DIYMobileAudio.com Car Stereo Forum banner

Do all "Competently Designed and Level Matched" Amplifiers/Head Units sound the same?

  • All Head Units AND Amplifiers sound the same!

    Votes: 26 12.4%
  • All Head Units sound the same, but Amps sound different!

    Votes: 6 2.9%
  • All Amps sound the same, but Head Units sound different!

    Votes: 11 5.2%
  • Both Head Units AND Amplifiers sound different!

    Votes: 115 54.8%
  • Yes there are differences, but at 80 mph you can't hear them!

    Votes: 52 24.8%
  • Yes there are differences, even audible at 80 mph!

    Votes: 36 17.1%

Do all competently designed and level matched amps/head units sound the same?

46K views 318 replies 44 participants last post by  Oliver 
#1 · (Edited)
I am conducting a simple poll to see what the opinions are form the DIY community regarding the sonic differences (if any) between head units and amplifiers. This is simply what you believe.

Please keep it to only a poll so this thread does not deteriorate and get shut down (i.e, vote, but keep your comments to yourself). This is a real hot spot that has very strong supporters on both sides.

****This poll is NOT intended to prove anything as perception can be vastly wrong, and just because one side will win this poll does NOT mean their perception is fact or accurate.****

****If you vote yes, also vote if you think it matters at 80 mph - This poll allows you to select more than 1 answer****
 
#2 ·
Thanks for those who chose to move this to the "no question is dumb forum", since this is an opinion poll. It won't stop the results and I am sure many regard it as a dumb question on both sides of the topic. Thanks to all that have voted!
 
#5 · (Edited)
no offense intended, but the poll is silly. The correct answer is not dependent on ... in fact, only loosely correlated with ... a majority opinion on an audio message board.

The only real question of interest is : do we have a comprehensive set of specifications that completely describe & determine "the sound" of purely electronic devices (lets not include loudspeakers, for now)? All data ... all scientific investigation, all theory, and all tests ... leads to an affirmative answer.

If two pieces of audio electronics have the same gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion ... then what is the parameter by which they CAN sound different?

What is it?

The type of solder used? If it doesn't impact gain, power, frequency response, noise or distortion ... then it is irrelevant.

The type of capacitors used? If it doesn't impact gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion ... then it is irrelevant.

The type of wire used? If it doesn't impact gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion ... then it is irrelevant.

By the way ... nobody in their right mind says that all amps sound the same. I can pull two amps off the same production line, and set their gain controls different by 0.25dB. They WILL sound different. However, the REASON they sound different is because that gain knob happens to impact one of these : gain, power, frequency response, noise or distortion.

Conversely, there's always someone who says : "I swapped amps, and i KNOW they sounded different !!!!"

That's a meaningless statement. What WOULD be a meaningful statement is : "I swapped amps, and i carefully measured gain, power, frequency response noise & distortion to make sure these classic parameters were the same. Then, in a controlled listening test where the name brands were hidden, a statistically significant difference was identified. And because i carefully eliminated the classic variables of gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion, i have come to the conclusion that the difference could NOT be attributed to any of these classic variables".

Of course, that statement has never been offered in the history of the world.

So the question always remains : How do you know whether or not the difference you heard can be attributed to : gain, power, frequency response, noise or distortion?

How could anyone possibly answer this question? Do we have no choice but to wander aimlessly in the dark ... no choice but to rely on guru opinions and internet polls? Is there no logical process to determine if differences can be attributed to gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion? What's the process to determine if these specs are indeed comprehensive?
 
#10 ·
no offense intended, but the poll is silly. The correct answer is not dependent on ... in fact, only loosely correlated with ... a majority opinion on an audio message board.
Damn. I hit reply expressly to say just that. Well, I wanted to put it more coarsely: reality doesn't give a damn what a poll says. The earth doesn't magically become a cube, or President Obama a Muslim, just because people are stupid enough to answer that way in a poll.

(And yes, at this juncture in the polling at least there are at least 17 people in active denial of reality. They probably just got back from Glenn Beck's klansman gathering in Washington.)

But at least there's one point on which at least the way we would phrase the issue, if not our actual position, seems to differ a smidgen.

