• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Gold Standard of Stereo Loudspeaker Amplification and DAC?

Martini

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 13, 2020
Messages
288
Likes
292
I've got your Gold Standard
Gold Member.jpeg
 

jae

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 2, 2019
Messages
1,208
Likes
1,508
For amplifiers its probably the McIntosh Laboratory MC462 because of the low distortion and very high power output. Better than Purifi and wont clip with low efficiency loudspeakers like an AHB2 will. Its not even that expensive for what you are getting.

Perhaps not expensive when compared to other boutique products (based on the fact most of them perform poorly), but it's still expensive compared to what the Purifi (or Benchmark, Hypex) gives you. There might be more power before clipping but one could just buy 2x Benchmark or 2x Purifi for a fraction of the cost and get quite close, or any one of the top Hypex that offers more power for less.

The MC462:
  • Costs as much as 9x that of the Purifi
  • Weighs 115 lbs (52+ kg) - almost 9x the weight of a typical Purifi build
  • Is massive (Coincidentally takes up as much as 9x the volume of a compact Purifi build)
  • Gets hot, less efficient (more power consumption)
  • FR is not flat through audible range
  • Is ugly ;)
In my opinion MC462 is just a rare instance where you have a boutique product that actually performs to modern standards. Serving as a barometer of price : performance : power I think is more representative of what "gold standard" implies. A standard should not be unobtainium to most people and its value should be maximised as much as is reasonable.
 

escksu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
965
Likes
397
Perhaps not expensive when compared to other boutique products (based on the fact most of them perform poorly), but it's still expensive compared to what the Purifi (or Benchmark, Hypex) gives you. There might be more power before clipping but one could just buy 2x Benchmark or 2x Purifi for a fraction of the cost and get quite close, or any one of the top Hypex that offers more power for less.

The MC462:
  • Costs as much as 9x that of the Purifi
  • Weighs 115 lbs (52+ kg) - almost 9x the weight of a typical Purifi build
  • Is massive (Coincidentally takes up as much as 9x the volume of a compact Purifi build)
  • Gets hot, less efficient (more power consumption)
  • FR is not flat through audible range
  • Is ugly ;)
In my opinion MC462 is just a rare instance where you have a boutique product that actually performs to modern standards. Serving as a barometer of price : performance : power I think is more representative of what "gold standard" implies. A standard should not be unobtainium to most people and its value should be maximised as much as is reasonable.

I am curious, how do you know they performed poorly??
 

jae

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 2, 2019
Messages
1,208
Likes
1,508
I am curious, how do you know they performed poorly??

There are a number of highly regarded, expensive amplifiers on the spreadsheet that I linked that are measured to perform poorly. The same is true for other electronics such as DACs (just look at the dozens if not hundreds of products reviewed on this site). A boutique product can perform well but that's rarely the case, and when it does it rarely justifies the price. There are very few outliers.
 

Koeitje

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
2,292
Likes
3,880
Perhaps not expensive when compared to other boutique products (based on the fact most of them perform poorly), but it's still expensive compared to what the Purifi (or Benchmark, Hypex) gives you. There might be more power before clipping but one could just buy 2x Benchmark or 2x Purifi for a fraction of the cost and get quite close, or any one of the top Hypex that offers more power for less.

The MC462:
  • Costs as much as 9x that of the Purifi
  • Weighs 115 lbs (52+ kg) - almost 9x the weight of a typical Purifi build
  • Is massive (Coincidentally takes up as much as 9x the volume of a compact Purifi build)
  • Gets hot, less efficient (more power consumption)
  • FR is not flat through audible range
  • Is ugly ;)
In my opinion MC462 is just a rare instance where you have a boutique product that actually performs to modern standards. Serving as a barometer of price : performance : power I think is more representative of what "gold standard" implies. A standard should not be unobtainium to most people and its value should be maximised as much as is reasonable.
Neither the AHB2 and Purifi could be considered gold standard, since both run out of power. You can start talking about bridging, but even then you don't have the same available (and doesn't it increased the noise floor?). Doing that also brings the AHB up to 2/3's of the MC462.
 

escksu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
965
Likes
397
There are a number of highly regarded, expensive amplifiers on the spreadsheet that I linked that are measured to perform poorly. The same is true for other electronics such as DACs (just look at the dozens if not hundreds of products reviewed on this site). A boutique product can perform well but that's rarely the case, and when it does it rarely justifies the price. There are very few outliers.

