Vintage HiFi Audio Forum
Audio Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Slim-Shaddy on August 10, 2010, 11:08:20 PM
-
Bryston wins. Hands down for sound quality. Watt for your buck, that's a whole new topic. I recently switched my amps and there was a signifigant loss in sonic enthusiasm when the Bryston left the stage and the Carver stepped in.
The real reason for the post, though, is my tfm 25 seems to be favoring one channel over the other. Bias? I'm really green when it come diagnosing issues with equipment. All I know is I narrowed the balance inconsistency down to the amp. Any ideas on what the problem may be?
Thanks for any help,
New Bryston superfan.
-
Just came across this too!!!!!! http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?ampstran&1286060644&/Bryston-4B-Reduced (http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?ampstran&1286060644&/Bryston-4B-Reduced)
-
The real reason for the post, though, is my tfm 25 seems to be favoring one channel over the other. Bias? I'm really green when it come diagnosing issues with equipment. All I know is I narrowed the balance inconsistency down to the amp. Any ideas on what the problem may be?
Thanks for any help,
New Bryston superfan.
I'm saying output devices.
-
Does the TFM-25 have any onboard pots?
I don't really know much about bias on solid state amps either. I'd imaging it involves measuring the output of several emitter resistor pairs. I don't see one LRC circuit degrading or changing at that significant of a rate as compared to the others in your (or any other) amp. That's not to say it didn't or can't happen.
Did you try measuring the DC offset first?
-
I haven't measured or tested anything yet. I just noticed the problem last night. I will start with the DC offset as that is something I actually know how to do.
-
Yeah. That's about all I've got. It might not indicate a bias issue, but it is a great place to start checking for something being out of whack. Luckily some folks around here know a might know a little bit about Carver.
-
The real reason for the post, though, is my tfm 25 seems to be favoring one channel over the other. Bias? I'm really green when it come diagnosing issues with equipment. All I know is I narrowed the balance inconsistency down to the amp. Any ideas on what the problem may be?
Thanks for any help,
New Bryston superfan.
I'm saying output devices.
I agree with F1. It couldn't hurt to change them out.
-
How expensive are the parts for that and is it something a novice like me could handle?
-
Bryston wins. Hands down for sound quality. Watt for your buck, that's a whole new topic. I recently switched my amps and there was a signifigant loss in sonic enthusiasm when the Bryston left the stage and the Carver stepped in.
king-edwin.
Please get your Caver Amp repaired, and then do a blind Bryston / Carver test. The Carver should win hands down.
What you are calling "sonic enthusiasm" is the Bryston brightness, any extended listing with the Bryston is tiring. The Carver amps
are so more musical in the long run.
I have sent my Sunfire Preamp in for repair (upgrade), and are using a Bryston 12B preamp as a replacement. I find the sound to be Very bright,
good centre imaging and total loss of depth.
Brian.
-
Actually, I'd be willing to bet that in a proper A/B blind comparison test, all things being equal, and both pieces completely in spec, you'd be hard pressed to find a significant difference between the two.
Before some of you chastise me and throw me off of the forum, take the time to read these:
www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf (http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf)
http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#listening (http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/truth.htm#listening)
-
I know my tfm may need a tweek, but I will guarantee it's not far from spec. It took me an hour to even notice the issue. Of any amp to be accused of coloring the sound, Bryston is the last I'd expect. I have absolutely nothing against Carver power, I just calls as I hears 'em and the Bryston stomped the tfm and slightly edged out my Hafler. As much as I love a good debate, I think Tom could put a stomp on this one. Tom, seeing as you have gobs of Carver experience, take the 4b vs a tfm... let's say 35... This is a comparison based on the pleasurability of the listening experience.
-
Bryston ;D ;D ;D ;D
If I was at a sale and could only buy one, I would buy any Bryston before any Carver....
Sorry Tommy. Carver gear sounds to grainy in the treble for my taste.
-
Bryston ;D ;D ;D ;D
If I was at a sale and could only buy one, I would buy any Bryston before any Carver....
Sorry Tommy. Carver gear sounds to grainy in the treble for my taste.
That is not a fair statement if you really think about it. BTW, have you listened to the modified Snells with a Carver amp? No grain there. No grain on the plats either. :-*
-
I'd like to go to Carverfest just to discuss the semantics of null difference testing with Bob.
-
Sunny, I've rad the articles and came up with a little discrepency. Anyone thrown in front of a system they are unfamiliar with for a short period of time will have a hard time choosing amp A or B. The real test is to have a man who has developed a system that he thinks sounds spectacular and throw a new component in to prove him wrong. It takes a decent amount of time to adjust and realize the strengths and weaknesses of a system before you can try to make improvements to it. It's important to note too that all equipment sounds different to every man. What sounds like morning mud to one guy might sound like morning wood to the next.
.
-
What sounds like morning mud to one guy might sound like morning wood to the next.
.
That is freaking funny. :o
-
Yeah. I'm not saying that two amps won't sound different to an extent. Any two amplifiers will vary by no more than the maximum variation of their respective transfer functions.