The only real question of interest is : do we have a comprehensive set of specifications that completely describe & determine "the sound" of purely electronic devices (lets not include loudspeakers, for now)? All data ... all scientific investigation, all theory, and all tests ... leads to an affirmative answer.
I would phrase the only real question as being: in competently designed, nonbroken equipment properly specified for a reasonable application, has anyone ever heard a difference between devices under test? The answer, in case it wasn't obvious, is once: a nonbroken and competently designed CD player with 14-bit resolution (I believe the first model of CD player sold for home use) sounded different from a nonbroken and competently designed CD player with 16-bit resolution (a generation or two more advanced, but we're still talking early 1980s here).

If it's not audible, it's just not worth discussing if one's goal is reproducing music.

That's of course not to say that there are any number of subjective (looks, brand loyalty/snobbery, color, perceived quality, perceived value, etc.) or objective (I/O layout, projected resale value, features, price, form factor, etc.) properties that can distinguish one digital source/amp/wire from another. But non of those properties have anything to do with the "sound" of the box or wire in question.
 
#23 ·
Think of the small set of meaningful measurements & specs as the "******** filter" that prevents you from spending needlessly. All comments, opinions, rumors, biases and prejudices about electronic audio equipment ENTER the "bs filter", and what comes OUT are the only things that sonically matter :)
 
#27 · (Edited)
The universe of incompetently designed digital sources and amplifiers is extremely small, from my experience. In fact, I'm going to do a level-matched single-blind test between an expensive amp from a brand I'd never consider buying (Arc KS125.4 Mini) and my old Rockford_ Fosgate_ Power 300 MOSFET. Yes, the test is being run on mains, rather than subwoofers! (I'm not stupid.) His car, his speakers, his music.

What am I getting in return? A check for Pakistani flood relief work for $200, and the expensive amp. If the coin comes up heads 10x in a row, then I lose the Power 300 and give $2000 to flood relief. (Admittedly, that means I'd only lose the amp, because the contribution is just a small part of a larger one I've already committed to give.)


But to answer your question, I think, here's a reasonable set of rules of thumb:

If it's from a reasonably well-known maker with a reputation for honesty, trust unless you have a specific reason not to. (For instance, there have been claims that some Clarion HU's and older Alpine PDX amps have self-noise. I take no position on the truth of those claims, because I've not used either one. But they're out there, and claims of noise are reasonable, so I would not buy such a thing blind.)

If there are reviews of other pieces of kit from that maker and they generally test well enough and true-to-spec, trust a little more.

If it's on the extreme low end or the high end of the market, verify rather than trust.

If the marketer spews technobabble that looks like it's designed to be flypaper for audiophools, and it's on the expensive side, don't trust and it's probably not worth your time to verify.

If the marketer spews technobabble about mods to a different brand of parts inside, assume that they're clueless idiots, hacks, and con-men.

If you hear someone talking about a commodity part (from a sonic perspective) "sounding better," assume they are either scammers OR the piece of kit in question is incompetently designed OR the piece of kit in question is designed with something other than fidelity to the input signal.
 
#28 · (Edited)
The universe of incompetently designed digital sources and amplifiers is extremely small, from my experience. In fact, I'm going to do a level-matched single-blind test between an expensive amp from a brand I'd never consider buying (Arc KS125.4 Mini) and my old Rockford_ Fosgate_ Power 300 MOSFET. Yes, the test is being run on mains, rather than subwoofers! (I'm not stupid.) His car, his speakers, his music.

What am I getting in return? A check for Pakistani flood relief work for $200, and the expensive amp. If the coin comes up heads 10x in a row, then I lose the Power 300 and give $2000 to flood relief. (Admittedly, that means I'd only lose the amp, because the contribution is just a small part of a larger one I've already committed to give.)
Are you able to divulge who is doing the test against you? I would be more interested if the test involved a Class D full range (HD 600/4) against a Arc SE edition or something along those lines. Also, I would never agree to 10x in a row, 8-9/10 still proves an audible difference and prevents against luck IMO. Is there going to be a break in time or is it left, right, left right, picking which is which?
 
#43 · (Edited)
I disagree with Mark Z, lycan, and DS-21 on the specifics of intelligibility.

There is the simple, dumbed down version we're treated to here, and then there is the realm of time-based improvement.

Is it possible that as a filtering device, the human hearing mechanism is simply too crude, too diverse and too subjective as a measurement device, such that the five distinctly measurable criteria lycan uses to divide fact from fiction, are only the five most important parameters, ones that can be measured by media that "moves faster" in correlation?
no, it's not possible.

What you're missing is that the devices under discussion are electrical. Their outputs are electrical signals. And electrical theory is very well established, and very comprehensive.

