My opinion is that a general purpose answer can't be defined. It depends on the specific components that are being considered, and also on how synergistically they match up with the speakers, the source components, and each other.
I would emphasize, though, that the amplifier/speaker matchup is one of the most important considerations.
Regards,
-- Al
|
You may not need a stupidly expensive amp for your pre-amp because the speakers you have are extremely efficient, don't need massive power and interact well with your amp, so you can go with a very low power, lesser expensive (not all low power amps are less expensive. I know!!!) amp.
IMO Minorl has made several excellent points in his post, but this one particularly deserves emphasis (although ZD also makes a good point in response, at least when it comes to speakers having especially high efficiency). For a given level of sonic quality, the price of an amplifier will tend to have a significant degree of correlation with its power capability, and with its ability to drive speakers having difficult impedance characteristics. So how a given investment in the amp + preamp should be apportioned between those two components will tend to depend on the efficiency and impedance characteristics of the speakers that are being used. One important reason why, as I said earlier, that IMO a general purpose answer cannot be defined. 01-26-15: Wlutke
Your amp can't sound any better than what the preamp gives it. This is true. But it is also true that the preamp can't sound any better than the amp allows it to. So the location of a given component in the chain is in itself of no significance, IMO. Regards, -- Al |
Newbee, thanks for pointing that out.
Regarding high efficiency speakers, I think that the point Minorl was making and that I was emphasizing would become clearer and less controversial if the reference was to highER efficiency speakers, as opposed to lowER efficiency speakers. For example, say 84 db/1w/1m vs. 92 db/1w/1m, those both being much more common choices than speakers having truly high efficiencies such as 100 db/1w/1m or more.
Using that example, and assuming that the two speakers have similar impedance curves, if the 92 db speaker requires say 50 watts to be able to produce the desired peak volume levels, the 84 db speaker will require 315 watts to do the same (assuming the speaker itself can comfortably handle that power level).
In general, it seems safe to assume that a 315 watt amplifier will usually cost dramatically more than a 50 watt amplifier, if they are both to provide the same level of quality. And the concerns that have been mentioned that are unique to "high" efficiency speakers (as opposed to "higher" efficiency speakers) would seem unlikely to be be particularly relevant at 92 db or thereabouts.
Regards,
-- Al
|
01-26-15: Mapman
The better highly efficient Class D amps out there today, and some are quite good, can deliver 500w/ch or more for comparable cost to lower power Traditional less efficient Class A/B or certainly class A amps, tube or SS.
So you can get efficiencies in speaker, amp or both these days. True enough. But I think that a more apples to apples comparison illustrating the point Minorl and I have been trying to make would be comparing the prices of the Pass amps as you go up the line in power within a given series (e.g., X.5 or XA.5 or X.8 or XA.8). Or within the ARC Ref series of amps, or among Atmasphere amps, or any number of other such examples that could be cited. Bottom line is you have to get things matched well to keep costs under control. I'd get speaker/room interactions right first using a suitable amp for the speakers, in order to be in a position first to access source sound quality meaningfully, and then tweak the pre-amp and source from there. How can one assess the sound quality of a pre-amp without the stuff downstream needed to make the music in place properly first? Agreed completely. Best regards, -- Al |
Your list of the equipment you presently have includes two preamps, one of which can accept a coaxial digital input as well as analog inputs. And your CD player provides a coaxial digital output as well as analog outputs.
So the system can be configured in at least three different ways:
1)CDP analog outputs to Sony Esprit preamp to SAE power amp to speakers.
2)CDP analog outputs to Nikko preamp to SAE power amp to speakers.
3)CDP digital output via a digital cable to Sony Esprit preamp to SAE power amp to speakers.
Have you compared sonics for each of these configurations? It seems to me that the existence or non-existence of differences, and their magnitude and character if there are differences, might provide some clues as to what the weak link in the system may be, from your individual perspective.
Also, after doing some research on all of the components you listed, while I certainly can't definitively pinpoint a weak link, I'll say that the SAE power amp and the Sony Esprit preamp seem like impressive beasts relative to the other components. And although on many occasions here I've cautioned people against assuming a high degree of correlation between performance and price, I think it's noteworthy that those two components sold for well over $1K in 1980's dollars, while the Nikko sold for less than 1/4 of that amount around the same time, and the Yamaha sells for $300 today.
Provided that you have confidence in their condition, and pending your answer about a comparison between the three configurations, and given your $1500 budget, my instinct would be to direct the investment to something other than a replacement for the SAE and the Sony. So in addition to the possibility of a speaker upgrade, you may also want to consider a CDP upgrade, including the possibility of one having a tube output stage.
And one thing I would most certainly NOT do is choose how to allocate the $1500 based on generalized notions of the relative importance of preamps, power amps, or other kinds of components.
