2. amps-preamps
  3. 1355905155

how much of a difference should equipment make?

I spent the last few months looking for a good sounding 2 channel setup and this is what I ended up with:

McIntosh C50 Preamp
McIntosh MC275 Amp (VI)
SF Cremona M
Audioquest King Cobra XLR
Audioquest Carbon USB
Audioquest Rockefeller SW

Let me just get this out of the way and say it up front.. While the speakers (and their placement in my room) seemed to make a huge difference, the amp, preamp, and cables do not seem to make any discernable difference to me or my wife.

I feel like I have purchased the C50/MC275 due to a combination of the integrated DAC, aesthetics, heritage, level of support, and resale value.

We compared several options at home and in high end audio shops.. For example, in one store, I got to listen to the Cremona M's through a pair of MC1.2kw+C2300+AyreQB9 and then immediately following that, the C50 paired with a single MC275. I really wanted to hear a difference, but nothing. In the same store, I was also able to listen to a Music Fidelity M6 and luxman 550AX connected to the same speakers.

I brought home a demo of a luxman 550AX integrated and an MA6600 McIntosh integrated and did several days of A/B testing with the Cremona M's and we could not detect a difference at all. I tried to make sure that decibel levels were matched by playing a test tone and using an SPL meter.

I am using Jriver with ASIO with a variety of music off of hdtracks.. the music is being sent to the DAC in the C50 via audioquest carbon USB cable in bit perfect asynchronous mode.

I checked the MC275 manual and McIntosh recommends 12AWG wire. When I had a pair of audioquest type 4 connected (which was only 16 AWG), we did detect a small improvement when moving to the 12 gauge Rockeller wires. I did not test any cheaper speaker wire. This was the only time that I heard something other than the speakers make an audible difference.

I was also able to compare a peachtree iDAC and Ayre DAC at my home and I did not detect much (if any) difference between the DAC built in to the C50. I do have the latest firmware.

I heard huge differences when cross shopping speakers and doing A/B tests in stores.. for example, B&W 802D seemed to have much more 'oomph' on the low end, but lacked some midrange and high vocal clarity. It felt a bit like voices were not 'tight' compared to the Sonus Faber line. I listened to a pair of SF Elipsa and they sounded similar to the Cremona M but a bit more 'full'. As if the depth of the sound stage increased and also the bass had a bit more impact.

Although I do not hear any difference in preamp/amp/cabling, it does not mean that a difference does not exist. I am not trying to insult anyone here.. it may just be that the combinations of equipment that I have tried are still somehow 'lacking'.

My questions are as follows....:

1) Is it normal to not hear much (or any??) difference when changing out preamps or amps assuming the components in question are within similar specs?

2) Has anyone else purchased relatively expensive amp/preamp combinations even when you believe the components are not making a difference in the sound quality?

3) Placement and angle of my speakers in my room make almost as much of a difference as the brand and model of the speaker - at least to me. Anyone else have this experience?

4) What am I doing wrong that is leading to not hearing a difference?

I do not believe my ears are at fault.. My wife and friends were with me throughout most of my testing and they came to the same conclusions.

In any event, my setup at home sounds great to me and rivals (again, to my ear) most everything I have heard in audio stores.

Thanks,
ecsrun
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,304 posts
 
I know what Al is saying is correct theoretically from what I read, and I think I understand whybut I have to wonder sometimes also.

I do not have as many data points as Csontos, but I have noted a clear correlation between extreme differences in damping factor of amps I have used and major differences in sound along the lines Csontos describes (better dynamics and articulation of details overall though I am not sure that better low end extension is necessarily part of what I hear) with my larger OHM Walsh (wave bending) speakers in particular, which have a reputation of benefiting from high damping perhaps more so than many conventional dynamic box designs.

I think I have even noticed something similar with my smaller Dynaudio Contour 1.3 mkii monitors.

