Pro Gear vs Audiophile Gear

[Alan Sircom]

We should all be so lucky someday

Sadly, that seems unlikely. Only one of my parents and grandparents lived past 75, and she only lived on through spite. I have to watch out for trans fats, free radicals and U-Boat Captains if I am to make it long into retirement.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Sadly, that seems unlikely. Only one of my parents and grandparents lived past 75, and she only lived on through spite. I have to watch out for trans fats, free radicals and U-Boat Captains if I am to make it long into retirement.

Maybe that's OK, Alan. In this economy, one has to ask whether or not they can afford to live to be 92. I'll be happy to make it to whatever, as long as I don't suffer a long decline without self-sufficiency. I fear that more than the end. Let me die robust, in my 80s, at the hands of a jealous husband.

P

 

[JackD201]

Hahahahahahaha! You Phelonious CAD!!!!!!!!!!

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

I am here not posting this as a moderator. ...

This thread was to me of great interest. There are out there Pro Gear that would command great respect once any serious audiophile gives them an honest and , if possible unbiased audition.
I would say that a great majority of audiophiles have a set mentality on what is worthy of the label “audiophile” of what they would audition. We don’t expect any audiophile stuff from the big brands(Sony, Panasonic, etc) and have close to sneering attitude toward anything that would label itself “Pro”.

And we are very wrong in this regard. I am currently using a Benchmark HDR pramp/DAC .. It does decode any digital format you would throw at it .. and it does so rather admirably. I would say that fro memory it is not the equal of the Burmester 001, itself the best preamp I have heard. But it doesn’t come out of the comparison as unlistenable either.. Plus it has its own DAC, has a very good headphone preamp, is very small and cost almost ten times less… I have compared it to interesting DAC/preamp systems and it holds its own and often surpass a few … all for less than $ 2 k not chump change in this economy but audiophiles would know what I am talking about ..
And there is the surprising Apogee mini-DAC for about $800… Some here are using it in their systems with good results.
And all these PRO DACs. Many of them would put to shame most favored audiophile products. Some are even the same as the best audiophile but sans audiophile-approved cosmetics implants (Weiss for example) and being priced because of the lack of implant 2 to 3 thousand dollars less.
Amp-wise I am not yet convinced, not yet unless one wants its for the low bass where for less than $1000 , one would find 3000 watts, stouts solid amplifiers …
Speaker-wise. I must say that is where many will be the most surprised. Oh! I know for the most part they are active and I am not about to engage in a Active vs Passive discussion. I am simply saying that there are out there some PRO gear that would put many of their audiophile cousins to shame at of course, a lesser price. Anyone who cares to listen with open ears would be quite impressed by the KRK Rokit 8. For an entry into the world of high quality sound reproduction what we call audiophile system .. for $500 the pair .. And yes, it is good in the medium-field too. Add to that a decent SVS subwoofer such as the SVS NSD at $600 and an Apogee Mini Dac and for less than 3 K you have a serious audiophile worthy system .. Cables? You need a pair of XLR from the DAC to the speakers and they cost $50 for a 20 foot pair at ZZSound but you can always buy your audiophile-approved and because of that expensive cable and hear all kind of differences ..later .. Total would be $2500 for a very good , full range and surprisingly potent system.
Thus my interest in this thread … What’s best is that for me a way to attract more people too into our fold. A way to present alternatives, the better, best alternatives. Products only become better when there is healthy competition and an ever increasing number of enthusiasts, of fans … We have neither .. Our manufacturers do not truly compete. They are set in their ways providing us with what we have come to like; often without really thinking or listening objectively.. The alternative of Pro gear is a real one and a subject for which I would like to see more input from this august membership.

 

[Ethan Winer]

There are out there Pro Gear that would command great respect once any serious audiophile gives them an honest and , if possible unbiased audition.

Indeed, and "unbiased" is the key word, meaning at least a single blind test. That's why so often I invite forum people to visit me in person if they're within driving range.

We don’t expect any audiophile stuff from the big brands (Sony, Panasonic, etc) ... And we are very wrong in this regard.

Yes, totally. In fact, I'd argue that the big name brands make better and more reliable stuff than most boutique companies. Companies such as Sony and Pioneer ship a huge number of units every year. If they screw up and a design flaw is overlooked, it costs them a ton of money. The larger companies are also more likely (IMO) to have honest and accurate specs because they have scores of expert designers on staff, and have the resources to buy state of the art test gear.

