2. tech-talk
  3. 126864-1129

Class "A" sound, as related to Stereophile.


It's all about the sound.

It's all about sound, not how much it cost; when I got into "high end", I knew right off the bat I couldn't afford it, but I had to find one thing for sure; how do the various components sound in regard to Stereophile's classes, or ratings? In order to know this; I had to acquire the ability to identify "Stereophile's" class "A" class "B" and class "C" sounds, and the only way to do that was: first, subscribe to Stereophile, and next was to go to every high end audio salon within driving distance; there were 5 well stocked "high end" salons within driving distance. (Since I didn't take my wife, that created some problems)

After a few years of subscribing to Stereophile, plus auditioning equipment that Stereophile recommended, I knew the sound of those recommendations, and I absolutely concurred with them; "If you want to hear the music, you got to pay the piper". While that's true, it's possible to get class "A" sound with class "B" bucks or less.

At this moment, I am looking at 8 capacitors that cost $25 dollars each, plus 2 mono blocks with an instant resale value of 6K. Once I take the covers off and go in with my soldering iron, these mono blocks are worth a resell of O; my mission must be a success. After a successful mission, the resell is still 0; but those mono blocks will deliver class "A" or "A"+ sound, and that's some sweet music.

I have to visualize and hear music in my head before I can modify a component to deliver class "A" sound; but that's the only way for me to get what has become a necessity.

The pressure someone is under when they modify, is great, but the rewards are glorious. On these mono blocks, they are too small for the huge capacitors, therefore I have to figure a way to make the case larger. My reward is "sound" with absolutely no relation to money. I often wander if someone with a fat bankroll can identify the sound, or only how much they paid for each piece.


Happy listening.

orpheus10
almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
...there is no doubt about source first; I’m an electronics tech, that’s what I did until I retired. Source first is a fact from a "scientific" point of view. The preamp takes what you give it, makes it bigger, passes that to the amp, which gives it to the speaker. If you gave the pre "crap" it’s going to give bigger "crap" to the amp which gives fat "crap" to the speaker; some people claim that fat crap sounds good if it comes out of the right speaker.
A lot of people feel that way, but I for one disagree. And regardless of what part of a system one considers to be most important, I would emphatically disagree that "source first is a fact from a ’scientific’ point of view."

What matters is not whether the crap is bigger or smaller. What matters is the ratio of signal-to-crap. And also, of course, the specific characteristics of the crap.

Also, the preamp doesn’t necessarily make anything bigger, as in many cases, especially if digital sources are being used, the volume control will be set such that the amplitude of what comes out of the preamp is less than the amplitude of what goes into it.

Also, while source first advocates frequently point out that downstream components cannot correct for the shortcomings of the source, they almost invariably fail to point out that it is also true that the source cannot correct for the shortcomings of the downstream components.

As I see it, a chain is no stronger than its weakest link, regardless of where in the chain that link may be located.

Regards,
-- Al

orpheus10 OP
8,668 posts
 
Al, unless somebody just invented a digital preamp, I'm not aware of such a critter.  No matter what the source, it's analog to the preamp; that's the only way it works;  have you heard of a DAC; that stands for Digital to Analog Converter; but "fat crap" sounds good to some people, especially when you crank the bass to make it even fatter.
almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
O-10, I said nothing about a digital preamp. I referred to digital sources (as opposed to vinyl sources). Examples being CD players, digital files being played from computers, network audio players, etc. Obviously a DAC would be utilized in conjunction with such a source, unless the source component or the preamp itself incorporates a DAC. My point was that the amplitude of the resulting analog signal, that is provided to the preamp, will often be a good deal greater than the output of a phono stage/cartridge combination, and will often result in the preamp’s volume control being set such that the preamp’s analog output is smaller than its analog input.

Regards,
-- Al
Post removed 
orpheus10 OP
8,668 posts
 

Al, the purpose of the phono is to bring the signal to line level; while a hot signal can come off the CD, it's not supposed to, because there is nothing to control volume inside the PC. The only difference this makes is that the signal is louder, not better.

The quality of the preamp is determined by how precisely it amplifies the signal it gets from the phono or CD. The quality of phono varies a great deal more than CD; that could be good or bad. When we considered BIC, Gerrard, and Dual as good TT's; they were not as good as CD; but when the expensive cartridges and TT's that are currently discussed, are used, the signal is better than CD.

That signal requires an expensive pre and amp. I think what Viridian was saying, is that he only has so many "bundles" of money; when the cartridge costs one bundle, the TT another Bundle, by the time he gets through with those bundles of money, plus bundles for the pre and amp, he can't buy as high a quality speaker as he would like; therefore he chooses a less costly speaker because he has a perfect signal all the way up to the speaker, and moderate speakers will sound good when they are presented with a perfect signal.

An expensive perfect speaker will not compensate for a bad signal, it will do what it is supposed to do, which is to turn the electronic signal it gets into audio whether that signal is good or bad; that sums up both sides of the equation, and I side with Veridian.
More to discover