[nikongod]

The question should be asked:
should the opinion of someone who says that all beers (IPA VS stouts included) taste the same be taken when seeking a brew to match your meal? The answer is of course not. Listen to the guy who says that there are differences, and which flavor will compliment your steak, and which to match the hot-dogs at the ball game.
Quote:

Originally Posted by LeChuck /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course SP are great amps, but you should be able to say they are not great amps without being treated like you just burnt a cross in a church. The OP of this thread had another thread that questioned the rising costs of SP amps, and the replies that followed would make you think a mortal sin has been committed.

aah, but here lies the "rub":
when actual amplifier comparisons are made like this people sit up and listen:
sp supra VS zana (original, not deux)
sp MPX3 VS dynalo
sp MPX3 VS CI audio VHP-2
The impressions of the reviewer are noted and listened to. Our impressions and preferences dont always agree, but when the amps are given their fair shot against eachother you usually see a fairly civil discussion.

has anyone noticed that the OP promised a review, but did not give one, or even an answer to which tubes he had running in his amp?

When amplifier comparisons based on price alone, how long it takes the builder to do anything, and the like are made it is nothing but bullying and name calling.

Something that IS interesting about singlepower compared to a couple other amp builders that HAVE gone into the memory of headfi (even while still building a good quality product) after their amps got trashed is that people are ALWAYS trying to find a fault with singlepower, and there are things to point at and laugh about. But its never been the sound quality.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

The question should be asked: should the opinion of someone who says that all beers (IPA VS stouts included) taste the same be taken when seeking a brew to match your meal? The answer is of course not. Listen to the guy who says that there are differences, and which flavor will compliment your steak, and which to match the hot-dogs at the ball game.

There is no question that amps can offer dramatically different flavors. Should, however, is a different question. Strictly speaking, amps should be water, not beer; transparent. And the differences between Evian and Fiji should be so subtle that you have to be intimately familiar with them and really reach to discern them at all.

Transducers would be a much better fit for your analogy. Speakers, headphones...those can range from pilsner to stout and still be considered top quality. If you change amps of roughly equal capabilities and hear a dramatic change of tone, something is just plain wrong. Well, wrong for me, anyway. If you want to eq your source material through your choice of components, I'm good with that. I like to be able to turn off the eq and hear the rest of my system, and the recording.

In any case, I don't think anyone is saying there is no difference between a Singlepower and a Headamp. They're just saying that it is, as it should be, a subtle one.

Tim

 

[PFKMan23]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif They're just saying that it is, as it should be, a subtle one. Tim

I think that really depends on who you ask. I'll say that, from what I've heard, there can be fairly major differences between amps. realize that this hobby as a whole is dealing with that last 5-15% or whatever percent difference between products. And unfortunately, improvements are not on a linear scale Now I'll preface this by saying, I don't believe I've ever heard a "neutral" amp. The closest to it, is most likely a Headamp GSX or my MPX3 running 6BX7GTs. However. I will say that neither of them are neutral. Each of them has their own sound signature.

I will also say that if neutrality is your goal, then all components must be neutral, not just the amp. If that's not the case, then it's simply settling for one type of coloration over another.

Now, maybe that shouldn't be the case, but I think that if a system is truly neutral, it should also reproduce the feelings, emotions and subtleties of music, as music isn't some lifeless experience. And it's pretty hard to do as I don't know that I've ever heard a system that can do that. Maybe there is one that can, I honestly don't know.

Going back to the thread though, I'd also love to see some of the questins put forth by nikongod answered, as they are key in providing the context of the OP's comments.

 

[sacd lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xenithon /img/forum/go_quote.gif I find it really interesting what happens when amps are reviewed and compared to other amps, and then what happens when they are compared to SP amps. An amplifier can be reviewed and praised, and contrasted against a wide array of other offerings on the market. Some agree, some don't, but overall it is all about subjective preferences and - no harm done. However, if an amp is pitted against an SP amp, a small army starts to gang up to protect the latter. It is as if it is totally inconceivable that another amp brand could be as enjoyable, nevertheless surpass, the SP. I am not talking about "technical" superiority of the amplifiers (although that may be a factor for many); simply the enjoyment thereof. It is also as if one person saying they enjoyed amp X more than an SP amp they tried, they've stepped on someone's turf/toes. Apologies for going off topic, I just find it interesting how different amps (as part of comparisons) yield different reactions in the community

I find it interesting, if you read all the posts in this thread, no one is defending SP. No one said the OP was wrong. Almost all the discussion centered on the CI amp itself or its discrete op amp topology.

