Why Avr so bad for music?

[Lulla Singh]

@ rishiguru

a personal question, have you ever cared to look at anything beyond a YAMAHA ?

 

[square_wave]

I walk with time and do not look back. I believe science and technology improves with time and not the other way round. So, if my great grandfather used to own one of these, I would have been glad to replace this super-oldie inefficient Class-A amp with something modern of Class-D type below:

.

I posted this to drive home the point that all these are specialist devices made for specialist installations. You cannot replace one with the other. One is not superior to the other for their chosen role. You will need to meet some folks who are into these. It is easy to make statements like this on the internet.

This amplifier is a specialist device used by folks who are into to super high end two channel installations using a certain kind of speaker. An attempt to replace it with an AVR or some Class D device will end up in happenings of highly catastrophic nature.

 

[rishiguru]

People keep telling that topping at 4k is beating a 20k AVR. What they very conveniently forget to add that the same topping, being a giant killer, is also beating the crap out of 20k stereo amplifiers, some of which are running in class A mode upto a certain wattage. While the topping is in class D. So much for class A amps that it gets its ass whipped by a 1/5th cost class D amp. Talk about double standards.

+100. :lol:

 

[captrajesh]

To me an amplifier is just an amplifier. It amplifies.

I walk with time and do not look back. I believe science and technology improves with time and not the other way round. So, if my great grandfather used to own one of these, I would have been glad to replace this super-oldie inefficient Class-A amp with something modern of Class-D type below:

Yamaha MX-D1 [US $5000, 500 + 500 Wpc]

Hi Rishiguru,

Science and Technology improve over time, very true but not all technologies get replaced because it offers improved quality. Quite often, it is for commercial considerations viz reduction /mitigation of customer pain points. Examples are reduction in cost both production and running costs), improvement in convenience of usage, reduction in bulk etc. etc.

Kindly go through this article: A Survey Of Amplifier Types (TAS 217) | The Absolute Sound

I quote a paragraph from the same article here:

Large numbers of audiophiles are flocking to replace their modern power amplifiers with amplifiers based on 100-year-old technology. Have the past 100 years of amplifier development been a complete waste of time? A surprising number of music lovers and audio designers think so.

Of course I do not believe that the past 100 years of developments in the field of amplifiers are a complete waste of time but there is some merit in that argument.

 

[corElement]

Bhagwan's input in this thread would be interesting to hear considering he's probably one of the few active members on this forum with experience of using multiple extremely high end equipment.

 

[jaudere]

'Kyonki Saans bhi kabhi bahu thi.' I remember this never ending daily soap when I see this thread daily.

 

[corElement]

Haha totally, saans bahu jhagra thread

 

[rishiguru]

Science and Technology improve over time, very true but not all technologies get replaced because it offers improved quality. Quite often, it is for commercial considerations viz reduction /mitigation of customer pain points. Examples are reduction in cost both production and running costs), improvement in convenience of usage, reduction in bulk etc. etc.

Kindly go through this article: A Survey Of Amplifier Types (TAS 217) | The Absolute Sound

Of course I do not believe that the past 100 years of developments in the field of amplifiers are a complete waste of time but there is some merit in that argument.

captrajesh great article. Thanks

Let me tell you first hand that I never questioned the SQ of Class-A amplification. What I questioned was about their efficiency, usability & reliability by using vacuum tubes in this modern age.

Here are a few reasons why I as a person of modern era stay off TUBES and love DIGITAL.

The Audio Critic: THE TEN BIGGEST LIES IN AUDIO

I quote a few paragraphs from the same article here:

The Vacuum-Tube Lie

This lie is also, in a sense, about a peripheral matter, since vacuum tubes are hardly mainstream in the age of silicon. Its an all-pervasive lie, however, in the high-end audio market; just count the tube-equipment ads as a percentage of total ad pages in the typical high-end magazine. Unbelievable! And so is, of course, the claim that vacuum tubes are inherently superior to transistors in audio applicationsdont you believe it.

