What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[Roberto]

See my configuration ...

http://www.ody.ca/~wbailey/Feanor_HTSystem.jpg

I've expected a photo of your room. 

[Fëanor]

I've expected a photo of your room. 

So you got both more and less than you expected  ...

[Todd]

A couple weeks ago, a friend of mine bought himself a new headphone amp, the Woo Audio WA6.  It's a tube design.  (An SET, to be exact.)  I don't like tubes.  He assured me that it sounded good, and that's before breaking in.  (For convenience, let's assume break-in is real.)  I said nuh-uh.  He said uh-huh.  Anyway, he took off last week for about a week and asked me if I wouldn't mind breaking in the unit for him.  This would also give me a chance to hear how poorly tubes handle headphones.

Tubes sound splendid with headphones.  There's no impedance matching to worry about, for the most part.  There are no big, unruly bass drivers to control.  Power output is basically irrelevant.  As a result, I must say that I have been converted to tubes when it comes to driving headphones.  This somewhat affordable amp (about $600) does pretty much everything right.  Bass is well nigh perfect – which is much different from regular tube amps.  Highs are still a bit rolled off, but that may actually be a good thing.  The midrange is lush and beautiful – all that tube goodness, or distortion, take your pick – with nary a hint of glare.  Everything sounds smooth and groovy.  When paired with my 600 Ohm Beyerdynamic DT 880s, the Woo delivers glorious sound that I can listen to for hours at a stretch.  It even makes me want to listen to non-classical music.  Jazz sounds especially fine, with saxes sounding better than normal.  The only drawback I can find is that solo piano lacks a bit of bite when compared to my main system, but it's easy enough to adjust to. 

So perhaps a Woo will end up in my system soon, or soon-ish.  The WA6 sounds much better than my Schiit Asgard, and as with Schiit, Woo is hand-made right here in the good old US of A.  Hell, they even hand-wind the transformers in their NYC shop.  Build quality is at least equal to my standard Naim "Classic" series gear.  I want one.

[Karl Henning]

. . .  Jazz sounds especially fine, with saxes sounding better than normal.

Gotta be good!

[Robert]

Todd,

I always felt Tubes added a warmth to the sound..

[Daverz]

Tube amps don't have to have mushy bass, rolled-off highs, or a syrupy midrange.   My Rogue M-180 amps are very good at the frequency extremes and have a neutral sound.  The tubes themselves, though, can be a pain.

[Todd]

Tube amps don't have to have mushy bass, rolled-off highs, or a syrupy midrange.

That's true, though rare, at least in my experience.  I've not heard Rogue gear, though I would not mind it, but of all the various tube setups I've heard, the only one that didn't display all or at least one of the standard tube attributes was one with Nagra VPA monoblocks.  The system was also fronted by one of the big dCS digital rigs and was as good sounding a system as I've heard, and it was using only some moderate ProAcs that I generally didn't like.  (They were standard demo speakers for my dealer, so I heard them a lot even though I had no interest.)  Given my general preferences, solid state is the way to go.  It could be an expensive, time consuming experiment to try tube gear.  And of course I'd want to swap tubes, etc.  Now, with a headphone amp, only a (relatively) little amount of money is needed to experiment.

[Fëanor]

...  Given my general preferences, solid state is the way to go.  It could be an expensive, time consuming experiment to try tube gear.  And of course I'd want to swap tubes, etc.  Now, with a headphone amp, only a (relatively) little amount of money is needed to experiment.

Same here. I was thinking of THIS Little Dot headphone preamp unit; it's had some good vibes.

On the other hand maybe not.  I'm reasonably convinced that the touted advantages of tube preamps & amps -- warmth, harmonic richness, depth of soundstage -- are really artifacts and not actually on the recordings. To be sure, one is entitled to like them as a matter of preference.

I recently swapped by tube preamp for a passive device, and my supposedly "tube-like" Monarchy SM-70 Pro amps for a class D amp. I know I'm getting more "air" and transparency and truer instrument timbres.  BTW, I can highly recommend Class D Audio's SDS series of amps; see their website HERE.  These amps will outperform traditional amps costing several times their price; they're also light weight and run cool.

[Coopmv]

Same here. I was thinking of THIS Little Dot headphone preamp unit; it's had some good vibes.

On the other hand maybe not.  I'm reasonably convinced that the touted advantages of tube preamps & amps -- warmth, harmonic richness, depth of soundstage -- are really artifacts and not actually on the recordings. To be sure, one is entitled to like them as a matter of preference.

I recently swapped by tube preamp for a passive device, and my supposedly "tube-like" Monarchy SM-70 Pro amps for a class D amp. I know I'm getting more "air" and transparency and truer instrument timbres.  BTW, I can highly recommend Class D Audio's SDS series of amps; see their website HERE.  These amps will outperform traditional amps costing several times their price; they're also light weight and run cool.

Just about all powered subs are powered by class D amps these days ...

