A Tale of Three Amplifiers
I had intended to devote this month's article to the topic of speaker and subwoofer placement, but a recent experience has prompted me to focus instead on the fundamental question of how we make informed, meaningful judgments regarding the merits of music reproduction equipment. A colleague recently sought my assistance in the process of choosing a new power amplifier. He's had a high-end system for two decades, and has worked in the audio industry in several capacities. He is technically astute, and as critical a listener as I know. He doesn't change gear on a frequent basis; however, he recently replaced his 15-year-old preamplifier and was looking for a complementary power amplifier.
I generally find that one should approach the preamp / power amp combination as a system, and therefore the best pairings often come from the same manufacturer, which certainly makes conceptual sense from the design point of view. Unfortunately, in this specific case, the power amplifier offerings from the manufacturer of that new preamplifier simply did not achieve the performance desired, nor did they allow the specific strengths of the preamplifier to manifest themselves. Altogether we compared seven different amplifiers to my colleague's current amplifier, but the most fascinating musical revelations occurred when we'd narrowed the field down to the "final three."
Amplifier A had become our "new reference" over several listening sessions. It demonstrably outperformed my colleague's older amp, and worked well with his new preamp. When we first auditioned Amp B, we were both impressed: lively dynamics, great mid-bass kick, and a more up-front perspective suggestive of seats closer to the stage than the presentation of Amp A. But something wasn't quite right. On a quiet guitar passage, we noticed that the individual notes that comprised a simple chord sounded slightly "sour" through Amp B. Repeated comparisons confirmed that Amp B materially altered the harmonic structure of the music itself, rendering dissonant, astringent, and discontinuous the very same musical passages that came across with lush textures and a flowing, soaring sense of rhythmic movement through Amp A. These differences profoundly affected our perception of both the structure of the music, and our understanding of specific performances of that music. Simply put, we found ourselves focusing our attention on musically irrelevant aspects of the sound with Amp B, while Amp A allowed us to relax and luxuriate in the rich tapestry of orchestral colors and subtleties of a given performance. Amp B made sound; Amp A played music.
After dismissing Amp B as an also-ran, we switched our attentions to Amp C. I was immediately reminded why Amp C is a personal favorite. Individual instrumental lines popped into bold relief. Contrapuntal interplay became far easier to follow. Amp C explicitly unraveled the structure of complex orchestrations, while laying bare the intentions implicit in a conductor's approach to a given work. Through Amp C, most music simply made more sense to my ears. My colleague heartily agreed that he could understand my enthusiasm for Amp C. But all was not perfect. We both agreed that while Amp C excelled at peeling away the musical layers to uncover the inner workings of a complex musical texture, Amp A more convincingly conveyed the overall impression of sitting before a live orchestra performing in a real concert hall -- that seductively intoxicating sensation of being able to suspend disbelief, if only momentarily, and immerse yourself in the sheer beauty of your favorite music. Ultimately this aspect of performance won over my colleague, and he decided to purchase Amp A.
I unhesitatingly concur that he has made the best choice, both within the context of his own listening priorities, and because Amp A undoubtedly "clicked" best with his new preamplifier. I, on the other hand, often find myself gaining a greater understanding of the music itself when listening through Amp C, especially when used with a preamplifier that complements its unique strengths.
However, we whole-heartedly agree that both Amp A and Amp C are capable of conveying a musical performance with its expressive intentions substantially intact, while Amp B's failings significantly impair its ability to deliver a musically legitimate presentation.
The bottom line is this: when the time comes to select a new component for your audio system, use the same criteria to evaluate equipment as you use when evaluating a musical performance. Many listeners have been misled into believing that they should focus their attention on the "artifacts of sound" (e.g. tight bass, clear treble, or the audibility of echoes bouncing off the back wall of a concert hall). Remember that every single link in the hi-fi chain, from your CD player or turntable, through cables, amplification, and speakers, can irreparably damage the musical message of the composer, as interpreted by the performers. Instead of "listening to the sound," allow yourself to "hear the music;" you'll find that many components -- that do succeed in respecting the legacy of our vast recorded music heritage.
I had intended to devote this month's article to the topic of speaker and subwoofer placement, but a recent experience has prompted me to focus instead on the fundamental question of how we make informed, meaningful judgments regarding the merits of music reproduction equipment. A colleague recently sought my assistance in the process of choosing a new power amplifier. He's had a high-end system for two decades, and has worked in the audio industry in several capacities. He is technically astute, and as critical a listener as I know. He doesn't change gear on a frequent basis; however, he recently replaced his 15-year-old preamplifier and was looking for a complementary power amplifier.
