Carver sunfire sig will still run circles around many amps to this day.
Isnt it a switching class H amp ? Regardless, its sound is amazing
Isnt it a switching class H amp ? Regardless, its sound is amazing
20 Year Old Amplifiers compared to 2017
Just a random thought, but I’m curious just how well the state of the art solid-state amplifiers from 20 years ago compare to some of today’s better offerings. For example, what does a pair of Mark Levinson 33Hs or a Krell FPB 600 sound like if compared to the latest offerings from Pass Labs or Ayre Acoustics?
138 responses Add your response
These endless arguments about whether all properly designed amplifiers sound the same are a bit amusing. As a previous post noted, "certain unique speakers present loading that will cause good amplifiers to sound slightly different." Arguments arise over the level of difference "slightly" means perceptually to each of us. Personally, I have difficulty imaging the perceptual apparatus of one who can't hear differences in amplifiers. Even my wife, who has stainless steel prosthetic implant replacements for stirrup bones in both her middle ears and wears high end hearing aids can hear the difference in good amplifiers with upper tier speakers and she really doesn't care that much about the issue at hand. I also find the insistence that blind testing is the only viable methodology for determining if there are differences between things like amplifiers, musical instruments, etc. places unwarranted faith in the ability of humans to make meaningful consistent distinctions in stressful testing situations. Many of us have heard a great deal made of the recent blind testing that alleged to have shown that concert violinists cannot really distinguish between a Stradivarius and a quality modern violin. The following account by a participant in the test rather succinctly points out the flaws in the belief that the blind testing was an accurate arbiter of differences: http://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20121/13039/ For those that are unaware of this test, here's a summary of the results as widely reported: https://www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell-stradivarius-violins-from-modern-instruments/994.article Closer at hand to the topic under discussion, I have a highly modified PS Audio HCA-2 (much improved over the stock amplifier) and a brand new Mivera Audio AS1200 amp with the latest iteration of B&O's Icepower modules. Fifteen years separate the two amps. I'm not sure I could distinguish the differences in a rapid fire blind test with short listening segments. However, when you have a longer listening sessions to familiar recordings one does hear differences in things like the way different parts of a snare drum more or less prominent, a vocalist sits in a different soundstage perspective in relationship to the orchestra, cymbals sound slightly different, etc. Subtle, perhaps meaningless to some, but apparent nonetheless. |
Chrshanl37, I'm only about 50 hrs. into the break-in process and most say you need 200 hrs. on the amp to hear the final outcome. It has changed quite a bit since first out of the box. I posted my initial impressions here @ Audiocircle's discussion about the topic: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=154910.60 Look towards the bottom of the page. I will say that the amp has continued to become even more nuanced and refined sounding since those comments were posted. Mike Davis, the owner of Mivera, opined that the B&O module was so good that most audio system owners would be better off with amps based on this module and spending subsequent money on better sources and ceasing the endless quest of looking for better amps. Assuming one likes the clean sound of the best current class D amps, that's probably not hyperbole. Knowing how audiophiles are always looking for the next big thing and won't be likely to accept that an amp as inexpensive as the AS1200 could really be that good, most won't take that advice. I've heard my Tidal speakers with $100,000 worth of amplification and the ridiculously inexpensive AS1200 is definitely not playing out of its league. ($1300 or so for the assembled and fully loaded with every upgrade Takachi case unit that's no longer offered.) I'd say the amp is the greatest bargain I've purchased in 40+ years of being in this hobby. Apparently B&O is having a hard time keeping up with OEM demand for this module and we'll see it incorporated in a number of amps in the future. |
Mike has a lot of Takachi cases left over because of folks upgrading their original orders in his first three or four lots. Most people decided to upgrade from the Takachi case and wait for him to finish production of his own beefier upgraded cases. He isn't offering the Takachi case anymore because he can't get enough AS1200 modules from B&O to meet immediate demand and he wants to focus on his own in-house brand offerings/cases. Don't know if he'll ever decide to offer the kit again. |
