I am seeing the refurbished titanium ones still available for $999. That's actually the color I tested from BB, it's quite nice in person!
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Schiit Audio Moving Sale - Ragnarok 2 amp for $999
- Thread starter Zarathustra[H]
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ragnarok ragnarok 2 schiit
![Zarathustra[H]](/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1723407683){kind=avatar}
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 42,210
While I do like that color, I think it would clash with my current desk setup.
I think I'll just wait for the black ones. If I have to pay a hundred bucks more for them, so be it
I'm even considering maybe vinyl wrapping them in imitation walnut. Should look really nice.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 42,210
Some time has obviously passed here, and while I ma still using the Ragnarok 2 amplifier, and really like it, I am also still using my RBH 41-se's and have not upgraded them yet.
I was going to go with a set of KEF LS50 Meta's, but I think I have decided against them.
While in standalone setups they are very well matched to the Rangarok 2, it can be difficult to pair the LS50 Meta's with a subwoofer when using an integrated amp like the Ragnarok 2.
The fact that the LS50 Meta's drop off rather quickly under 80hz, means that a sub is more important than with other speakers, and the sub is very difficult to dial in as the crossover goes higher than 60hz, due to time delay and phase issues. Most LS50 Meta fans wind up being die hard fans of using MiniDSP setups to balance the sub right, but you can't do that with an integrated amp, as you'd need separate outputs through the DSP to the speakers and to the sub.
Instead I am leaning towards shopping for some open box discount KEF R3 Meta's. They go down to 58hz, and should thus be much easier to dial in with the subwoofer without needing to insert a DSP in the signal path, forcing me onto separates instead of using my Ragnarok 2.
The R3 Meta's are a little pricy at $2499.99 new, but they are often available with open box discounts as low as ~$1560 in excellent condition. So I think that is my plan, unless something changes (new product launches / discontinuations) before I get around to it.
It will likely be a while before I pull he trigger though, as I already have too many projects on my plate I need to finish first.
I was going to go with a set of KEF LS50 Meta's, but I think I have decided against them.
While in standalone setups they are very well matched to the Rangarok 2, it can be difficult to pair the LS50 Meta's with a subwoofer when using an integrated amp like the Ragnarok 2.
The fact that the LS50 Meta's drop off rather quickly under 80hz, means that a sub is more important than with other speakers, and the sub is very difficult to dial in as the crossover goes higher than 60hz, due to time delay and phase issues. Most LS50 Meta fans wind up being die hard fans of using MiniDSP setups to balance the sub right, but you can't do that with an integrated amp, as you'd need separate outputs through the DSP to the speakers and to the sub.
Instead I am leaning towards shopping for some open box discount KEF R3 Meta's. They go down to 58hz, and should thus be much easier to dial in with the subwoofer without needing to insert a DSP in the signal path, forcing me onto separates instead of using my Ragnarok 2.
The R3 Meta's are a little pricy at $2499.99 new, but they are often available with open box discounts as low as ~$1560 in excellent condition. So I think that is my plan, unless something changes (new product launches / discontinuations) before I get around to it.
It will likely be a while before I pull he trigger though, as I already have too many projects on my plate I need to finish first.
If you are looking at R3 Meta you need to audition Paradigm Founder 40b, and the wharfedale evo 5.2. Don't trust frequency response at this price. Audition with your music, preferably in your room. This is the start of the price point where this is possible.
I am running the Ragnarok 2 that I purchased (because of this thread) with a pair of KEF LS50 Metas and while I'm not super-duper audio-techy, I've paired the set-up with an SVS Micro 3000 and I think it sounds fantastic!!
Attachments
Mad Maxx
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2016
- Messages
- 8,683
Thanks! Had to show it off.. I built that cabinet last year.Great setup!
I'm a big fan of the LS50 Metas and SVS subs.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 42,210
I got the opportunity to audition the r3 Meta's through a friend of a friend and I'm glad I did as it would have been annoying to buy them and have to return them against a restocking hit.
While I can see why people like them (they sounded amazing in his system with a fezz amp (fezz audio torus 5060) but on my Ragnarok 2, especially in my typical nearfield (desktop) listening position I found them to be rather shouty and fatiguing.
He said, that he had picked the particular amp he used based online pairing recommendations for the R3 Metas. That fezz amp has a reputation for being a bit laid back, and the R3 Metas in his setup were used at longer listening distances, and they sounded fantastic there.
