| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Halcro dm38 or Mark Levinson No.33H?
I want to upgrade my system:
Parasound P3 Parasound JC1 Martin Logan Prodigy Sony SCD-1 Right now, I'm debating between the Halcro dm38 and the Mark Levinson No.33H. Which one is better to drive my Prodigy? Also, any suggestion to replace the P3? Any good SACD player other than the SCD-1? Thanks in advance! Lawrence |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
From a practical point of view - you should find something that is stable
and can produce the right amount of voltage at 20kHz at about 1 Ohm or so. The Parasound JC1 I don't know about, but the Halcro isn't supposed to be as good at driving such loads as Levinson - though both may be a lot more money than would be required - you may find that a better preamp is a good choice - or a CD component capable of driving the amps directly and avoiding the preamp altogether! I think you would be best served by getting a better source - though you would be hard pressed finding a better CD/SACD player than the Sony - though given your budgets for the other parts of the system the MF Tri-Vista would be a good contender, Wadia 861 or a DCS stack would all be worth looking at, too. On 9/27/04 8:28 PM, in article , "Lawrence" wrote: I want to upgrade my system: Parasound P3 Parasound JC1 Martin Logan Prodigy Sony SCD-1 Right now, I'm debating between the Halcro dm38 and the Mark Levinson No.33H. Which one is better to drive my Prodigy? Also, any suggestion to replace the P3? Any good SACD player other than the SCD-1? Thanks in advance! Lawrence |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lawrence wrote in
: I want to upgrade my system: Parasound P3 Parasound JC1 Martin Logan Prodigy Sony SCD-1 Right now, I'm debating between the Halcro dm38 and the Mark Levinson No.33H. Which one is better to drive my Prodigy? Also, any suggestion to replace the P3? Any good SACD player other than the SCD-1? Thanks in advance! Lawrence How is the Halcro dm10 sounds to you guys? |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 1 Oct 2004 23:04:39 GMT, Lawrence wrote:
Lawrence wrote in : I want to upgrade my system: Parasound P3 Parasound JC1 Martin Logan Prodigy Sony SCD-1 Right now, I'm debating between the Halcro dm38 and the Mark Levinson No.33H. Which one is better to drive my Prodigy? Also, any suggestion to replace the P3? Any good SACD player other than the SCD-1? Thanks in advance! Lawrence How is the Halcro dm10 sounds to you guys? Just like the line stage of the NAD C370. Why wouldn't it? Where is there *any* evidence that so-called 'high end' amplifiers like the Halcro and Levinson sound in *any* way different from 'mid-fi' amplifiers with the same load driving capability? Or that line-level preamps not *deliberately* degraded from a flat response sound in any way different from each other? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in
: On 1 Oct 2004 23:04:39 GMT, Lawrence wrote: Lawrence wrote in : How is the Halcro dm10 sounds to you guys? Just like the line stage of the NAD C370. Why wouldn't it? Where is there *any* evidence that so-called 'high end' amplifiers like the Halcro and Levinson sound in *any* way different from 'mid-fi' amplifiers with the same load driving capability? Or that line-level preamps not *deliberately* degraded from a flat response sound in any way different from each other? What is your problem man? I'm asking for advice on the Halcro dm10, have you ever listen to the dm10 or the dm38, dm58, or the No. 33H? If not, what make you say that they have no difference? I agree that "Audio is Engineering" but we are listening to music, which quote "Music is Art"! How can you justify art with science? Lawrence |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lawrence wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in : On 1 Oct 2004 23:04:39 GMT, Lawrence wrote: Lawrence wrote in : How is the Halcro dm10 sounds to you guys? Just like the line stage of the NAD C370. Why wouldn't it? Where is there *any* evidence that so-called 'high end' amplifiers like the Halcro and Levinson sound in *any* way different from 'mid-fi' amplifiers with the same load driving capability? Or that line-level preamps not *deliberately* degraded from a flat response sound in any way different from each other? What is your problem man? I'm asking for advice on the Halcro dm10, have you ever listen to the dm10 or the dm38, dm58, or the No. 33H? If not, what make you say that they have no difference? Uhh, what is your problem? You asked for opinions, and Stewart gave you his honest opinion, which is also an opinion that can save you a lot of money. I agree that "Audio is Engineering" but we are listening to music, which quote "Music is Art"! How can you justify art with science? You are confusing the art of music with the science of audio reproduction. Your amp is an instrument for audio reproduction. Your amp is not the artist or the musician. It predictably reproduces the signal it receives. Amps can be characterized accurately using science. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 2 Oct 2004 21:59:20 GMT, Lawrence wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in : On 1 Oct 2004 23:04:39 GMT, Lawrence wrote: Lawrence wrote in : How is the Halcro dm10 sounds to you guys? Just like the line stage of the NAD C370. Why wouldn't it? Where is there *any* evidence that so-called 'high end' amplifiers like the Halcro and Levinson sound in *any* way different from 'mid-fi' amplifiers with the same load driving capability? Or that line-level preamps not *deliberately* degraded from a flat response sound in any way different from each other? What is your problem man? I don't have one, but it seems that you do, which I presume is why you asked the question. I'm asking for advice on the Halcro dm10, You got it. Basically, it was to wonder why you are considering such an expensive unit - and one which, by the way, is not highly regarded by that doyen of audio reviewers, Martin Colloms (for what that's worth). have you ever listen to the dm10 or the dm38, dm58, or the No. 33H? If not, what make you say that they have no difference? Well, I grant you that they *might* sound different from a NAD C370, but that would be because they had been deliberately *degraded* from a neutral sound. If you really want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on what is effectively a fixed tone control, then I guess that's your privilege. If however you simply wish the signal at the speaker terminals to be sonically identical to that coming out of the signal source (only bigger), then there's simply no need for such exotica. BTWE, I *have* compared a pair of the 33H to other power amps, and I can confirm that it's a good power amp, and hence sounds juts the same as other good power amps (Meridian 557 and Bryston 4BST in this particular case). I agree that "Audio is Engineering" but we are listening to music, which quote "Music is Art"! How can you justify art with science? I have no idea what that comment is supoposed to mean, but you are *not* listening to 'music', you are listening to a recording via some playback equipment. Now, while we all agree that speakers and rooms make a *huge* difference to sound, those of us who have bothered to investigate the 'sound' of cables and amplifiers have discovered that above a certain pretty basic level of competence, all amplifiers sound the same - unless they are designed to *degrade* the input signal. This is not uncommon among so-called 'high end' amplifiers, as it's easier to claim superiority for an amplifier that does at lest sound *digfferent* from the mainsteeam. The SET amplifier is perhaps the ultimate expression of this trend, combining astronomic price tag with risibly poor performance. Wire is of course just wire. In this context, and returning to your original question, perhaps all you need to know about the Halcro dm10 is that it's supplied with a Shunyata Diamondback power cord. This shows that either a) Halcro are at heart a purely marketing company, out to baffle the customer with technobabble bull**** or b) Halcro are admitting that the power supplies of the dm10 are so incompetent that they can't filter crap off the power line There is really no third possibility. Hence unless you want bragging rights by having a weirdly shapped and mega-expensive hi-fi, why not save your money, buy something made by say Bryston, Adcom or Meridian (you still get cool sophisticated European bragging rights with Meridian), and use the change for better speakers and maybe some room treatment? That's a far better 'bang for the buck' if better sound is *really* what you're trying to achieve.......... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote:
On 10/3/04 10:35 AM, in article , "chung" wrote: What is your problem man? I'm asking for advice on the Halcro dm10, have you ever listen to the dm10 or the dm38, dm58, or the No. 33H? If not, what make you say that they have no difference? Uhh, what is your problem? You asked for opinions, and Stewart gave you his honest opinion, which is also an opinion that can save you a lot of money. He asked the groups opinion of the dm10, not on general "objectivist" philosophy and the review of the NAD. Somehow you seem to miss the essence of the opinion that he received: the dm10 sounds the same as any competent pre-amp. Like the NAD. WHy wouldn't that opinion count as an opinion, and a legitimate response to the question asked? He might save even more money if he were to buy the preamp - the C370 is an integrated amp, no a preamp if we are picking nits... You have trouble understanding that the C370 has a line stage? That it is perfectly possible comparing the sound of the C370 vs the dm10? |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lawrence wrote:
I agree that "Audio is Engineering" but we are listening to music, which quote "Music is Art"! How can you justify art with science? Making music and reproducing music are very different quests, but unfortunately often confused together. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr. Pinkerton, I'm speechless!