[Todd]

I couldn't resist.  I received a windfall that just about covered the cost of the Woo WA6-SE and took the plunge, just in time for Christmas.  The two unit design - one for the power supply, one for the amp itself - is even better than the WA6 I tried earlier.  The minor reservations I had about the WA6, mainly that pianos lack bite, are gone.  Bass, mids, and highs are all superb; dynamic range is insanely good; timbre is realistic across the board; detail is abundant but never emphasized - it's just there for listening pleasure.  An awesome little amp that, when paired with Beyerdynamic DT880s, delivers some of the best sound I've heard from any amp/transducer combo ever.  I wonder what it would sound like with Beyer T1s . . .

[drogulus]

     I'm a guitar player (retired). There's nothing I don't know about what tubes can do for your sound if you drive them hard, which I had a tendency to do. I played through small bottle 17 watters, cathode biased, no NFB, and big bottle fixed bias solid state rectified jobs from Fender, Marshall and Hiwatt.

     For music playback tubes do very little that solid state doesn't do. The difference is tubes will have between 10 and 100 times higher minimum distortion (say 1% as against .01), but the spectrum is different. Most of the distortion tubes produce is euphonious while solid state amps produce nasty grating harmonics. You never want to overdrive them. That's why you can get away with a 30 watt tube amp in a home stereo when you'd be forced to use >100 solid state watts in the same situation.

     It puzzles me why people spend money on expensive amps which they connect to their CD players or portables. Why? You can't make the sound better that way, all you can do is preserve the quality you have, and for that you don't need to spend money. The preamp in your CD player/iPod/whatever is giving you that good sound, all you need to do is not mess it up.

     

Woo WA6-SE

     Woo, indeed. Look, these are works of art, or expensive home decorations, if you like. I wouldn't mind owning one, but I wouldn't expect it to sound different unless I plugged my bass into it and started doing chords at high volume.

[Todd]

You can't make the sound better that way, all you can do is preserve the quality you have, and for that you don't need to spend money.

Actually, yes, the sound can be made better with a better amp.  This applies to music produced through speakers or headphones.  It's very simple, and objectively true.  I'd gladly offer anyone a blind A/B comparison between the Woo and the headphone out of my NAD, with proper decibel matching.

Woo, indeed. Look, these are works of art, or expensive home decorations, if you like. I wouldn't mind owning one, but I wouldn't expect it to sound different unless I plugged my bass into it and started doing chords at high volume.

Um, this is a headphone amp.  I'm not sure what you're writing about here.

[Holden]

My audio system for my PC - fairly basic.



plus this



plus this



I also use JRiver Media Centre 16 as my media player, configured for direct digital streaming using their kernel streaming plug in. Makes for excellent sound from a PC

[drogulus]

Actually, yes, the sound can be made better with a better amp.  This applies to music produced through speakers or headphones.  It's very simple, and objectively true.  I'd gladly offer anyone a blind A/B comparison between the Woo and the headphone out of my NAD, with proper decibel matching.

     It might sound better if you like the way tubes degrade the sound at higher volumes. That's possible. As for blind A/B testing, it usually goes to show that you can't hear the difference that an engineer says you can't hear. When the distortion is below audibility on both devices you won't be able to tell them apart. IOW if they measure the same they are identical. And measuring the same includes distortion levels that are 2 orders of magnitude apart when both are low. There's no difference between inaudible 1% distortion and inaudible .01% distortion.

     There's a difference between hearing something that sounds so obviously better that you think you would hear it in a blind test, and actually hearing the difference in a blind test. The difference disappears in a properly conducted test. This explains a common experience audiophiles have. Someone tells you about a "jaw dropping" difference between 2 components and you can't hear it but keep quiet for fear that you'll be treated as an unbeliever. Besides, maybe you were having a bad day. Eventually you face up to the real problem, which is that placebo audio requires that you know which device is to be favored in order to favor it. I had this experience a number of times and like everyone else made excuses, until I couldn't any more.

Um, this is a headphone amp.  I'm not sure what you're writing about here.

     I wouldn't actually do it, of course.

     No, maybe I would, with some cheap disposable phones, just for kicks. Headphone amps are preamps, after all, not unlike the bass preamps you can buy at the guitar center. As a matter of fact I own such a preamp. If I set the tone controls for flat response it (2-10-2, I think), waahhhlahh, it's a headphone amp.

[drogulus]

     I bought a new nano, and now that I've gotten used to its tiny-ness and the touchscreen I can say it's wonderful.

     

     

[Todd]

Eventually you face up to the real problem

What "problem" are you referring to? 

I must say that I find your supposedly objective outlook on audio amusing.  Since you have not heard the gear in question, you cannot offer an informed opinion of what the gear sounds like.  You can offer a guess of what you think it may sound like, or the existence/non-existence of differences, but that's not the same thing.  In addition, you offer no actual measurements, something you should surely have on offer if you are to have an objective basis for your assertions; you offer a statement like "IOW if they measure the same they are identical," but you do not offer measurements.