I won't turn this into a bashing of boutique companies because many make excellent products. You mentioned Benchmark, and Lavry and many others are just as excellent. But I will say that whenever I have seen obviously lame products, they almost always came from small audiophile type vendors.

--Ethan

 

[FrantzM]

Ethan

Far from me was the intention to bash the small companies that are truly pushing the envelope.
There are good and bad products in all sectors be these Pro, Audiophile and consumer. I will neither cast a great blanket on the Sonys and Panasonic of this world . They can and should do better. Pioneer is an excellent example especially their TAD division and the pain they took in creating their Plasma TV (no longer unfortunately) .. Denon from time to time comes up with some interesting products and back in the 70 to early 80's Panasonic's Technics had some serious products some being now unearthed by Audiophile: The SP-10 TT and RS-1500 R2R for example.
I would not agree with you Ethan that the big name brands make "better" products. Reliable maybe although by pushing the envelope one ends up with less reliable products .. The more reliable cars aren’t the higher performing, for example ... Then again the Burmester took anything you could dish at them with not a hum … Not far from indestructible I must tell you .. There are other examples …

 

[amirm]

Yes, totally. In fact, I'd argue that the big name brands make better and more reliable stuff than most boutique companies. Companies such as Sony and Pioneer ship a huge number of units every year. If they screw up and a design flaw is overlooked, it costs them a ton of money. The larger companies are also more likely (IMO) to have honest and accurate specs because they have scores of expert designers on staff, and have the resources to buy state of the art test gear.

While you are right that larger companies have much more strict quality control processes, they also have a desire to minimize cost as to compete in the cut-throat market they live in. Here is a quick example: Sony "ES" series STR-DA5400ES: http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...10551&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665532067. This is what the spec says for power rating:

"120W x 7 (8 Ohm 20-20kHz 0.09%THD)"

This is what sound and vision measured:

And their commentary:

"The STR-DA5400ES did very well on power tests with 2 channels driven, easily besting its 120-watts-per-channel spec. But with multiple channels stressed, the Sony's current reserves managed a bit less than 50 watts per channel with all 7 channels loaded. More significantly, the Sony clipped asymmetrically, flattening its negative-going waveform several dB before its northward half. This occurrence tends to make the onset of distortion effects audible somewhat earlier than is typical. "

So 120 watt spec translates into just 45 watts when driven as stated.

Let's compare that to step above brand like Anthem. Random search shows MCA50 review in above magazine: http://www.anthemav.com/products/anthem/amplifier/mca-series/mca-50

For starters, they show the power for all configurations where it shows 180 watts per channel at 8 ohms, all channels driven. From sound and vision review we get:

So that is verified at 182 watts. So let's not have any doubt about the importance of marking in mass market products. I can't tell you how many major brand audio equipment I used to repair where I would open a huge box, only to find a tiny amp or ones made from integrated ICs instead of discreet output stages.

As an engineer, I am never disappointed when I look inside audiophile amps. They always seem to be exceedingly overdesigned. Much bigger power supplies. Many more output transistors. Hand matching of components. Much better spec caps. These many not always bring better fidelity but for sure, more money is spent on components than mass market products.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

While you are right that larger companies have much more strict quality control processes, they also have a desire to minimize cost as to compete in the cut-throat market they live in. Here is a quick example: Sony "ES" series STR-DA5400ES: http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...10551&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665532067. This is what the spec says for power rating:

"120W x 7 (8 Ohm 20-20kHz 0.09%THD)"

This is what sound and vision measured:

And their commentary:

"The STR-DA5400ES did very well on power tests with 2 channels driven, easily besting its 120-watts-per-channel spec. But with multiple channels stressed, the Sony's current reserves managed a bit less than 50 watts per channel with all 7 channels loaded. More significantly, the Sony clipped asymmetrically, flattening its negative-going waveform several dB before its northward half. This occurrence tends to make the onset of distortion effects audible somewhat earlier than is typical. "

So 120 watt spec translates into just 45 watts when driven as stated.