The Ragnarok 2 is a much more forward and energetic amp. If I am going to get it to work nicely without it being shout and fatiguing, especially at near field distances, I am going to need a mellower set of speakers with tweeters that are less harsh.
If my emphasis were to fill a room with sound, I think I would still be looking at the Kef's, but since my focus is desktop near field sound, I am now hvaing my doubts.
I have been researching two sets in particular:
- Buchardt Audio S400 MKII
- DynAudio Special Forty
The Buchardts put out surprisingly low bass for their size, but from what I can tell they are on the extreme opposite end of the KEF's when it comes to their detailed treble. I'd like to hear them, but I suspect that they go too far in the opposite direction for me, losing some of the detail I am hoping to gain from this speaker upgrade.
The Dyn's have a reputation for just disappearing into the sound where you can't even really tell it is coming from the speakers, and that really appeals to me. And while a little bit relaxed compared to the KEF's due to their proprietary soft dome tweeter design, they reportedly still offter more clarity and detail than the Buchardts.
Right now I am leaning towards the Dyn's but they are yet another step up in price and I feel this is slowly getting out of hand. Maybe it will happen at some point, but if it does it will likely be a while.
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 42,210
They are on my desk. ~2.5ft
Old pic for illustration. Scale thrown off by 42" center screen and portrait screens on side being 24"
But I have already backed off of my two speakers I was researching above. Neither the Buchardt S400's or the DynAudio Special Forty's are reportedly particularly good for near field due to their crossovers making them very height sensitive. Shift your ears just a few inches, and the midrange can practically disappear.
The Buchardt E50's are reportedly much better for near field, but damn, I'm not sure if I am ready to spend that much on speakers.
I'm going to have to give it some thought.
Back in 2017 when I got my RBH 41-se's in an RBH warehouse clearance since they had recently been discontinued, I randomly lucked out. They are great nearfield speakers, and I had no idea what I was doing.
An amp is either neutral or bad.
They are on my desk. ~2.5ft
Old pic for illustration. Scale thrown off by 42" center screen and portrait screens on side being 24"
But I have already backed off of my two speakers I was researching above. Neither the Buchardt S400's or the DynAudio Special Forty's are reportedly particularly good for near field due to their crossovers making them very height sensitive. Shift your ears just a few inches, and the midrange can practically disappear.
The Buchardt E50's are reportedly much better for near field, but damn, I'm not sure if I am ready to spend that much on speakers.
I'm going to have to give it some thought.
Back in 2017 when I got my RBH 41-se's in an RBH warehouse clearance since they had recently been discontinued, I randomly lucked out. They are great nearfield speakers, and I had no idea what I was doing.
IMHO its because you've crossed a price threshold from near field computer, general use speakers to audiophile/statement speakers. There isn't overlap here that I know of. If you want near field its back down in price.
You are at the start of positioning matters, source matters etc when at $2000 msrp speakers.
Fwiw I have the wharfdales in similar setup. L desk. They are at the corners, toed and pointed. I sit in the corner of the L at 45degrees. Gives good sound while at computer and for seating behind. But they are not near field usage or feed by the computer. I have auidoengine speakers for near field computer games etc.
In your opinion. There are many good reasons why an amp may not be neutral. You need to hear them. Perhaps you havent. Id recommend a foray into the "British" sound as a classical example.
Prince Valiant
Gawd
- Joined
- May 3, 2023
- Messages
- 775
You could check out Spinorama for frequency response and other measurements. Most speakers in the database will have dispersion measurements.
If it colors sound, it's a sound processor. Other than that, there are no audible differences between amps above minimum quality. I'm interested in a blind study that shows otherwise.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 13,728
It may be easier to apply certain effects at the amp, but they could also be emulated with a dsp I guess, if you want another expensive piece if kit or want the option of clean sound out of your amp.
Looking into getting a DAC for my Headphones, but not in a hurry atm unless it's a fantastic deal and a very good make. Using a Rega Elicit MKV for my turntable atm, but may play around with it with the PC later on. Thinking about going to a Tube setup as i like the sound.
StoleMyOwnCar
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2013
- Messages
- 3,466
I would agree with you, if you said DAC. Most DACs are good enough, and digital to analog conversion can be down at low power so nothing terribly expensive is required. It's just a formula that can be done at line level.