@photon46 - I was reading another forum today and there was a reference to this old article on Tom’s H/W re: a blind audio test they performed. Its a perspective from outside the audio world although the conclusions are not as dramatic as the Stradivarius test you mention. http://http//www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733.html |
Parts are parts and they are greatly better now than 20 years ago, but I don't think well known makers have adopted newer circuit designs; they are all lights and copper. But grounding, controlling vibrations,ac purity and rooms are more important. I used to be a tuby with tubes only used having bought 2 ARC Dual 75s, a SP-3 preamp,, and Infinity Servostatic in 1973 and thinking nothing could be better. Now I have more invested in ICs, PCs, speaker wires, grounding, and ac supply than components. I just wish that I could have had this and enjoyed it since 1975. Strongarm |
I just sold my late 80’s era ARC D70Mk2. Replaced it with a pair of new Mono blocks that use the new KT150 tubes. The ARC was an awesome amp...even by today’s standards...back in the day...NOTHING could have touched it! However, the new amps are so much more resolving and a lot more capable at both frequency extremes. The new tubes may be accounting for this, but the fact is that the ARC was still highly competeive in my system after all these years...VERY impressive. Have we seen an increase in SQ from the latest amps compared to yesteryear...I vote yes, but not to the extent that one would expect over this period of time. |
Vintage SS amplifiers sound like, well vintage amps. Various vintage SS amps produce a state of being clear to somewhat muddy sounding. But I have not heard a SS amplifier that can compete with the open, fast & clear plus realistic soundstage of a tube amplifier. I am listening to a Yamaha CR220 Natural sound receiver right now. It is clear, but the soundstage is closed in compared to a tube amplifier. The soundstage extends far beyond the speakers width. The Yamaha CR-220 sounds like reproduced music vs a live performance from tube gear. I have not heard new Class D, but understand the new Class D amps can compete for the most part with tube amplifiers. |
The newer Class D amps are superior to most vintage amps & receivers. Regarding vintage solid-state amps & receivers, the 1960s and many 1970s used all discrete components. The receivers & amplifiers around 1975 and later started using op-amps in the audio circuits that were not good sounding. New solid-state designs have higher performance op-amps. I use a vintage Yamaha CR-220 that is good sounding & quite a deal for under $100. But, my tube amplifier is superior. And, not all vintage or new tube amps sounds good. I rebuild the tube amps with superior coupling capacitors and use select tubes for best sound. |
@fisher_400, "I have not heard new Class D, but understand the new Class D amps can compete for the most part with tube amplifiers." @fisher_400, "The newer Class D amps are superior to most vintage amps & receivers." To avoid 1) contradicting yourself, and 2) talking about things you have actually experienced before making declarations about them, maybe you should put more thought into what you post |
This discussion i right up my alley. For years I have owned electrostatic speakers, the last pair being the upgraded Sound Lab M-1PX with hotrod backplates and a few other goodies. When I got my first Sound Labs, priior to these, I powered them with an old Moscode 600 which sounded wonderful, but was not enough power and mushy in the treble. Five years ago, I was approach by Stephen Sank of Talking Dog. he had redesigned the circuitry of the Moscode 600 with monstrous rows of caps, turning two stereo amps into two monoblocks. He, personally came to my house to set up the reborn monsters, which were making about 600W each, and I could not have been more pleased. The basic sound of the old Moscodes-liquid midrange and lack of aggression- combined with treble clarity and socko bass. These one-off prototypes were a marriage made in heaven for my electrostats. The only addition was a couple of Bybee Gold RCA adapters and Golden Goddess Speaker Bullets, utilizing crystal technology. What is old is new again. I guess the tribute tube McIntoshes made now would be cut from the same cloth. |
I think it is possible that Class A/B solid state amps made a significant jump in sound quality in the early nineties. If we go back twenty years from 2017 that puts us at 1997, so there were some very good amps even manufactured back then. To manufacture a Class A/B or pure Class A amp of that quality and metal content today would cost a great deal more money. It is no wonder why some audiophiles choose to refurbish some of those older great designs of yesterday. Lets not forget the Carver challenge to Stereophile Magazine (J Gordon Holt) that he could make a $700.00 amplifier (specifically his model 1.0) sound indistinguishable from any high end amp of their choice and he succeeded in doing so. |