Let's compare that to step above brand like Anthem. Random search shows MCA50 review in above magazine: http://www.anthemav.com/products/anthem/amplifier/mca-series/mca-50

For starters, they show the power for all configurations where it shows 180 watts per channel at 8 ohms, all channels driven. From sound and vision review we get:

So that is verified at 182 watts. So let's not have any doubt about the importance of marking in mass market products. I can't tell you how many major brand audio equipment I used to repair where I would open a huge box, only to find a tiny amp or ones made from integrated ICs instead of discreet output stages.

As an engineer, I am never disappointed when I look inside audiophile amps. They always seem to be exceedingly overdesigned. Much bigger power supplies. Many more output transistors. Hand matching of components. Much better spec caps. These many not always bring better fidelity but for sure, more money is spent on components than mass market products.

It's always good, however, to keep such things in perspective. SOS found that the humble Onkyo 706 failed to meet published specs in measurement as well, but they summarized it's performance as:

The TX-SR706's lab results were almost without exception excellent, with near-reference noise, linearity, response, and distortion. The sole exception was power output: While the unit cheerfully produced around 80 watts with five channels driven into 8 ohms, like some other mid-priced receivers it would only do so for short periods (a few hundred milliseconds) before current-limiting to approximately one-fourth power. But this situation is very unlikely ever to occur in actual use with real program material, which is far less demanding than sine tones and which virtually never peaks more than one or two channels simultaneously. My listening tests (performed as always before lab measurements) never elicited any shortage of power or dynamic freedom.

The absolute best? Of course not. But with 7.2 channels, a very versatile preamp and full AV processing at about $800, many will be satisfied that they'll rarely if ever hear the difference...as long as they don't play any sine tones.

The high end, when it's done well (as opposed to some loopy boutique products and oddball technologies), will always have some edge over mass-produced products aimed at a price point. The old argument is about how slim the gap is. And these - AV receivers - are easy tests for the high end. Go to 2-channel, where most of us live. Put high-end separates up against integrated amps from companies like Cambridge Audio, NAD, Outlaw, even Yamaha. Now run your measurements. The gap gets vanishingly small. In some cases it disappears, leaving thousands of dollars on the table and buyers wondering what "the best" truly is.

P

 

[amirm]

I have a couple of Onkyo 805 AVRs which I use for testing. They definitely provide very good value. That said, I was doing some measurements with one of them using Audio Precision and found a really odd situation in high frequencies. I forget the details but it was something like having a very high noise floor. That wasn't the strange part. The strange part was that the noise vanished when I tested the unit a few more times and I could not get it to happen again. Clearly some design issue there.

But sure, as long as you don't go too low in the scale and wind up with IC amps, you are probably OK.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm no engineer, but my understanding is that even integrated circuit amps have their place in high quality audio reproduction; that the right amps, the right implementation, can yield very good results. But this is just what I've read/been told. Is there something about them that universally compromises performance, even when used properly?

While I've got you, Amir, what is it, by the way, that would cause these midrange receivers to not perform up to spec when attempting to play transient peaks on a few channels at once? Insufficient current? Power supply?

P

 

[amirm]

Let me first clarify before answering. My reference was to an IC power amplifier. This is a type of IC which includes both power transistors (output stage) and one or two driver stages all in one. Here is a quick example from Sanyo:

The problem with is approach is that the output stage gets pretty hot. In the process, it heats up the sensitive input stage, causing their performance to drift.

I think what you refer to is the discussion around using IC op amps in say, the pre-amp stage. There, the case is more complicated since the temperature rise is not nearly as much. ICs can be built with more precision than discreet parts and with more complex configurations. Their drawback in that space is the closeness of components which can cause some other degradations. Stereo parts can be subject to much more negative issues here as crosstalk level increases.

In output stage situations though, I don't think there are any defenders of IC amps. The main reason to use them is to save money in manufacturing and not much else.

In pre-amp area however, I would not be alarmed if ICs are used although I do give a small nod to discrete parts .

 

[amirm]

While I've got you, Amir, what is it, by the way, that would cause these midrange receivers to not perform up to spec when attempting to play transient peaks on a few channels at once? Insufficient current? Power supply?

Your guess is correct. They use a shared power supply and hence, the amount available is divided by the number of channels being driven. "Mono block" amps avoid this by having completely separate amps and power supplies but of course, are more costly to build.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Let me first clarify before answering. My reference was to an IC power amplifier. This is a type of IC which includes both power transistors (output stage) and one or two driver stages all in one. Here is a quick example from Sanyo:

The problem with is approach is that the output stage gets pretty hot. In the process, it heats up the sensitive input stage, causing their performance to drift.

