Best Amp for Timbre, Depth and Spatial Resolution?
NVP...your third point makes absolutely no sense at all. Is this discussion really about imagining differences? You can easily test an amp for output balance, and you can test if speakers are matched, and an amp alone has tonal characteristics for days...I think sleep deprivation has set in among the posters. |
BTW, I am not saying all amps sound the same. But an amp alone has no sound. So what specs/measurements on an amp alone can be used to determine a pecking order in regards to timbre, depth, and spatial resolution? I am not sure there are any. But they can be used to determine relative matches to specific speakers. Then you are in business. So you can assess how any particular amp + speaker combo does in this regard, but I am not sure it can be done for amps alone. |
Mapman, I could think at a number of factors. So in no particular order: 1) the spectra balance of the amp. Some amp-speaker combinations can emphasis (or de-emphasis) the frequencies that are more problematic (or less problematic) in one's room. Obviously this ultimately depends on one's room. 2) The ability of the amp to control the subwoofers. 3) Like with the response of the two speakers at the listening position, the amp is also suppose to have zero differences between the left and wright change. How large and/or significant such error are in reality, I do not know. But I can imagine that such differences exist and play a role, as not two components are identical. |
So here's a question in line with the OPs. How does one determine teh pecking order for amps alone in regards to timbre, depth and spatial resolution? There is nothing I know of that canbe measured on an amp that would clearly determine this. The speakers, speaker setup and room acoustics are the most important thing it seems to me. SO if one does the speaker thing right, and has the right amp to drive the speakers to their maximum potential, is there anything else that needs to be addressed explicitly? Just wondering. I'm not so sure there is much more to it than getting the speakers set up well for max performance and using good quality stuff in general upstream to feed it. I'm hoping it might just be that simple? |
I thought the general consensus was that so many show setups were haphazard affairs in bad rooms often using gear that wasn't even broken in, to the extent that it was often impossible to attribute the resultant poor sound to any one piece of the system? If so, then why would any knowledgeable installer use what he heard at a show as proof positive that a given piece was lacking in some way? |
You have to read better; " 6 months ago I listend to the latest 800D. The image was almost flat at the show." We are taking about the presentation at the sho were I was. This was the truth. People at the show found it not a good demo. In other situations it can be different. I even invited the people of B&W to listen to my demo. I was talking with them about depth and 3D. I am Always open and ready to discuss. |
Paul & everyone else, please go on exploring the topic of room correction / timbre. From what I have found, digital correction is simply amazing at healing a smeared image. In my case it is extreme as I have a digital processor in my car. It is the JBL-MS8. Anyhow, I have my left tweeter and mid approximately 1-2 feet away and the right tweeter/mid is 4 feet away. Hooible conditions for imaging and impossible without digital correction. After running acoustic calibration which takes in information through a binaural microphone (L&R ears), I have a locked in center image. The sound appears to come from right in front of me and the speakers "disappear" as people like to say. However, all this processing does something to the sound rendering it slightly mechanical. It sounds great but it will never fool me into thinking that an actual saxophone is playing. |
Per Bo once more... "It is just an opinion. The shows with the latest B&W are Always 2-dimensional." See guys, this is why I find his posts useless. Regarding B&W once again, first he states it is his opinion. This is OK as we all have them. Bo should have stopped there. But then in caps he states B&W are "ALWAYS" 2 dimensional. Now Bo steers into the realm of the factual and starts using absolutes. And what does he base his emphatic conclusion on? His opinion and nothing more. Sorry guys but I can't defend this dude. He is simply so full of himself, even when he attempts to apologize he still comes off as the final authority. But for the record, I don't want Bo censored either. I will continue to read his posts if for anything else, sheer amusement. I have read the ramblings of a lot of big egos on the internet, in all types of forums of different interests, but Bo is making a strong case for the biggest Internet Penis award. |
I apologize for the grammatical errors. I write fast and often do not read it back. And yes english is not my language. When I am critical it is never my attention to bash the product. It is just an opinion. The shows with the latest B&W are Always 2-dimensional. There is some depth, but not the level I want these days. 2 dimensional sound is often a combination by how the speakers project the image and how the amp projects the image. Ofcourse the room will always have a big influence on the sound. 6 months ago I listend to the latest 800D. The image was almost flat at the show. I was at the same show and I had a very deep and wide stage with the same music. This is something every person can hear and compare. Even without Audyssey I created often a deep and wide stage at people there homes. When speakers have a faster respons, the acoustic problems are less. So speed is Always a very important part in audio. To create the best possible 3D sound you need the right mix of speakers, amps, sources, conditioners and cables. |
