastic for the purists who want little to no processing of the signal.


----------



## PT800 (Feb 19, 2008)

Even though I currently use a HTR for a pre/pro, I would say there are very few, if any, receivers that have the same quality circuits to the pre outs as a real pre/pro.
As for two channel, a good pair of separates will always be better than a receiver or integrated amp. And I have done that direct comparision, in same room, with same speakers.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2008)

PT800 said:


> Even though I currently use a HTR for a pre/pro, I would say there are very few, if any, receivers that have the same quality circuits to the pre outs as a real pre/pro.


Could not agree more. Sure one can spend some large dollars on a Pre/Pro, but there are some good Pre/Pro's out there as the same price at the HTR's and they sound better. Even with pass-through, both HTR and Pre/Pro's affect the sound quality you hear - each imparts something on the playback.

Again, "better" needs to be defined. Sometimes better is based on live music - which in itself can sound great and very poor - then, is the live music amplified or not. The second way to define better is what a person perceives as better - which is very objective unless you are very familiar with their tastes and opinions. Then the cost factor needs to be thrown in - how much do you want to pay for the improvements you hear?

My "better" is based on many types of live music from classical, jazz, and rock/pop at many different venues. My system setup and path for sound is based on a small jazz club, sitting about 5 rows from the stage. Probably the best theater setup I have heard is the IMAX Theater in the Science Center in Boston - but HT is not my main concern.



> As for two channel, a good pair of separates will always be better than a receiver or integrated amp. And I have done that direct comparision, in same room, with same speakers.


Yep....agree 100% with you.


----------



## avaserfi (Jul 5, 2007)

Amp/Receiver audibility as well as the usefulness of more available power has been discussed here as well.

There has been a large amount of _credible research_ conducted by highly regarded sources such as the Journal of Audio Engineering Society. This research has shown that if an amplifier/pre/receiver is properly designed and operating within its design limitations with regard to the speakers being used there will be no audible differences in a controlled double blind situation despite measurable differences due to limitations within human hearing. Typically at home comparisons are done improperly in such a way to introduce bias into the 'study' such that a specific result is more likely to happen. It is important to note that bias can be controlled for with use of proper method, but it cannot be ignored.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2008)

So what are you saying here? Do you agree or disagree? 

Just because a bunch of scientists with figures and numbers state it cannot be so, does not mean squat. Sound and LCR figures have been attempted to be tied together to equate to sound reproduction in a solid irrefutable statement, yet it cannot be done. 

DBT is also something that has its debates too.

There is no real answer other than personal preferences/experiences and budget.


----------



## avaserfi (Jul 5, 2007)

dtb300 said:


> So what are you saying here? Do you agree or disagree?
> 
> Just because a bunch of scientists with figures and numbers state it cannot be so, does not mean squat. Sound and LCR figures have been attempted to be tied together to equate to sound reproduction in a solid irrefutable statement, yet it cannot be done.


If you read the link I posted previously you will quickly find out, that after reading the credible perceptual research, I agree with it. This research was conducted in such a way that it is repeatable and generalizable to real world situations.

There have been many cases where, with proper testing, audibility of various aspects with regard to electronic and speaker design have been quantified. This includes resonances, distortion and frequency anomalies etc...



dtb300 said:


> DBT is also something that has its debates too.


Typically, double-blind testing is only questioned by audiophiles who prefer to believe their biased opinions over credible, reproducible and generalizable, experiments that have been peer reviewed.



dtb300 said:


> There is no real answer other than personal preferences/experiences and budget.


With proper knowledge one could buy a equipment and speakers based off of this credible research and tailor virtually any specific response. This would allow for optimal sound quality within any budget rather than simply auditioning speakers until one that comes as close as possible to this ideal is found.

I again suggest that everyone read the thread I linked in my previous post as it has discussion that relates directly to the direction this thread seems to be heading.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2008)

DS-21 said:


> But outside of improvements in signal processing, anyone making a statement about personal preferences regarding _sound quality_ in the commodity parts that are modern audio electronics is simply deluding her/him-self and possibly wasting money. It _doesn't_ sound better, unless one of the two pieces of gear are broken.