Tubes are great for high-powered RF transmitters and microwave ovens but not, at the turn of the century, for amplifiers, preamps, or (good grief!) digital components like CD and DVD players. Whats wrong with tubes? Nothing, really. Theres nothing wrong with gold teeth, either, even for upper incisors (that Mideastern grin); its just that modern dentistry offers more attractive options. Whatever vacuum tubes can do in a piece of audio equipment, solid-state devices can do better, at lower cost, with greater reliability. Even the worlds best-designed tube amplifier will have higher distortion than an equally well-designed transistor amplifier and will almost certainly need more servicing (tube replacements, rebiasing, etc.) during its lifetime. (Idiotic designs such as 8-watt single-ended triode amplifiers are of course exempt, by default, from such comparisons since they have no solid-state counterpart.)

As for the tube sound, there are two possibilities: (1) Its a figment of the deluded audiophiles imagination, or (2) its a deliberate coloration introduced by the manufacturer to appeal to corrupted tastes, in which case a solid-state design could easily mimic the sound if the designer were perverse enough to want it that way.

Yes, there exist very special situations where a sophisticated designer of hi-fi electronics might consider using a tube (e.g., the RF stage of an FM tuner), but those rare and narrowly qualified exceptions cannot redeem the common, garden-variety lies of the tube marketers, who want you to buy into an obsolete technology.

The Antidigital Lie

You have heard this one often, in one form or another. To wit: Digital sound is vastly inferior to analog. Digitized audio is a like a crude newspaper photograph made up of dots. The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem is all wet. The 44.1 kHz sampling rate of the compact disc cannot resolve the highest audio frequencies where there are only two or three sampling points.

Digital sound, even in the best cases, is hard and edgy. And so on and so forthall of it, without exception, ignorant drivel or deliberate misrepresentation. Once again, the lie has little bearing on the mainstream, where the digital technology has gained complete acceptance; but in the byways and tributaries of the audio world, in unregenerate high-end audio salons and the listening rooms of various tweako mandarins, it remains the party line.

The most ludicrous manifestation of the antidigital fallacy is the preference for the obsolete LP over the CD. Not the analog master tape over the digital master tape, which remains a semirespectable controversy, but the clicks, crackles and pops of the vinyl over the digital data pits background silence, which is a perverse rejection of reality.

Here are the scientific facts any second-year E.E. student can verify for you: Digital audio is bulletproof in a way analog audio never was and never can be. The 0s and 1s are inherently incapable of being distorted in the signal path, unlike an analog waveform. Even a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz, the lowest used in todays high-fidelity applications, more than adequately resolves all audio frequencies. It will not cause any loss of information in the audio rangenot an iota, not a scintilla. The how can two sampling points resolve 20 kHz? argument is an untutored misinterpretation of the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem. (Doubters are advised to take an elementary course in digital systems.)

The reason why certain analog recordings sound better than certain digital recordings is that the engineers did a better job with microphone placement, levels, balance, and equalization, or that the recording venue was acoustically superior. Some early digital recordings were indeed hard and edgy, not because they were digital but because the engineers were still thinking analog, compensating for anticipated losses that did not exist.

Todays best digital recordings are the best recordings ever made. To be fair, it must be admitted that a state-of the-art analog recording and a state-of-the-art digital recording, at this stage of their respective technologies, will probably be of comparable quality. Even so, the number of Tree-Worshiping Analog Druids is rapidly dwindling in the professional recording world. The digital way is simply the better way.

 

[square_wave]

captrajesh great article. Thanks

Let me tell you first hand that I never questioned the SQ of Class-A amplification. What I questioned was about their efficiency, usability & reliability by using vacuum tubes in this modern age.

Here are a few reasons why I as a person of modern era stay off TUBES and love DIGITAL.

The Audio Critic: THE TEN BIGGEST LIES IN AUDIO

I quote a few paragraphs from the same article here:

Hey Rishi,

This article is just another opinion. Not all agree with many of the points propounded in this article. This article has been argued and trashed by many on countless forums including this one.