Amplification is a completely different story, so I guess it depends on what you mean by "above minimum quality". Tube amps in general will tend towards being warmer, not more neutral, and it's very easy to introduce emphasis of different harmonics depending on exactly how you do the amplification. I've listened to many amps that made the same pair of headphones (usually Beyerdynamic T1s) sound completely different. The quality of the analogue parts also does matter some. You kind of have to be going for an amplifier that specifically is trying to go for neutrality. After that, yeah, you can achieve most other overhyped and overly expensive amplification solutions just by playing around with EQ. For that you can look into the Objective 2 dac/amplifier. It's about as geared towards pure performance vs cost as you can get. I'm not sure if anyone is still selling them unfortunately, so Ebay might be your best option. They are built pretty tough, so generally they're going to last.
Obviously the thing that makes the biggest difference is the thing right on your ears, though. The source can be as good (or bad) as you like, but the transducer is going to color everything depending on its frequency response.
These days I'm going to be frank: when I use headphones at all, I just use wireless headsets. Much more convenient for day to day use, and they have mostly gotten "good enough" in the sound quality department, especially if for instance you get a Focal/Master and Dynamic/Audeze Maxwell. I can take them to work without any cables or fuss, and then I'm not tethered to the desk if I need to get up from what I'm doing. The days of "oh you paid more for wireless, haha what an idiot" are kind of over. They're just good enough, and the field is so competitive that they have to innovate.
This channel is a good place to start for objective measurements:
https://www.youtube.com/@GadgetryTech
An amplifier by definition is neutral. Not "specifically trying to be" as opposed to being designed to not be neutral as if that is some kind of default state. A (non intentionally) non neutral amp is a badly designed amp (disregarding the power limitations it was designed for and such). Some tube amps could color the sound if designed as such, but it is not their inherent quality.
$200 Pioneer receiver vs $12.000 Futterman tube amp...no difference.
What you are correct to point out is that driving headphones could bring out differences where there were none while driving speakers. I would like that tested, though, but it sounds (sic) plausible due to vastly different loads between headphones.
https://archive.is/Qw8R#selection-127.30-127.158
After that issue hit the stands, I had an interesting footnote to it. I visited one of the companies whose amplifier had been included in the test, and found that the president (who was also an engineer and had in fact designed the unit in question) was unperturbed by our findings. He acknowledged that an amplifier doing its job should have no effect on the sound. His marketing manager was less certain, feeling we may have missed something. The product manager was even more adamant. And so forth.
In fact, the closer you got to the sales floor, the more outraged the employees of this company became at our assertions.
Here's the thing though. When you are in the multiple thousands for a full stack, I dont care, neither should anyone, what the measurements are, etc. Amp neutral, warm, forward, or bad, whatever.
It matters what it sounds like. And all of the high end gear can be auditioned. So do that because the room and age of your ears matters more.
It matters what it sounds like. And all of the high end gear can be auditioned. So do that because the room and age of your ears matters more.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 42,210
It's not quite that simple. Generally purists do want neutral sound, and I tend to fall into that category, but your assumption is that the equipment itself is all that matters, when nothing could be further from the truth. If you are a purist you generally want the signal chain as a whole to be relatively neutral, for your listening environment.
Its a constant tradeoff. All else being equal, if you have relatively mellow speakers (like a silk dome tweeter), you are probably going to want to compensate for that with a more forward amp. Have more forward speakers (like a ribbon tweeter,or KEF's coaxial speaker elements) you might want a more relaxed amp (maybe even a tube amp) to take the edge off to make the signal chain more neutral.
Then add to that that while speaker impedances are often quoted in a simple figure, like 8ohm or 4ohm, in reality they differ across the entire frequency range of the speaker, so different amps will sound very different on different speakers.
And that's before we even consider our listening environment.
Different frequencies taper off differently at different ranges, and reflect off surfaces at different rates. High frequencies are more directional and lose energy faster over distance than low frequencies. Something that sounds good across a large room, generally doesn't sound that great at typical livingroom listening differences of ~10ft (which is why you don't find many people proposing the use of PA speakers at home) and something that sounds great at living room distances is often way too shouty up close in the near field on a desk. If you've ever been unfortunate enough to get the table closest to the DJ at a wedding reception, you probably have an idea what I am talking about.
