best amp for sierra-1nrt

[beadyz]

Hi Jay,

Yes very much is subjective in audio, whether one likes a warmer sound, or so forth. But there are other attributes of music that, although subjectively discerned, just about *everyone* would agree is better. A perfect example are the details in the improved sound quality Mike describes with his BAT preamp.

Double blind studies comparing one amp or the other, I dare say, involve unfamiliar source materials, unfamiliar components, in unfamiliar rooms. In other words, the acoustic memory we have which is so important in evaluation and which takes much time develop, is removed from the equation. That is a shame, and that is why such studies should not be taken at face value.

For sure I would believe Mike's well considered analysis over a dozen such fundamentally flawed 'controlled' studies any day.

The question, as Mike has raised, it what exactly is causing such an improvement in sound quality. It may not be tubes per se (as he pointed out), it could be something else in the way the preamp operates.

I just took at peek and see that BAT has a new solid state version of the preamp. I would guess it's as good as the BAT tube preamp that Mike has, without being a space heater:

http://www.musicdirect.com/p-350-bat...te-preamp.aspx

And hey, it's only $8000

Mark

Yeah, the new stuff is crazy expensive, hence why I suggested used, preferably a generation or 2 back :-) I haven't heard any of the new stuff, but can't see how it could sound that much better unless you've done all sorts of room treatments, have a really nice DAC upstream, etc.

I'd look at a VK-3i or maybe a VK-30, but even then you are over $1k. You can get the BAT preamps with a full function remote, which was a HUGE plus for me. I'm not such a purist that I have to have a stepped attenuator to get that last .01% increase in SQ. I'll give that up to be able to adjust volume from my seat, lol. I think most of them have a home theatre bypass function, so you can have them inline with a 5.1 or 7.1 system on your mains for dedicated 2-channel listening if you want also. But, they have to be powered on so you will be using your tube life. I've used my preamp for probably a year's worth of days (@ maybe 4-5 hrs a day) over the last ~2 years and the tubes still sound great, so I wouldn't say it's a huge issue.

I was looking at Musical Fidelity preamps at first; the A3cr and A3.2cr in particular. You can find those well under $1k, closer to $500 if you look hard and take your time, and they are dual mono and have remotes also. I'd still like to have a listen to them if the opportunity presents itself.

You can find the BAT SS amps like the VK-200 in the $1k range (used), and I've seriously considered getting one to use during the warmer months. But, I have several other hobbies that end up taking my time in the evenings during the longer days in the summer so I haven't done it. Plus, I still have my Adcom and SMART amps which I can still listen to happily.

Don't mean to sound like an evangelist, but I really like the BAT stuff. No affiliation with the company, just a happy customer of their (used) equipment.

[Beave]

Hi Jay,
...

Double blind studies comparing one amp or the other, I dare say, involve unfamiliar source materials, unfamiliar components, in unfamiliar rooms. In other words, the acoustic memory we have which is so important in evaluation and which takes much time develop, is removed from the equation. That is a shame, and that is why such studies should not be taken at face value.
..

Mark

Mark,
Your comments about double-blind studies are just not true. There is no reason why you can't use music you're familiar with in a double-blind study. There is no reason you can't use equipment you're familiar with, either. And there's no reason it has to be done in an unfamiliar room.

I've done such studies in my room, with my music, and with my gear.

The requirements are simply that the listener doesn't know what gear is being heard at the time (amp A or amp B?); that the levels are adjusted to be within very tight tolerances (usually a couple tenths of a dB); and that the switching between components is quick (usually within less than a half second).

That final requirement is there because, as you stated, acoustic memory is important - but it is also fleeting and very short-lived.

[petmotel]

Hi Jay,

Yes very much is subjective in audio, whether one likes a warmer sound, or so forth. But there are other attributes of music that, although subjectively discerned, just about *everyone* would agree is better. A perfect example are the details in the improved sound quality Mike describes with his BAT preamp.

Double blind studies comparing one amp or the other, I dare say, involve unfamiliar source materials, unfamiliar components, in unfamiliar rooms. In other words, the acoustic memory we have which is so important in evaluation and which takes much time develop, is removed from the equation. That is a shame, and that is why such studies should not be taken at face value.

For sure I would believe Mike's well considered analysis over a dozen such fundamentally flawed 'controlled' studies any day.

The question, as Mike has raised, it what exactly is causing such an improvement in sound quality. It may not be tubes per se (as he pointed out), it could be something else in the way the preamp operates.

I just took at peek and see that BAT has a new solid state version of the preamp. I would guess it's as good as the BAT tube preamp that Mike has, without being a space heater:

http://www.musicdirect.com/p-350-bat...te-preamp.aspx

And hey, it's only $8000

Mark

Whether I agree with someone's preferences for their favorite electronics gear, or not, perhaps we can all agree that from a value perspective, expensive, esoteric electronics are probably not "Job 1" so to speak.

Chances are that someone building their sound system with a moderately priced set of bookshelf speakers is working with a limited budget. Within the framework of that constraint, I would offer that speakers, room acoustics, and well recorded media would present a better return on dollars spent. Electronics, on the other hand represent, in my mind at least, a fine example of diminishing returns.