The problem is when something becomes a bible. Camps that propagate articles like these also have some things to sell. I personally know some businessmen who use these as excellent marketing tool to sell substandard gear.

It so happens that this articles is your kind of trip so you tend to gravitate towards it. I respect your opinion but do not agree to it since my experiences vary.

 

[corElement]

captrajesh great article. Thanks

Let me tell you first hand that I never questioned the SQ of Class-A amplification. What I questioned was about their efficiency, usability & reliability by using vacuum tubes in this modern age.

Here are a few reasons why I as a person of modern era stay off TUBES and love DIGITAL.

The Audio Critic: THE TEN BIGGEST LIES IN AUDIO

I quote a few paragraphs from the same article here:

Dude, that article is as bad as a tabloid. How can you even read something like that. It's like reading Femina and taking the words of a magazine such as that to heart. ughhh. He talks about expensive cables being a lie then mentions capacitance conductance makes a difference.....??? Hypocrisy right there.... *shakes head in disbelief*

 

[doors666]

Dude, that article is as bad as a tabloid. How can you even read something like that. It's like reading Femina and taking the words of a magazine such as that to heart. ughhh. He talks about expensive cables being a lie then mentions capacitance conductance makes a difference.....??? Hypocrisy right there.... *shakes head in disbelief*

How about using your brain instead of getting brainwashed. You dont agree to any of those 10 points? I wonder who brainwashed you Here's my take on these.

1. Cable - Article is right, till someone shows me otherwise.
2. Vacuum tube - i like them. Article is wrong
3. Antidigital - dont have vinyl. will sit on the fence for this one, can understand the perspective of both the camps. Vinyls do have better masterings for sure. cds are real bad quality these days due to brickwalling. Neutral.
4. Listening test - Article is right. Dont tell me there is a difference if you cant identify it.
5. Negative Feedback - Article is right.
6. Burn In - Speakers require burn in. Electronics dont. Article is right
7. Biwiring - i tried it. its crap and wastage of precious cable. Article is right.
8. Power conditioning - as long as you have reasonably clean power and a good power supply, good power supply rejection ration, power conditioning will do squat. Any electronics engineer can tell you that. Article is right.
9. Golden ear. I dont have it. Havent met some one who's demonstrated his golden ears. There can be people who have it though. I will sit on the fence for this one. Neutral.

Score:
Right - 7
Wrong - 1
Neutral - 2

 

[corElement]

How about using your brain instead of getting brainwashed. You dont agree to any of those 10 points? I wonder who brainwashed you Here's my take on these.

Haven't said I disagree to those 10 points.

The point I was trying to make was not to agree or disagree to any of those points written by someone else instead of experiencing them yourself, you have found one is right the other is wrong, when I've found the same wrong and the other right. It's a conflicting article based assessment of one person that can apply or not apply to anyone. No different from reading a horoscope prediction on a tabloid. But if you want to judge me instead, feel free to do so. I'll keep my open mind instead of listening to one sided judgement of other people.

 

[doors666]

The point I was trying to make was not to agree or disagree to any of those points written by someone else instead of experiencing them yourself, you have found one is right the other is wrong, when I've found the same wrong and the other right. It's a conflicting article based assessment of one person that can apply or not apply to anyone. No different from reading a horoscope prediction on a tabloid. But if you want to judge me instead, feel free to do so. I'll keep my open mind instead of listening to one sided judgement of other people.

thats right, you gotta make up your own mind. thats why i posted my take on that. i am sure a lot of people will differ.

no, no judging people.

 

[corElement]

thats right, you gotta make up your own mind. thats why i posted my take on that. i am sure a lot of people will differ.

no, no judging people.

confusing lol

 

[rishiguru]

corElement I was going through this very thread when I found two very conflicting statements made by you regarding the mono tube amp that square_wave have shown.

So...beautiful :licklips: 1 channel of purity :licklips::licklips: now we're talking

Quite true, that does not look like a purist design, but who knows whats inside it.

