Is the Emporer wearing any clothes?

[voodooless]

If only @amirm measures his monoblocks…

If ya can’t bring the amps to the AP, bring the AP to the amps

 

[tifune]

One of the things about those older amps is that they often had a much more complete spec sheet than what is typically provided today. You can look and see how they might stand up in a real room with real music.

Are there any specific models you can think of? I'd just be curious to see a few vs. some of today's brands, like Yamaha who still does a decent job vs. musical fidelity who gives specs like "THD .007% under typical listening conditions" (according to who, no idea)

 

[BDWoody]

Are there any specific models you can think of? I'd just be curious to see a few vs. some of today's brands, like Yamaha who still does a decent job vs. musical fidelity who gives specs like "THD .007% under typical listening conditions" (according to who, no idea)

This is from the manual for my Krell. This isn't one of their fancy amps with meters and monstrous heat sinks, but their more 'budget minded' amps, selling originally for @$4k.

They go for @$12-$1500 these days.

 

[bkatbamna]

If you believe anything in Stereo review, I have a bridge for sale.

The test was designed very well and had 15 people who believed amps sound different and 10 skeptics. Personally, I had bought three pairs of speakers in the past based on SR recommendations and was extremely happy with all of them: Allison CD7, Paradigm Phantoms, and a pair of infinity speakers.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Perhaps:
View attachment 177257

https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf

I remember that issue. I was a subscriber at the time. My complaint with the test was the use of Magnepan speakers. Magnepan speakers like that had a load that was very nearly 100 percent resistive. Like testing a big 4 ohm power resistor. I knew of speakers for instance the Futterman would just choke over trying to play. Yet it would play the Maggies.

 

[restorer-john]

This is from the manual for my Krell. This isn't one of their fancy amps with meters and monstrous heat sinks, but their more 'budget minded' amps, selling originally for @$4k.

They go for @$12-$1500 these days.

View attachment 177267

Proper specifications are a joy to read. Nothing hidden, no 'best case- cherry picking', just good, honest, compliant numbers.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

One of the things about those older amps is that they often had a much more complete spec sheet than what is typically provided today. You can look and see how they might stand up in a real room with real music.

I have older Krell and Bryston amps, and have never felt the need to find what I'm missing.

I've been at this for a while, and I don't think that chasing marginal improvements in one component or another is the way to improve one's audiophile experience, especially if those components are amplifiers, DACS, or (heaven forfend) cables. Ultimately, the most efficient way to build a system is to find a good component that fits within the concept of your system and just hold on to it while upgrading one of the weaker components-- and speakers are usually the weakest.

My philosophy toward the SINAD number has always been that if all other things are equal why not opt for the product with the higher (est) SINAD. Why buy a DAC with a SINAD of 93 when there's one with a SINAD or 115 that has comparable features and a near identical price? OTOH, if you already have perfectly serviceable and reliable amp that drives your speakers to your satisfaction why chuck it to buy one with a SINAD 10 db higher? So, in short if you're in the market for an amp or a DAC (but only if you're in the market) why not buy the best measuring one you can afford?

It all just depends on where you are on your component acquisition journey. I don't know and have no way of practically determining what audible difference, if any, exists between a component with a 100 vs 90db Sinad. Almost certainly, that difference, will be less than optimizing your speakers with room treatment and dsp, so spend most of most of the time and money optimizing the speakers in the room and understand that great measurements in the electronics are just gravy on the potatoes.

 

[warnerwh]

If you believe anything in Stereo review, I have a bridge for sale.

There have been numerous double blind tests of amplifiers going back to at least the early 70's which I remember. You don't have to believe Stereo Review. Results have been pretty much the same for decades. Two SS amps operating within their design parameters are pretty much indistinguishable from one another.

"My own amp flat blows the doors off quite a few current amps. I mean not even close. I can't say what sound it has except it does not accentuate over sibilant vocals, top-hats, or other sources of "digital glare" whatever that is."

What amps accentuate over sibilant vocals, top-hats, or other sources of digital glare? I'd like to learn why some amps have those features and what causes those problems in their design so I can avoid them. Thanks

 

[BoredErica]

Back when all I knew was head-fi and people were proclaiming all these large differences between cables, amps, and dacs, I felt like the odd one out because if there was a difference it was not huge to me. Eventually I felt like the only sane person in a cult.