After the all so famous "wire is wire" statement, now there is "amplifier is amplifier" statement. And you said ALL amplifiers sound the same! If your statement hold, then why even bother to buy a NAD, I said it is still expensive! I happened to know one of the NAD representatives here in the US, I quote your statement to him, he told me to thank you for your kind praise. But he honestly told me that, it is unfair to compare between ANY NAD with either Halcro or Mark Levinson, given the price tag that they intend to put, the NAD will NEVER come close to a Halcro or Mark Levinson. And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and No. 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the NAD C370?" Thank you for your input. But no thanks! Lawrence |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
"And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and
No. 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the NAD C370?"" The fundamental question is can a difference, any difference, be heard among these three amps using listening alone. If the answer is no then other questions are about personal reaction etc. and make them irrelevant to your original question. An established benchmark using listening alone now exists that a difference, any difference, is most likely not going to be heard. If one of the three provides enough power for a given speaker choice and you like the color or shape etc. then you have your answer. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lawrence wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in : On 1 Oct 2004 23:04:39 GMT, Lawrence wrote: Lawrence wrote in : How is the Halcro dm10 sounds to you guys? Just like the line stage of the NAD C370. Why wouldn't it? Where is there *any* evidence that so-called 'high end' amplifiers like the Halcro and Levinson sound in *any* way different from 'mid-fi' amplifiers with the same load driving capability? Or that line-level preamps not *deliberately* degraded from a flat response sound in any way different from each other? What is your problem man? I'm asking for advice on the Halcro dm10, have you ever listen to the dm10 or the dm38, dm58, or the No. 33H? If not, what make you say that they have no difference? Did you even read Stewart's reply? You asked the question "How is the Halcro dm10 sounds to you guys?" (I left the grammatical errors uncorrected in that quote, btw) And he said "Just like the line stage of the NAD C370." So, what's your problem then? |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 3 Oct 2004 15:30:03 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 10/3/04 10:47 AM, in article , "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: On 2 Oct 2004 21:59:20 GMT, Lawrence wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in : On 1 Oct 2004 23:04:39 GMT, Lawrence wrote: Lawrence wrote in : How is the Halcro dm10 sounds to you guys? Just like the line stage of the NAD C370. Why wouldn't it? Where is there *any* evidence that so-called 'high end' amplifiers like the Halcro and Levinson sound in *any* way different from 'mid-fi' amplifiers with the same load driving capability? Or that line-level preamps not *deliberately* degraded from a flat response sound in any way different from each other? What is your problem man? I don't have one, but it seems that you do, which I presume is why you asked the question. Your response to him was rather abrasive. Please specify exactly what is 'abrasive' in the above comment. I do have a question - given the buried assumption that you have listened to both the NAD and the Halcro - what were your impression? What was the DBT or other test you performed to come to that conclusion? I've listened to the NAD on several occasions, it appears to be excellent value for money, and sounds just like my own Krell and Audiolab gear, i.e. it doesnt *have* a 'sound' of its own, it just faithfully (as in 'fidelity') passes the sound of the input signal. It follows that if the Halcro (which I have only heard at an audio show, hardly the best circumstance) sounds in any way different, then it's doing something *bad* to the input signal. I am simply giving Halcro the benefit of the doubt here, that it does not in fact sound *worse* than the NAD - despite Martin Colloms comments. I don't think the original poster was asking your opinion of the NAD C370 (I assume you mean the preamp C172, not the integrated amplifier you are talking about) but the Halcro dm10. I was referring to the input section of the C370, which is what I stated. You'll generally find that what I say is what I mean. Presumably *you* mean the C162, which is of course also an adequate performer if you really need the extra power of a bigger amp than the C370, or C372 as it now is, or if you want to place the power amp(s) near the speakers. For the latter situation, I'd normally recommend a balanced connection, but whatever. I would think that you then would assume, without listening to a system using the dm10 that you would have a favorable review of it in absolute performance, but scores rather low in the value equation? Which is exactly what I said, so what's *your* problem? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lawrence wrote:
Mr. Pinkerton, I'm speechless! After the all so famous "wire is wire" statement, now there is "amplifier is amplifier" statement. And you said ALL amplifiers sound the same! If your statement hold, then why even bother to buy a NAD, I said it is still expensive! eh, I think the qualifier is "all *competently designed* amplifiers sound the same". Granted, amplifiers can be made to sound different (ie SET amps, valve amps and certain SS amps) but they detract from the notion of high fidelity. I happened to know one of the NAD representatives here in the US, I quote your statement to him, he told me to thank you for your kind praise. But he honestly told me that, it is unfair to compare between ANY NAD with either Halcro or Mark Levinson, given the price tag that they intend to put, the NAD will NEVER come close to a Halcro or Mark Levinson. So your acquaintance quantifies amplifier quality with the price tag? How will, in paraphrasing your acquaintance's own words, "A NAD ever come close to a Halcro or Mark Levinson?". In what terms? Measurements? Build quality? Difficult load driving ability? And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and No. 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the NAD C370?" Thank you for your input. But no thanks! Lawrence See my previous post. You asked "how does the Halcro DM10 sound?" and you obviously didn't like the replies you got to that question. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
You got it. Basically, it was to wonder why you are considering such an expensive unit - and one which, by the way, is not highly regarded by that doyen of audio reviewers, Martin Colloms (for what that's worth). Surely not the same Martin Colloms who wrote this article in praise of "Black Gate capacitors" http://www.audionote.co.uk/kits/blac...s_feb_2003.htm Sample quotes "My task was complicated by early reports that a significant running in period was required [several days] which unfortunately turned out to be true. Certainly there were first impressions available right away which gave helpful clues but at least a day or two was needed to begin to properly gauge the result. " "I can only speculate that the high frequency current in the system must have been in some sort of disordered exchange, power sharing above 10kHz or so, because while the sound became clearer, it also became sharper and more aggressively forward in the treble." He also talks about running in hi-fi equipment. The Black Gate article he wrote seems to be laced with the usual audiophool language! |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lawrence wrote in message ...