Oh ok. I saw the spreadsheet. While I agree that THD and SINAD are parameters to determine performance, I don't see them as the yard stick for audio performance. Neither do I feel they are of great importance up to a certain extent. Eg for THD, 0.00026% may be ~384x smaller than 0.1%, pple will only notice a very small difference (don't need blind test). However, 1 and 10% (10x difference) will be considered huge difference. Same goes for SINAD. So, this is what I meant by dimishing returns.

To date, I have never known THD/SINAD to be an issue with any high-end equipment, not even in any blind/double/triple blind test (with reasonable setup and environment). I use the word reasonable as one would normally do when listening to speakers. Eg. sitting at a comfortable distance, not placing ears right beside speakers. Comfortable volume, not super loud till your ears hurt or so quiet that you are straining to hear anyhting. Room is not the quiestest in the world where you can even hear your heart pumping and blood flowing through you blood vessels (Orfield Laboratories). Even in my own experience, I find poor recordings a much bigger problem than equipment THD/SINAD.
 
Last edited:

jae

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 2, 2019
Messages
1,208
Likes
1,508
Neither the AHB2 and Purifi could be considered gold standard, since both run out of power. You can start talking about bridging, but even then you don't have the same available (and doesn't it increased the noise floor?). Doing that also brings the AHB up to 2/3's of the MC462.

"Runs out of power" for what theoretical load? I could make the same "running out of power" argument for the MC462 or almost any amp or that matter if I needed 1kW or some arbitrarily higher number that is beyond what what amplifier is rated for, in which case I could say something like the Hypex 1200/2K could be the winner.

There's no non-complicated argument here as amplifiers are purpose-specific tools. Performance, especially when it comes to power is somewhat contingent on specific use cases, which is why I originally had the caveat that "There may be better if you need more or less power". Just because an amplifier may not suit your specific use case or demands does not mean it is any less worthy of being a gold standard in my opinion, which I believe errs on the side of a holistic best representation of what the market is capable of and usable in a wide variety of scenarios.

How one weighs these individual considerations is of course very subjective, however I think it's entirely possible to have a reasonable and logical position based on a combination of objective performance, engineering tradeoffs, and the habits of a general enthusiast (how much power a typical system uses, the average sensitivity of common loudspeakers, typical listening distances, typical system budgets etc.). There is no universe where the MC462 ticks most of these boxes because most people are not simply willing to spend that much, most people simply do not need that power, and its exceptionally low noise/distortion is either found in other top contenders or is just not audible. The fact it cannot produce a flat 20-20khz is also disappointing. You are paying for the brand name here (and the associated bells and whistles) and not receiving much value in terms of engineering considerations or tradeoffs, and that is reflected in the price. It's a good product, fills its niche and is fairly priced as far as boutique products go, but not as far as what's available on the market.

I like the Purifi as a "gold standard" and what I recommend to most people because it essentially achieves similar to what the Benchmark does while providing a significant amount of extra power which covers more usage scenarios. It achieves this at 1/3rd the cost which is more in line of what someone would be willing to pay, is easier to mass-produce, and using modern energy-efficient class-D design and fixes many of the historical shortcomings of class-D. So we're sacrificing negligible (inaudible) amounts of sub 200W THD+N performance here for more power compared to the Benchmark, we're gaining significantly more efficiency/less heat, small size compared to other classes of amps, and we're still near the top spec wise at a much more affordable price compared to Benchmark and other (non-Hypex/class-d) amplifiers. I would even be willing to make the argument that Hypex or ICEpower may even be more deserving of this "gold standard" title for the higher power and lower prices associated with those amplifiers, respectively.

Oh ok. I saw the spreadsheet. While I agree that THD and SINAD are parameters to determine performance, I don't see them as the yard stick for audio performance. Neither do I feel they are of great importance up to a certain extent. Eg for THD, 0.00026% may be ~384x smaller than 0.1%, pple will only notice a very small difference (don't need blind test). However, 1 and 10% (10x difference) will be considered huge difference. Same goes for SINAD. So, this is what I meant by dimishing returns.

To date, I have never known THD/SINAD to be an issue with any high-end equipment, not even in any blind/double/triple blind test (with reasonable setup and environment). I use the word reasonable as one would normally do when listening to speakers. Eg. sitting at a comfortable distance, not placing ears right beside speakers. Comfortable volume, not super loud till your ears hurt or so quiet that you are straining to hear anyhting. Room is not the quiestest in the world where you can even hear your heart pumping and blood flowing through you blood vessels (Orfield Laboratories). Even in my own experience, I find poor recordings a much bigger problem than equipment THD/SINAD.

