 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
143.109.148.201
We've all heard of amps that sound "boring", I'm pretty sure...
But, what is "boring sound" ? What causes it ?
Follow Ups:
From experience, a lack of a second harmonic (which equates to a distortion that is too low).
80's and early 90's Mark Levinson preamps had built in AC conditioning. I listened to a few of their top preamps and they were ok but nothing special. To me, just overpriced nice looking gear.
etc, etc.
I am thinking, in general, not so much .
all the best,
mrh
Nt.
Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
Some people are just, like, ridiculously hard to please...
Plating Wilco through it.
.
I'm not a person who values soundstage or dynamics - for me it's all about the tonality of acoustic instruments - voice, Steinway, woodwind, drum kit....
Whenever I take out a DHT and put in an indirectly heated tube in its place, some of that wonderful DHT clarity and delicacy disappears and the sound thickens just a bit.
So in a small room and moderate levels I can use PSE 4P1L outputs with something like a type 26 driver. Just enough gain. But one indirectly heated tube I do like is the type 27 mesh. I can live with that.
Another view but I'm not alone.
... while Jack Frost is nipping at your nose ?DHTs provide us with that warm, glowing feeling reminiscent of hearth and home (?)!
Edits: 11/28/24 11/29/24
I have multiple Plinius amps. They are not boring. Actually they inject soul into the music.
Its all relative. I have a friend with the Plinius SA-102 and while not a boring amp for a SS amp, it is far from the liveness you get from a good SET with high sensitivity speakers.
"Plinius" sounds like the name of an medical instrument I'd rather avoid. Even when thoroughly sterilized.
Penius.
I had a Plinius SA 100. It sounded great, but it clipped and was replaced with something that didn't.
.
2022/03/30 Historical Records CENSORED
I have Plinius SA 102. Pass Labs XA100 is also nice.
The Mark Levinson 383 integrated amp is the definition of boring. I think they used these amps to pipe elevator music into your elevator ride.I had the ML 383 for a short while cuz I thought it looked so cool. It was a very nice looking piece IMHO. It was fairly smooth and transparent but also analytical and a little lean in the mids. I think that combined with its 'polite' presentation in terms of dynamics is what made it a total snoozer.
I've had other 'dynamically challenged' amps but they were on the warmer side (Pass Aleph 3 & Volksamp Aleph 30) so even though they didn't light my fire I wouldn't call them boring. I think the ML's sonic character as described above ALONG WITH its dynamically dead sound is what made it especially boring.
Not mine but here's an example ML 383
Very handsome and beefy I thought. But he turned out to be a mama's boy.
Edits: 11/26/24 11/26/24
The thread instantly reminded me of the ML 383. I could not listen to it without falling asleep. It's a shame because I liked everything else about it.
... all basically equal. It's the basic fault of passive preamps. And with also speakers come to that.
Dmitri Shostakovich
Edits: 11/27/24
I totally agree, but I call it dynamic jump. An amp can be smooth sounding without being boring so long as it doesn't smother the dynamic range or response. Example: I generally like the sound of McIntosh stuff, but not all of it. An MA6900 I had, amp section only, was similar to what some don't like in Macs, smooth but heavy and slow, but the 452 and 462 have tremendous dynamic range and are anything but heavy and slow, reflecting the new revision of the company's house sound which started about 10 years ago.
A good test for dynamics is the opening chord of Debussy's "Images for Orchestra" Iberia section. It makes me jump every time, and makes a good test of an amp's jump factor. Some amps can handle this and sound powerful , clear, and detailed, others can't, even though they come from the same manufacturer.
I've never kept components that don't have a dynamic sound. Not for very long, anyway.
LowIQ
I don't think the ML 383 had a passive preamp section but I can't be sure. On the other hand my Pass Labs INT-150 did. According to Pass it was basically their X150.5 amp with a passive preamp section. It wasn't dead sounding but it lacked the more energetic nature of my X2.5 pre and X150.5 power amp separates that it replaced.The newer Pass integrated amps use an an active preamp section with gain. They must have learned from their first integrated amp product which was the INT-150 that I owned.
Edits: 11/27/24 11/27/24
"Who designed these dorm bathrooms?!" we exclaimed. When we were in college, we liked going around to others' dorms. We were curious to see not just the dorm rooms, but the bathrooms and laundry facilities. The above bathroom had the sinks right in front of the toilets.
If you were at the sinks, brushing your teeth, drying your hair, putting in contacts, applying or removing makeup, you had dormmies going in and out of the toilets behind you. And vice versa.
In the late-1990s, and early-2000s, I had the Mark Levinson Nos. 360 DAC and 380 preamp. Both were good. So when we brought in the No. 383 integrated amp, we had high hopes.
Alas, no matter which and how many sources, powercords, interconnects, speaker cables, and speakers we threw at the No. 383, the latter steadfastly drained the music of life and verve. The No. 383 even made Totems sound lethargic and uninspiring - which was monumentally wrong.