It's not just a matter of more vs less volume, as different frequencies respond differently to different amounts of amplifier power. That and the "Fletcher-Munson" effect means that we also perceive frequencies differently at different volume levels. Turn the volume down and our ears lose sensitivity to the bass and treble sparkle, making the midrange feel more prominent. Turn it up and the bass and treble become more audible as our hearing "flattens out." This is why louder music often sounds "better". You'd almost need a different tuned frequency profile for every position of the volume knob to get a good "neutral" experience across the board.
So, it's not necessarily about having a neutral amp and neutral speakers. It's about selecting a pairing of the two that produces a more neutral sound. And which pairing produces a more neutral sound is going to vary greatly based on your listening environment. Heck, the listening environment often makes a bigger difference by far than the equipment itself does.
You need to match the entirety of the signal chain to your environment to get the best experience. It's relatively easy to design an amp with a "flat" frequency response. The difficult part is designing the speakers that translate that into actual sound waves to be perfectly neutral. (in fact its near impossible) so amplifiers to a certain extent need to compensate for the shortcomings of the transducers they are connected to. And then even if you produce a "neutral output" you have to contend with the vastly different environments in which that output might be listened to.
And this is where my near field situation comes in.
The closer you are to a set of speakers, the more mellow you are going to want the amp/speaker combo to be, or they can easily become overwhelming. That same combo can feel muted, or boring across a room.
The Ragnarok 2 amp I have is a very high current Class A/B design. It is generally very "neutral" in and of itself, but it is also designed to be able to drive rather difficult to drive speakers. When someone calls an amp "energetic" it usually means that there is lots of current to quickly accelerate and move the speaker cones into position, but also a high damping factor to be able to quckly stop their movement so they don't overshoot. This can result in a tight thumping bass that doesnt sound sloppy, but it can also be a little bit harsh if your tweeters are too resolving.
This doesnt really have as much to do with neutral frequency response as it does with having the brute force to handle speaker elements so the sound is accurate and tight. But when you have an amp like this you have to match it with a speaker to make that sound good.
If this were a livingroom listening system I listened to from 10 ft away, the KEF R3 MEta's would likely be perfect, but since I am sitting much closer to them than that, for a good experience that is not fatiguing, I'd probably need a more relaxed amp (like the aforementioned fezz audio 5060, or maybe a tube amp) or I need speakers that have a less "exciting" tweeter. Someting with silk dome tweeters probably.
So, I guess the TLDR version is:
"Neutrality" isn't a static specification on a box, but a result of the entire system (electronics + transducer + room + human ear) working together. And the transducer, room and human ear are the more complicated part of that equation.
For my near field application my research has shifted me to two new contenders.
- Buchardt E50
- ProAc D2 (Dome version, not ribbon version)
Both are a significant jump in price, which is giving me pause, but I am continuing to research a good pairing.
The speakers and the room account for the majority of the sound difference. As for the amps...forward sounding, relaxed... it's made up, imagined, almost always. Unless you can show it surviving an ABX test, it's on the same level as audiophile speaker wires.
It is undeniable that a different sticker on the box or a different number on the receipt can have an influence on the perceived sound. I'm trying to save money for the ones that can shake that off.
OK, now that you got that out of your system offer some alternatives. Because no one is advocating for vaporware or sky falling cost benefits like $12k amps. We are talking about entry to low-mid level speakers in the $2k msrp area. This is not high end as in actually high end. This is high end as in the start of home auditions or specific retailers. This is high end in terms of real improvement for the cost.
Or open up a new thread about used items still worth their salt at many times the price to get equal modern gear.
Zarathustra[H] check out the Focal 65s. Auditioned them this weekend. I was highly impressed and think they'd do well as an NFM.
Prince Valiant
Gawd
- Joined
- May 3, 2023
- Messages
- 775
What's the budget and what's wanted? Only speakers? Active, passive, EQ acceptable?
If we're talking about speakers, I think Erin's channel is great and he has reviews and recommendations for various budget categories, as well as measurements that will help people narrow the choices based on their sound preference:
https://youtube.com/@erinsaudiocorner
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 42,210
Appreciate the recommendation! Unfortunately I think those are active, correct? I'm really trying to avoid anything active/connected.
The Focal Aria Evo X N°1 and older Aria 906 seem like they might be promising though. Thanks for pointing me in that direction. I'll ahve to do some reading and see if I can arrange to hear them anywhere.
Last edited:
StoleMyOwnCar
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2013
- Messages
- 3,466
That is absolutely not true. It is incredibly easy to have an amplifier with a certain frequency response curve. If you have ever built an analogue circuit you should know that changing the frequency domain characteristics of any circuit can be as trivial as flipping the value of a capacitor/inductor/maybe even resistor. Tube amps especially (afaik) are known to have "colored" frequencies.