So what's the purpose of buying high-end equipment and what objective sonic benefits do they provide? Generally the only reasons I have seen are vanity/aesthetics or exclusive "features" that may not be present in other products. Or some sort of unprovable claims by the manufacturer. Since most of those things are almost always subjective, how could any boutique equipment be considered a "gold-standard" in terms of audio reproduction or engineering? The boutique products would have to do something objectively better than modern, more affordable non-boutique ones, and they almost always do not.
 
Last edited:

Koeitje

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 10, 2019
Messages
2,292
Likes
3,880
NC2000 won't hit the distortion figures of the MC462. Yes, its probably a better bang for buck solution, but its simply not the gold standard.
 

Willem

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,654
Likes
5,276
Define gold standard, and in particular, explain why measured performance that is better than human hearing is relevant. And explain why in this day and age frugal use of electricity is not important enough.
 

escksu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
965
Likes
397
Define gold standard, and in particular, explain why measured performance that is better than human hearing is relevant. And explain why in this day and age frugal use of electricity is not important enough.

Frugal use of electricity? I would need to ask you how do you determine what is frugal or not. How do you judge this?

Give you an example:

Say you audio system uses 100w of power. Sure its seems very efficient compare to those that uses 300w or more. But one person says i have a $50 bluetooth usb speaker that uses way less power. Cost alot less than your system and uses way less power. Did my part for climate change. Later another says i live with my smartphone speakers which uses even less power. I can bring it anywhere i go. Later, another said listening to music is a waste of time and not productive at all. How do you determine who is frugal is this case?
Let me say my own POV. Using resources for purpose of entertainment is never considered frugal. So, lets not judge how others uses electricity.
 

Willem

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,654
Likes
5,276
How about energy efficiency? I do think it matters, in an admittedly small way. The challenge we face is to do as much as possible with as little as possible. The alternative is to abandon all kinds of activities that we enjoy.
THe good news is that in many areas we have been exceptionally good doing this. A modern fridge is far more efficient than an old one, without any loss of functionality, and the same applies to a modern LED light. If we do not move to modern technology we are condemned to abstain from what we like.
 

Jim Matthews

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 25, 2021
Messages
1,051
Likes
1,286
Location
Taxachusetts
How about energy efficiency? I do think it matters, in an admittedly small way.

Keep in mind that the price paid (in currency) here, in North America is artificially low and that makes inefficient power use/waste a rational choice if more efficient devices cost more.

Personally I have transitioned from Antique triode amplifiers to contemporary Class D amplification because my music room overheats 4 months out of every year..

My pursuit of efficiency was about maximizing my free time.

*****

This aspect of our hobby is an interesting intellectual exercise but a paltry cause of actual consumption. The "embodied carbon" of the audio hobby is in global transport of devices and streaming services.

If you're serious about reducing energy consumption, replace all the leaking windows.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/2017
 
Last edited:

escksu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
965
Likes
397
aSo what's the purpose of buying high-end equipment and what objective sonic benefits do they provide? Generally the only reasons I have seen are vanity/aesthetics or exclusive "features" that may not be present in other products. Or some sort of unprovable claims by the manufacturer. Since most of those things are almost always subjective, how could any boutique equipment be considered a "gold-standard" in terms of audio reproduction or engineering? The boutique products would have to do something objectively better than modern, more affordable non-boutique ones, and they almost always do not.

I need to highlight that there is no such thing as gold standard in audio industry. There is no authority or governing body to set any "gold standard". Of course, you are entirely free to set your own gold standard. However, you need to note that what you set is not representative of entire world.
 
Last edited:

escksu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
965
Likes
397
How about energy efficiency? I do think it matters, in an admittedly small way. The challenge we face is to do as much as possible with as little as possible. The alternative is to abandon all kinds of activities that we enjoy.
THe good news is that in many areas we have been exceptionally good doing this. A modern fridge is far more efficient than an old one, without any loss of functionality, and the same applies to a modern LED light. If we do not move to modern technology we are condemned to abstain from what we like.

Exceptional?? Are you sure? Look at our carbon footprint and the amount of trash we all generate everyday. Climate change is getting worse everyday. Now we have raining in greenland.
 