And this is where we disagree. The parts used in "A" and "B" all come down to how they are used as a whole and not just the parts. Opening up component "A" and "B" and noting similar used parts does not mean they will sound the same. A lot of cables are made of copper and teflon dielectric using the same connectors. But there can be a difference in sound between the two in my experience with either known or DBT testing. Yet, again the same parts, the same everything, but there is a difference.



> But that doesn't mean go with the cheapest thing always.


Agree 100% And it also does not mean going for more expensive or most expensive equates to better sound.



> For example, I just bought a big new Denon receiver because I imagine once set up properly it probably will sound better than my old Panasonic XR55*.


And a GREAT reason to purchase the Denon. But were you willing to spend the extra cash on "probably sound better"? For myself, I would have to audition to see.



> I spent the extra money because I liked the looks of the Denon better, much preferred the setup interface, and because frankly I consider Denon a more prestigious brand. But I sure didn't delude myself into thinking that the higher price point meant that it "sounded better."


And another point to consider when purchasing. Some will not buy a silver component as they have all black. But did you ever consider listening to the more expensive one to see if there was a difference and was the extra cost worth it? 



> So I don't think it's unreasonable to say that ~$300 in competent commodity audio electronics will buy one equivalent sonic performance (assuming no advanced signal processing in the more expensive gear) of at least $15k worth of competent separates.


The absurd upper tier of audio is for the "look what I own" factor more than anything. Does a $15k component sound better than a $1k of the same thing? Maybe, maybe not but who are we to stand in the way of someone wanting to purchase it? They want it just as much as you wanted the Denon, but for a completely different reason. They probably think you are as nuts for purchasing by looks and name as you think they are for the $15k purchase. It is each persons opinion - neither is right and neither is wrong.

The audio world is not clear-cut and there is no bottom line as what to buy, how much to pay. People say to use Live Music as your guide to purchasing audio and how it sounds. But live can sound great and terrible - so which do we base it on  We will never get our systems sounding like live - NEVER. So getting our setups to sound the best for our ears, our preferences, and our rooms is really what it is all about. And the amount spent is really down to each of us and should never be debated by others - it is not their business.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2008)

DS-21 said:


> Also, modern signal processing (TacT/Lyngdorf, DEQX, Audyssey, Meridian's system, Lexicon's system, etc.) can certainly (but, to be sure, won't always) make a system sound better than that system would in a so-called "pure direct" mode, so that's that's the one wrinkle that might lead to legitimately different (and thus, either better or worse) sound quality in commodity audio electronics. (And yes, a Krell, Halcro, or YBA piece of gear is just as much a commodity part as a Behringer, Sony, or Crown.)
> 
> But outside of improvements in signal processing, anyone making a statement about personal preferences regarding _sound quality_ in the commodity parts that are modern audio electronics is simply deluding her/him-self and possibly wasting money. It _doesn't_ sound better, unless one of the two pieces of gear are broken.


Just to be clear: Are you stating that with the exception of different signal processing algorithms any two similar pieces of audio equipment(lets use amplifiers as an example) will sound identical unless one of them is broken? Are you also stating the the only reason to pay more for equipment, is because of service issues, looks, and features, and prestige?

If I am interpreting your post correctly, then I'm afraid I've never heard anything more ludicrous. If I've somehow misrepresented your post than I apologize and would ask for clarification.


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

<Mod Hat On>
This thread is skating on the edge of the "Shack" respect for others. Let's not get so personal. I'm not calling anyone out -- just letting everyone know I'd like everyone to be more respectful. 
Thank you.
<Mod Hat Off>

I think there isn't that much of a difference in sound quality for most brands of electronics at the same price point. I think for the most part, most of the technology is pretty mature. Even with amps, I think mot amps are going to sound pretty close to the same, assuming they're the same class (a, a/b, d, g...). There will be exceptions, but that's my general belief.

I think there are benefits to a pre/pro and amp combo as well. Subtle, for sure.. and probably inaudible to most folks in most setups, but real none the less. But that would be a distant third to speakers and the acoustics of the room.

