2. amps-preamps
  3. 190114-95977

Not sure what to think

This weekend I spent A/B testing a new preamp. My system: OPPO 105 (I only  have CDs), Bryston 9B-SST amplifier, B&W 801 loudspeakers (circa 1980) no special cables, non-sound treated room. My current preamp is a Krell-KAV 250p recently serviced. I have always wanted to test a McIntosh preamp. My dad had McI equipment when I was growing up and recently visiting local stores with McI in their listening rooms blew me away (as would be expected in a vendor-setup room). I borrowed a McI C-49 to try out.

I spent 3 days putting different CDs in and out. Rock, jazz, classical, house. In rock, 80s rock, prog rock, anything I knew super well. I tried a few SACDs, too. I had to keep switching the cables so there was always about a minute or so going between the equipment. 

I wanted BADLY to hear a difference. I really did. Between the childhood nostalgia, the looks of the McI (yes, I know music is for listening, not watching what it comes out of), and the vendor visits, I was ready. I had to believe my "vintage" Krell would not stand up to a modern, much more expensive McI. I spent hours going back and forth and back and forth. I kept telling myself I would hear something different on the McI and I just did not. So many discs, keying in on different types of passages, focusing on the bass or the vocals or the mids. You name it, I was ready for that one tiny moment to say "drop the money on a McI and don't look back."

Alas, as much as I still have a passion for the McI for the non-auditory reasons above, for the moment I will be sticking with my Krell. I am not here to knock McI - I still love the thought of it, or any type of equipment that might upgrade my listening experience. I guess I should feel good that the Krell is still working and maybe something else will come along in my future. My sound producer friend suggested I spend the dollars on room treatments. :-)

olfac87
terry9
2,322 posts
 

@roadcykler @hilde45 

Could you explain the physics behind that contention?

Sure. All surfaces reflect to some extent. This causes wave interference, constructive and destructive, which is perceived as amplitude peaks and dips at different places and at different frequencies. This can be mitigated.

Also, all surfaces deflect to some extent. This causes the walls to bulge outwards on the compression cycle and cave in on the rarefaction cycle. Each flection is frequency and amplitude dependent, and of course adds and subtracts energy to or from the sound wave. This is perceived as a muddy and poorly defined bass response, and can also be mitigated. Note that this is why very few loudspeakers are made of drywall.

As if that weren’t enough, even a solid concrete bunker has a characteristic sound determined by the ratios of length to width to height. According to simulations done by the famous Cox, MOST ratios are just plain bad. A quarter are OK, and a few percent are good. It is instructive to compare Cox’s science with the recommendations of some who should know better.

The results are more complex if the room is irregular.

That’s why a good room will allow most good systems to sound better than most poor systems. So look to your room.

 

pwdmark's avatar
pwdmark
33 posts
 

non-sound treated room...

 

I stopped reading here....😅

sudnh
89 posts
 

It’s very possible your “no special cables” are bad enough that they have obscured any differences in SQ between the two preamps. Cheap freebee cables can be bad enough to do that.

You should have at least heard a change in character in the sound of instruments or voice. If not your cables than you might be lucky to have hearing that is insensitive and don’t have to spend lots of money on audio.

have you tried other changes in your audio setup and heard differences?.

allanblissett
142 posts
 

If you can stretch the funds,  go for the C2700,  tubes, better dac, and lots of McIntosh bling.  Then later upgrade the speakers and the OPPO. 

More to discover