The only post questioning the OP's assertion about the CI's goodness was me .... and that had nothing to do with SP. I did so because of the knowledge I had from my friends experiences. Everyone is ready to proclaim the CI giant killer status based on one persons apparent dissatisfaction that his more expensive amp isnt that much better then the CI with AKG 701's. But, my friend didnt think the CI was as good as the Gilmore Lite or SP's starter tube amp with his Senn 580/600's. I offered a counterpoint regarding the CI amp and somehow that input gets twisted that SP is being protected.

The point of my post was is the CI really that good? I am skeptical. I definitely think the whole advertising promotional about the discrete design of the CI is bull. The output stage uses an op amp. So, I guess if you want to blindly accept positive opinions of the CI only, yes. But, my friend is as analytical about audio as you get and he thought just the opposite. So, with that in mind .... how does that protect SP?

Nikongod stated that people are always trying to find fault with SP. That seems to be the problem here .... I broke up the SP negativity even if doing so was inadvertant. Because, what certain people really seem to want is not for the CI to be really good. But, to be able to claim the SP is not that great.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

I think that really depends on who you ask.

Always. Ask the guys who design the amps. They may build a bit of "warmth" into them, mostly to mitigate the brutally revealing highs of digital media, but most respectable, and respected designers are going for something pretty close to neutral. And most of them are getting it. That's why the gap between tubes and SS gets smaller as you go up the quality food chain. The "tubeiness" gets designed and built right out of them, because their designers are seeking transparency, not eq. I don't doubt for a moment that you hear different sound signatures in different amps. I think we probably really only disagree over semantics, over what "dramatic" means.

Tim

 

[sacd lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif Always. Ask the guys who design the amps. They may build a bit of "warmth" into them, mostly to mitigate the brutally revealing highs of digital media, but most respectable, and respected designers are going for something pretty close to neutral. And most of them are getting it. That's why the gap between tubes and SS gets smaller as you go up the quality food chain. The "tubeiness" gets designed and built right out of them, because their designers are seeking transparency, not eq. I don't doubt for a moment that you hear different sound signatures in different amps. I think we probably really only disagree over semantics, over what "dramatic" means. Tim

Here is the rub .... where did this idea that SS and tubes have converged come from. Reviewers who know little or next to nothing about tubes? This stance was parroted around 1975 by Sterophile. But, IMO the improved parts and better tubes now available has once again opened a distance between the better SS and tubes. Moreover, while tubes may be designed to be more neutral they still have some quality that SS does not. Call this freedom from high order distortion artifacts, musicality, improved dynamics from the high voltage operation, or whatever ..... but the better tube amps have something more musically engaging that any SS I have heard does not.

Finally, ask the better designers what they shoot for? I have. It is not neutrality .... it is reality.

 

[triggerc]

So wait, why does neutrality != reality? Confused

 

[sacd lover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by triggerc /img/forum/go_quote.gif So wait, why does neutrality != reality? Confused

It doesn't!

.... ask the better designers what they shoot for? I have. It is not neutrality .... it is reality.

 

[triggerc]

I know, but you didn't answer the question, WHY? Plus, who qualifies for the "better" designers and who are not? Seems pretty subjective to me.

 

[LeChuck]

I'm not quite sure I understand the idea that neutrality ≠ reality. That would imply that there is something unreal about the way music is recorded, and that something needs to be added through an amp that strives for "reality" over neutrally reproducing what's on the record.

I would argue the opposite. In my experience, when dealing with well recorded audio, it's the equipment that best delivers that audio in its original form that gives the most realistic listening.

Of course I should probably be careful here. What's real to me is not necessarily what's real to you. We can have different ideas about what sounds most realistic and both be right; this hobby is inherently subjective, and luckily there are enough products available so that we can both be satisfied.