There's only a handful of parameters that can describe an electrical signal. These parameters have equivalent descriptions in the time domain, and frequency domain. There's simply no other "secret domain" that human hearing knows about *wink wink* but that somehow escapes the scrutiny of well-established electrical theory and analysis.

If the voltages presented to two loudspeakers are identical, according to all electrical measurement and theory, there's simply no way for the loudspeakers to sound "different" because of some mysterious, magical realm that only human hearing is privy to.
I'm not disagreeing with the principle of this supposition, because I am pretty sure Richard Clark did his turn on the catwalk without tripping, but more a consternation of reciprocal ideas gone awry, as I truly wish to remove the scientist from his lab.

Let's suppose that it were possible to create an amp identical to another, except for the ability to create power over time, something like "Dynamic Power on Demand" or non-negative feedback designs that let hysteresis or back emf commingle the signal, would these then fall under "noise, distortion, gain, freq response, etc."?

I'm of the belief that the human mind is subject to principles of detection that over time, will allow one amplifier to ultimately satisfy more than another, and it's because over time one becomes aware of things that might not be readily apparent. Things like listener fatigue, and highly reactive speaker loads, heat dissipation, radiant noise interference, the dreaded "sub-harmonic resonances"... what happens when you compare the circuit design itself, why would an amplifier designer gain precedence over another in this day and age if all the amps can be made to sound the same through simple adjustments?

I want to believe that you can math it out all the way but I reserve the right to drink the milk of bovines, irregardless...........

lol.
A laboratory IS the "real world" ... the only difference being that it's a world where variables are controlled, so that cause & effect can be determined.

Richard Clark's test can't be beaten, because it simply demonstrates the principles we're discussing. If two amplifiers deliver the same ELECTRICAL signal to a loudspeaker, there's simply NO WAY they can "sound" different. What constitutes "the same" as far as electrical signals are concerned? It's simple : gain, power, frequency response, noise & distortion. There's no other "hidden realm" outside the scope of Fourier Analysis, Parseval's Theorem, etc. that *only* human hearing "knows about" :rolleyes:

Is there another domain for describing electrical signals ... other than the time domain & frequency domain?

Voodoo priests and audiophiles don't understand this point : if the electrical signals presented to a loudspeaker are the same, then the speaker has no choice but to respond the same ... and human hearing is not uniquely "clued-into" some magical realm where this simple, logical conclusion is somehow false.

Want to prove this conclusion false? Fine ... set up two amplifiers that deliver the same electrical signal ... according to full time-domain analysis, according to full frequency-domain analysis ... and demonstrate an observable, statistically-significant difference. One should note, however, that it's been tried many, many times ...

Wait ... what about reactive loads? Already included ... they will, or will not, impact the frequency response of the amplifier(s) in question. If a significant, measurable difference is observed, then a sonic difference will also be possible. If the amplifier's output impedance is low enough that the reactive load presents no significant difference in frequency response, then the electrical signals presented to a loudspeaker will be the same. Can a sonic difference still be heard? Does the speaker "know" something OTHER than the voltage presented to it's terminals?

Wait ... what about heat dissipation? I'll give you two amps : the electrical outputs measure identically, but one is hotter then the other. How will the loudspeaker know the difference? Well, maybe the speaker's temperature is a bit higher cuz it's in close proximity to the warm amp ... ;)

Wait ... what about weight? Two amps have identical electrical outputs, but one amplifier weighs more than the other. Maybe it's gravitational field impacts the speaker differently ...

Wait .. what about listener fatigue? Again, missing the point. Amplifiers are ELECTRICAL. They are measured in the TIME DOMAIN, and/or FREQUENCY DOMAIN. If two amplifiers deliver the same signal, measured over TIME ... how will human hearing "fatigue" over one of them, but not the other? That's where that pesky "laboratory" comes in handy, what with it's nifty ability to logically separate variables vis-a-vis cause & effect ...
 
#44 ·
Lycan,

I know you have written all this before in other similar posts, but Thank you again.


Same to Mark and DS!!

I love reading this stuff!
 
#45 ·
I very much want to agree with such common sense logical analysis, and I have to concede that electrically, there should be no difference between, but....

lol...

I see you've had this come up before, and clearly I'm out of my element, lycan. I do appreciate you putting it into easy to understand terms, and I have to accept my own humanity in the vexing, I surely do not wish that this is all there is, that something further awaits, perhaps dark energy or time/space continuum arguments far off in the cosmos... but daydreams aside, I'm conceding defeat.