Can you kindly confirm to which comment you stick into. Thanks in advance.

 

[corElement]

corElement I was going through this very thread when I found two very conflicting statements made by you regarding the mono tube amp that square_wave have shown.





Can you kindly confirm to which comment you stick into. Thanks in advance.

Well the first post was in regard to it being mono, the second was in regard to technical design. There's too many things on the facade to indicate an absolute purist design, but since we don't know how they're connected inside, I said "who knows what's inside" I see no reason why I should to stick to either.

 

[Audiodoc]

I agree with doors 666 however I just want to add few points.

1. Tubes amplifiers may have higher THD figures however they distort "sweetly". This inherent property of tubes give them a warm, mellow, pleasurable experience. On the other hand solid state distortion is too irritating and harsh

2. Golden ears don't just me better hearing but better understanding of what they hear. Everyone can put on a stethoscope and hear his heartbeat but only a cardiologist can understand if something is wrong. So golden ears mean an experienced ear! Similar to tea or perfume specialists.

3. Cables are important. LCR changes effect sound. The longer the cable the more the effects however all these are subtle. More so a decent cable with good tight fitting connectors and a proper gauge and insulation is all that is required.

 

[manoj.p]

My take on cables - You need sturdy cable, with strong connectors and enough thickness, max may be 10 gauge. And these cables don't cost a lot.

Beyond that, it's just pure wastage of money and time. It does provide nice hallucinations though.

 

[reignofchaos]

How about using your brain instead of getting brainwashed. You dont agree to any of those 10 points? I wonder who brainwashed you Here's my take on these.

1. Cable - Article is right, till someone shows me otherwise.
2. Vacuum tube - i like them. Article is wrong
3. Antidigital - dont have vinyl. will sit on the fence for this one, can understand the perspective of both the camps. Vinyls do have better masterings for sure. cds are real bad quality these days due to brickwalling. Neutral.
4. Listening test - Article is right. Dont tell me there is a difference if you cant identify it.
5. Negative Feedback - Article is right.
6. Burn In - Speakers require burn in. Electronics dont. Article is right
7. Biwiring - i tried it. its crap and wastage of precious cable. Article is right.
8. Power conditioning - as long as you have reasonably clean power and a good power supply, good power supply rejection ration, power conditioning will do squat. Any electronics engineer can tell you that. Article is right.
9. Golden ear. I dont have it. Havent met some one who's demonstrated his golden ears. There can be people who have it though. I will sit on the fence for this one. Neutral.

Score:
Right - 7
Wrong - 1
Neutral - 2

Here's what I feel

1. Cable - There's really bad cables and there's nice cables that don't eat up or add anything. The rest is just taste.

2. Vacuum tubes - the distortion from vacuum tubes is pleasant unlike solid state devices. As a result, the distortion is never a big problem in tubes.

3. Vinyl vs Digital - As pointed out, vinyls are mastered with more care and to my ears they sound more immediate compared to digital.

4. I don't honestly have an opinion

5. Neutral - Not sure!

6. Burnin is required by electronics - electrolytic caps reach their steady state after running for a while.

7. Biwiring by itself - I don't know. However one thing two wires does is avoid using the low quality jumper that most speakers have between biwing terminals. This probably is what most folks hear.

8. The dirty power we have in India, power conditioning definitely helps - if nothing just in protecting equipment.

9. There are no people with golden ears. However there are people who have the experience of listening to tonnes of equipment and they can help you tell whether a piece of equipment is good or bad.

 

[Audiodoc]

Yes, power conditioning is important in India. A subwoofer sounds awful, loose and powerless, when plugged into a connector supplying 180 volts instead of 230. This is quiet obvious as this ac with lead to a lower dc after rectification and filtering in a non regulated supply present in most amplifiers leading to a decrease in wattage / punch.

Secondly, loose connections lead to sparking which can be both dangerous and audible.

Thirdly, one needs surge protection, lightening as well as over voltage protection for their costly equipment.