Moreover, the binding posts sucked. They only accepted spades. They were positioned, so that the speaker cable could only approach from the bottom or top. If the speaker cable approached from the bottom, then it blocked the balanced inputs. If the speaker cable approached from the top, that often placed a lot of strain on the leads. Said strain could also, over time, allow the binding post to lose grip on certain spade lugs.
The Mark Levinson No. 431 power amp sounds nowhere near as deleterious as the No 383. But it has the same crappy spade-only posts. This time, the speaker cable can only approach from the side, the benefit of which is that the cables won't block the analog inputs and IEC jack. However, they place rack handles across those posts. So if your speaker cable has angled spades, the leads may not fit through the rack handles, and onto the binding posts.
The Mark Levinsons' binding post and handle placement reminded us of bad dorm bathroom designs.
Everyone has their own criteria for what they consider boring or unmusical. For me, anything I've heard from Hegel, Bryston, or solid-state Luxman sounds unappealing. However, there are others who swear by them - it's just a matter of personal preference.
Measurements don't really mean much in this context.
so its a choice and not an accident. The products are directed to
"accurate sound" part of the audio enthusiasts still believing (after all those decades) that they are getting it from a two boxes and TV stand in between.
If "others swear by" what some others call "boring or unmusical", could those differences be as much about speaker/amp interaction(s) as anything else ?
I have Bel Canto 845 tube based SET .- 40W. It sounds thick and slow like molasses on regular monkey coffin (supposedly tube friendly) direct radiating speakers. I thought, well it is what it is. Then I had a chance to hook it up to pretty decent true 100dB horn system and it was a transformation. A lightning fast, energetic sound Naim can only dream of.
Most boring equipment is made by great engineers with boring character and one dimensional personality no woman would fck if not for the "secure future" promise
I've had many amps over the years and mostly two very different speakers. There were some amps that were just boring whether driving my Tannoys or my Thiels.But I will admit that the Thiels require much more power. Some amps that were marginally powerful enough for the Thiels really 'lit up' the Tannoys. On the other hand, and as already mentioned above, I've had amps that were anemic and boring with either speaker.
In the case of the ML 383 -AND- the Pass Aleph 3 -AND- some CJ, even reviewers have commented that these were nice but somewhat on the 'polite' side. To me 'polite' is a polite way of saying dynamically challenged which I confirmed for myself in my own listening room.
Edits: 11/27/24
You mentioned "polite" and I think that's a good word for some amps that are not actually dull. I owned a lovely Accuphase A-36 for a while and it certainly wasn't dull, but I moved on because it was a little too polite.
"Dull" conjures up my dull Benchmark AHB2 that some people like, possibly for its "accuracy", but give me a little "sparkle" over accuracy any day.
lack of a live reference to the sound of unamplified instruments. With rock/pop, who cares?
One doesn't need to first hear a live reference to hear the difference between a good dynamic amp and one that is 'dynamically challenged'.
I've had many amps over the decades and some handle Rock/Pop with incredible dynamics and clarity while other fall apart sounding congested and flat. I didn't have to first hear a live reference to hear the difference.... and it does matter even for Rock/Pop.
...in the context of this thread about boring amps ?
Bryston was borderline boring to me I suppose but it was the overly analytical, clinical, lean, clean, sound that had me wondering where its soul went ;-)I tried injecting some soul into my 7BSST2 monoblock pair by trying a couple different tube preamps.... along with tube rolling. It didn't help. These Bryston monoblocks left their souls in the resting place for the dead.
Edits: 11/26/24
Harry Pearson loathed Halcro amps, which at the time had the lowest distortion. I have seen sneers about Topping amps, thatthey are designed solely around SINEAD.
And the entire world goes nuts.
I like the SINEAD metric. I tend to "play my room" as a listener, that is, I use the acoustics the room gives me, and have always had good times. I don't try to make a room do more (acoustically) than it can. Selah.
In that use context, I have found "clean" electronics to be indispensable. The room always adds its own distortions. And that is what I want to be my limiter, not the gear.
/ optimally proportioned triangles are our friends
Amps that measure amazing, like the Halcro from a decade or so ago, got those amazing measurements using copious amounts of negative feedback. One thing that kills liveliness in reproduction is an amp with a lot of negative feedback.
It might sound clean but it won't get out of it's own way and you can hear this as a "dead" sound that becomes boring quickly.
Nt.
Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
EveAnna Manley spoke about the development of the Stingray integrated amp. With each iteration of the output transformers, they lowered distortion and the sound improved. Then, with a particular iteration that also lowered measured distortion, all the foot-tapping stopped. So they went with the prior iteration that had slightly higher distortion.
WW
"Put on your high heeled sneakers. Baby, we''re goin'' out tonight.
"Involuntary foot-tapping alleviated by boring amps." - NY Post
Accuracy, as found by measurements, is not a reason to think an amp is great to listen to.
I home demo'd a dozen ss amps when I decided to move from tubes, the first being one recommended by a user of similar speakers. I was far from impressed - it was "boring" compared with what I was used to.Reviews had shown that this particular amp was about the best measuring amp on the market - but it was still drearily dull. Amongst the other amps I tested several sounded far less "boring", so I chose one of those after this 2-year search. It also measured well, but it sounded so much more entertaining.