If there is nothing to it then, germanium versus metal oxides, carbon and ceramics, dissipative factors, star grounding, shielding, the parts of the electrical signal that physically modulate a different approach, if discrete pre-amps are not superior, if wire winding and silver content in the build, if it's all a big joke, I'm thinking this is not a good day, my world crashes in small imperceptible losses of an indistinct nature...

at least we have the mechanical to electrical, the acoustician scatters the desk, a new approach then..
I'll extend & elaborate, maybe wander around aimlessly for a bit ...

I've said that loudspeakers should be treated *differently*. Does that mean that loudspeakers operate beyond the realm of logic & science? OF COURSE NOT!! They are simply more COMPLEX. First of all, they present a NEW DIMENSION that's absent in electronic devices (that only "care about" voltage vs. time) ... that "new dimension" is SPACE. Speakers must be measured at different distances and angles for completeness ... electronic devices simply don't have this added dimension.

Furthermore, loudspeakers are the most non-linear elements in the reproduction chain ... by an order-of-magnitude (or two). This means that the complexities of distortion can almost never be ignored over the region of "normal operation", unlike power amplifiers & headunits. The Richard Clark test restricts operation of the amplifier to no (or low) distortion ... try to imagine a similar test for loudspeakers!

More random ramblings ...

What about jitter in digital devices? Jitter does NOT escape the scrutiny of math, logic and measurement ... i've tried to lay the foundation for such in the tutorials section :) Jitter ABSOLUTELY falls under the category of "noise" in the classic parameters i've used to describe electrical devices. It's been MY CONTENTION, however, that jitter is a uniquely "weird" type of noise that will NOT be uncovered with a simple 1kHz measurement. It had no real history prior to the advent of digital audio in the early eighties. And lots of the early tests & analysis of jitter simply failed to recognize the "worst case" scenario ... of the jitter signals themselves, as well as the "carrier signals" modulated by the jitter (jitter is a multiplicative noise, rather than an additive noise, which makes it's observation more complicated ... and as such, it was something that many audio engineers were simply not equipped to deal with in the early days of digital audio). But the bottom line remains the same : it can be analyzed, measured & tested ... and if two devices measure the same (with jitter below an audible noise floor), they will sound the same. Perhaps, as DS-21 would contend, we've already achieved this plateau ... with ALL electronic noise sources, including that weird one, unique to digital audio, called jitter.

Back on-point: the most important thing to remember is the METHOD, rather than the CONCLUSIONS. Here's what i mean :

This is an example of FAULTY reasoning : "I swapped two amps, and i KNOW they sounded different!!! Therefore, all this science stuff is just some crazy laboratory baloney. I know amps sound different !!!!"

A scientist would absolutely agree that simply swapping two amplifiers WILL result in different sound. First, check the gains : if the gains are not within 0.25dB of each other, you've just found the REASON why the amps sound different. After that, measure the FREQUENCY RESPONSE : you just might be surprised when you uncover the second REASON why amps can sound different. And so on, and so on ...

The laboratory IS the real world. It's not over the rainbow in oz. It's simply an environment where variables are ISOLATED, so that true cause & effect can be established. Without this guiding light, we're all wandering aimlessly in the dark ...
 
#46 ·
okay, knee-jerk reactivity passing, let me try something:

"
If two amplifiers deliver the same signal, measured over TIME ... how will human hearing "fatigue" over one of them, but not the other?

"

my not-so-clear point is that no two amplifiers can deliver the same signal, not exactly. But as you put it, good circuit design takes up variance slack, so that the outcome of the signal is such that there is no "appreciable difference" to speak of.

What I was stuck on, is that just as a guitar's note decays at a given rate, giving it a signature so must there be a sonic signature to amplifiers, out of the box that imparts flavor, distinction, or whatever qualifier of the moment fancies that is scientifically correct. But to make this of any value whatsoever, I'd have to challenge that without sophisticated tools, without manipulation of the signal down to the nth degree, without any equalizing of any kind, that it is not only possible for amplifiers to sound different, it's the most often encountered scenario.

I'm not talking about bringing the two amplifiers into a comparatively equal condition, I'm talking about taking two amplifiers and hooking them up, setting the gain and that's it, is that then "electrically different" and as such, unremarkable?