Last edited:

Willem

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
3,654
Likes
5,276
I don't know where you are, but here in Europe, thanks to mandatory energy efficiency regulation, many appliances only consume half or even a lot less than they did only a decade ago. Of course, we need to do more.
As for other things, yes, I am doing a lot of other things. Right now our builder is upgrading the insulation of our house to much higher standards. After that, the next step will be a heat pump instead of our current natural gas boiler for heating. We already have solar panels that over the course of a year produce about as much electricity as we consume. These measures will of course add up to much more than any savings from a class D amplifier, but my view is that it matters to pay attention to everything if and when you can make a difference.
 

jae

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 2, 2019
Messages
1,208
Likes
1,508
NC2000 won't hit the distortion figures of the MC462. Yes, its probably a better bang for buck solution, but its simply not the gold standard.

Not understanding what you mean here as I plainly addressed that. The NC2K of course will easily hit lower distortion than the MC462 at 1100W simply because the MC462 clips long before this. So power alone can't be an argument for something being a standard unless your only problem is power. Also if you look at the various graphs available there are also points within its operational parameters/at certain impedances where both the Benchmark and Purifi outperform the MC462 in terms of distortion at lower loads, even if the averages or certain points may be in the favour of MC462 because it simply has more power to play with.

Define gold standard, and in particular, explain why measured performance that is better than human hearing is relevant. And explain why in this day and age frugal use of electricity is not important enough.

Gold as a monetary standard (where the term originates) was innately useful, fairly fungible, relatively scarce, attractive, was relatively easy to transport and trade, and held a lot of value. But it is not necessarily the most useful, the most scarce, the most attractive, the easiest to trade, or the most expensive thing out there. It is the combination of these things holistically that made it worthy of being a standard.

I would think most English speakers would say a "gold standard" is something that is regarded as being of relative excellence/high quality that has a broad and high degree of relevance, practicality, efficacy to its purpose or whatever it is trying to quantify/describe/realise. It is somewhat synonymous to the word "benchmark" (no relation to the amplifier) with more of a positive connotation or perhaps the more typical/practical connotation of the word "quintessential". If we ask for the "gold standard" of objective amplifier performance the answer may be more clear cut or more leaning on the side of perfection than if we ask for the "gold standard" of an audio amplifier in general. But at that point it is just semantics.

As a practical example, I recently had to see an ophthalmologist due to problems with high pressure in my eyes. In ocular tonometry (the diagnostic measure of eye pressure), the Goldmann method is considered the "gold standard" (no pun intended). It is the most studied method (but not the only one) it is very accurate (but not the most accurate), it is relatively easy to perform (but not the easiest), it is not the least invasive (but not the most invasive), and it can have error but it is low variance and well understood. Its use may be limited by funding, time, availability, type and severity of the patient etc. So while is clearly has its own inherent limitations, professionals have intuitively accepted it as the clinical "gold standard" when looking at the options of measuring pressure holistically, to assess if treatment is working, when comparing it to other available methods, and understanding the the objective and subjective considerations of its use.

I need to highlight that there is no such thing as gold standard in audio industry. There is no authority or governing body to set any "gold standard". Of course, you are entirely free to set your own gold standard. However, you need to note that what you set is not representative of entire world.

If you set your own "gold standard" without considering the audience or the broad nature of the topic is it no longer a "gold standard", that's just your own personal standard, isn't it? We can be further reductionist and say any opinions in this thread on what the "gold standard" is in fact a personal standard but it does not really serve to accomplish anything.

My suggestion of Purifi for example factored in performance (load-agnostic flat FR, low distortion/noise), availability, relative price, high efficiency/low heat, appreciation for good engineering/novel design to further the industry, and a power output that will probably satisfy 99% of stereo enthusiasts needs without considering any specific subjective needs like the desire to play music at deafening levels or very insensitive speakers. As most people use powered subs these days for full range (as smaller well-measuring speakers + sub generally better FR performance than most full range setups at cheaper prices), the necessity for massive amounts of stereo amplification are at an all-time low.

There may not be any universal or governing body for audio enthusiasts but we can still understand the scientific and practical purpose of what an amplifier is for and what makes a good one or bad one, use established best-practice conventions in engineering, use knowledge of psychoacoustics to understand how much and what types of distortions or response/impulse characteristics are audible, we can still use calculations and general population preferences to determine how much power is necessary or ideal, we can still compare and contrast to other available products and what features may or may not be available or how much they cost, and what you get for the price. We can even weigh how important having more inputs or cosmetic features are into buying decisions.

