Some thoughts on high fidelity and distortion from a master

[Alaric]

In response to some recent discussions on distortion and audio reproduction quality, here's Nelson Pass of Pass Labs.

 

[Alaric]

And Andrew Jones.

 

[habbajabba]

Nothing beats live music my friend. These are but opines of lament. That they can't sing.

 

[Alaric]

Nothing beats live music my friend. These are but opines of lament. That they can't sing.

Now that^ is some serious truth.

 

[Alaric]

Another interesting read on the subject.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/harmonic-convergence-effect-component-tweaking

 

[NiHaoMike]

She pointed out something that is often overlooked when thinking about the theory of digital audio. 48kHz is theoretically enough to reproduce the entire audio band, but with stereo or more channels, the sample rate determines the size of the "steps" of delay between channels.

 

[Mandrake4565]

Thanks for posting this Alaric. I love my music but am not very knowledgeable about audio production amp, speakers and such. Interesting to watch.

 

[Alaric]

No problem. I may do some sort of review for each of the CA amps I have. If you have any songs you know well maybe I can have a listen and describe what I hear in terms easier to grasp than the usual audiophile jargon.It drives me nuts when reviewers go on about esoteric nitpicks over a $100-$300 piece of gear. Most of the folks who buy that stuff want to know if the bass sounds good and can relate to "flat", detailed, etc..
Will my Diana Krall album sound like she's playing a real piano?, for example. As opposed to "The placement of the piccolo on my ultra rare Chopin concerto performed by Yo Yo Ma is obviously off by at least a half meter" . LOL

 

[Voodoo Rufus]

I'd love to test some Pass Labs amps someday. Some big ones.

 

[Alaric]

Any of Nelson Pass' big Class A amps sound verrrrryyyyy nice, IMO. As do his 8 watt Amp Camp amps. If you have some spare time and modest skills (and a few bucks) there's always that option.
https://diyaudiostore.com/collectio...240cc&mc_eid=ea9f8ddccf&variant=7072933085218

8 wpc of Nelson's Class A goodness or 15 watts bridged mono. One of these is absolutely on my to do list.

- - - Auto-Merged Double Post - - -

She pointed out something that is often overlooked when thinking about the theory of digital audio. 48kHz is theoretically enough to reproduce the entire audio band, but with stereo or more channels, the sample rate determines the size of the "steps" of delay between channels.

Not being too big a fan of the entire digital theory, I vote for as much bandwidth and sampling as possible. Since you're losing part of the music and recreating it with a chip, lose as little as possible. Or go with analog recordings and get it all to start with. LOL (Yes, I am sadly stuck with all digital at present, so my vinyl snobbery doesn't keep me from listening. )

 

[Mandrake4565]

I would love to build an Amp. Excuse my lack of knowledge but 8 watts? I do understand that tube amplifiers are different but it just seems like it's not enough power? I certainly need to do a bit of reading.

 

[EarthDog]

Depends on the efficiency of the speaker. Most home speakers are rated at a specific Hz and 1 Watt for dbA reading (IIRC). For example, 1W @ 88 dbA 1000 Hz.

 

[Voodoo Rufus]

I would love to build an Amp. Excuse my lack of knowledge but 8 watts? I do understand that tube amplifiers are different but it just seems like it's not enough power? I certainly need to do a bit of reading.

8 watts on most speakers could do just fine if you're at modest listening levels with decently efficient speakers. 8 watts on Klipschorns would blow your eardrums out.

When tube amps run out of power, they don't hard clip like a solid state amp. They distort in a soft fashion, so sound quality would diminish but you're less likely to damage the speakers.

 

[Alaric]

I would love to build an Amp. Excuse my lack of knowledge but 8 watts? I do understand that tube amplifiers are different but it just seems like it's not enough power? I certainly need to do a bit of reading.

Current is better than watts. My 95 watt Marantz can run out of steam on things like the 1812 Overture at elevated volume levels because the EI transformer (of which I love the sonic character) gets a little stressed with the demand. Our little 25 wpc Cambridge Audio has the same sonic signature (same type transformer) but has no issues supplying the current necessary at 25 watts, so it rattles the walls with my Paradigms and does so with a nice, clear signal. My 100 wpc Cambridge Audio receiver can make my ears hurt, without distortion, from the dB levels and handles Black Sabbath as easily as a piano concerto at 100 dB+. It isn't the extra 5 watts, it's the big honkin' toroidal transformer. Which is also why I prefer the sound of my Marantz.