I think what you refer to is the discussion around using IC op amps in say, the pre-amp stage. There, the case is more complicated since the temperature rise is not nearly as much. ICs can be built with more precision than discreet parts and with more complex configurations. Their drawback in that space is the closeness of components which can cause some other degradations. Stereo parts can be subject to much more negative issues here as crosstalk level increases.

In output stage situations though, I don't think there are any defenders of IC amps. The main reason to use them is to save money in manufacturing and not much else.

In pre-amp area however, I would not be alarmed if ICs are used although I do give a small nod to discrete parts .

That makes a lot of sense, thanks. And where I've known of op amps being used very successfully is in both dedicated headphone amps and headphone circuits in preamps. Their power requirements are pretty low. A few hundred milliwatts can be a lot.

P

 

[DonH50]

To expand on Amir's comments:

Individual op-amps in a preamp or low-level stage can provide better performance than virtually any discrete stage due to their tight matching of devices and stable, tracking biasing. Achieving similar performance in discretes is almost impossible. Where discrete low-level stages will win is most often when relatively high output currents are needed for low-Z'ish loads, e.g. professional balanced lines. In that case, while there are some opamps that can do it, the most likely scenario is a good opamp input followed by a high-current output buffer as a two-chip solution. Feedback is wrapped around the output so the precision input stage controls the overall performance. However, you can use much larger input devices in discrete stages, potentially yielding lower noise. In practice I am not sure this is true.

I think op-amp's bad rep comes mainly from using cheaper chips, and in some cases the wrong chips for the job. A good example is a certain low-noise opamp that was very popular some years back. In a voltage circuit, it was fantastic, so of course manufacturers snapped it up and used it everywhere since stocking one opamp is cheaper than two and it was all the rage in the press. Problem was, while its distortion and input referred voltage noise was very low, input current noise was on the high side since the input stage was biased "hot". As a result, it was noisy as a phono preamp, since with a high-impedance (47k-ohm) source the current noise dominated. Sad, and frustrating for the company, especially since they made a companion op-amp for those very applications...

For high-power amps, there are a lot of benefits to using an IC for the low-level stages and wrapping global feedback around the amp. However, it is virtually impossible to integrate low-level precision circuits with high-power circuits as different process technologies are used. And, thermal management for a high-power amp is a bear, as Amir said -- getting the heat out of a small, concentrated area is very hard. Ask Intel. BTW, a properly designed amp circuit should not drift as the output stage heats; in fact, it should better track than a discrete solution. "Properly designed" are probably the key words... There are high-power hybrids available, which use a mix of ICs and discretes in a single multi-chip package, but in general it has been more cost-effective (and more marketable) to use discrete driver and output devices in power amps.

FWIWFM - Don

p.s. Regarding limited output in AVRs: Power supply is certainly most of it, but cooling is also a problem. Most AVRs do not have enough cooling capacity to handle all channels driven to full power at once, and protection/biasing circuits start shutting them down to prevent, shall we say, "undesirable consequences". Look at the heat sinking and cooling components on a 100 W pro amp, and compare it to your average 100 W AVR.

 

[amirm]

Great post Don!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Great post Don!

Absolutely! I wish I understood it.

So are you guys saying that op amps work better when power and current requirements are low (preamps, headphone amps, output stages of DACs, perhaps?) but when current and power requirements are high, they put too much in too little space and their performance is compromised by head? Not sure I got the low-z part. Are preamp outputs not pretty low z?

From the department of over-simplification,

P

 

[Gregadd]

"compromised by heat"

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

"compromised by heat"

Yeah. Nice typo. A Freudian slip perhaps. Maybe there was some expectation bias involved.

P

 

[The Smokester]

...but when current and power requirements are high, they put too much in too little space and their performance is compromised by head? Not sure I got the low-z part. Are preamp outputs not pretty low z?

From the department of over-simplification,

P

Low-Z refers to the load impedance. A low-z--or low-resistance--load (a 2 ohm speaker for example) will demand that a lot of current pass through the output stage for a given power.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Low-Z refers to the load impedance. A low-z--or low-resistance--load (a 2 ohm speaker for example) will demand that a lot of current pass through the output stage for a given power.

That's odd. My understanding regarding headphone amps has always been that high impedance headphones generally require more current.

P