 

[greggf]

triggerc,

I hear no easily-identifiable difference between the VHP-2 with the VAC-1 power supply and with the walwart. I'm sure I couldn't tell the difference in a blind test.

The publisher of 6Moons, and Wes Phillips in his Stereophile reviews of the VHP-1 (newsletter, magazine), both mentioned that the VAC firmed up the bottom end and added dynamics. I think Stereophile also mentioned the VAC in its Recommended Components listing of the VHP.

By jove, they may hear better than me!

 

[MaZa]

About this CIAudio opamp vs. discrete thing, here is a review of CIAudio VHP-1, earlier version of VHP-2.

Stereophile: Channel Islands Audio VHP•1 headphone amplifier

Here they say about this current feedback thing:

Quote:

The heart of the VHP•1 is a surface-mount IC current-feedback amplifier (instead of an op-amp, usually a voltage-feedback device) designed specifically for use in pro-audio headphone monitoring. Vawter decided to employ the chip because headphone amplifiers present a challenge, given the wide range of load impedances they're required to work with. "Low-impedance headphones need a lot of current and high-impedance headphones need a lot of voltage," said Vawter. "After I experimented with headphone amps for a while, I realized that you really can't dial in a compromise that works for both low- and high-impedance headphones—it became obvious that we had to have some method to select gain."

So, is the current feedback chip something different from standard opamp, or are they talking gibberish, both CIAudio and Stereophile?

 

[greggf]

And 6Moons. They say the same as Stereophile & CIA.

 

[triggerc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by greggf /img/forum/go_quote.gif triggerc, I hear no easily-identifiable difference between the VHP-2 with the VAC-1 power supply and with the walwart. I'm sure I couldn't tell the difference in a blind test. The publisher of 6Moons, and Wes Phillips in his Stereophile reviews of the VHP-1 (newsletter, magazine), both mentioned that the VAC firmed up the bottom end and added dynamics. I think Stereophile also mentioned the VAC in its Recommended Components listing of the VHP. By jove, they may hear better than me!

Thanks a lot for the heads up! I think it'll be more worthwhile for me to put the money toward more headphones or sources after all!

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacd lover /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here is the rub .... where did this idea that SS and tubes have converged come from. Reviewers who know little or next to nothing about tubes? but the better tube amps have something more musically engaging that any SS I have heard does not.

Maybe we're trapped in semantics again, convergence not quite being the right word. It is, at the very least, a word that will upset the tube religion, and I agree that tubes, regardless of build quality, retain a character of their own. I'm glad you like it. So do I.

But nonetheless, as good designers pursue (to a point) the theoretical goal of an amplifier that amplifies the incoming signal accurately (This is its purpose. Everything else is poetry or coloration), the most successful designs - tube, SS, digital...will naturally sound more alike. If your affection for tube gear requires that you deny that, and blame your denial on other's inexperience, well...ok.

Quote:

Finally, ask the better designers what they shoot for? I have. It is not neutrality .... it is reality.

This is where we disagree. This is audio we're talking about - circuits and valves and chips and transformers. There is no "reality" but the degree to which the outgoing signal reflects the incoming one, ie: "Neutral." When someone tells you they're not going for neutrality, but for reality, that is code for creating a signature sound that they like better than the uncolored reproduction of the recorded material. It usually means "warmth" -- more poetry, used because we, the consumer, don't want to hear about the manipulation of design to achieve some combination of boosted lower mids, rolled off highs and/or soft, pleasant clipping of hard transients. We don't want to hear about it, but we do want to hear it. We like it better than reality. But we want to have our color and believe it is uncolored. It is curious. I like this common color myself. I listen to music through headphones that have 2 out of 3 of those characteristics built in to them. My speakers are neutral by comparison. I usually like the tone of the headphones better. But the fact that I prefer it doesn't make my favorite illusion reality and reality the distortion. And I can unplug those phones and plug in a different pair to change that "reality." It's a bit more expensive and impractical to do that with amps.

You mileage will, no doubt, vary. And to that point, I think I've had this conversation enough. Time to give it up.

Tim