In my case I'm talking about going from a 120w/ch (Class A or A/B, not sure) amp with <50 damping (Musical Fidelity A3CR) to 500 w/ch and 1000 damping (BelCanto Ref1000m). Of course, the whole amp design did change, so big difference there! Lots of possible factors to consider. I sought an amp with 50 damping minimum, but had no concerns about going higher in that the effects would only be in the direction desired, to whatever extent. The first time I listened after changing the amp, the difference is sound was one of the biggest and clearest (for the better) I have ever heard with any system component change. It was a total sonic transformation that I would have to attribute to much better accuracy and retrieval of detail, whatever the technical reason. I'm sure increased damping is at least part of the reason, but I also suspect that damping factor of 1000 may be more of an insurance policy than anything else.

I believe that most top performing systems have some sort of similar over the top technological insurance policy or policies in play as a precaution just to make sure no corners are inadvertently cut. 500 w/ch and 1000 damping that went with it were two of mine.
almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
Peter, consider the fact that many and probably most high quality tube amplifiers have damping factors that are less than 10. I don't think that anyone would deny that there are a lot of users out there with expensive, high quality, essentially full range dynamic speakers who obtain outstanding bass response with suitably chosen tube amplifiers.

And some speakers, such as many electrostatics whose impedance is high in the bass region and descends from there as frequency increases, will provide much better bass when paired with a tube amplifier having a low damping factor than with a solid state amplifier having a high damping factor.

Atmasphere has said in a number of threads in the past that no speaker in existence requires a damping factor greater than about 20. I don't have the background to agree or disagree with that specific number, but given the resistances of speaker cables and crossover inductors that I referred to, I would have to say that if 20 is not the number, it is certainly no greater than about 200, and probably a good deal less than that.

Beyond that point increases in damping factor are simply overkill, as I see it. Which is not to say that your perceptions are incorrect. It is simply to say that there are countless other design variables which may have played a role in contributing to what you perceived.

One very major design variable which comes to mind is that amplifiers having damping factors in the 1000 kind of area are commonly Class D amplifiers, while those in the 150 area you mentioned are commonly Class AB amplifiers. Obviously that would be an apples to oranges comparison.

Also, everything else being equal, if greater amounts of feedback are used in a design a result will be a significant lowering of output impedance/increase in damping factor. The increased feedback will ALSO result in a decrease in Total Harmonic Distortion, which can be expected to make some notes more "articulately discernable," to use your words. Some of the downsides of increased feedback, though, being increases in Transient Intermodulation Distortion, and the possibility of increases in certain odd-order harmonic distortion components that are particularly objectionable.

For that and other reasons, as I indicated earlier it seems conceivable that in SOME designs a degree of commonality may exist between the design factors which result in sonic differences such as those you perceived, and the design factors which result in damping factor differences. But although a cause and effect relation between extremely high damping factors and better defined bass is not infrequently cited in some marketing literature, and is a belief that is shared by a lot of audiophiles, it is a misconception IMO. One that has the potential to steer other audiophiles who may be contemplating an amplifier purchase in the wrong direction.

Best regards,
-- Al
csontos
1,311 posts
 
Alright. Given that the speaker sees far less actual damping than what the amp itself produces, does it not stand to reason that practically, the more the amp is capable of, the more the speaker will effectively see regardless of what is accurately representative in numbers? Btw, the amp in question here is the Acoustat TNT200 which is a pure fet class A/B amp. I don't have a lot of experience with tubes but they do have a reputation for soft, muddy inarticulate bass. I read Ralph's post on this and I believe it 100%. I have no choice. So I'm assuming (guessing) that that effective df of 20 is more likely to be achieved with an amp that has a very high published capability? Who cares what that number is as long as it represents the amp's potential to deliver the goods, so to speak. Are you suggesting that an ss amp capable of optimally controlling the speaker will have a downside effectively cancelling out it's benefit?
swampwalker's avatar
swampwalker
5,138 posts
 
I would also point out that there is a difference between bass articulation and/or tightness and bass extension. While Csontos initially mentioned an additional octave of audible extension, his later posts talk about tight, quick bass w discernable differentiation between different notes. I believe Al was responding to the initial suggestion that a high damping factor will provide more bass extension.
csontos
1,311 posts
 
I stand corrected.
More to discover