Mr. Pinkerton, I'm speechless! And yet you go on for several more paragraphs... After the all so famous "wire is wire" statement, If it's so famous, who said it? (Answer: No one.) now there is "amplifier is amplifier" statement. And you said ALL amplifiers sound the same! Did he, now? Or did you simply misread him? Perhaps you'd care to explain what you think Stewart meant by: "I grant you that they *might* sound different". If your statement hold, then why even bother to buy a NAD, I said it is still expensive! Some NAD gear is well-made and good value. Other pieces are overpriced junk. I happened to know one of the NAD representatives here in the US, I quote your statement to him, he told me to thank you for your kind praise. But he honestly told me that, it is unfair to compare between ANY NAD with either Halcro or Mark Levinson, given the price tag that they intend to put, the NAD will NEVER come close to a Halcro or Mark Levinson. Well, of course NAD doesn't compete with Mark Levinson. Levinson's market is audiophies with lots of money. NAD's market is audiophiles who wish they had lots of money (plus the occasional audiophile who recognizes that more money doesn'necessarily buy you much more in the way of amplifier performance). But NAD has just as great a stake in the "all-amps-sound-different" game as Levinson does. NAD's trying to get you to buy a $600 integrated amp instead of a $300 stereo receiver. If NAD admitted that its amps sounded like most (not ALL!) others, it wouldn't steal customers from Levinson; it would lose them to Denon. This is not to knock NAD. I'd buy their amps over a mass-market receiver any day. But I wouldn't bet money that I could hear a difference between the two! And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and No. 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the NAD C370?" Okay, how about this: If the dm38 and the 33H sound different, one of them is garbage (or broken). But the odds are neither of them is garbage, and they both sound the same. You could confirm this by conducting a level-matched blind comparison of the two. Thank you for your input. Any time! bob |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
"I believe everyone post a question here want an answer. I am asking an
opinion between the dm38 and No. 33H, or even the dm10, or the SCD-1." Given the current benchmark for amps using listening alone there is no reason to think they will sound different, in that manner they are equally "better", but of course appearence, bragging rights, color, size, etc. have some value to some people and one can by using those criteria decide one or another is thus "better"; that is an opinion. Another opinion is that if using listening alone no difference, any difference can not be heard then going to the next step to ask about "better" is irrelevant. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Oct 2004 23:47:39 GMT, Tat Chan
wrote: Lawrence wrote: Mr. Pinkerton, I'm speechless! Apparently, not so! After the all so famous "wire is wire" statement, now there is "amplifier is amplifier" statement. And you said ALL amplifiers sound the same! I said no such thing. If you are going to complain about a reply to *your* question, at least have the courtesy to report what was actually said, not what you would *like* to have been said. If your statement hold, then why even bother to buy a NAD, I said it is still expensive! It is the cheapest well-designed amplifier of its power capability of which I am aware. Perhaps you can suggest a cheaper alternative which will perform the same function? eh, I think the qualifier is "all *competently designed* amplifiers sound the same". Granted, amplifiers can be made to sound different (ie SET amps, valve amps and certain SS amps) but they detract from the notion of high fidelity. Quite so. I happened to know one of the NAD representatives here in the US, I quote your statement to him, he told me to thank you for your kind praise. But he honestly told me that, it is unfair to compare between ANY NAD with either Halcro or Mark Levinson, given the price tag that they intend to put, the NAD will NEVER come close to a Halcro or Mark Levinson. So your acquaintance quantifies amplifier quality with the price tag? How will, in paraphrasing your acquaintance's own words, "A NAD ever come close to a Halcro or Mark Levinson?". In what terms? Measurements? Build quality? Difficult load driving ability? Therein lies the problem. Lawrence was talking to a *sales* person, not to an engineer. Since NAD places itself as 'entry level high end', it is *essential* for their representatives to maintain the myth of sonic difference, so that potential customers will buy NAD to get that 'high end' sound at an affordable price, rather than going for a 'mainstream' alternative such as Yamaha. Of course, if what you are *really* after is bragging rights and a shiny 'big boys toy', then agreed that a NAD isn't going to cut it! And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and No. 