 

[dr0ss]

Thanks for posting the link. If nothing else, the Rodriguez cartoons and classic OTT ads for DAK were worth the price of admission.

 

[Mart68]

Give the amps a difficult load to drive and that soon separates the men from the boys.

I have lots of amps and speakers, my favourite speaker is 2.4 ohm minimum with steep phase angles. You can hear the difference between a Krell and a NAD with those. With vintage 12 ohm speakers, no appreciable difference. That's where these amplifier blind tests fall down.

 

[antcollinet]

Thanks for posting the link. If nothing else, the Rodriguez cartoons and classic OTT ads for DAK were worth the price of admission.

+1 It brought back the joy of reading a magazine pre internet, when it was the only source of information. Drooling over all the shiny.

 

[Willem]

The classic properly controlled amplifier comparison is this one from 1978: https://linearaudio.nl/sites/linearaudio.net/files/Valves versus Transistors DCD.pdf

 

[sergeauckland]

The classic properly controlled amplifier comparison is this one from 1978: https://linearaudio.nl/sites/linearaudio.net/files/Valves versus Transistors DCD.pdf

I wonder how many of today's manufacturers would be brave enough to claim that their current products are indistinguishable from their earlier ones. Under Peter Walker, Quad only released a new product when it could be shown to be technically better than than the predecessor, not for some vague 'sounds better' reason. Hence the long gaps between the Quad II, 303, 405.

S

 

[Willem]

Indeed. I personally attended one of Peter Walker's demonstrations, and talked with him. His justification for new models was that each new generation had more power and was easier to manufacture. That was all.
Since I was using Quad ESL 57s at the time, he said there was no point in upgrading my Quad 303 to a 405 since I could not use the extra power without destroying the speakers (the 405 had a setting to limit the power for use with these speakers). What he did not tell me at the time was that he was quite advanced with the developement of the ESL 63 that could use (and needed) the extra power.

 

[anmpr1]

I remember that issue. I was a subscriber at the time. My complaint with the test was the use of Magnepan speakers. Magnepan speakers like that had a load that was very nearly 100 percent resistive. Like testing a big 4 ohm power resistor. I knew of speakers for instance the Futterman would just choke over trying to play. Yet it would play the Maggies.

If Mark Levinson amplifiers are capable of welding steel plates, the NYAL was capable of self-welding its internals, under the right conditions. Harvey Rosenberg claimed that almost all the warranty work for his amps could be traced to 'misuse'--which meant connecting them to the 'wrong' speakers. He did not advise his customers to use any loudspeaker having a nominal impedance of less than 8 ohms. Now, Harvey is not here to comment on the build/quality of his amplifier, and he was certainly on the opinionated edge in many respects. But I tend to believe his report about warranty repairs.

For his part, Julius Futterman was happy to tell you that his hand made H3aa (not the later NYAL OTL-1 monster) would happily drive the 16ohm Tangent loudspeaker to very loud SPL, whereas the voltage limited Mark Levinson ML-2 would frequently clip on those speakers, at loud levels.

From Magnepan's literature for the MG-IIIa: Power recommendation: 50W minimum; impedance: 4 ohms in the bass, 3 ohms in the treble; sensitivity: 83-85 dB/W/m.

Into 3 or 4 ohms the OTL-1 was probably putting out 30 to 40 watts, or thereabouts. From a practical standpoint, it was certainly not the loudspeaker you'd want to use with OTL-1 amps, as a daily driver.

 

[Dichotome]

I still use a Krell from 1994 as my daily driver. I compared it to a Neurochrome 686 and if there's any real difference it was too subtle for me to spot.

So I stick with it. I bought it second hand so it was not expensive. I estimate if they were still making them they would be at least ten grand retail, which is an amount I would not pay for an amplifier. I don't care about the badge or 'pride of ownership thing', I just want the sound.

if I was starting over I'd go for the Neurochrome, the Benchmark or some variety of Hypex. Might as well have the state of the art even if I can't hear the benefit.

On a wider scope I think badges still do matter to a lot of punters, not necessarily as a show-off thing but becuase a well known make is regarded as a guarantee that it will be 'good' and so worth buying or at least considering. IME most people don't take a pragmatic approach to audio.

Which Krell out of interest? Many say the original KSA50 was the best amp they ever made.

 

[Mart68]

Which Krell out of interest? Many say the original KSA50 was the best amp they ever made.

It's a KSA50S.