PS - Since other are happy name-dropping, I'll say that my drearily dull amplifier was the excellent-measuring Benchmark AHB2.
Edits: 11/27/24
They won't find it boring, they'll find it to be proper reproduction, which they will enjoy.
Mark in NC
"The thought that life could be better is woven indelibly into our hearts and our brains" -Paul Simon
I don't know that is true but if an amplifier that is proven to add the least to the signal is not as entertaining as one that is proven to add more what is the reason? Could the latter pass some un-measurable quintessence that the former can't or do the added imperfections enhance the sonics?
Of course, what is preferable is the right choice though, I think, for some/many, they expect their preference/choice to also be superior in some objective sense too. So if it turns out that accuracy is boring don't tell anyone.
Given that I have found rather consistently that the most boring amps I have heard are the ones that use copious amounts of negative feedback to get the numbers down to where they are.
Cheever noted that those great measuring amps are not linear at all when the feedback loop is removed. He looked at the Hafler DH500, which has very good measurements even today, and he found that when he removed the feedback loop the amp produced 25% THD at a modest power. The distortion FFT was a wide spectrum of high order harmonics that will sound rather nasty.
Compare that to a no feedback Class A triode amp where you will find at modest power typically <1% THD and nearly all of that is 2nd-5th order harmonics.
His hypothesis was that the more linear an amp is open loop (i.e. no feedback) the better it will sound and that feedback obscures the picture because, it does improve the horrible measurements that nearly all SS amps would have if not for feedback but seems to also take away something from the sound...not jsut distortion. Feedback suppresses low order harmonics more than higher order harmonics and even generates additional harmonics (see Baxandal paper and Crowhurst).
If you had two amps where one essentially made all music uninteresting to listen to regardless of the source, speakers, cables etc. and another amp that gave a wide range of results depending on the recordings played. Some sound dull, some sound exciting and alive and most sound somewhere inbetween. Let's further say that the dull sounding one measures significantly better even though in listening it kind of made everything sound dull. Would you say then that the better measuring but subjectively dull amp is more "accurate" or would you take the worse measuring amp that shows more variety from recording to recording as the more accurate? I would choose and consistently choose the latter.
Is a distorting amplifier preferable because of or in spite of the imperfections? Does a 'blameless' amplifier sound non-preferable because it destroys some unidentified musical quintessence or because we prefer a little flavor? These are rhetorical questions but worth asking, IMO. I think most audiophiles think that what they prefer is somehow better and expect it to be objectively better in some manner too. See my post on Critics about Tom Martin of TAS and his implicit assumption that digital does something bad because it doesn't sound as good as vinyl where the simplest explanation would be that vinyl is not 'better' but preferable. Maybe the only way to 'prove' anything with regard to amplifier distortion is the create music samples with known distortion spectra and see if there is any preference or non-preference. Keith Howard took a look at this, see link, and his conclusion was that any added distortion pattern does not enhance the sound. There is an app available to add predetermined distortion spectra to music samples so anyone can repeat this for themselves. KH was looking for added euphony but not that low order distortion can/does mask high order distortion so that might be worth investigating for anyone curious - which is probably only me and I'd prefer to listen to an LP, frankly.https://distortaudio.org/
What the question doesn't need is another 'review' of the people who think distortion 'takes something away from the sound' without any idea how. If an amplifier is designed to use a decent amount of feedback it will not work sensibly open loop. When I am made Secretary of Audio Design in the new administration some designers will be sent back to school. They won't be obliged to use feedback but they will be obliged to understand it.
Feedback suppresses non-linearity - the dominant distortions will be corrected most, which are usually low order. If the inherent level of high order harmonics is already low then feedback could increase them. Baxandall's case was a mathematical non-real example. The question, then, is are those high harmonics now not masked by the low orders and becoming objectionable or is just lowering the low harmonics making the sound less nice?
In summary, I do agree that people should listen to what they prefer (though I am of the opinion that a lot of preferences would not hold up to unsighted listening tests but that is for a different post:))
Edits: 12/05/24
I'd suggest that measuring kit for "accuracy" is a waste of time as long as it isn't obviously poor. Music instruments (that produce the music we actually listen to) isn't measured, apart from tuning by ear, so why should our amps?
> Music instruments (that produce the music we actually listen to) isn't measured,
> apart from tuning by ear, so why should our amps?
Based on your statement above, perhaps it's the music that's boring instead of the amplifier. I find this to be the case in my system. I have lots of music that excites me yet I have other albums that just don't sound very good. I guess you could call them boring. I certainly don't think my amplifiers and speakers are boring, though.
Oh, well. To each his own!
What you are describing is boring MUSICIANS, rather than boring musical instruments!
Yes, I agree there are lots of those, but my point is that the obsession by some to examine SINAD and other boring measurement statistics and choose their amps on this basis is bonkers. An amp may measure brilliantly but sound dull. No better way than to buy or borrow a few amps and try them with your speakers in your own room. I did that a few years ago after buying a boring amp that disappointed me, despite its excellent measurements. The one I decided on also measures well but offers so much more listening pleasure and excitement.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