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the NAD C370?" Thank you for your input. But no thanks! Lawrence See my previous post. You asked "how does the Halcro DM10 sound?" and you obviously didn't like the replies you got to that question. Therein lies the *real* problem. Lawrence doesn't actually want the truth, as he has already decided that 'everything sounds different', therefore he doesn't want anyone to tell him that a NAD sounds just like a Halcro or ML. No, he wants us to tell him that the Halcro has an effulgent depth of ambience not quite achievable by the 33H, but that the 33H has a level of bass power and 'slam' which just evades the more delicate pallette of the Halcro. Both are of course capable of retrieving *far* more 'inner detail' and 'microdynamics' than the mere NAD could ever hope to achieve. The NAD is adequate perhaps for the hoi polloi, but not for the superior aesthetic sensibilities of the true audiophile. Is that better, Lawrence? :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Oct 2004 23:43:44 GMT, Lawrence wrote:
wrote in : "And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and No. 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the NAD C370?"" The fundamental question is can a difference, any difference, be heard among these three amps using listening alone. If the answer is no then other questions are about personal reaction etc. and make them irrelevant to your original question. An established benchmark using listening alone now exists that a difference, any difference, is most likely not going to be heard. If one of the three provides enough power for a given speaker choice and you like the color or shape etc. then you have your answer. Well! First of all, have you or have you not ever listen to the dm38, the No. 33H and the wonderful C370? If not, conversation is over. Two out of three, certainly. They sounded identical. If you have, and you solemly said that the US$899 NAD C370 sounds the same as the US$19,000 dm38 or the US$22,500 No. 33H. Well, congragulation, you can save a lot of money from now on, or may be you can go back to Bestbuy to get one of that bloombox, sure it will sound the same to you either... Oh, so have *you* listened to the NAD, to make such a judgement? If not, then the conversation is over, no? And, in addition to the irrelevant and insulting reference to Bestbuy boomboxes, I note the slyly inserted implication that the poster must be relatively deaf. Tell us, why do *you* make the *assumption* (must be an assumption, since you're asking for *advice* on the sound of these amplifiers) that the Halcro and ML *must* sound different, both from each other and from the NAD? It's 2004, sonically transparent amplifiers have been available for more than twenty years, so it should be obvious that if any amplfier *does* sound different from the general run, then that is because it is actually *degrading* the input signal. Well, I guess you are on the "wire is wire", "amplifer is amplifer", or might even be "everything is the same" except that "we all know that ONLY speakers and room treatment" will make the difference? Well, since *no one* has been able to demonstrate anything other than that 'wire is wire', we can probably take that one as an accurate statement. As for amplifiers, many of them do indeed sound different, both from each other and from the input signal. These are known as *bad* amplifiers. Luckily, there are lots of *good* amplifiers which do indeed sound just like their input signal - and hence of course they are also sonically identical. Then, again, conversation is over. We are on a difference channel. Only in a fully balanced system.......... I believe everyone post a question here want an answer. I am asking an opinion between the dm38 and No. 33H, or even the dm10, or the SCD-1. So, if anyone cannot understand my question enough and keep on telling me that neither dm38 nor No. 33H, buy the cheap C370! Who said that? Not me, nor any other poster IIRC. What several people have suggested is that they will all *sound* the same, and we all know that sound quality is only *one* facet of the buying decison for most 'audiophiles' (whatever they might claim in public!). There's no reason why you shouldn't buy the 33H or dm38 for their build quality or very unusual styling, or even just for their nameplates. After all, how many people buy a Ferrari Modena in the belief that it's actually *faster* than a 911 Turbo - or even a Corvette? If however you are trying to claim that the ML and Halcro amps *must* sound different (and implied 'better') than the NAD, then please explain on exactly what you base that opinion. Especially since you have clearly not heard and compared the amplifiers in question. We are on a difference channel and please stop replying to this post! You can open up another post said, "dm38, No.33H or C370, which is better?" So, which part of 'they will likely all sound the same' did you fail to understand as a reasonable reply to your question? If you *don't* want them to sound the same as each other (and hence also the same as the input signal), please tell us how you'd like the output to be *different* from the input, and we might be able to make some suggestions. Many of those suggestions would be from really exotic 'audiophile' brands which might meet what I suspect are your *real* requirements...................... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