As to the Woo, I stated in a prior post about a different model that I was skeptical about the quality of a tube headphone amp, until I lived with one for about a week, doing direct comparisons to my SS headphone amp.  It sounds different, and it sounds better.  For all I know, it may measure quite poorly, but better measurements do not necessarily equate to better sound.  The obvious analog here is LPs vs CDs.  CDs (and digital files) measure better - broader dynamic range, better signal to noise ratio, less distortion, etc - yet for most jazz and rock, I find that LPs sound better.  The compressed, distorted sound is more appealing.  For classical, the opposite is usually the case, though some string quartet recordings sound superb on vinyl.

I have to also say that your phrase "placebo audio" is most enjoyable.  Only you have figured things out.  Got it.  Of course, you are quite presumptuous, too.  Tell me, how many times have I (or anyone else, for that matter) listened to prestige gear that everyone in the know says is awesome - the best out there! - only to find that not to be the case?  Have I (or has anyone else) ever returned gear because it did not live up to expectations?  You are confusing your experience and preferences for some universal, "objective" truth.

[drogulus]

     That's right, I can offer a guess as to what it sounds like. But I'm not confusing my experience with objective truth, I'm refusing to equate the one with the other on the grounds that I know my experience is not objective. So I tried to find out why, and I did. It's really easy once you give up the idea that other people can be fooled but you can't. I know I can be fooled so I look for objective criteria. I trust it because many double blind tests of audio equipment have been done and the results confirm what I say. When the possibility of bias is removed the bias disappears. But you can run more tests to see if you get a different result.

[Todd]

It's really easy once you give up the idea that other people can be fooled but you can't.

Oh, I know I can be fooled.  But I also know that I must actually listen to a component before I can assess what it sounds like, and whether it meets my preferences.  Relying on double-blind tests can have limitations (such as the impact of amplifier output distortion, which, if a common signal switcher is used, will result in a measurable change in the signal and thus present an inaccurate representation of what an amplifer sounds like by itself), and strikes me as dogmatic in an almost religious way.  It creates a similar expectation bias: A test concluded X, therefore X always holds true.  I guess I'd have to dig into such tests to see if they use truly objective measurements - testing frequency response, CSD, etc at the listening position, and more standard measurement distances (ie, 1 meter) - and whether the same weight is given to such truly objective measures as to listeners' "I prefer choice 'A'" responses.  Since I place less weight on them then you do, I won't expend the time to do so, though if you provide the methodologies used in your preferred tests, I'd gladly review them in more depth.

I use published, preferably third-party measurements, if available, as a guide of where to start when looking for new gear.  This approach is especially helpful in the realm of speakers given the wider disparities in output, but can assist in any area of audio.  Then, with the appropriate demo in my own system, I can make an assessment based on what I actually hear.  Nothing beats actually experiencing the thing itself.

[Coopmv]

I am seriously considering getting this Austrian-made integrated tube amp for my study ...

[drogulus]

Oh, I know I can be fooled.  But I also know that I must actually listen to a component before I can assess what it sounds like, and whether it meets my preferences.  Relying on double-blind tests can have limitations (such as the impact of amplifier output distortion, which, if a common signal switcher is used, will result in a measurable change in the signal and thus present an inaccurate representation of what an amplifer sounds like by itself), and strikes me as dogmatic in an almost religious way.  It creates a similar expectation bias: A test concluded X, therefore X always holds true.  I guess I'd have to dig into such tests to see if they use truly objective measurements - testing frequency response, CSD, etc at the listening position, and more standard measurement distances (ie, 1 meter) - and whether the same weight is given to such truly objective measures as to listeners' "I prefer choice 'A'" responses.  Since I place less weight on them then you do, I won't expend the time to do so, though if you provide the methodologies used in your preferred tests, I'd gladly review them in more depth.

I use published, preferably third-party measurements, if available, as a guide of where to start when looking for new gear.  This approach is especially helpful in the realm of speakers given the wider disparities in output, but can assist in any area of audio.  Then, with the appropriate demo in my own system, I can make an assessment based on what I actually hear.  Nothing beats actually experiencing the thing itself.

     The measurement difficulties concern differences that can't be heard. That's what is being tested. The fact they are not heard when the identity of the components is not known has 2 related consequences. First, that standard psychoacoustical theory that small differences are inaudible is confirmed and second, that imagined differences are doing all the work.

     As to your point about experience being the best judge, I'll state my qualified agreement. Examined experience, including the vanishing differences under tests, isn't just the best judge, it's the only way to find out if tiny differences can be heard (they can't, experience shows). When differences are large enough to be heard (as with speakers), they're heard. But when differences are too small to hear, imaginary differences are heard instead. When the possibility of imaginary differences is removed, so are the differences.

     I don't think finding test flaws helps. All it amounts to is saying that the tests are flawed because the differences I hear are real, appealing to the thesis the test refutes. That's not to say the tests are flawless, they might be flawed. I've read some of the critiques of tests that complain that the equipment used is not of sufficient audiophile quality. Of course this is a demand for ever more expensive and complex tests. The test of disappearing differences is flawed because the differences disappeared, and since engineering standards are rejected by subjectivists they win by default. Any test that works according to standard audio practice which says tiny differences are inaudible must be flawed since it confirms what audiophiles somehow know is not true. Never mind how they know their experience is right except when it's tested. They just do.