Now, I'm mainly talking about headphones, but I have noticed pretty pronounced differences between the various amps I've used with my headphones. In fact, most headphones aren't tuned to be a flat line neutral to begin with. The "ideal" is the Harman curve which looks something like this (just first google result):
This is actually the ideal average for speakers and/or "averaged out listening" in general. It's just that with speakers a vast amount of it depends on your room treatment, placement, etc. With headphones it's very straightforward. They're right at your ears.
The problem is that humans are subjective creatures to begin. A lot of people like A/B listening, but the problem in my eyes with blind A/B is for most untrained listeners we have very little objective basis in a blind test for what is "the ideal". Without that, the test isn't so much 'what's better" it's just "what you prefer but didn't know you preferred" (or alternatively, "can you even tell a difference"?). Like some people actually like distortion and they probably don't even know it. A fully neutral sound can be pretty "boring". Like how many people prefer a "vibrant" display, except that the vibrancy is fake. If you were to blind A/B test two displays and one of them was oversaturated, what do you think the result would be? Oversaturated might be considered better. Because people don't have any objective basis to understand that it's actually worse. So I've ranted at length about blind before, but I don't think it's the be all and end all. It's good for detecting any difference at all though I guess, but for just comparing two amplifiers I think there will be a lot of noise due to sound preferences. That and how long a person was sitting there trying to concentrate on differences will also screw up outputs. That's why I think objective measurements with instrumentation is about the only "golden standard".
Now, I do think that modern amplifiers, even moderately inexpensive ones, will tend to have pretty flat frequencies, but getting very low THD and noise on an amplifier isn't completely trivial. Good OP amps and other circuit parts for analogue amplification do cost a bit more than noisier ones. As much as horribly expensive snake oil amps? Hell no. But more than a cheapo amp in your logitech speakers? Probably.
Anyway quick example from google:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/true-frequency-response.418295/
You can see that certain amps like the one measured here definitely do have a different frequency response. Whether this is audible will depend on a lot of things.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 13,728
To add to the confusion, your brain will actively ignore sounds you don't like if you have been listening to something long enough. You must actively listen to hear sounds your brain normally tunes out.
I love bass and drums, but my brain normally tunes out the bass and some drums. If I focus on them, I can hear them well, but then it ignores other frequencies.
I don't know if it's because of limited bandwidth of my ear drums (their response curve can be adjusted depending on what you are listening to, but the bandwidth is limited), or just because it's too much for my brain to process at once. Either way, some people just can't hear everything at once, and that will effect their preferences as well.
I love bass and drums, but my brain normally tunes out the bass and some drums. If I focus on them, I can hear them well, but then it ignores other frequencies.
I don't know if it's because of limited bandwidth of my ear drums (their response curve can be adjusted depending on what you are listening to, but the bandwidth is limited), or just because it's too much for my brain to process at once. Either way, some people just can't hear everything at once, and that will effect their preferences as well.
You're mixing lots of thing here.
- nobody said a flat speaker curve is desired
- of course it is trivial to design a non-neutral amp
- tube amps often go for coloring the sound (towards warmth), that is not the point of discussion. You can aim to buy such an amp/sound processor [my categorisation, don't read into it too much], but it is smarter to buy a cheaper good amp and just EQ it to your liking
- the point of ABX testing is not to determine what is ideal, but to determine if there is any difference
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 42,210
I think part of what you are missing is that when measuring an amplifier for things like distortion, they connect directly to the amplifiers speaker outputs. They add a dummy resistor load, and some even add more complex loads, but even so, they are measuring the electrical output of the amp, not how that electrical output actually makes the speaker elements move, and what sound those speakers produce as a result.
Distortion is certainly a very important measure, but when measuring it electrically, a huge part of the equation is lost.
Part of the issue is that speakers have very complex loads with different impedances at different frequencies and loads and are subject to phase angle.
Part of the issue is also that distortion figures almost completely ignore very important amp variables, such as current capability and damping factors that can have a an absolutely enormous impact on the amount of distortion comes out of the transducer itself.
And then there is also the fact that most THD numbers are measured at only one frequency, 1 kHz and then used as some comprehensive measure of the entire thing, when we know for a fact that different frequencies behave very differently.
