A listening test of two power amps


Hello, 

It's my first post here. I've been using two power amp setups for my main stereo and I've been curious to see if I can really discern any acoustic difference between the two. One setup involves a bi-wired high-powered stereo power amp and the other uses a pair of identical lower-powered amps with which the speakers, a pair of Tannoy System 12 DMT II monitors, are vertically bi-amped.

I decided to devise a listening test involving a mono acoustic recording made with a valve-condenser mic positioned at my usual listening position. I've used a relatively simple method to ensure that the recordings are level-matched. I've chosen a mono recording method since my goal is, principally, to evaluate the "tone" of the two recordings. I've been inspired to do this test after reading W. A. James' eBook "High end audio on a budget". The aim of the listening test is to try and discern which power amp setup provides the most realistic rendering of acoustic instruments. I thought that a mono recording might help the listener concentrate on the tone. After listening, I think it does. It's less distracting, especially on piano, where stereo or other multi-mic recording setups tend to splay out the notes across the stereo field.

I made two recordings for the test and will place links below so that the audio can be downloaded. I won't at this point give the make and model of the power amps involved, but this is the method used:

Method

1. I created an audio file with white noise at -10dB RMS and put the file on a Logitech Media Server so that I could play it on my stereo using a Raspberry Pi 3 with Audio Injector Pro card and RCA interface (192kHz 24bit DAC).

2. I then put on an LP on a Pro-ject 1.2 and set the volume to my usual listening level on a Quad 34 preamp. Following this, I then played the white noise and used a decibel meter, positioned next to the mic, to measure the level. It measured 67.3 dB.

3. Still playing the noise, I set the record level on a portable Tascam digital recorder arbitrarily to somewhere above -15dB. The microphone used was a large diaphragm valve condenser mic. The Tascam was set to record at 192kHz 24bit.

4. I then recorded the first track of the LP on the Tascam.

5. After that, I wired up the other amp configuration. I played the white noise and adjusted the volume of the preamp such that the decibel meter again measured 67.3dB at the position of the mic. The volume control on the Quad 34 is stepped, so I was lucky it matched!

6. I then recorded the same track on the LP as before, leaving the Tascam record levels unchanged.

7. I tidied the two recordings in Ardour (trimming start and finish only) and exported each as a 192kHz 24bit Flac file. I did not adjust the gain on either recording.

8. I listened to the recordings on the computer with a pair of AKG K501 headphones and Focusrite Scarlett interface.

Results

At first, I could distinguish a marked difference between the two. But now, I'm uncertain of the first qualitative difference that I'd noticed but I have noticed other more subtle differences (for the moment anyway). And that's why I'm here!

It would be wonderful if some people here could listen to the recordings and say which recording produces the most realistic rendering of the three instruments therein, and why. The instruments being piano, drums and string bass.

I've given the two files nondescript names: e.flac and t.flac. If anyone needs a different format or for me to down-sample, please let me know.

Finally, here are the files:

https://escuta.org/webtmp/e.flac

https://escuta.org/webtmp/t.flac

Cheers,

128x128surdo

I have read a lot of books, mainly just the first page. Thanks to people like you you were able to get to page two and three and beyond. If left to me, there would still be wagon wheel repair on every corner. Way to keep the evolution chain evolving for the better

I was blessed with two smart daughters (now both PhDs) who were picked on because they were smart. I would tell them early on That the world is full of A__holes these are young ones and you will run into them all your life. Pay them no mind.  This site has its share.

You are your own enemy in this over-technical quest

Answer is obvious or it isn’t. It’s preference, not better.

"One setup involves a bi-wired high-powered stereo power amp and the other uses a pair of identical lower-powered amps with which the speakers, a pair of Tannoy System 12 DMT II monitors, are vertically bi-amped."

......................................................

Forget the earphones, listen to the speakers in the space.

You could use a SPL meter or your phone to volume match. Practice 1st, find two equal volume positions, mark with pencil.

High Power/Low Power, instantaneous peaks: difference?

bi-wired/bi-amped, difference? low volume difference? higher volume difference?

.....................................

btw: how are you matching the mono block's volumes? measure with SPL meter

"You are your own enemy in this over-technical quest"

I think it was pretty simple test and reasonably quick to do, as I mentioned above

"Answer is obvious or it isn’t. It’s preference, not better."

Sorry, but once again, I don’t think it’s preference. I’ve listened to many systems, good and bad, and I’m never every fully convinced that there’s a musician sitting somewhere to my front, playing an instrument. But some systems approach this ideal better than others. They reproduce the reality of an instrumental sound and its performance, better, through their rendering of timbre, spatial qualities, etc. (although the recording itself also plays a huge part in this). So that’s what I’m looking to do in this, yes, experimental test, choosing to concentrate on the tone and timbre of the instruments rather than the spatial aspect.

"Forget the earphones, listen to the speakers in the space."

I of course do this all the time, as we all do. The problem though is in making a clear comparison of two systems when you need to switch amps on and off and mess around with cables in between sittings. My listening memory is not good enough to make this type of comparison when the two systems are of a comparable quality. For those that can do this with confidence, good for them.

At some point, on the weekend, hopefully, I’ll use some software to devise a switch, where I can jump, with a single click of the mouse, between one recording and another - like you can toggle two solo buttons on a mixing desk with two hands. As it is, I have to stop one recording on a certain player, go to another player, and switch that on. It’s not as awkward as messing around with cables, but it could be bettered. So the test will be more technical still, but I think more advantageous.

All amps of low distortion, low output impedance and flat response will sound indistinguishable operated below clipping. Decades ago Peter Walker of Quad did a test using RTR tape copies of classical master tapes between two Quad amps - a transistor and a tube amp. Speakers used were the then new Quad 63's. The listening audience were British HiFi press. Nobody could tell the two amps apart!