Review and Measurements of Benchmark AHB2 Amp

[fpitas]

My view is this is a well designed amplifier which has also become an object of desire around here because it measures so well. In actual use I doubt it sounds any better than a far less expensive NC502 which does not measure as well, but is good enough have inaudible distortion. Genelec monitors have achieved a similar status. A single number becomes the alpha and omega which in the minds of some makes all other loudspeakers irrelevant.

We have a contingent of class D haters.

 

[Ron Texas]

We have a contingent of class D haters.

There are all sorts of contingents around here.

 

[RichB]

The straightforward answer is, they think they're getting better performance.

No amp can best a D'Agostino at 20,000 fathoms.

- Rich

 

[fpitas]

View attachment 296774

No amp can best a D'Agostino at 20,000 fathoms.

- Rich

Aye aye, Captain!

 

[pablolie]

View attachment 296774

No amp can best a D'Agostino at 20,000 fathoms.

- Rich

Not another submarine story...! |-P

 

[GXAlan]

The straightforward answer is, they think they're getting better performance.

At least for electronics, transparency is clean. But the Toole preference score was created from 28 listeners. So far, the results here haven’t been astoundingly in favor of the best measuring speaker:

Monaural Speaker Recordings - Blind Testing Six Speakers for Fun

It's time for another blind test! The recordings are not as level matched as I had hoped, but c'est la vie. This is just for entertainment not science. Background Six speakers on trial, not all in the same room. Most expensive system was $70,000. A "golfing panther" speaker A “happily...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[fpitas]

At least for electronics, transparency is clean. But the Toole preference score was created from 28 listeners. So far, the results here haven’t been astoundingly in favor of the best measuring speaker:

Monaural Speaker Recordings - Blind Testing Six Speakers for Fun

It's time for another blind test! The recordings are not as level matched as I had hoped, but c'est la vie. This is just for entertainment not science. Background Six speakers on trial, not all in the same room. Most expensive system was $70,000. A "golfing panther" speaker A “happily...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Uhm...ok. I agree! But what has that to do with super-boutique amplifiers?

 

[tmtomh]

My view is this is a well designed amplifier which has also become an object of desire around here because it measures so well. In actual use I doubt it sounds any better than a far less expensive NC502 which does not measure as well, but is good enough have inaudible distortion. Genelec monitors have achieved a similar status. A single number becomes the alpha and omega which in the minds of some makes all other loudspeakers irrelevant.

I largely agree with you. IMHO it comes down to an issue of communication and information. One of the main reasons we rely on measurements is that performance to an objective standard is the only way we can effectively communicate about fidelity and quality in a way that largely transcends the subjective limitations of the individual.

In that vein, there is of course an emotional component, but putting that aside, love for the Benchmark, Genelec, and similar gear here is that not only is their performance excellent, but many of us also have limited information about just how much of a difference, if any, their performance excellence makes compared to other gear that is likely - but in many folks' mind not certain - to perform more or less identically in terms of audible behavior.

So I think part of it comes down to something like, "I think the Hypex NCore amp will be just as good in practice, but if I can swing the Benchmark, then I'll be certain I'm not leaving any performance on the table." I also agree with you in that I think many of us (myself included!) tend to over-weight the possibility that the Benchmark will sound better than the NCore in practice. I think that's an occupational hazard of being passionate about a hobby.

 

[tmtomh]

At least for electronics, transparency is clean. But the Toole preference score was created from 28 listeners. So far, the results here haven’t been astoundingly in favor of the best measuring speaker:

Monaural Speaker Recordings - Blind Testing Six Speakers for Fun

It's time for another blind test! The recordings are not as level matched as I had hoped, but c'est la vie. This is just for entertainment not science. Background Six speakers on trial, not all in the same room. Most expensive system was $70,000. A "golfing panther" speaker A “happily...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Once again, I really appreciate you putting together that comparison, and especially how much work it took. But I think we need to be very clear that the comparison you set up is, with respect, meaningless for determining speaker preferences, for the reasons noted by several folks in that other thread. I don't mean this to be unpleasant or disagreeable - again, I appreciate the comparison and it was a lot of fun! But to say there are a number of additional, confounding variables in your comparison is to make a massive understatement.

 

[Ron Texas]

D'Agostino is usually sold alongside Wilson. I think that explains a lot. The stuff is expensive and looks expensive.

 

[PGAMiami]

Yes, but there is a certain amount of subjectivity in how nominal impedance is specified by speaker manufacturers. In my case I simply called Benchmark and asked. Rory Rall is very helpful and he felt the amps would be fine in mono on my TADs, and he offered to take them back if I didn’t like them. I kept the Benchmarks and sold my Constellation monos. The Constellation amps are beautiful to look at, but the Benchmark sound better and don’t heat up my room.

 

[fpitas]

D'Agostino is usually sold alongside Wilson. I think that explains a lot. The stuff is expensive and looks expensive.

If you're saying people buy them simply because they look expensive, that could very well be.

 

[Purité Audio]

D'Agostino is usually sold alongside Wilson. I think that explains a lot. The stuff is expensive and looks expensive.

Hideous is the word you are looking for.
Keith

 

[digitalfrost]

 

[fpitas]

Hideous is the word you are looking for.
Keith

Yes, I agree. The high-end aesthetic is lost on me.

 

[Ron Texas]

Hideous is the word you are looking for.
Keith

I don't know if I would call D'Agostino hideous, but it does look overdone. The larger Wilson speakers are hideous. An industrial designer relative of mine really likes the look of McIntosh.

 

[Purité Audio]

Abomination them.
Compared to the first Krell models they are … especially when coupled to the wee stand.
Keith

 

[GXAlan]

Once again, I really appreciate you putting together that comparison, and especially how much work it took. But I think we need to be very clear that the comparison you set up is, with respect, meaningless for determining speaker preferences, for the reasons noted by several folks in that other thread. I don't mean this to be unpleasant or disagreeable - again, I appreciate the comparison and it was a lot of fun! But to say there are a number of additional, confounding variables in your comparison is to make a massive understatement.

To be clear, I invest in speakers with the best preference score too. It’s the same rationale as electronics: since it doesn’t cost a lot to get SOTA, why not?

But when you look at this

There are things that we should consider:

1) We know that bass plays a big role in preference
2) The original preference score correlation was done with smoothened FR measurements and may not be as predictive with increasingly precise measurement methods
3) We have adopted the philosophy of mono evaluation is the best way to evaluate speakers. On the other hand, an equally scientific conclusion is: “In stereo, tonality issues are masked. Thus there must be a point where the preference score is “good enough” and it would be preferable to invest in better bass with worse tonality than smoother tonality with less bass.

4) We know a horrible speaker in a great room is bad.

But is a good speaker in a great room or a great speaker in a good room preferred? Is there a crossing point between good and great in either axis?

These are questions we should be asking. My blind test not being sufficient to address the answers to these questions, but hopefully demonstrating that these are simply questions to consider.

 

[Ron Texas]

Abomination them.
Compared to the first Krell models they are … especially when coupled to the wee stand.
Keith

Abomination? This is getting very entertaining. I believe that form should follow function. In the case of a power amplifier all that is needed is a well finished case and the means to extract extra heat without fan noise.

 

[fpitas]

Abomination? This is getting very entertaining. I believe that form should follow function. In the case of a power amplifier all that is needed is a well finished case and the means to extract extra heat without fan noise.

That's my preference, too. Necessary connectors, perhaps some heat sink fins.