I'm definitely a "measurements first" kind of guy, but I am also realistic about what we are actually measuring and how good those measurements are. Huge parts of the signal chain are excluded when these measurements are taken.
This - I believe - is one of the reasons why I have never heard an active speaker that I have liked. The little class D integrated amplifiers they use in them may have electrical signals that have low distortion, but their output filter quality is often substandard and they often lack the large current capability and damping factors that keep the speaker elements in check, tightening up their movement and making the music feel more alive.
Luckily we can also measure current capability and damping factors, but many people often ignore those in favor of just looking at THD which is a huge mistake.
To add to that, Total Harmonic Distortion lumps all harmonics into one number. Research has- however - shown that humans find 2nd and 3rd order harmonics and even harmonics to be musically pleasing or "warm," while high order harmonics (7th, 8th, 9th, etc) and odd harmonics sound bad even at tiny levels. An amp with 0.1% THD that is all 2nd-order will sound much better than an amp with 0.001% THD that is all 9th-order.
Measurements are super important, but condensing everything down to a single THD distortion measurement is an extreme oversimplification that ignores large portions of the signal chain and other complexities.
The crazy part is that this is nothing new. Research on the impacts of harmonics and psychoacoustics dates back to the 1930's, yet in the desire to sell products, audio industry marketing threw it all out in favor of a simpler number. In fact, the Radio Manufacturers Association (RMA) and noted BBC Sound Engineer and psychoacoustic researcher D.E.L Shorter explicitly warned that THD was a mostly meaningless measurement already in the 1940's.
I'm not saying measurements don't matter. I'm not one of those golden-eared audio-snobs who goes out and buys ridiculous expensive magic cables to connect their car-priced audio-jewelry because they think they can hear better than everyone else or even lab equipment. I agree that measurements are extremely important to good sound, and no humans ears are more sensitive than analytical lab equipment. But what I am saying is that measuring the right thing is even more important, and in the goal of coming up with a simple "lower number = better" reduction, common marketing measurements are extreme oversimplifications of what is actually going on, and are not the end all of what results in pleasing sound.
THD is quite frankly a "blind" measurement. It doesn't tell us the harmonic profile. A Class D amp with 0.001% THD consisting of harsh, high-order odd harmonics will often sound 'sterile' or 'lifeless' compared to a high-current Class A or A/B amp where the distortion - even if higher on paper - is concentrated in the lower, more musical orders.
There is of course some golden-eared audiophile nonsese out there, but many of the terms that audio enthusiasts use when describing amps without fully understanding what they mean (such as forward, relaxed, etc.) boil down to some of these more detailed measurements that you won't find on specifications webpages. Many audiophile terms aren't just imaginary. They are often just poorly labeled reactions to complex harmonic profiles and transient response issues that are very well defined in the science of psychoacoustics.
I have not personally ABX tested them, but I'm pretty sure that if I did, I could pick out an active speaker with an integrated class D amp from a large heavy Class A/B amp with a Class A bias and large current capacity and a high damping factor.
If we really wanted to have a metric that would reflect the actual audio quality it would:
1.) Use full spectrum sweeps, not just hide behind THD at 1kHz.
2.) Use some form f harmonic weighting, penalizing higher order distortion more than lower order distortion. D.E.L. Shorter proposed and n^2 model back in the 50's, but that is likely a bit arbitrary. Some more research having people rate how displeasing they find each type of distortion and weighting it by that would make more sense.
3.) Do intermodulation tests. Multiple frequencies (32? 64? 128?) and measure how they interact.
But no one in the business wants that.
The THD zealots don't want their "THD above all else" mantra ruined, and the sellers of car-priced audio jewelry want to be able to sell you on the "undefinable magic of sound quality" and don't want their $20k amp to be beaten by a $500 amp in an objective measurement.
So we never get any improvement.
TLDR Version:
1.) Measurements are indeed very important
2.) The audio industry is mostly oversimplifying and measuring the wrong things, despite knowing better for 80 years.
Last edited:
That's all very nice. And irrelevant to what I was posting. I didn't talk about measurements, I was talking about listening/hearing.
As for listening, you can either blind differentiate the amps or not. Mostly not.
Not the same but related - people swear they can hear a difference between 16/44 and higher def sound. (Practically) Nobody can.
As for listening, you can either blind differentiate the amps or not. Mostly not.
Not the same but related - people swear they can hear a difference between 16/44 and higher def sound. (Practically) Nobody can.