JCD


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

dtb300’s has been terminated for his rude and confrontational tone, and for not editing his posts when requested. I commend the rest of you guys for keeping it civil and not getting sucked in.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2008)

DS-21 said:


> I think that's as good a summation of the current state of audio electronics as any, so long as certain assumptions aren't broken. For amps, that they can safely drive the load one's speakers present and have sufficient power to reach the desired listening room SPL, for instance.
> 
> Obviously, those statements do not apply to speakers, turntable cartridges, etc. In those fields, it does take a considerable sum of money to get really great sound.



Well I'm not sure where to start with this. I guess I'll start with my experience first. 

I'm an audio engineer by trade. Audio engineer's come a little from the other side of the fence of most home theatre buffs. Our gear buying isn't a hobby, it's a business. We can't buy a piece of gear just because it matches our decor, or because the company has a good service reputation. The only reason we buy gear is to make money from it. If buying a new piece of gear won't make us money, generally we don't buy it.(Although we can still be subject to the ubiquitous GAS, or Gear Acquisition Syndrome.) As such we won't buy a piece of gear that is more expensive than another piece of gear, unless it is going to make us comparably more money to justify the price difference. Now sometimes there is the bling factor, where buying a certain brand, or a nice looking piece of kit will attract more customers, but most of the time that's not an issue.

Specifically looking at two pieces of gear, pre-amps and power amps, the only real buying influence is performance. Not colour, or aesthetics, or even usually features, as features on these units are typically all the same: they make signal louder. So why do we spend x thousands of dollars more for primo equipment, when we could spend a few cents on the dollar and get the behringer, or realistic, or X budget brand unit? Because it sounds better. Even with the same amp types, power ratings etc. If you could get accurate specs out of the budget piece, you can see it on paper, but you don't even have to, it's easy to hear. Now I'm not saying it's the type of difference like going from iPod earbuds to Grado headphones, but it's not some little unquantifiable audiophile difference like "danceable" cables. In other words my wife can hear it.(just for clarity, she is almost tone deaf and doesn't care at all about audio)

These difference have been proven time and again by well calibrated double blind ABX tests, where the better quality gear stands head and shoulders above lesser quality gear. Notice I didn't say the more expensive gear, because it's certainly not always about price, it's about quality. And always, even if there's not a clear "better and worse" there is almost always a difference. Two pieces of gear doing the same job, in the same class with the same power, almost never sound the same, to the discerning ear.

So that is my definitive experience. Different pieces of gear, of similar build parts, power, capabilities, and function sound radically different. Whether it is better or worse is based on your own personal aesthetic. Now some might argue, that this is in a recording studio, it doesn't affect home theatre. But these are the same pieces of gear, doing the same jobs, just at the other end of the signal chain.


----------



## Blaser (Aug 28, 2006)

I have seen posts about sound quality discussion that caught my attention. SQ is not about listening tests or better DAC or whatever. SQ refers to fidelity with regards the input signal. An amp that distorts the output the least will be provide the best SQ. This cannot be determined by listening tests or mood (what sounds good to your ears today might be unappreciated tomorrow), but measurements.


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2008)

DS-21 said:


> Intuitively, to me that would lead to the conclusion that durability and the maker/marketer's service reputation are crucially important. Perhaps as much so as sonics. But it's not my industry.


 Sound quality is paramount above all else. Service after the sale, is certainly important, and takes consideration, but really only after the sonics are more or less equal. This is why people still use pieces of equipment that are 50 years old, have no suitable replacement parts, and are in constant need of upkeep. Just to get _that_ sound. Now after the repairs and downtime become more costly, than the benefit of having that sound, then service issues become much more important. Just trying to make a living you know. Gets harder every year in this business too.




> Alternately, because it is better designed for the duty cycles required in your line of work. Some of the Behringer stuff may well not be suited for high-duty commercial audio use. However, the fact that it isn't - or priced like gear that is - does not preclude its use in top-flight home stereos. (I don't own any Behringer gear right now, because I find it ugly and have equal or better functionality from other stuff that better fits my aesthetic preferences.)