I'm just saying, when the cards are on the table, such differences are often difficult to perceive. That's the whole gist of Carver's "T" series amps. They're transfer function modified to mimic a competitors sound at a fraction of the price. At least, that's how they started out.
-
Roger Russell is a crackpot and a hypocrite. ABX testing for audio is worthless.
Blind tests nearly universally appear to indicate that no differences exist between electronics, cables, capacitors, etc. In fact, one infamous test "revealed" that no sonic differences exist between power amplifiers. Mark Levinson, NYAL Futterman OTL tube monoblock, NAD, Hafler, and Counterpoint power amplifiers were all judged to be sonically identical to each other and to a $219 Japanese receiver (footnote 7). This very test, wielded by the objectivists as proof that all amplifiers sound alike, in fact calls into question the entire blind methodology because of the conclusion's absurdity. Who really believes that a pair of Futterman OTL tube amplifiers, a Mark Levinson, and a Japanese receiver are sonically identical? Rather than bolster the objectivist's case, the "all amplifiers sound the same" conclusion of this blind test in fact discredits the very methodology on which hangs the objectivist's entire belief structure.
For those that want to spend some time learning the truth about duo-trio balanced reference tests (ABX) as it pertains to audio the following are a good read.
"Sensory Evaluation Techniques" book and the "Sensory Testing Methods" manual which is published by the American Society for Testing and Materials. Also read, "Perceptual Audio Evaluation-Theory, Method and Application."
For those that just want to cut to the chase, summed up by a well respected member of the audio community,
The peer-reviewed scientific literature and textbooks authored by credible, reputable and respected professionals in the sensory science and audio performance evaluation fields indicate that blind tests, ABX tests, duo-trio balanced reference tests or any tests of that ilk are scientifically invalid and totally inappropriate for sound stimuli.
And,
The ABX test (actually called a duo-trio balanced reference test) is not indicated for the class of sensory stimuli in which audio equipment evaluation falls. In other words, applying ABX testing to audio equipment evaluation is actually within the realm of pseudo-science because it inevitably leads to erroneous results. Therefore, the descriptor "believer" would more appropriately be applied to the naysayer or anti-audiophile since their thought processes are driven by, and based on, data which they "believe" to be right, but which has no verifiable basis in reality or in accurate and correct scientific procedure and theory.
It is ironic that a group of individuals who rail the hardest against "pseudo-science" and who scream the loudest for scientific verification of audiophile claims insist on using a test that is scientifically inappropriate and scientifically invalid for the evaluation of sonic differences in audiophile grade equipment. Even more tragic is the fact that the ABX test is highly error prone even for the sensory phenomena it is appropriate for.
-
I'm just saying, when the cards are on the table, such differences are often difficult to perceive. That's the whole gist of Carver's "T" series amps. They're transfer function modified to mimic a competitors sound at a fraction of the price.
I had no problem telling the difference between Carver's "T" amps and Carver's tube amps. It wasn't even close. Just saying.
-
Well, either my ears are blown out, I have no clue what I should be listening for, or I'm one of those idiots who doesn't want to hear significant differences between amplifiers. Some sound slightly "better" and some sound "worse", but that's entirely subjective.
I remember the first time I heard an MC275. I was taken back at how much different it didn't sound as compared to everything else I'd heard up to that point, especially considering all of the valve hoopla. Or maybe I thought it didn't. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong on this. I've just never heard otherwise with my own two ears. Or maybe I don't allow myself to do so.
-
I need to add that I agree that the prestige of seeing a nice expensive shiny amp, or to feel the warm thrill of confusion, that space cadet glow (in the case of tubes) is definitely part of the drive to buy better components. But, if they all sounded the same I would still be listening to a 1994 Teac 100 wpc receiver.
-
I would just like to vote for Carver and the hope that WE All can appreciate the quality sound of superior equipment.
-
Checked the DC offset and:
Left 16mV
Right 30mV and climbing about a tenth every 2 seconds
Yes, the right channel is the one that seemed weaker.
-
falcon377, love your avatar!
-
Checked the DC offset and:
Left 16mV
Right 30mV and climbing about a tenth every 2 seconds
Yes, the right channel is the one that seemed weaker.
Were you able to adjust it?
-
I haven't tried to adjust it yet. I Left the amp on for about half an hr and rechecked and the right channel had peaked at 36.6 mV. I think I am going to repair the output devices.
-
Spec is +- 20mv. 30 is not bad but should be addressed. My feeble memory ::) tells me that there is nothing on the board to adjust offset. You need to find the leak.
-
Spec is +- 20mv. 30 is not bad but should be addressed. My feeble memory ::) tells me that there is nothing on the board to adjust offset. You need to find the leak.
+ 1
-
falcon377, love your avatar!
Thank you F1, at least someone here appreciates it.
-
falcon377, love your avatar!
Thank you F1, at least someone here appreciates it.
Even before he was the Messiah, he was the photo whore. My friends and I at work used to joke about this picture. We even made a box of "Newport Executive 1000's."