Zarathustra[H]
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2000
- Messages
- 42,210
Totally agreed. 16bit 44.1khz PCM is all anyone needs for audio consumption, even with the highest end of gear, and the most attuned hearing.
That said, I believe there is a reason behind their madness, Namely two decades of "loudness war" mastering.
16bit 44khz PCM audio is perfect for human consumption if you use the entire dynamic range of the medium. That's precisely why 16bit was chosen for CD audio. It was were the human ear is more or less out-resolved without going over-kill.
The problem is that shortly after the release of the CD, sound engineers decided that "louder sounds better", which it does due to the Fletcher-Munson effect,
Essentially because our ears are more sensitive in the mid range, bass frequencies and high end treble sparkle fall off dramatically as sound pressure declines. This is where the concept of "reference level" comes from. At about 75-85 db the human ear picks up the full spectrum as close to flat as it gets, and we call this reference level.
Because this is where human hearing levels out all of the frequencies this is usually where album mixing and mastering is done, as it is a reference point. The problem is most people don't listen to their music at 75-85 db all of the time (or even most of the time). This is why old amps used to have "loudness" dials (or loudness buttons on cheaper models) that you could enable to boost the low and high frequencies to compensate for the human ears weaker bass and treble hearing at lower sound pressures, and make the mix sound better at lower volumes.
Back in the day, record labels paid radio stations to play their newly singles as their primary marketing tool. If people heard songs enough, they would become familiar, and with familiarity comes appreciation, and with appreciation album sales. But they wanted those radio broadcasts to sound as good as possible to draw more people in, so to combat the Fletcher-Munson effect they had sound engineers compress the volume levels up to the top two bits in their CD releases, so they would be the loudest on air (or at least, not be any less loud than anyone else).
Congratulations. When you compress volume levels like this, you turn 16bit audio into 2 bit audio, and 2 bit audio can sound like ass. But at least it was loud when people were driving around in their cars listening to the radio, right?
This practice went on for a surprisingly long time. It wasn't until ~2010 it started falling out of favor. It may even have been the primary reason for so many "remasters" from various bands over the years.
Anyway, long story short:
I think most people who claim they can hear a difference above 16bit 44khz are either comparing their "hi def" recordings to older CD's mastered in the "loudness wars" era, and thus really hearing 2 bit 44khz audio, OR they are just doing it from memory, and not even giving properly mastered 16bit 44khz PCM a decent chance due to bias.
So yeah, I'm with you. 16 bit 44khz PCM really is good, and I doubt even the people who think they can hear a difference at higher bit levels and sampling frequencies really can. They are just doing bad tests or suffering from bias from years of hearing bad masters. Maybe they just don't trust CD's anymore because of all of the bad masters they heard released from the early to mid 90's through ~2010.
I can only think of one exception.
If there is a release that came out during the loudness wars, that also got a "hi-def" release at that time, but for some reason never got a CD remaster, the "hi-def" version might be the best you can get. You could then - in theory - take that hi def reason, and level match and down sample it to 16bit 44khz PCM and still have a perfect recording.
I don't know if there actually are any albums like this though. (And if there are, someone should just "remaster" them from the "hi-def" release so we can all finally just be done with this nonsense)
While typing this, I actually googled this topic, and tit turns out there actually are releases like this. Apparently hundreds of them. The sources I found state:
"A famous example is Norah Jones’ Come Away With Me or many Blue Note jazz reissues. Often, the SACD or "HDTracks" version is mastered by an engineer like Steve Hoffman or Bernie Grundman who treats the audio with audiophile respect, while the standard CD is sent to a radio-ready mastering house."
So for some audiphiles, depending on the type of music they listen to, their only choice might be between the manhandled radio release master and a floofy golden-eared "hi-def" version, in which case I can understand why they might find the latter one preferable. It probably does sound better, but it has nothing to do with any inadequacies in the 16bit 44khz PCM format.
To add to all of this though, higher bit resolutions and sampling frequencies DO make sense for working copies of audio, when mixing and mastering. This helps reduce quantization (the higher bit levels) and aliasing (the higher sample rates) during mixing. But as long as you use the full dynamic range, there is no reason to not downsample this to 16 bit 44khz PCM for the final product.
Agreed, different masters is often the case and probably the main reason people think higher def sounds better.
Very true!
Zarathustra[H] now that you explained your powered speaker issues, audition the Focal 65s if you can, they are AB powered.