I think that the overwhelming majority of people who consider themselves capable of tuning a system, also will believe they can distinguish sonically the electrical signal of head units/amplifiers.

I don't think I'm asking too much, I mean I understand that if two amplifiers are manipulated to produce an identical electrical result, the difference is non-negotiable but the average enthusiast not only doesn't want to do anything of that sort, they are usually about claiming the product they invested in is a superior performer, so...
If two amplifiers have the same power, gain, frequency response, noise & distortion ... all measured over the same bandwidth of human hearing, all noise & distortion components below the threshold of audibility ... then these two gain blocks MUST be sonically "neutral". They will BOTH amplify that guitar decay identically, as far as human hearing bandwidth & dynamic range are concerned.

Is it *possible* for an amplifier to impart a "sonic signature" to a decaying guitar note? Sure ... if the amplifier introduces it's own dynamics (time constants, or poles) in the 20kHz bandwidth of human hearing, then it will impart it's own "decay signature" :) But alas, it will not ... MUST not ... then have a flat frequency response from 20Hz to 20kHz :( It's simply impossible to a have a flat frequency response (from 20Hz to 20kHz, magnitude & phase included) and still impart a "sonic signature" to a decaying guitar note.

And most people would conclude that they don't WANT their electronics to impart a sonic signature ... they would rather hear the guitar, thank you very much, rather than the amplifier :)
 
#47 ·
Okay, a few more questions for me on this subject:

1) So, is the real "reason" amps sound different because of the measurements we are given by the manufacturer and quality control within the amp manufacturing process?

2) Also, what effect does headroom have? (i.e. Amp "a" is rated at 100x2 but has a 1000 watt power supply and amp "b" is rated at 100x2 but only has a 500 watt power supply - couldn't you level match both amps, but have a difference that is audible when driving the amp hard due to the extra headroom?)

3) Will cheaper electrical parts act differently or out of tolerance under extreme stress or prolonged play time?

FYI, the Richard Clark challenge means nothing to me as he required you to pick 20/20 in order to prove a audible difference. You would fail at 19/20 and does anyone truly believe no audible difference exists at that point. Also, he will not divulge test scores of previous testers.
 
#49 ·
"It's perfectly valid for me to know brand names in a non-blind test, and discard all measurements to establish equivalence ... but for the tester to expect 20/20 is complete ******** !!!"

So your not biased in any whey shape or form? You are a rare breed. Nothing wrong with it. Just typing.
 
#50 · (Edited)
huh? i don't think you've understood what i wrote. The last statement (that you quoted) was a tongue-in-cheek, facetious "stab" at those who would choose to apply logic & science "selectively". I'll elaborate ...

It's funny for a subject to state the following :

"I don't beleeve in none of dis science mumbo-jumbo. Measurn **** and matching gains may be fine in ur fancy-pants lab, but in dis hear 'real world' it don't meen nuthn'. I know amps sound different, cuz i put a BallBlaster in my 96 civic and it blew da **** outa da HeadBanger in my buddies 92 camaro. Don't tell me about "isolatn' no variables" cuz dat don't mean **** in the real world. So what if I know da name brands bein tested, don't make no difference to me !!! Furthermore, a correct selection of 20/20 represents an abnormally high threshold in statistical expectations."

:D:D:D:D:D
 
#52 ·
yep, that's a great article. EVERYONE should read it.

What is shocking and astonishing to me, is that the "audio reviewer gurus" know absolutely NOTHING about the most simple, basic principles of electronics and logic. These reviewers were in shock & awe ... astonished and stunned with disbelief ... over this simple principle:

If two amplifiers deliver the SAME voltage to a loudspeaker, then the speaker has no choice but to sound the SAME. Furthermore ... that voltage can be measured, and adjusted at will.

Absolutely contrary to every religious principle they hold so dear, as guru-audiophile-reviewers.

I guarantee that, to this very day, they still don't understand this simple principle. "Surely," they are thinking, "there must be some symbiosis or gestalt or communion between an amplifier and a speaker that magically works outside the realm of voltage, outside the realm of electronic study, beyond the realm of logic ... ????"

LMFAO :D :D
 
#54 ·
Okay, read it. So, Carver was able to modify his amp to sound like a reference amp and that is supposed to convince me? Am I missing something.
I hope that we all now appreciate this:

If two pieces of audio electronics are ELECTRICALLY the same, then they must be SONICALLY the same.

