I took a little test at Ray Samuels' place yesterday. I passed...but...
Mar 9, 2007 at 3:42 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 65

Skylab

Reviewerus Prolificus
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Posts
21,807
Likes
1,045
Location
The Court of the Crimson King
I went to Ray Samuels shop yesterday. I've been there once before, and it's a LOT of fun to talk to Ray, and to listen to music at his place. He's a great guy.

Well, yesterday Ray had designed a little test for me. He had me take a blind, level matched test between the Tomahawk and another manufacturer's $500 home SS amp, and then the TH versus a $1,500 home tube amp. The source was a high end Meridian CD player, and Ray has a switchbox allowing me to switch between amps, although I did not know which amp was which, nor did I know what amps the TH was being compared to. Headphones were HD600.

I was able to detect only VERY slight differences in each case, and they were not only very slight differences, but they were NOT pure preferences. In both cases, I was able to correctly identify the Tomahawk, but in both cases, although I had the TH identified, it was NOT clear to me that the TH sounded better or worse. There was a little less treble energy on the SS Home amp (which turned out to be a Meier Audio Aria), and the midreange was a tiny bit more forward on the TH than the tube amp (which was an AudioValve amp), but the differences were SO hard to to detect that I had to switch back literally dozens of times to get a handle on them, and even then, the differences were very ellusive.

Ray will tell you that he designs all of his amps to sound similar, and does HOURS of research and listening work to achieve this. Ray believes they sound almost identical once broken in, and based on a little test he did for me yesterday, I am inclined to believe him. He doesn't like calling it a "house sound", and his amps are very transparent, but he works hard to get all of his amps to sound as good as a $1,500 home tube amp, I can say that the Tomahawk did in fact sound as good. In fact it was shocking similar. Ray's amp sounded more like the Audiovalve amp that the Meier amp, but in both cases the TH was so good it was not a question of which was "better".

I was pretty surprised I couldn't tell them apart more easily, but that is a tribute to Ray's amp design skills. Ray was actually a little surprised I could detect any difference at all, regardless of how slight. I have always thought highly of Ray's amps - and this proves they really are VERY good, even down to the very smallest.
 
Mar 9, 2007 at 3:56 PM Post #2 of 65
Wow, I'm really impressed actually.

I am a little curious though...does this just say a ton about how good Ray's amps are, or does it also say a little about diminishing returns in amps?
 
Mar 9, 2007 at 4:01 PM Post #3 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by matt fury /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Wow, I'm really impressed actually.

I am a little curious though...does this just say a ton about how good Ray's amps are, or does it also say a little about diminishing returns in amps?



Some of both. Ray DESIGNS his amps to sound this way. Other amps are not as transparent, neutral, or quiet as Ray's amps, and thus they give themselves away (even if they are still "good sounding" amps).
 
Mar 9, 2007 at 4:10 PM Post #4 of 65
I have one question in this case: with the exception of power issues (for the higher impedance phones), what then becomes the point of buying a raptor, B-52, HR-2, XP-7, etc., if the SR-71 or Hornet can handle the Job? I'm a big fan of Ray's, and having owned and thoroughly enjoyed 2 of his portable amps (see my sig), I have to wonder why he bothers going to tubes or SS if his op-amp based designs sound almost indistinguishable from the others...
blink.gif
 
Mar 9, 2007 at 4:26 PM Post #5 of 65
A few months ago I put a Tomahawk (with only about 1 hour on it) up against my well broken in Aria and noted with interest that they had really similar characteristics, most obviously a punchiness that, IMO, can sometimes leave the details and subtleness in a lot of music too recessed to sound "whole."

I'm not trying to criticize the Tom or the Aria in any way, just offering an explanation as to why these two amps might sound so similar. I also put the Tom (at about 40 hours) against my SuperMacro IV (10 hours), and thought the sound was much, much less similar than the Tom/Aria comparison. I feel like I would find it pretty easy to distinguish a Tom from, say, an M^3.

Of course, there is that tube amp, which makes this three-way more impressive IMO. I should check in with my friend's Tom now that it is fully broken in.
 
Mar 9, 2007 at 4:34 PM Post #6 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by Superpredator /img/forum/go_quote.gif
A few months ago I put a Tomahawk (with only about 1 hour on it) up against my well broken in Aria and noted with interest that they had really similar characteristics, most obviously a punchiness that, IMO, can sometimes leave the details and subtleness in a lot of music too recessed to sound "whole."

I'm not trying to criticize the Tom or the Aria in any way, just offering an explanation as to why these two amps might sound so similar. I also put the Tom (at about 40 hours) against my SuperMacro IV (10 hours), and thought the sound was much, much less similar than the Tom/Aria comparison. I feel like I would find it pretty easy to distinguish a Tom from, say, an M^3.

Of course, there is that tube amp, which makes this three-way more impressive IMO. I should check in with my friend's Tom now that it is fully broken in.



what's your op-amp config in the macro IV?
 
Mar 9, 2007 at 4:45 PM Post #8 of 65
Skylab, I have to ask....

You said you were able to identify the TH during each test. Were you able to identify it based on the sound signature? Or did you simply pause the CD player, crank the volume on each amp, and assume that the TH was the one with the least amount of noise.