I generally find that one should approach the preamp / power amp combination as a system, and therefore the best pairings often come from the same manufacturer, which certainly makes conceptual sense from the design point of view. Unfortunately, in this specific case, the power amplifier offerings from the manufacturer of that new preamplifier simply did not achieve the performance desired, nor did they allow the specific strengths of the preamplifier to manifest themselves. Altogether we compared seven different amplifiers to my colleague's current amplifier, but the most fascinating musical revelations occurred when we'd narrowed the field down to the "final three."
Amplifier A had become our "new reference" over several listening sessions. It demonstrably outperformed my colleague's older amp, and worked well with his new preamp. When we first auditioned Amp B, we were both impressed: lively dynamics, great mid-bass kick, and a more up-front perspective suggestive of seats closer to the stage than the presentation of Amp A. But something wasn't quite right. On a quiet guitar passage, we noticed that the individual notes that comprised a simple chord sounded slightly "sour" through Amp B. Repeated comparisons confirmed that Amp B materially altered the harmonic structure of the music itself, rendering dissonant, astringent, and discontinuous the very same musical passages that came across with lush textures and a flowing, soaring sense of rhythmic movement through Amp A. These differences profoundly affected our perception of both the structure of the music, and our understanding of specific performances of that music. Simply put, we found ourselves focusing our attention on musically irrelevant aspects of the sound with Amp B, while Amp A allowed us to relax and luxuriate in the rich tapestry of orchestral colors and subtleties of a given performance. Amp B made sound; Amp A played music.
After dismissing Amp B as an also-ran, we switched our attentions to Amp C. I was immediately reminded why Amp C is a personal favorite. Individual instrumental lines popped into bold relief. Contrapuntal interplay became far easier to follow. Amp C explicitly unraveled the structure of complex orchestrations, while laying bare the intentions implicit in a conductor's approach to a given work. Through Amp C, most music simply made more sense to my ears. My colleague heartily agreed that he could understand my enthusiasm for Amp C. But all was not perfect. We both agreed that while Amp C excelled at peeling away the musical layers to uncover the inner workings of a complex musical texture, Amp A more convincingly conveyed the overall impression of sitting before a live orchestra performing in a real concert hall -- that seductively intoxicating sensation of being able to suspend disbelief, if only momentarily, and immerse yourself in the sheer beauty of your favorite music. Ultimately this aspect of performance won over my colleague, and he decided to purchase Amp A.
I unhesitatingly concur that he has made the best choice, both within the context of his own listening priorities, and because Amp A undoubtedly "clicked" best with his new preamplifier. I, on the other hand, often find myself gaining a greater understanding of the music itself when listening through Amp C, especially when used with a preamplifier that complements its unique strengths.
However, we whole-heartedly agree that both Amp A and Amp C are capable of conveying a musical performance with its expressive intentions substantially intact, while Amp B's failings significantly impair its ability to deliver a musically legitimate presentation.
The bottom line is this: when the time comes to select a new component for your audio system, use the same criteria to evaluate equipment as you use when evaluating a musical performance. Many listeners have been misled into believing that they should focus their attention on the "artifacts of sound" (e.g. tight bass, clear treble, or the audibility of echoes bouncing off the back wall of a concert hall). Remember that every single link in the hi-fi chain, from your CD player or turntable, through cables, amplification, and speakers, can irreparably damage the musical message of the composer, as interpreted by the performers. Instead of "listening to the sound," allow yourself to "hear the music;" you'll find that many components -- that do succeed in respecting the legacy of our vast recorded music heritage.
-- Karl Schuster
Stanford University graduate Karl Schuster began his involvement in the High End audio industry in retail sales at High C Stereo in Virginia, and Sound Components in Florida. He served as Customer Service Director for International Audio Technologies, and was a founding partner of Metaphor Acoustic Designs, Ltd. In addition to the cable and loudspeaker design work he currently undertakes as President of the company he founded in 1993, Empirical Design, he provides consulting and OEM design services to retailers and manufacturers. He hopes to someday fulfill a lifelong dream of coordinating a joint recording project between John Tavener and Charlotte Church.
| HOME | ABOUT CLASSICSTODAY.COM | THIS MONTH'S 10/10 REVIEWS |
| BECOME A MEMBER | MEMBER SERVICES | ABOUT THE RATINGS |
ADVERTISE | CLASSICAL WORLD NEWS | PRIVACY POLICY |