 

[Mandrake4565]

Mind wondering, thinking about a setup I have. I purchased a set of Pinnacle Classic Gold, Floor standing speakers, center channel, rear bookshelf and powered sub about 25 years ago. I really Liked the sound from them when I heard them in the store. I had them hooked up to a Sony Ga7 Es receiver and I never really liked the sound from them once I had them at home. It seemed like they were missing the highs. Eventually the wife decided they were too big and wanted a smaller footprint surround sound. I replaced the whole setup with a Yamaha RX-A710 and an Energy Classic 5.1 surround setup, which fit the wife's request and sound pretty good. I still have the Pinnacles and would like to set them back up. My question is could the issue with the Pinnacle speakers be the receiver I had them hooked up to? The Sony Ga7 Es I have is from the early 90's. Do I need to find an Amp that matches the speakers, if that makes sense? Sorry if I'm hijacking the thread Alaric, I didn't think you'd mind.

 

[Alaric]

Mind wondering, thinking about a setup I have. I purchased a set of Pinnacle Classic Gold, Floor standing speakers, center channel, rear bookshelf and powered sub about 25 years ago. I really Liked the sound from them when I heard them in the store. I had them hooked up to a Sony Ga7 Es receiver and I never really liked the sound from them once I had them at home. It seemed like they were missing the highs. Eventually the wife decided they were too big and wanted a smaller footprint surround sound. I replaced the whole setup with a Yamaha RX-A710 and an Energy Classic 5.1 surround setup, which fit the wife's request and sound pretty good. I still have the Pinnacles and would like to set them back up. My question is could the issue with the Pinnacle speakers be the receiver I had them hooked up to? The Sony Ga7 Es I have is from the early 90's. Do I need to find an Amp that matches the speakers, if that makes sense? Sorry if I'm hijacking the thread Alaric, I didn't think you'd mind.

I'm sorry, I completely missed your question when you posted it! The receiver could well be the issue, but so could speaker placement. Have you tried the Pinnacles with the Yamaha? That would help narrowing it down. Also, even bookshelf speakers respond to some room around them. If the speakers are in a corner or against a back or sidewall, that will accentuate bass response. Sometimes to the point of drowning out the highs because you're hearing room nodes and first order reflections instead of the actual speaker. Some bookshelf speakers (and floorstanders) are designed specifically for that-to pump up the low frequencies. Those speakers may sound harsh or "shouty" without the added assistance of near wall placement. Klipschhorns come to mind. They are pricey speakers designed to sit in a corner. Away from the wall, the horn drivers in them can start to sound very fatiguing in short order.

Cambridge Audio discontinued their little AM5 25 watt integrated or I'd recommend that. I picked up a couple at the blowout price of $100 (half price) before they disappeared. The replacement appears to be the exact same piece except for the silver faceplate. Specs are identical. I guess they had to justify the $50 price hike so they made a "new" model, now $250. Honestly, I feel it's worth $250 but that puts it in another class altogether when discussing budget or affordable. Especially when Amazon has the SR10 at 85 watts in a AM/FM receiver for $199. https://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-Au...idge+audio+topaz+a+SR20&qid=1576020523&sr=8-1 Basically the same hardware as my 100 watter. I'll put my take on the differences in a paragraph below.

Update on the replacement amps. The SR20 receiver is much more likely to show flaws in your equipment chain or (especially) source material. It's been so long since I had any gear at home to do a comparison that I forgot one of my favorite music genres is rife with bad recordings, bad production, bad mixing, and worst of all D) All of the above. The 100 watter will make those issues very evident, where the 25 watt AM5 is much more forgiving. It doesn't seem to lack detail, but you do have to work a little harder to hear that last few percent. It makes a lot of low SQ music fun to listen to for the music's sake while the SR20 seems more willing to criticize your choices. I could happily live with both and split critical listening and fun time between them. The Marantz will be back, though. It combines the best traits of both the CA amps for me. More than enough raw power, detailed, and lets marginal recordings sound their best.

Disclaimer: This also must be weighed against the fact that my speakers are very revealing, as well. They are known for doing the exact same things I said the SR20 does. The pairing does not equal audio Nirvana. If your speakers are hard to drive (85 dB or less efficiency), "sweet" sounding or just very smooth sounding in their presentation then the 100 watt SR20 would likely sound very good. For lower end speakers or ones that tend towards the high frequencies or just plain super revealing, I'd easily recommend the 25 watt per channel, even if it is $50 more at the moment. It will just sound better in those circumstances, IMHO.