Like the Goldmann test I described above, no amplifier is going to necessarily be perfect or ideal. But it's very possible to objectively analyse choices and considerations that have a subjective nature and make contextually objective conclusions and compromises when it comes to products that are designed for broad groups of people. It is entirely possible to accept a realistic "gold" standard that's grounded common sense and the nature of the industry even if your own personal standard does not align with it (preference curve studies are a good example of this).
 
Last edited:

MrPeabody

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
657
Likes
942
Location
USA
Neither the AHB2 and Purifi could be considered gold standard, since both run out of power. ...

C'mon, man. No one should have to point out that there is no "magic number" for the amount of power an amplifier needs to provide. It depends on too many factors. Why would you write something that implies that there is a specific threshold, above which an amplifier's power is all that is needed, and below which an amplifier's power is insufficient? I probably ought not have asked the question, because you're probably going to follow up with an argument to the effect that one specific amount of power is the One True Amount that everyone needs. You need only observe that typical loudspeaker sensitivity varies over a range of oh, about +/- 5 dB. Okay, you can probably gather the majority of speakers into a range of maybe +/- 3 dB. This is still a spread of 6 dB, corresponding to an actual power range (in Watts) where power at the high end of the range is 4x greater than power at the low end of the range. For example, 100 Watts for a speaker that is at the highly sensitive end of the spectrum, and 400 Watts for a speaker that is at the less sensitive end of the spectrum. This is a fairly big spread in power, and this is only to accommodate the variability in speaker sensitivity, which consideration is merely the tip of the iceberg. For some people 70 dB maximum SPL is more than adequate, while other people often listen at SPL at 90 dB or even higher. Call this an 18 dB spread, conservatively. So let's see, 18 divided by 3 is 6, and 2^6 is 64, so this consideration implies a whopping 64x spread in required power. Combine the two factors I've mentioned, and we have a range of 24 dB, which corresponds to a 250x factor in terms of actual power (Watts). A 10 Watt amp is probably adequate for some people, which is a good thing, because someone at the other end of the range, who needs more power to satisfy their listening habits and the appetite of their low-sensitivity speakers will need a 2,500 Watt amplifier. The bottom line is apparent: there is no "magic number" for the amount of amplifier power that is needed. It varies very greatly from one person to the next, and from one speaker to the next, and on several other factors that I won't mention. This is all absolutely and obviously true. But your comment clearly implies that there exists some threshold in power, such that an amplifier with power capability below this threshold doesn't meet the qualification for a "gold standard" amplifier. Please explain how you arrived at this threshold. Ah, I'll probably regret asking you this question.

Why am I even responding to this thread? Why do we have this kind of thread? All it is good for is another endless argument. It won't even attain the level where there is any consensus on the list of criteria that an amplifier needs to meet in order to qualify as a "gold standard" amplifier. Not gonna happen.
 

ex audiophile

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 28, 2017
Messages
635
Likes
805
I've phased out my big A/B amps, including Macs and STR, in favor of AHBs and most recently a pair of March Audio P701 monos. The latter provide enough power for 99% of us, inaudible distortion/noise, have the wonderful form factor of the AHBs and I paid about $2400 USD for the pair. My gold standard ;)
 

escksu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
965
Likes
397
Why am I even responding to this thread? Why do we have this kind of thread? All it is good for is another endless argument. It won't even attain the level where there is any consensus on the list of criteria that an amplifier needs to meet in order to qualify as a "gold standard" amplifier. Not gonna happen.

Haha, I would say don't take things on the internet too seriously. Always remember the "Golden Rule": you don't gain anything by winning an arugment on the internet. Neither do you lose anything if you lost in an argument.
 

Rottmannash

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 11, 2020
Messages
2,968
Likes
2,604
Location
Nashville
Neither the AHB2 and Purifi could be considered gold standard, since both run out of power. You can start talking about bridging, but even then you don't have the same available (and doesn't it increased the noise floor?). Doing that also brings the AHB up to 2/3's of the MC462.
Pretty sure there were no qualifications re: power output. That's just one parameter you're choosing as a qualifier-if one chooses pure power there far more powerful monoblock amps out there...for a very high price of course.
 
Top Bottom