Just curious...
 
Mar 9, 2007 at 4:52 PM Post #9 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by YoungClayB /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Skylab, I have to ask....

You said you were able to identify the TH during each test. Were you able to identify it based on the sound signature? Or did you simply pause the CD player, crank the volume on each amp, and assume that the TH was the one with the least amount of noise.

Just curious...



Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The source was a high end Meridian CD player, and Ray has a switchbox allowing me to switch between amps, although I did not know which amp was which, nor did I know what amps the TH was being compared to.


I think this might answer your question, n'est pas? the meridian was likely input into the switching box, which then diverted the signal to either amp depending on the knob's position. Skylab, do I have it right?
 
Mar 9, 2007 at 4:56 PM Post #10 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by YoungClayB /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Skylab, I have to ask....

You said you were able to identify the TH during each test. Were you able to identify it based on the sound signature? Or did you simply pause the CD player, crank the volume on each amp, and assume that the TH was the one with the least amount of noise.

Just curious...



I did NOT ever test purely for noise when silent. I was able to identify the sonic signature of the TH, and that was partly possible because I am VERY familiar with Ray's amps, and they do have a bit of a recognizeable characteristic, IMO (one that I greatly admire).

Quote:

Originally Posted by omendelovitz /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I have one question in this case: with the exception of power issues (for the higher impedance phones), what then becomes the point of buying a raptor, B-52, HR-2, XP-7, etc., if the SR-71 or Hornet can handle the Job? I'm a big fan of Ray's, and having owned and thoroughly enjoyed 2 of his portable amps (see my sig), I have to wonder why he bothers going to tubes or SS if his op-amp based designs sound almost indistinguishable from the others...
blink.gif



Ah, yes, the $5,000 question, especially when Ray himself says all his amps sound basically the same! Ray answered that question by saying that some people want a tube amp, some want an amp with may inputs and outputs, balanced drive, etc, etc. So he makes all sorts of amps, but designs them to all sound as close to his ideal as possible, and they basically do.

Please note that Ray does NOT believe all amps sound the same, and I don't either! My Singlepower amp, for example, with the tubes I use in it, has a VERY lush, romantic sound, that would differ significantly from the sound of Ray's amps (or Meier's, or that AudioVavle tube amp). The Larocco amp I like so much has a slightly different "sound" to it than the TH does. The point Ray made to me is that it is possible to design a portable amp that sounds like, and as good as, expensive home amps. That is the point, NOT that all amps sound the same.
 
Mar 9, 2007 at 5:08 PM Post #11 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by omendelovitz /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I think this might answer your question, n'est pas? the meridian was likely input into the switching box, which then diverted the signal to either amp depending on the knob's position. Skylab, do I have it right?


Actually, the Meridian fed the amps directly, and the switch box was between the amps and the Senn's.

But no doubt having a source of that quality makes the comparison tougher, since the sound is so good to begin with
icon10.gif
 
Mar 9, 2007 at 5:28 PM Post #12 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I went to Ray Samuels shop yesterday.


Did he at least validate your parking? I did, after all, give you credit for my recent Hornet purchase
icon10.gif


Thanks, Skylab, for all your valuable write-ups on RSA (and other) amps on these boards.
 
Mar 9, 2007 at 5:41 PM Post #13 of 65
I hate to be a fly in the ointment, and I'm hoping Ray can weigh in on this, but I'm concerned that the switching box may have been a bottleneck of this test (depending on how it was built/designed). If the switching box was just a relay from the Meridian's output to one of the two amps (i.e. relaying RCA [meridian] - RCA [amp input] through the box), then I'd be satisfied that there was minimal bottlenecking in this experiment. If relaying the audio from the amp outputs to the switching box as a headphone setup, I'm wondering how Ray relayed the signals... Forgive the anality (hope that's not too vulgar for this forum) of my concern, but I'm a research engineer by trade, and deal with these kinds of dilemmas on a regular basis.
 
Mar 9, 2007 at 5:47 PM Post #14 of 65
Nice writeup! I pretty much knew this already after having a 30 minute "talk" or rather "listen" (Ray did A LOT OF TALKING) with Ray! Hence my decision to hold on to my Hornet!!
biggrin.gif


Cheers to Ray!
 
Mar 9, 2007 at 5:58 PM Post #15 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by omendelovitz /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I hate to be a fly in the ointment, and I'm hoping Ray can weigh in on this, but I'm concerned that the switching box may have been a bottleneck of this test (depending on how it was built/designed). If the switching box was just a relay from the Meridian's output to one of the two amps (i.e. relaying RCA [meridian] - RCA [amp input] through the box), then I'd be satisfied that there was minimal bottlenecking in this experiment. If relaying the audio from the amp outputs to the switching box as a headphone setup, I'm wondering how Ray relayed the signals... Forgive the anality (hope that's not too vulgar for this forum) of my concern, but I'm a research engineer by trade, and deal with these kinds of dilemmas on a regular basis.


I'm not able to comment on this, if Ray sees this threads, perhaps he can.

But since it was just a simple toggle switch between headphone output, I'm not sure how much of a bottleneck that could be.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top