VanNeumann
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2018
- Messages
- 22
- Likes
- 14
In an attempt to rise above the subjective and marketing-oriented reviews on the web, I would like to put together a list of good (and bad) mobile, headphone/desktop, and full-sized amplifiers; and related testing data in a spreadsheet that I will later post on ASR. The primary goal of this thread is to find amplifiers that offer great value and fidelity; and, therefore, very exotic and expensive suggestions may not be as useful unless you think otherwise and will share those insights.
Given that there are many excellent DAC reviews on ASR and many have shown weaknesses regardless of their price, I ask that the experienced and engineer oriented members provide similar insights about amplifiers:
(1) What mobile, desktop or stereo amplifiers do you like or dislike, and why? (This could include DAC/AMPS)
(2) Do you have any testing data or know of a web site with such data (please provide URL or data)?
(3) Have you found any issues with any particular amp?
(4) Are there any features (I/O, pre-amp, pass-through, tone control, etc.) that you have found useful?
I hope to get this thread started on the right foot with some Audio Critic humor and a very preliminary list of amplifiers.
Many of you know The Audio Critic (Peter Aczel was a very practical and scientific minded audiophile and critic who passed away recently) and his dislike of marketing “flummery.” Here is some of his relevant insights that may make you smile.
A. The Audio Critic (http://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/audio_critic_web1.htm#acl. Definitely worth reading his many articles):
Peter Aczel’s 2006 review of the Sauring Audio SLC-600 Amplifier:
“Tweako/weirdo amplifier design is alive and well and living in Reno. The Soaring Audio SLC-A300 soared briefly at the January 2004 CES, after which I would have expected it to glide listlessly to earth, but judging from the SA website it is apparently still aloft and winging it. The theory (or shall I call it justification?) on which the design is based is so vague, so ambiguously presented, so devoid of scientific plainspokenness that I must be careful lest my well-known fondness for bashing technobabble get out of hand.
The SA party line is that an inventor, one Jan Coyle, got together with an EE professor, namely Dr. Bill Avery, and a Golden Ear, Daniel Kolbet, who can hear the difference between resistors. The happy triangulation of these talents produced, after years of experimentation, the patented Signal Loss Compensator circuit, which ends the agony of frustration with deficient sound. Hidden details emerge, the perceived dynamic range expands, and “digital grit” due to the 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz sampling rate (what—you can’t hear it?) is eliminated. The explanation of both the problems and the solution, on the website and in the literature, is so secretively allusive, noncommittal, and devious that it’s not worth repeating…”
Fall 2000. Issue 26. Reviews of Audio Electronics:
“…Here I just want to emphasize once again that in engineering, as in other fields, good thinking costs no more than bad thinking. Good measurements are proof of good thinking; that's why we emphasize them, whether "you can hear the difference" or not. Maybe you can't hear 0.05% THD, but 0.005% is just as easy to achieve with good thinking and a lot more reassuring. Besides, if you cascade four or five of those devices with not-so-great measurements . . . who knows?”
Spring 1997. Issue 24, The Audio Critic
What about the amplifier?
“…Vastly exaggerated in importance by the audiophile press and high-end audio dealers. In controlled double-blind listening tests, no one has ever (yes, ever!) heard a difference between two amplifiers with high input impedance, low output impedance, flat response, low distortion, and low noise, when operated at precisely matched levels (±0.1 dB) and not clipped. Of course, the larger your room and the less efficient your speakers, the more watts you need to avoid clipping.”
B. Preliminary list of inexpensive amplifiers
Given that there are many excellent DAC reviews on ASR and many have shown weaknesses regardless of their price, I ask that the experienced and engineer oriented members provide similar insights about amplifiers:
(1) What mobile, desktop or stereo amplifiers do you like or dislike, and why? (This could include DAC/AMPS)
(2) Do you have any testing data or know of a web site with such data (please provide URL or data)?
(3) Have you found any issues with any particular amp?
(4) Are there any features (I/O, pre-amp, pass-through, tone control, etc.) that you have found useful?
I hope to get this thread started on the right foot with some Audio Critic humor and a very preliminary list of amplifiers.
Many of you know The Audio Critic (Peter Aczel was a very practical and scientific minded audiophile and critic who passed away recently) and his dislike of marketing “flummery.” Here is some of his relevant insights that may make you smile.
A. The Audio Critic (http://www.biline.ca/audio_critic/audio_critic_web1.htm#acl. Definitely worth reading his many articles):
Peter Aczel’s 2006 review of the Sauring Audio SLC-600 Amplifier:
“Tweako/weirdo amplifier design is alive and well and living in Reno. The Soaring Audio SLC-A300 soared briefly at the January 2004 CES, after which I would have expected it to glide listlessly to earth, but judging from the SA website it is apparently still aloft and winging it. The theory (or shall I call it justification?) on which the design is based is so vague, so ambiguously presented, so devoid of scientific plainspokenness that I must be careful lest my well-known fondness for bashing technobabble get out of hand.
The SA party line is that an inventor, one Jan Coyle, got together with an EE professor, namely Dr. Bill Avery, and a Golden Ear, Daniel Kolbet, who can hear the difference between resistors. The happy triangulation of these talents produced, after years of experimentation, the patented Signal Loss Compensator circuit, which ends the agony of frustration with deficient sound. Hidden details emerge, the perceived dynamic range expands, and “digital grit” due to the 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz sampling rate (what—you can’t hear it?) is eliminated. The explanation of both the problems and the solution, on the website and in the literature, is so secretively allusive, noncommittal, and devious that it’s not worth repeating…”
Fall 2000. Issue 26. Reviews of Audio Electronics:
“…Here I just want to emphasize once again that in engineering, as in other fields, good thinking costs no more than bad thinking. Good measurements are proof of good thinking; that's why we emphasize them, whether "you can hear the difference" or not. Maybe you can't hear 0.05% THD, but 0.005% is just as easy to achieve with good thinking and a lot more reassuring. Besides, if you cascade four or five of those devices with not-so-great measurements . . . who knows?”
Spring 1997. Issue 24, The Audio Critic
What about the amplifier?
“…Vastly exaggerated in importance by the audiophile press and high-end audio dealers. In controlled double-blind listening tests, no one has ever (yes, ever!) heard a difference between two amplifiers with high input impedance, low output impedance, flat response, low distortion, and low noise, when operated at precisely matched levels (±0.1 dB) and not clipped. Of course, the larger your room and the less efficient your speakers, the more watts you need to avoid clipping.”
B. Preliminary list of inexpensive amplifiers