Wolf, it is a typo of course. It should read "symmetrical" and not "semitonically". I have push the "Submit now" button instead of the "Preview firs" by mistake, and you guys have posted before I was able to edit the post. I'll get back to you regarding the effects of parallel and non-parallel walls. |
I like the Dutch actually, and will call out Bo on his innacurate nonesense (to NOT do so is simply wimpy) until I get tired of it. Paul...really..."semitonically?" (huh?)..."walls of neighboring rooms?"...you are utterly wrong. Non identical walls help cancel standing waves. Placing speakers in unmatched acoustic boundaries does not necessarily remove the soundstage image originally created by the mixer's careful use of panning faders, it merely alters the balance of it (not necessarily a good thing, but that's what ACTUALLY happens). I like to listen to an accurate stereo image (as close to what I feel the engineer was shooting for), and don't need to use corners (note: some serious audio freaks LIKE corners...a lot!), but please don't try to pass this stuff by this crowd as some here actually know what's what. I think this discussion is going very well! |
Paul and Charles +1. I also feel the same as you Charles. Having said that I disagree with Bo WHEN it comes to the LACK of the B&W 800-802 D series speakers to have a 3D stage, width and depth. Besides owning a pair, I have heard them in MANY different systems and WHEN set up properly, per Paul's post, they have a fine 3D stage, etc. Also Bo seems to go out of his way to bash B&W wherever and whenever he can. Bo, the latest D series has a total upgrade to the parts, including wiring, of the crossover. I have heard the speaker brand you tout and while it is a fine speaker, IMHO, it is not any better then the brand you criticize. |
Paul, You're doing just fine with your thoughtful and interesting post, please contribute more. We all have our specific priorities and hierarchy of what's important to achieve in an audio system. I same as you place a very high importance of preserving tone, timbre and harmonics/overtones as realistic as I can accomplish. Charles, |
My initial intention when opening this thread in my browser was to actually share my opinion on the depth and spatial resolution. I'll try to convey also what I think Bo is meaning when he refers to 2D and 3D sound. As English is not my first language, I should apologies in advance for the occasional typos (the post is quite long). Also, since the atmosphere here is a bit "hot", and I was made aware a few times that I might come across as overconfident and/or patronizing, I should also say that this post is in no way meant to be condescending. (I write in English mostly technical/scientific stuff and that is why I might sound rigid and/or overconfident). So here it goes: IMO, speaker placement is the most critical detail for obtaining a good depth and spatial resolution. Changing speakers, amplifiers, cd players, cables, etc. can only do so much if the speakers are not properly placed in ones room. I'll start by note that most often people make sure that the speakers are orientated symmetrically with respect to their listening position, i.e. have the same distance and the same orientation and toe in. Unfortunately, very often that is not enough for obtaining the 3 dimensional sound often referred by Bo. While one obtains a centered voice and, for example, the guitar on the left side and the bass on the right side, everything is pretty much in the same plane, i.e. we have the 2 dimensional sound as referred by Bo. This happens because very often the walls in one's room are not identical from an acoustic point of view. As a result, even though the two speakers are placed symmetrically with respect to the listening position, their frequency response (and wave characteristics) of the two speakers are not similar at the listening position. I'll give two common examples. First, below 300 Hz, the two speakers can have significantly different responses even when the two speakers are placed symmetrically with respect to the room's boundaries. (This happens because we have low standing waves formed due to reflections between the walls of the audio room, but also between the walls of other neighboring rooms with respect to which the speakers are not positioned semitonically.) A second example, is the case of L-shaped rooms, where one speaker is placed close to a corner while the other one close to an opening. In this case the speaker in the corner will not only put out more bas but will always sound a bit louder than the other one. Unless special measures are taken, both these situations will lead to a partial (or complete) loos of the three dimensional spatial information recored on the album. The easiest way to solve this problem is to use a room correction software, which is what Bo is actually doing. He is using as pre-amplfier a high-end Onkyo home theater preamplifier which comes with Audyssey Pro software. Among other things, this software makes sure that the two speakers have identical responses at the listening chair. I have actually told him quite a few times that I believe his claims. However, I have also pointed out quite a few times that the timber of instruments is most often more important that the stereo image sound stage. I'll stop here as the post has gotten very long. If the discussion goes well and people are interested, I will also post my thoughts about the effect of room correction on the timber. Paul |