Although the topic of this thread is "best amp for sierra-1nrt" I think we can all agree that to suggest a Halcro, Levinson, McIntosh, Krell, Theta... ad infinitum is probably not too realistic. Who would reasonably spend many, many multiples of their speakers on their supporting electronics? Probably not too many.

The OP seems to be leaning towards Emotiva gear which I believe is very good quality, and performing gear in the price range he seems to be shopping.

Jay

[petmotel]

Mark,
Your comments about double-blind studies are just not true. There is no reason why you can't use music you're familiar with in a double-blind study. There is no reason you can't use equipment you're familiar with, either. And there's no reason it has to be done in an unfamiliar room.

I've done such studies in my room, with my music, and with my gear.

The requirements are simply that the listener doesn't know what gear is being heard at the time (amp A or amp B?); that the levels are adjusted to be within very tight tolerances (usually a couple tenths of a dB); and that the switching between components is quick (usually within less than a half second).

That final requirement is there because, as you stated, acoustic memory is important - but it is also fleeting and very short-lived.

VERY much in agreement with all that you have said here! Never ceases to amaze me that standardized scientific testing methods are accepted in almost all aspects of our existence until it comes to audio. Suddenly all bets are off, and the subjectivists are all over you like the zombies in World War Z !

Jay

[markie]

Hi Beave,

Congrats on performing such a test yourself. Yes if it's in your own room with your own familiar equipment, level matched, etc, that is *much* preferred. I would be interested in what you did the test with - amps or preamps, and what kinds, and what speaker you were using at the time - highly resolving or not.

A word about accoustic memory. One problem with those double blind tests is that they are of short duration. I suggest that a form of acoustic memory is long term. For instance, Mike wouldn't have to flip back and forth to know if there is a difference. One listen to the new preamp and he would know the sound is different. It then becomes a matter of discerning just how it is different. It might just be different, not necessarily better. In Mike's case, it was definitely better.

So I believe you Beave that you didn't hear a difference. I also believe that Mike did hear a difference. Based on his detailed description of the difference, it was indeed real. The conclusion I come to is at least twofold. Sometimes a difference in equipment makes very little difference in the sound, and sometimes it makes a significant difference.

Mark

[Rock]

Hi,
-Yamaha A-S700, provides powerful, clean sound. Adjusting loudness set the best sound for the ear. Excellent dynamics of sound. I liked the great detail and emotional resonance.
-NAD C356 BEE, 1. There is a lack of transparency and high. 2. Bass fuzzy, not well defined. 3. Would say that too lenient in the sound.
-Rotel RA-12 Mediocre sound, does not agree with the price of the device, poor remote control, power really hot during operation, hum into the signal is muted when the display (dimmer), greatly inflated price compared to the issued sound quality.
I want to emphasize that this is only my opinion.

I'm curious to know what the best cable to use for the Emotiva XPA-200 and Sierra-1Nrt?
Rock

[markie]

Great to know, thanks Rock!
For cables, I've heard that Blue Jeans cables represent a very good value.
Mark

[Beave]

Hi Beave,

Congrats on performing such a test yourself. Yes if it's in your own room with your own familiar equipment, level matched, etc, that is *much* preferred. I would be interested in what you did the test with - amps or preamps, and what kinds, and what speaker you were using at the time - highly resolving or not.

A word about accoustic memory. One problem with those double blind tests is that they are of short duration. I suggest that a form of acoustic memory is long term. For instance, Mike wouldn't have to flip back and forth to know if there is a difference. One listen to the new preamp and he would know the sound is different. It then becomes a matter of discerning just how it is different. It might just be different, not necessarily better. In Mike's case, it was definitely better.

So I believe you Beave that you didn't hear a difference. I also believe that Mike did hear a difference. Based on his detailed description of the difference, it was indeed real. The conclusion I come to is at least twofold. Sometimes a difference in equipment makes very little difference in the sound, and sometimes it makes a significant difference.

Mark

Hi Mark,
I've done several tests over the years. I once did a comparison between a $40 Sony DVD player and an entry-level-brand audiophile CD player. I've also done comparisons between a 20 year old stereo receiver, two different models of Parasound amps, an NAD integrated, two Cambridge Audio integrateds, and a new Denon AVR. Only one of them stood out as sounding different (the 20 year old stereo receiver) at the volumes/levels I listen at (I would expect the Parasound HALO amp I had would have won at realllllly high volume levels, but I decided to save my ears and not go that loud).

As for the speakers being "highly resolving," I'm not sure how you characterize that. I've used various speakers over the last couple years - Energy RC, Monitor Audio RS, Monitor Audio RX, Ascend Sierra 1s, PSB Synchrony Ones, and none of them made the results change. Surely they're resolving enough.

You mentioned that the tests are of "short duration." How so? That appears to be another assumption you've made. In the tests I've done - and the tests that so many others have done and have published - there is no requirement for short duration. You can sit and listen as long as you want. The short duration requirement only applies to the time it takes to swich back and forth. Wanna listen to component A for 2 hours before switching to component B? That's fine. Just make sure the switch happens in under a half second or so.