Good luck, however you decide to proceed. Regards,
-- Al
|
R&R'er, those are not the model numbers you had indicated in your earlier post. Also, I can't find any indication that there ever was a Sony "ta 55e77s." Can you clarify, more precisely?
The comments in my previous post remain as stated regardless of whether the Nikko is a Beta 20 or a Beta II (Roman numeral "2"). However that may not be the case with respect to the Sony.
BTW, I had assumed in my previous post that when you referred to a "Sony TA77ESD" in your earlier post that you were actually referring to a "Sony TA-E77ESD."
Regards,
-- Al
|
I don't want to seem picayune, but it can be important to be precise about model numbers, in part so that others can research what you've got. So I believe a couple of corrections to your correction are called for:
SAE 2101 should be SAE 2401, as you stated earlier.
Sony TA-E330ES should be (I believe) Sony TA-N330ES.
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about bookshelf speakers, but among vintage speakers one brand I would suggest looking for is ADS, also referred to as a/d/s.
Good luck. Regards,
-- Al
|
Gentlemen, there have been lots of interesting responses, but may I point out the possibility, especially given the first sentence of the OP's initial post in the thread ("New in the field"), that the OP may not have presented his question as optimally as possible.
It seems to me that what he is really trying to determine, with respect to his main system (and in addition to the recent question about bookshelf speakers for a second system), is what can he do for $1500 to best upgrade the specific equipment he presently has.
It seems to me that many of the 70 responses posted so far, while of academic and theoretical interest, are too general in nature to be of any practical value in this specific case.
IMO. Regards,
-- Al
|
Thanks, ZD. I see your points, and I agree. And my intention was not to demean any of the responses that have been provided.
My point, which I don't think is inconsistent with yours, is that there can be occasions when it is more helpful to answer a question that presumably should have been asked, rather than to focus too narrowly on the question that was asked. And focusing too narrowly on a question as presented may in fact steer the questioner in the wrong direction.
For example, in this case the preponderance of those answers that have directly focused on the original question, "what is most important: a great amplifier with a good preamplifier, or a good amp, with a great preamplifier," would pretty clearly steer the OP to direct most or all of his anticipated $1500 investment toward a new preamp. Yet quite conceivably the weak link in his system may be the speakers, as he now appears to be suspecting (in fact he has just started a new thread about a vintage speaker), or perhaps even the CD player.
I'll say also, adding to your point about the value of the thread, that I was remiss in not mentioning that more than a few respondents have in fact made some potentially valuable suggestions from a perspective that was specifically relevant to the OP's situation, yet did not focus too narrowly on the originally stated question. Including Atmasphere, Mesch, Swampwalker, Newbee, Jmcgrogan2, Minorl, Electroslacker, Mapman, and myself, among others.
So it has been a worthwhile thread in multiple respects.
Best regards,
-- Al
|
B_limo, thank you kindly. Regarding DACs, as you may have seen the OP doesn't have a separate DAC per se. He has the built-in DAC function of his CDP, and a DAC function that is provided in his vintage Sony preamp. I had suggested earlier in the thread that it might be worthwhile to compare sonics between the CDP's analog outputs and connection of the CDP's digital output to the Sony's digital input via a digital cable.
Regarding the purchase of a separate DAC component in the price range you mentioned, it's hard to say. A concern I would have, though, is that whatever benefit that DAC may potentially be able to provide might be limited by some combination of the jitter, electrical noise, and impedance inaccuracy of the CDP's digital output. A lot of people here and elsewhere have reported that digital transports often seem to make more of a difference than DACs.
Best regards,
-- Al
|
As Mr Carver demonstrated, by building an affordable amplifier, of which the sound could not be distinguished from an extremely expensive name amplifier that was being compared to (mid`s 70)! To clarify some points about that: What Carver did, actually in the early and mid-80's, was to tweak the "transfer function" (the relation between output and input) of one of his amplifiers to match the transfer function of the highly regarded Mark Levinson ML-2 solid state amplifier (as chronicled in "The Audio Critic"), and subsequently to tweak the transfer function of another of his amplifiers to match that of a well regarded Conrad Johnson tube amp (as chronicled in "Stereophile"). His demonstration consisted, in addition to some ABX testing, of providing the two amps with the same input signal, and showing that when the output of one was electronically subtracted from the output of the other, essentially nothing remained. More precisely, a null of greater than 70 db was obtained, at least in the ML-2 comparison. There were two major problems with all of that, however: 1)The tests showed, at best, that the two amps nulled against each other just with one specific speaker load, which was used in implementing his tweaks. 2)Credible anecdotal evidence subsequently emerged that he was not able to maintain anything remotely close to a 70 db null in production. Bob Carver essentially admitted this in an interview which appeared in "The Absolute Sound" about two or three years ago. Regards, -- Al |