"I was wondering on just how such opinions would tally with the 'all
competent amplifiers sound the same' proponents. If this is so, must we then expect the same degree of soundstaging, rhythm, pace etc. from all such 'competent' amplifiers? Unless such 'opinions' can be in some way tested for inclusion under scientifically conducted regime then such criteria can not be part of objective testing. How can we possibly scientifically categorise rhythm, pace, analytical (or lifeless) performance etc. Maybe its really only half a story told..." The current benchmark for testing The amps by listening alone results were based on first being able to hear a difference, any difference at all; including any or all of the presumed criteria you mention or anything else one might think could reveal a difference. If no difference is heard it is a fair conclusion that those or any other criteria for potentual audible difference don't exist at a level to rise above the threshold of audibility. As an additional step it would be reasonable to question if those criteria as reported in marketing/publishing descriptions might not exist except as artifacts of the perception process in the brain after the signal reaches the ears. If those criteria are reported to be present but disappear during listening alone testing when the knowledge of which amp is being used is not known, such a conclusion would seem to have been confirmed. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Gilmour" wrote:
"Tat Chan" wrote in message ... wrote: "And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and No. 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the NAD C370?"" The fundamental question is can a difference, any difference, be heard among these three amps using listening alone. If the answer is no then other questions are about personal reaction etc. and make them irrelevant to your original question. An established benchmark using listening alone now exists that a difference, any difference, is most likely not going to be heard. If one of the three provides enough power for a given speaker choice and you like the color or shape etc. then you have your answer. I think the OP was hoping for opinions like "yes, X has got a much wider soundstage than Y" "Y has got better rhythm and pace than Z" "Z is analytical and lifeless, X has got more character" instead of objective testing amplifier techniques. I was wondering on just how such opinions would tally with the 'all competent amplifiers sound the same' proponents. If this is so, must we then expect the same degree of soundstaging, rhythm, pace etc. from all such 'competent' amplifiers? Unless such 'opinions' can be in some way tested for inclusion under scientifically conducted regime then such criteria can not be part of objective testing. How can we possibly scientifically categorise rhythm, pace, analytical (or lifeless) performance etc. Maybe its really only half a story told... All those opinions, criteria and characteristics are easily tested using bias-controlled listening techniques. But, to date nobody has ever shown that those characteristics are even audible, let alone important, under bias-controlled conditions. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Gilmour wrote:
"Tat Chan" wrote in message ... wrote: "And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and No. 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the NAD C370?"" The fundamental question is can a difference, any difference, be heard among these three amps using listening alone. If the answer is no then other questions are about personal reaction etc. and make them irrelevant to your original question. An established benchmark using listening alone now exists that a difference, any difference, is most likely not going to be heard. If one of the three provides enough power for a given speaker choice and you like the color or shape etc. then you have your answer. I think the OP was hoping for opinions like "yes, X has got a much wider soundstage than Y" "Y has got better rhythm and pace than Z" "Z is analytical and lifeless, X has got more character" instead of objective testing amplifier techniques. I was wondering on just how such opinions would tally with the 'all competent amplifiers sound the same' proponents. If this is so, must we then expect the same degree of soundstaging, rhythm, pace etc. from all such 'competent' amplifiers? Unless such 'opinions' can be in some way tested for inclusion under scientifically conducted regime then such criteria can not be part of objective testing. How can we possibly scientifically categorise rhythm, pace, analytical (or lifeless) performance etc. Maybe its really only half a story told... Let's start with first things first? Can you get more than two reviewers from different journals to agree on what 'rhythm' and 'pace' mean as regards amplifiers, and to agree on their ratings of same? Btw, I think the Halcro amp is reviewewd in this month's Stereophile. Perhaps Lawrence could have better luck there. -- -S Your a boring little troll. How does it feel? Go blow your bad breath elsewhere. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message ...