It's OK ... like i said, most audiophile gurus would not understand this point.
So, do you, Lycan, believe that all Head Units sound the same? Are all D/A converters the same?
Of course not. Two headunits with different volume settings will sound different. Two headunits with a different noise floor will sound different, as will two headunits with different frequency responses.

If two headunits are electrically indistinguishable, will they be sonically indistinguishable ???? Hmmmmmm .... i guess that depends on who you ask !!! LOL
 
#55 ·
Time for me to ask a question :

Niebur3, if i measure the outputs of two amplifiers (or headunits) and find that they are electrically "the same", can they still sound different?

It's a simple question. And i'll quantify what i mean by "the same":

1. Gains within 0.25dB
2. Frequency responses (magnitude & phase) within 0.25dB over 20kHz
3. Noise floors both below -90dB, for all signals in the audio band
4. Distortion components below -80dB, for all signals in the audio band

All above points measured while driving the intended load.

Will these two pieces of audio electronics sound the same? I'll even make it multiple choice :

a. yes
b. no
c. not enough information given
 
#56 ·
I love multiple choice :D.
I don't know. I should answer B, but I understand you can "make" 2 amps sound that same as Carver did, but as a consumer buying off the shelf, is it really possible to buy 2 amps (1 high and and 1 much lower, but still competently designed) and yield identical sonic results?
 
#59 ·
They don't have to measure "identically." Instruments are actually much more "revealing" than human hearing is, so two amps of the same design made on the same line for the same reseller will usually "measure differently" in some respect or another.

However, there are experimentally-established thresholds for "just noticeable differences" (JND's), and competently designed audio electronics of the same type (amps with similar output levels, digital sources, etc.) won't vary so much as to pass those JND thresholds and be audibly distinguishable from one another. Admittedly, that is a bit of a tautology, because if it varies so much in a given performance aspect it's probably not "competently designed" in the first place.
 
#62 ·
By the way, can anyone make sense of all the various upgrades that Tru Tech amps offer?

What differences in sound do different caps and op-amps make?

Assuming these changes do alter the "sound signature" of the amp as Tru states, can these differences also be achieved with an eq or are these differences only achievable with hundreds of dollars in upgrades?

I've thought about purchasing some Tru amps, but cannot make sense of the upgrades and whether any of them are necessary.
 
#63 ·
Cajunner, your test is inherently flawed, because you're assuming a priori that there are sonic differences. Before listening for preference, difference must first be established. One can't have a nonrandom "preference" between identically-sounding devices, but a small-n study may inadvertently lead to false positives!

But to your question (who would put whatever in), that's fine. There's nothing wrong with preferring something for legitimate reasons. It's just that with most audio electronics sonics just isn't a legitimate reason.

But I would think nobody would "feature" any amp in their ride. Why advertise to thieves that you have a system? Much, much better to hide everything from prying eyes.
 
#71 ·
the amps will sound different if the power changes under load, that's already been discussed.

one amp will continue to double current under a decrease in resistance, the other will not.

so we have differences, but nothing changes the reality that as long as we stay within certain defined parameters, we can say the electrically indistinguishable is sonically indistinguishable.

I think that the impasse is firmly planted in the difference that exists between "real world" and "laboratory" examination.

because, real world, means not having the means to know when the amps are operating "under equivalent power responses" and whether "noise/distortion" has increased in a mid-power band on one of the amplifiers due to poor circuitry or component quality.

this is a clue to why most amplifiers with higher quality components by and large, can be found selling for more. Not just because of marketing, but because the consistency of the product can be estimated at a higher tolerance level.
It has absolutely nothing to do with "higher quality components" or "tolerance levels." Higher quality components get you zilch when it comes to sonics. What higher quality components CAN potentially get you is greater tolerance to heat, voltage spikes, and maybe reduced failure rates.

I've said this before -- if you want to build a super-duper amp with low distortion and noise numbers and the flattest possible frequency response, it has very very little to do with the "quality" of the components you use. It has everything to do with the circuit design.
 
#87 ·
^You see, I always like people when they don't read and try to understand properly what I said. Is my English that bad or someone are trying to be a screen dumb? I don't know.



As you can see, I want some solid source to proof this statements. Why a manufacturer will make components with different tolerence levels and priced differently? If all the components sounds the same even with different tolerence level, then why people will source different tolerence level for different applications?
Mark, do you have any source to support for your statements? I know you don't have but just for the sake of fun to ask again.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top