Posting in forums is "the art of conversation." You have to contribute your own ideas without nailing the topic closed. It stimulates the flow. As we all know this hobby is a quest, not a destination and we are here to trade notes on that quest - not establish a concrete answer to "the best set up." |
Bo, you may not have noticed the post by Roxy54. I realize that English is not your native language, so I hope you will allow me to point out, as he and others in the past have tried to do, that there is no such word in the English language as "wenn." The word is "when." Also, there is only one "n" in "honest." That said, although I certainly don't always agree with your posts, unlike some of the others I see nothing objectionable about them, and I have always considered them to be well-intentioned. Regards, -- Al |
Finally after 50 years I'm able to understand what I didn't understand and what I may not have understood without Bo. Albert Porter, Doug Deacon, and Almarg notwithstanding everything audio begins and ends with Bo. We are all very lucky to be in the presence of such brilliance. And he's Dutch to boot. Long live Bo and tulips. |
My system plays in "3D" without using anyting Bo1972 uses, so I must be VERY lucky. Bo has made it clear that he is all about making the world a better place through sharing his 15 years experience in selling something or other, his listening to music someplace, and his grasp of component "speed." He's a giver, if only based on his capacity for redundancy and lack of brevity, which will continue to cause me to grind my teeth as well as challenge me to come up with creative responses...wouldn't it be great if he turned out to be a parody? Seriously...I'm glad I'm not Dutch! |
For most of you this is a hobby. For me it is what I do for a living for over 15 years of time. I do not see it as work, because it does not cost a lot of energy. It is so much fun to do. Wenn you have the options to test and hear so many different things in audio. You are spoiled and everyone know's it can be addictive sometimes. I am not obsessed by a brand. First of all I love music. You want to feel as much emotion in the music you like as possible. Wenn music plays in full 3D in front of you it effects you differently wenn it plays in 2D to you. In 6 years of time I showed many people the difference between them. Stage depth and wide has a big influence on the music you play. It can set all the different instruments and voices of the recording free in your room. |
I agree Nvp. Again, Bo1972 has a mantra going, and that's just the way he operates. I can see how it is irritating and annoying to you as well as others. I am irritated by it as well, but again, not to the point of being offended. I don't wish to see him banned or censored either. Some of his stuff is actually informative. He's certainly quite a character, but aren't we all in our own way! That's what makes this hobby interesting! All of us are nuts, and you basically have to be to spend this kind of money on this stuff, and the colorful personalities in the audiophile world are one thing that makes it a worthwhile hobby! All imo, of course! |
Hi guys, of course people are free to post their opinions on this forum, and of course Bo is not the only one repeating himself. I've merely asked (albeit without a question mark) how can one alert a moderator. Moderators exist for a reason, plus, I am sure they will not censor one's posts (e.g. Bo's posts) only because another one (e.g. me) will ask them to do so. The reason I have asked that question is because I felt that Bo has monopolized also this thread without offering any real advice. I invite, whoever thinks I am imagining things or that I have an agenda, to quickly check Bo's posts in the thread below: Any bad experience with wilson audio sasha w/p? Unfortunately, as other have mentioned, the thread above is not the only thread poisoned by him (with the same story). While I do not want him band, it would be really nice to have an ignore button. |
Bo, Best 3-D imaging setup I have heard by a huge margin was all mbl system in a well set up dealer showroom. Source was a SOTA modern reference Reel to reel tape. Phono and CD on same system did not fare as well, though still better than most anything else I have heard in terms of 3-D. RTR was full bodied like live performers occupying specific locations you could point to in the large showroom area behind speakers. Phono and CD was similar but thinner less convincing sound in comparison to RTR in both cases. Totally holographic/3-D Exact same dealer's gear sounded average at a show. Showroom optimized for those were key, ie very deep and uniquely shaped and well treated tapered space/area behind speakers. I have heard many other very good 3-D setups at home and at shows, but that was the best by far. Others are similarly good at best but room size and design and more directional speaker designs are usually the constraint that still keeps the best of the pack together. mbl omni design + large optimized room seemed to be the keys. Few would have a room like that at home unless specifically designed. |