Certainly Behringer doesn't suit my aesthetics either, for a variety of reasons. Behringer has made a few decent products that I've used, but in general, amongst the products that I've used, their noise floor is higher than competing products, they're are not laid out as well, they use shoddier components, and they are far more prone to failure. These things I would think affect the home theatre enthusiast as much as the professional user. Of course this also doesn't say anything about their corporate ethics issues for which they are almost as infamous as their product line. 



DS-21 said:


> Ugh, I think I'd rather listen to awful iPod earbuds than Grados, because at least the iPod buds were free. I'm not into paying to torture my ears. (I'm a Sennheiser '580/600/650 + Ety guy.)


Again just a preference thing. I'm a big fan of the 650's although right now I'm mostly using a pair of Beyerdynamics. 



DS-21 said:


> That's the kind of statement that requires a cite, given the overwhelming weight of evidence (starting at the very latest with Clark's 1983 JAES paper) to the contrary. Assuming, of course, that factors known to be audible *(FR, certain orders and levels of distortion, noise, etc.)* were not measurably different between the two. I think such a finding would be at the very least highly publishable and of enormous marketing value to the firms whose gear prevailed in such a session.


emphasis added.

Ok I guess this is where the rubber meets the road, and where I think our two arguments meet. All the double blind ABX tests that I was referring to, were ones that I either designed myself or was present at. Thus there was no official publication of our findings. Here's the key: Of course if there is a sonic difference there will also be a corresponding measurable difference. I never claimed that there wouldn't be a measurable difference, however often these differences will not show up on a standard spec sheet, which is often what people are using to judge which product to buy. For example on a spec sheet from a Behringer preamp(which I used to own by the way) the THD is measured at .001%. On a Millenia preamp, which is one of the more revered transparent preamps, the THD is also measured at .001%. So if we are to simplify the comparison down to this spec, by your logic the two pieces will sound identical. This however is not the case. When we dig a little deeper, the behringer offers no other information. However the Millenia product states that the THD .001% from 10Hz-20kHz at +27dBu output. Quite a different story is told.

I never would have bothered to argue your point if you had said that two pieces of gear that have identically measurements will sound the same, but that wasn't your initial statement.


DS-21 said:


> But outside of improvements in signal processing, anyone making a statement about personal preferences regarding sound quality in the commodity parts that are modern audio electronics is simply deluding her/him-self and possibly wasting money. It doesn't sound better, unless one of the two pieces of gear are broken.


This is your initial statement which I take opposition to. You weren't claiming that different pieces of equipment with the same specs sound the same, you were saying that all equipment sounds the same. I would also say even if the specs are the "same" two pieces will still sound different as specs never tell the whole story.

The other thing when using measurements only as a gauge of sound quality, you need to measure every possible component in every possible quantifiable way. Not easy to do, and never done on a spec sheet. With a proper level matched ABX test I can very quickly discern if there is a difference in sound quality. I may not be able to tell you what the exact difference is, or even which one you'll prefer, but I will be able to tell you if there is a difference or not. You can easily verify this with a null test.

Also we haven't talked about different types of components. IC's don't sound the same as transisters which don't sound the same as tubes. You stating that all modern audio components sound the same, ignores all of these variables. So a seperate transistor preamp and tube power amp are going to sound different than an IC AVR. Better or worse is not for me to say.(although you could probably guess my opinion.)



DS-21 said:


> No argument here. At all. The idea that DSP will correct for severe flaws in system design such as haphazard speaker placement, non-constant directivity in the midband, use of a toppled-MTM center channel, or inadequate radiating area for low-distortion, low-compression lower midrange reproduction is off-base. However, I do not believe anyone here holds that position. I think the prevailing view (or at least my view, which if it isn't the prevailing view should be it) is that room correction is like the cream you put in after you've brewed a great cup of coffee in a French press. Start with bad coffee, and you'll never get there. Start with some coarsely ground Julius Meinl Jubilaeum blend, and you'll get a perfect Viennese melange.