As for Mike's claims, they are just that. His method is flawed, because he didn't level-match or do quick-switching, not to mention that he was aware of what component he was listening to (that can bring up subconscious biases that affect what we "hear"). Take the very same preamp, and plug it in and listen, then unplug, plug in the same model but at a slightly different level (which could easily come just from unit-to-unit component variations), and the two might "sound different," when it's actually the same gear.

[markie]

Hi Beave,

Some years ago I read a couple of very good critiques of publicized blind A/B tests which had tested for hearing differences in amplifiers. One of the things critiqued was the short duration of the music being listened too. That's where I'm coming from. Now, if you're saying that there have been publicized tests where the shortcomings of those previous A/B tests were somehow overcome, and the results were still that no discernible differences were heard among sensitive and experienced listeners, I would very much appreciate a reference for that. I'm here to learn.

I certainly can't fault your own personal method. It looks like you have A/B'd lots of your gear through a good number of years, and found little or no discernible differences. I accept that at face value.

May I humbly suggest that an experienced listener - say a reviewer - with a reputation for being able to hear differences between gear, *would* be able to hear differences in A/B test which others like yourself or myself may not. This presumes of course that they are listening to music they know like the back of their hand, in their own room, and using their own familiar gear.

People smell, taste, see and hear to sometimes startlingly different degrees of sensitivity, and that's just the way it is. My wife smells things I am totally oblivious too. Such is life. I appreciate good music, but frankly I know that others can hear much more into the music than I can. Mixed blessing if you ask me. :-)


In Mike's case, the way he describes the music I can tell he is sensitive and alert to cues in the music that others may not be. And he is certainly experienced, intelligent and critical enough to know the difference that simple volume levels can make in sound perception, and would correct for that.

Mark

[Beave]

Hi Beave,

Some years ago I read a couple of very good critiques of publicized blind A/B tests which had tested for hearing differences in amplifiers. One of the things critiqued was the short duration of the music being listened too. That's where I'm coming from. Now, if you're saying that there have been publicized tests where the shortcomings of those previous A/B tests were somehow overcome, and the results were still that no discernible differences were heard among sensitive and experienced listeners, I would very much appreciate a reference for that. I'm here to learn.

I certainly can't fault your own personal method. It looks like you have A/B'd lots of your gear through a good number of years, and found little or no discernible differences. I accept that at face value.

May I humbly suggest that an experienced listener - say a reviewer - with a reputation for being able to hear differences between gear, *would* be able to hear differences in A/B test which others like yourself or myself may not. This presumes of course that they are listening to music they know like the back of their hand, in their own room, and using their own familiar gear.

People smell, taste, see and hear to sometimes startlingly different degrees of sensitivity, and that's just the way it is. My wife smells things I am totally oblivious too. Such is life. I appreciate good music, but frankly I know that others can hear much more into the music than I can. Mixed blessing if you ask me. :-)


In Mike's case, the way he describes the music I can tell he is sensitive and alert to cues in the music that others may not be. And he is certainly experienced, intelligent and critical enough to know the difference that simple volume levels can make in sound perception, and would correct for that.

Mark

The bolded part seems reasonable at face value, but it's actually not all that true. While hearing acuity certainly varies from one person to another, the audio performance of most modern electronic gear is well beyond what any person can hear (ie, noise levels, THD, frequency response anomolies, etc). The same can't be said for speaker performance, where differences are orders of magnitude larger than the differences in electronics. Speaker differences are easily measured and fairly easily heard.

Your comment about reviewers having especially good hearing acuity tickles my funny bone for a couple of reasons. First, take for example Stereophile, where the reviewer does a subjective write up, followed by John Atkinson doing bench tests of the piece of gear under review. How many times has the write-up gushed about performance of some amp or speaker, only to have the measurements show a huge issue that was obviously never even heard by the reviewer? It is my opinion that reviewers are no better listeners than the average enthusiast; they are simply more colorful and imaginative writers.

In fact, they may even be worse listeners. Harman (the company) has done some listening tests and found that some reviewers faired worse than random college students they recruited to do the tests.

We would have a better handle on their capabilities, but reviewers and audio magazine editors tend to shy away from performing controlled listening tests. They always come up with some excuse or other why the test must be flawed, before they even participate. I suspect they know the test will show the emperor has no clothes, ie, they won't be able to discern gear either. There goes their platform for being golden-eared reviewers we should all pay attention to!

If you go to the "2 channel" or "audio theory setup and chat" sections of AVSforums.com, you'll find many people who have participated in, and sometimes published, results of controlled listening tests. In nearly all cases, not a single listener was able to pick out one CD player from another, or one solid-state amp from another.

The way Mike describes it, as you put it, is very similar to how reviewers often put things: It makes it seem like the writer clearly hears a difference, but the methodology is fundamentally flawed from the get-go. And correcting for simple volume level differences isn't so simple to the average person - it requires measuring gear to really make the levels matched very closely (ie, just matching levels by ear isn't good enough).

Regards,
beave