@Charles1dad : We can't agree more : Hifi is a matter of taste, there is no absolute. As Bo1972 says, you don't have to be faithful to any brand, just the result matter! And that result matters to the listener, not the vendor... Forums are great to glad some infos but if anyone take those infos for the absolute truth and buy without listen, it's probably the best "sitting duck" for greedy vendors... Bo is obsessed with Passlabs's 3D image where Naim's lovers would be obsessed with energy and fun(and their savings as well...). It's always a matter of taste until you ear better!... |
I played for over 8 years with the best B&W speakers. I had a lot of fun with them in those years. But because I can test and hear so many different things you understand what is missing. I talk a lot about 3d sound. The main reason is that this is the most convincing part in highend audio. Wenn I would have gone further with the 800D I would have to accept the less deep and wide stage. Wenn you are aware of what it does with your music wenn it is played in 3D. It is difficult to go back. B&W still makes nice speakers, but I have grown in the search to the absolute sound. Here depth and wide is a pre. One thing about Pass Labs. Nothing is perfect, the same about Pass labs. It gives a deep and wide stage, but the indivividual focus within this big square is not that sharp. And instruments and voices are too big in proportion. I am very critical in everything I Judge. This is also about the things I own. I played for over 12 years with the Valhalla loudspeakercable. But I was aware that it was incomplete. So you look for cables and sources to solve this. Wenn you are a perfectionist like I am you only want the best. This level I want to achieve for my clients as well. Another example; Naim is a very popular brand. There amps do not give a deep and wide stage. But there are many people who like the sound and drive it gives. It is only my opinion that a 3-dimensional stage is more exiting to listen at. That does not mean that other people are not allowed to focus on a 2-dimensional sound with a nice sound and drive. I like many Audioquest cables and I sell it a lot. But there powercables I find not good enough. I am Always looking for the best things for the money. My focus is on quality. I can easily switch to another brand if this is better. For me it is that simple! |
Hi Paraneer, Every opinion expressed on an open forum such as this one is subjective and based on each participant's listening experiences. I just assumed this was a given and all comments are taken with a grain (or two) of salt. There's nothing out of order with Bo1972 giving his view of B&W speakers or any product. We're free to disagree and offer counter opinions. The crossovers of those speakers could be crap to one person and considered state of the art by someone else, pure and expected subjectivity. Why would people be so offended and insulted with that? If you're happy with something why be upset if others are critical of it? Bo1972 adores Pass Lab amplifiers. I know people who don't care for them very much, Im sure that wouldn't cause Bo to alter his opinion of those amps. Every single brand or component has its group of fans and critics. |
Dave_72 and others...I have no problem with Bo being an audio salesman either and preferring certain brands, particularly the ones he sells. If only he stated he prefers them based on his taste in sound. But he doesn't. Instead, he slams the competition in an arrogant and condescending manner as if his is the only opinion that matters. He then twists his opinion into fact by siting that only the brands he carries have multi-dimensionality (metaphor for deep soundstage) and even more hilarious, talent (well I guess an amp can sing). His claims are purely subjective and cannot be measured as no specifications exists for them. Yet Bo spreads this fodder around like gospel. Further, the poster above who said that he hijacked some threads is correct. Just look at the lengthy thread in the speakers forum about REL subwoofers. Someone is torn between two REL models and wants an opinion on which is better. Bo can't resist to basically say REL sucks and start selling his brand. And how many B&W owners ask about a good amp to pair up with their Diamonds only to be insulted by Bo and be told the B&W crossovers are lousy? And all of this is based on his subjective opinion and nothing more. Bo you are truly an audio legend in your own mind and someday you may actually bring something substantive to the forum. |
@Bo1972 : Usher audio are not expensive? Probably as cheap as Monitor audio. A pair of V-602 for example is around 900$ and it outperformed many speakers up to 2000$. I heard the entry level of Monitor audio and, even if you care about 3D image (i didn't notice that quality anyway), the rest of the speaker is pretty poor on timbres, bandwidth, balance... I'm quite sure a 390$ Usher audio S-520 outperform it no matter what, even on low register... |
John, I'm driving my dips down to 3.6 ohm Avalon Acoustic Eidolons with a pair of MFA M200s on loan. Their presentation is only slightly different than the Carver VTA 180s (2, 4, 8 ohm taps) that I have settled on. Other amplifiers I've used with these speakers are the Ayre V1-xe, NuForce 9SE v3s, and the Hypex nCore 400s. Three very different presentations. With the exception of CJ your short list is interesting. The CJ Premier 350 may be very underrated and well worth a listen. |