Just a different methodology then. You're choosing to add your own flavour after the fact rather than listen to the ideal of what the artist wished to create. This is not a bad thing, just maybe not the way of the purist, who would drink their coffee black:T


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2008)

tonyvdb said:


> You make some good points in your above post my only comment is on this section. You have to remember that an EQ or the so called room correction system is to get the sound coming out of the speakers in a room to sound like the original recording as close as possible. The problem is that room acoustics severally effects the sound, a "perfect room" should need little correction of the sound and a flat response is what you would get "if" the speakers are designed properly without any color. The issue is this is rarely the case. The other problem is that some recording studio's dont follow the rules and tweak there system so it is not flat to begin with and adds color to the sound even before it is mastered.


Yes unfortunately as was in the article I posted, EQ can never fix room deficiencies. A "perfect room" should need no correction, regardless of the speakers used. However there are precious few of these rooms in the entire world. I can only think of one of the top of my head which might even be considered. 

As far as the recording studios, changing the response of their monitoring systems, this is generally frowned upon, and rarely happens. More often is the case that perhaps the studio can't afford proper monitoring or room treatment. Either way it is rather irrelevant as this is the point of creation. If the artist got things how he wanted to sound in that room and it translates well to other systems than the project, and the room that it was created in was a success. Proving again, that in the creation of art, there are no rules.


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2008)

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Assuming Rod Elliot was referring to equalization, we get a contrasting (conflicting?) view from Rane’s Exposing Equalizer Mythology by Dennis Bohn (bold emphasis added):
> 
> _“Phase shift is not a bad word._ It is the glue at the heart of what we do, holding everything together. That it has become a maligned term is most unfortunate. This belief stands in the way of people really understanding the requirements for room equalization.
> 
> ...


You are correct, but I belive Mr. Elliot was thinking on a slightly different line. Of course when dealing with EQ's amplitude and phase are related(with the exception of a linear phase EQ). In the real world(no EQ) they are not so incontrovertably linked. You can have the identical phase of two signals with two completely, even opposite amplitudes. Also the time which Mr. Elliot and yourself are referring to are on different scales. a 10 degree phase shift at 80 Hz (wavelenghth of 4.2m) takes a little over a 1000th of a second. Room nodes can cause differences in time of an 80Hz note of a second or more. So an EQ(even a very poor "phasey" EQ) can come nowhere close to adjusting that kind of time.

PS. Someone please correct me if my math is wrong, it's been quite some time since I've had to work out any formulas.:huh:


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2008)

DS-21 said:


> I don't doubt any of that. However, "that sound" as you put it is by definition a coloration, a deviation from sonic accuracy. I'm proceeding from the assumption of someone interested in recapturing what someone like you originally put on the disk/file, which is that the sound one wants from one's electronics is no sound at all. Such sonic transparency is by and large attainable today for very, very little capital outlay in electronics, because most gear from the middle-low-end to the middle-high-end is designed for that end. At the blue light special end, one's more likely to see nonflat FR, e.g. the Sonic Impact T-amp, which sounds so much like a SET because it has no power and significant rolloffs at the frequency extremes. Likewise, much of the stuff at the tippy-top of the "high end" is not so much "designed" as "haphazardly thrown together on a kitchen table," though there are certainly exceptions in the bleeding price sphere (Meridian, Lexicon, TacT, etc.).


Colouration is not always the goal. Often pure transparency is required in a piece of gear. Particularly amplifiers. True transparency can be just as expensive as boutique "flavoured" gear. Now it's possible that manufacturers can use cheap IC components to create pure sonic transparency for just a few dollars, but if they can, there must be a huge conspiracy amongst all the manufacturers to gouge us end users, by not releasing these cheap transparent pieces of equipment. Ockham's Razor would disagree, but this certainly doesn't mean that it's impossible.