"Tat Chan" wrote in message ... I think the OP was hoping for opinions like "yes, X has got a much wider soundstage than Y" "Y has got better rhythm and pace than Z" "Z is analytical and lifeless, X has got more character" instead of objective testing amplifier techniques. I was wondering on just how such opinions would tally with the 'all competent amplifiers sound the same' proponents. If this is so, must we then expect the same degree of soundstaging, rhythm, pace etc. from all such 'competent' amplifiers? Yes for soundstaging. "Rhythm" and "pace" are entirely mental constructs, at least in terms of sound reproduction (unless you're talking about wow and flutter, not typically a problem with *competent* amps). All competent amps sound different if you let your imagination run wild! Unless such 'opinions' can be in some way tested for inclusion under scientifically conducted regime then such criteria can not be part of objective testing. How can we possibly scientifically categorise rhythm, pace, analytical (or lifeless) performance etc. "We" don't have to characterize them at all. All "we" have to do is find someone--anyone-- who can differentiate (blind, of course) between two amps that "you" claim differ in one or more of these characteristics. So far, "we" haven't been able to find anyone who can do that. Have "you"? Maybe its really only half a story told... Or maybe you just haven't finished the book yet. bob |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Gilmour wrote:
"Tat Chan" wrote in message ... wrote: "And, seriously, my original post was asking advice between the dm38 and No. 33H, later ask about dm10. I would not expect anyone misunderstanding my question as: "How's dm38 and No.33H compare to other amplifier like the NAD C370?"" The fundamental question is can a difference, any difference, be heard among these three amps using listening alone. If the answer is no then other questions are about personal reaction etc. and make them irrelevant to your original question. An established benchmark using listening alone now exists that a difference, any difference, is most likely not going to be heard. If one of the three provides enough power for a given speaker choice and you like the color or shape etc. then you have your answer. I think the OP was hoping for opinions like "yes, X has got a much wider soundstage than Y" "Y has got better rhythm and pace than Z" "Z is analytical and lifeless, X has got more character" instead of objective testing amplifier techniques. I was wondering on just how such opinions would tally with the 'all competent amplifiers sound the same' proponents. If this is so, must we then expect the same degree of soundstaging, rhythm, pace etc. from all such 'competent' amplifiers? Well, if two amps sound the same, then of course they will have the same degree of soundstaging, rhythm, pace, etc. (whatever those terms mean), no? Unless such 'opinions' can be in some way tested for inclusion under scientifically conducted regime then such criteria can not be part of objective testing. Those terms are not scientifically defined, so of course they cannot be used as criteria for scientific or objective testing. How can we possibly scientifically categorise rhythm, pace, analytical (or lifeless) performance etc. Maybe its really only half a story told... Not sure what your point is. I place very little weight on reviewers' evaluation of "rhythm, pace, soundstaging", etc. It's creative writing, as far as I am concerned. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Gilmour wrote:
"Tat Chan" wrote in message ... wrote: The fundamental question is can a difference, any difference, be heard among these three amps using listening alone. If the answer is no then other questions are about personal reaction etc. and make them irrelevant to your original question. An established benchmark using listening alone now exists that a difference, any difference, is most likely not going to be heard. If one of the three provides enough power for a given speaker choice and you like the color or shape etc. then you have your answer. I think the OP was hoping for opinions like "yes, X has got a much wider soundstage than Y" "Y has got better rhythm and pace than Z" "Z is analytical and lifeless, X has got more character" instead of objective testing amplifier techniques. I was wondering on just how such opinions would tally with the 'all competent amplifiers sound the same' proponents. If this is so, must we then expect the same degree of soundstaging, rhythm, pace etc. from all such 'competent' amplifiers? Unless such 'opinions' can be in some way tested for inclusion under scientifically conducted regime then such criteria can not be part of objective testing. How can we possibly scientifically categorise rhythm, pace, analytical (or lifeless) performance etc. Maybe its really only half a story told... Uhm, I was taking the **** with my comment about rhythm and pace, soundstage, etc. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 6 Oct 2004 23:38:47 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Let's start with first things first? Can you get more than two reviewers from different journals to agree on what 'rhythm' and 'pace' mean as regards amplifiers, and to agree on their ratings of same? Btw, I think the Halcro amp is reviewewd in this month's Stereophile. Perhaps Lawrence could have better luck there. Depends what you call luck! See for example this twaddle from IAR, contained in a review of the VTL Siegfried: " It's instructive to contrast Siegfried's sound with that from Halcro's highly praised dm 58/68 (its largest amplifiers), which we have auditioned several times driving revealing loudspeakers such as the Wilson Grand Slamm. Halcro's premium amplifiers are also very clean, transparent, and wide range (and incidentally sound much better than the smaller Halcro dm38 stereo amplifier). This Halcro reveals a lot of information about music. But the Halcro does not reveal music. Its output does not sound like the real thing, like live acoustic music actually sounds. Without going into our usual detailed analysis, the Halcro's sound can be summarized as being artificially electric, illuminating the music in a too bright artificial light at too high a color temperature, thereby rendering the musical information with some artificial hardness and glare." Yeah, riiiiight, very informative............. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry, brain freeze. The following article should reference Spectral, not