@cheeg, Ive always heard such good things about the older McCormack DNA amps, as you described above. The OP specified some higher end amps from 20 years prior, but I will say that right now I am listening to a Luxman R-113 35w SS receiver built 25 years ago in 1993, driving a pair of Zu Audio Omen bookshelves, 16 0hm. Sounds great! I mean, the Luxman only cost me $65 at the local record store, but it is similar to Naim to my ear, but a bit more even keel (less PRAT-ish). oh, and what about Naim amps/integrated? they have a cult following going back to the 70's, and still traded heavily on the used market, but may need recapping. |
I’ve always been curious about the definition of a "well designed" amp. As if there is a universal design that is appropriate for all circumstances. Most audio companies build to a specific market audience at a specific price point. For the purpose of the millions of people out there who love listening to music on their iphones, that amp is well designed. It fits in your pocket, doesn’t kill the battery and will play music without committing too many sins that one can detect with the supplied earbuds. I’ve heard lots of engineers state unequivocally that all well designed amps sound the same. My experience is the engineers who say this do not work designing high-end audio amps. I suspect they’re hearkening back to something they learned at school about a theoretical ideal; a black-box ideal where components have perfect specs, are operated within parameter in a perfectly stable environment. The problem in the real world is that part ratings vary significantly from specs. Electrolytic caps within the same production vary by as much as 20%; transistor ratings can vary by as much as 100%. Tube ratings can vary by even more! Designing an amplifier that can be manufactured using imperfect parts that consistently achieves low distortion and high linearity appears to be pretty difficult. I recently replaced mysuperb Mcintosh MC30’s with a Pass F5 Turbo Version 2 that I built myself. Let me first say that the MC30’s were completely restored by me using modern high quality parts. I wager to say they sound better than they did when new. Simply superb. The F5t is different. I’m not going to say better because at this level "better" is subjective. To my ears, at normal listening levels with my Klipsch Cornwall 3’s the sound is more dynamic, the background is quieter and the micro detail is much improved. I don’t think anyone would argue that either of these amps are poorly designed. They both have legendary reputations and make people happy. But they sound very different as they should since they employ radically different topologies. They’re both well designed; differently designed and the result is, unsurprisingly, different. |
^Though this might appear as a left handed compliment, it most definitely is not. Perfectly lovely amps that are also powerful. Does nothing really offensive. Plays nice with a variety of pres, so long as they’re not balanced. Factory updates available. Perhaps not the most neutral, or best to drive the very most difficult loads. If compelled to live with them, I could be very happy doing so. |
Jafant, better than many, not as good as some. c-j has taken the position that they're above specsmanship. https://www.stereophile.com/content/conrad-johnson-mf2500-power-amplifier-measurements |
Jafant, I'm sorry I didn't answer sooner, I've been so busy listening to the MF-2500A that I didn't notice till now that you asked a question about it. I love it!! It sounds spectacular from a cold start but here's the clincher, the sound continues to improve even over a 48 hour period of time. It is one t=of those power amps that if you are skeptical about power amps making a huge difference in ones system this one without doubt will change your mind. The MF 2300A is no slouch either and both amps I strongly recommend as I started with the MF 2300A and moved up to the MF 2500A. The only other amp I would consider would be a Pass Labs and although these two products will sound uniquely different they are both good in their own right and would come down to personal preferences. |
| Post removed |
Perhaps hype, but I have wondered this topic on many consumer products, esp. automobiles. A Lotus Turbo, Ferrari, Porsche of 20+ years ago will qualify for antique plates in many states. Are they still SOTA, well that is in the driver's opinion. As much as I have invested in great cars over the years (and great audio) most of the cars of yesteryear that I have owned and that were great have been passed by most technology. The thing that trumps all of this is design... The Ferrari Lusso, original Porsche 911, and yes, even old Packards are highly collectable and wonderful eye candy....can a modern car out perform them....well perhaps yes,....but as I learned in my collector days, a 30+ year old Ferrari is not a bad car. |