DS-21 said:


> With that caveat in place, I agree that we're more-or-less in agreement.
> 
> The only difference then, perhaps, is whether a corresponding measurable difference falls within the range of audibility. I don't think that just because there's a measurable difference there will be an audible difference. Take THD, which is by-and-large a meaningless number anyway. A difference between 0.0001% and 1% THD may not be at all audible, depending on where it falls. If it's 2nd order distortion, then it probably won't be. If the distortion spectrum is a high odd order, then it is far more likely to be audibly different. That's not to say that higher measured accuracy isn't ipso facto "better," but only that when one thinks of an audio system in its totality for someone with limited resources, the wise and rational course is to spend as little on things of no to debatably marginal audible difference, and transfer the money that would otherwise be squandered on commodity boxes into superior speakers and


Absolutely, not all measurement differences are audible. Also all audible differences are somehow measurable. However what is audible to some might not be audible to others. I'm not talking about these "golden ears" who supposedly have hearing like dogs. It has more to do with training. For example, my hearing is very good(tested annually by an audiologist), however I am still learning to hear things that I have never heard before. Depth for example can be something difficult to quantify. Particularly with a mono source. However a much more experienced engineer and I did an ABX shootout with some microphones, and he showed me how with certain mics depth can be achieved with a mono source. I couldn't hear what he was talking about at first, until he started to describe it to me, and then bam! I could hear what he was talking about. After that, I could hear this every time, and even compare this new variable between other mics. This is not a function of the human ear but of the brain. I became aware of what my ear was hearing all along, making it a reality for me. My hearing will continue to deteriorate as I grow older, and will never be as good as it is today.(without vast increases in medical science) However my listening improves every day. 



DS-21 said:


> I use the shorthand "broken" to cover "components with audible differences due to measured failings in one or more areas that cross established thresholds of audibility." Why? Because it's either broken in that something's physically working wrong, or "broken" in that the design process intentionally led to something deviating from sonic transparency.


With this in mind I consider from the point of sonic transparency that there are a great deal of "broken" audio equipment out there. I would even say the majority.






DS-21 said:


> Here we disagree. I've done DBT's (can't call them full ABX because switching was manual rather than the superior method with a comparator box) that found tube amps (Sonic Frontiers) to sound the same as transistor amps (Classe, so by extension Adcom given that the Classe and Adcom amps sounded the same), and DBT's that showed rather unique chip amps (the TI PurePath DAC+amp stage in the Panasonic XR55 receiver) to sound the same as traditional bipolar chip amps. So I think that all of the currently available technologies can lead to sonic transparency if that was the design goal to begin with. Admittedly, for some of the stuff (mostly at the very high end) that is not necessarily the goal.
> 
> Now, I agree that _badly designed_ tube gear is going to sound different. Not to say that someone may well prefer the colored sound. But sometimes it's just plain badly design, such as a conrad johnson preamp I once auditioned that had a massive channel imbalance. And no balance control, of course.


It is very difficult to do DB ABX tests with amplifiers. It requires a very complex testing system. One thing to consider. Even the absolute best tube designs are not completely linear, depending on signal level. So if you ran a hotter or quieter signal your findings could have been different. Also I would be shocked to find a tube amp and an IC amp that measure identically. Those measurement differences are there to be sure. So I guess what we're arguing is whether these differences are audible or not. Something one can really only decide for oneself.




DS-21 said:


> Quite the contrary. A sonically transparent piece of gear will faithfully transmit all of the colorations that the recording artist intended to be in there. It won't add more.


 True. I am just hypothesizing that your DSP adding EQ to final signal is colouring the original signal, despite what the gear might be reproducing.




DS-21 said:


> Depends on the kind of purist. If one's trying to reproduce the perfect cup of coffee (for me, a melange from Cafe Havelka on Dorotheregasse in Vienna, which is what Gustav Mahler drank, _kaffeekultur_ being of course an Austrian innovation that the Italians were more adept at marketing to the world), then one will of course add milk.


I was just trying to use he analogy to make a point. Not enough up on coffee history to keep up with you. I'm perfectly happy with Haitian Blue, 1 cream 1 sugar.:T


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

Guys,

Since the discussion was getting seriously sidetracked with the DSP / time domain EQ issue, we’ve moved that part of the discussion over to the Waterfalls thread on the REW Forum. That required editing some of your posts to keep both discussions intact, so hopefully I have accomplished that without mangling your posts too bad. Anyone still interested in commenting on the DSP / EQ thing, please post on the other thread.

Regards,
Wayne


----------