Threshold. "Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:... "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 6 Oct 2004 23:38:47 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote: Let's start with first things first? Can you get more than two reviewers from different journals to agree on what 'rhythm' and 'pace' mean as regards amplifiers, and to agree on their ratings of same? Btw, I think the Halcro amp is reviewewd in this month's Stereophile. Perhaps Lawrence could have better luck there. Depends what you call luck! See for example this twaddle from IAR, contained in a review of the VTL Siegfried: " It's instructive to contrast Siegfried's sound with that from Halcro's highly praised dm 58/68 (its largest amplifiers), which we have auditioned several times driving revealing loudspeakers such as the Wilson Grand Slamm. Halcro's premium amplifiers are also very clean, transparent, and wide range (and incidentally sound much better than the smaller Halcro dm38 stereo amplifier). This Halcro reveals a lot of information about music. But the Halcro does not reveal music. Its output does not sound like the real thing, like live acoustic music actually sounds. Without going into our usual detailed analysis, the Halcro's sound can be summarized as being artificially electric, illuminating the music in a too bright artificial light at too high a color temperature, thereby rendering the musical information with some artificial hardness and glare." Yeah, riiiiight, very informative............. Actually, over twenty-five years there have been several amps described this same way. I've heard some of them and wouldn't have them in my system (heard them before reading the criticism, to head you off at the pass). The Early Classe's come to mind, the early Thresholds, and several others I can no longer recall. Don't know much about recent transistor amps as I haven't seriously auditioned any other than the CJ 2000 series during that time frame....and this is certainly not a problem with the CJ series. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 6 Oct 2004 23:38:47 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote: Let's start with first things first? Can you get more than two reviewers from different journals to agree on what 'rhythm' and 'pace' mean as regards amplifiers, and to agree on their ratings of same? Btw, I think the Halcro amp is reviewewd in this month's Stereophile. Perhaps Lawrence could have better luck there. Depends what you call luck! See for example this twaddle from IAR, contained in a review of the VTL Siegfried: " It's instructive to contrast Siegfried's sound with that from Halcro's highly praised dm 58/68 (its largest amplifiers), which we have auditioned several times driving revealing loudspeakers such as the Wilson Grand Slamm. Halcro's premium amplifiers are also very clean, transparent, and wide range (and incidentally sound much better than the smaller Halcro dm38 stereo amplifier). This Halcro reveals a lot of information about music. But the Halcro does not reveal music. Its output does not sound like the real thing, like live acoustic music actually sounds. Without going into our usual detailed analysis, the Halcro's sound can be summarized as being artificially electric, illuminating the music in a too bright artificial light at too high a color temperature, thereby rendering the musical information with some artificial hardness and glare." Yeah, riiiiight, very informative............. Actually, over twenty-five years there have been several amps described this same way. I've heard some of them and wouldn't have them in my system (heard them before reading the criticism, to head you off at the pass). The Early Classe's come to mind, the early Thresholds, and several others I can no longer recall. Don't know much about recent transistor amps as I haven't seriously auditioned any other than the CJ 2000 series during that time frame....and this is certainly not a problem with the CJ series. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
B&D wrote in message ...
I have found the best sound available is to go out and actually listen to a live performance - reproduction, while the only option in a lot of ways - heightened realism has some serious drawbacks. I once went to an exhibition of a painting style called "super-realism." It seemed like the painter was using whatever tricks were at his disposal to make things seem more realistic than reality. But there are a couple differences between painting and audio. The painter is not trying to achieve photographic accuracy. Second, the accuracy of reproduction is virtually guaranteed, since it mainly involves looking at a painting hanging on a wall. I am guessing that with audio, primary control of "realism" occurs during the recording process. By the time it gets to your house, the options for achieving more or less "realism" with competently designed equipment is limited to the problem of speakers and their placement. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| us mark levinson 436 in 220 volt environement | High End Audio | |||
| Mark Levinson vs Jadis | High End Audio | |||
| Mark Levinson system in the Lexus ES-300 (and other observations...) | Car Audio | |||
| Mark Levinson | High End Audio | |||
| FA : MARK LEVINSON ML-1 STARTS @ $ 9.99 ! | Marketplace | |||
Linear Mode
