[bada bing]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't mean offense, but there isn't a good technical reason for why things would sound SO different. I do think other stuff is going on. you may be hearing some diff but it should be a 'test gear' diff and not an ear diff. oh well.

I've spent some time listening to B22 boards in the 3 configurations (passive, active and 4 channel) since this discussion headed on that tangent. The differences I hear I would quantify as subtle but definitely more than expectational bias. The soundstage is expanded and focused going from passive to active ground. I can't claim there is an audible difference between 3 channel and 4 channel, especially with the source change confusing things. I use an original 9008 Buffalo with both IVY (SE) and counterpoint (balanced) linestages. I have held the opinion that there was a bigger difference between active ground and passive ground than between active ground and balanced for a couple years since experimenting with a two board balanced mini3. So maybe it is expectational bias. It's interesting that soundstage is where the difference would be audible (if at all) given the channel crosstalk numbers though.

I've spent a lot of happy head time with all the AMB amps but the B24. My opinion is that a M3+s11 is generally a slightly better sounding amp than a two channel B22+s22 for about the same money and effort. The B22 has advantages with power, modularity and configurability. If you are sure you want to stop with a 2 channel B22 for headphone use only, I'd go for a M3 and a couple op amp selections instead.

 

[oneplustwo]

I would agree with bada bing for the most part. The one area I would slightly differ is that I believe the B22 is a big jump up from the M3 for high Z headphones. I couldn't tell as much difference when listening with my grados, but with my senns, I was much happier with the B22. The M3 was no slouch, granted, but the B22 was clearly better.

 

[linuxworks]

I just built my first m3

is it a 'big jump' from the b22? I'm not so sure! I'm now quite fond of the m3's design, simplicity and economy. and it also 'powers speakers' so it has the right amount of audiophile overkill (lol).

 

[DoYouRight]

badabing what about a active ground SE vs a 4channel running SE phones? I am worried about my casework, and if there is hum that wont be there when done and stuff, and if at the end I find its the case and I could have had a better setup I dunno. I have 6boards done atm connected very sloppily.

 

[fishski13]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bada bing /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've spent some time listening to B22 boards in the 3 configurations (passive, active and 4 channel) since this discussion headed on that tangent. The differences I hear I would quantify as subtle but definitely more than expectational bias. The soundstage is expanded and focused going from passive to active ground. I can't claim there is an audible difference between 3 channel and 4 channel, especially with the source change confusing things. I use an original 9008 Buffalo with both IVY (SE) and counterpoint (balanced) linestages. I have held the opinion that there was a bigger difference between active ground and passive ground than between active ground and balanced for a couple years since experimenting with a two board balanced mini3. So maybe it is expectational bias. It's interesting that soundstage is where the difference would be audible (if at all) given the channel crosstalk numbers though. I've spent a lot of happy head time with all the AMB amps but the B24. My opinion is that a M3+s11 is generally a slightly better sounding amp than a two channel B22+s22 for about the same money and effort. The B22 has advantages with power, modularity and configurability. If you are sure you want to stop with a 2 channel B22 for headphone use only, I'd go for a M3 and a couple op amp selections instead.

interesting - thanks for your impressions. i've been listening to a M3 for over a year (AD8065) and am currently working on a 2-channel B22. i built the amp chassis to accommodate a 3rd channel and have an appropriate Tx. the only reason i'm starting off with a 2-channel is to see what differences there are between passive and active ground. maybe the B18 and M3 crosstalk measurements do indicate something audibly significant? i have zero interest in balanced even though i have a balanced source.

 

[fishski13]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just built my first m3 is it a 'big jump' from the b22? I'm not so sure! I'm now quite fond of the m3's design, simplicity and economy. and it also 'powers speakers' so it has the right amount of audiophile overkill (lol).

i replaced the Blue Velvet with a PEC in my M3 and am quite happy. it's a honey of an amp and a super easy build.