If ya can’t bring the amps to the AP, bring the AP to the ampsIf only @amirm measures his monoblocks…
If ya can’t bring the amps to the AP, bring the AP to the ampsIf only @amirm measures his monoblocks…
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)
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.If you believe anything in Stereo review, I have a bridge for sale.
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.
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
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.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.
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.If you believe anything in Stereo review, I have a bridge for sale.
Thanks for posting the link. If nothing else, the Rodriguez cartoons and classic OTT ads for DAK were worth the price of admission.
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.The classic properly controlled amplifier comparison is this one from 1978: https://linearaudio.nl/sites/linearaudio.net/files/Valves versus Transistors DCD.pdf
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.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.
Which Krell out of interest? Many say the original KSA50 was the best amp they ever made.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.
It's a KSA50S.Which Krell out of interest? Many say the original KSA50 was the best amp they ever made.