high-end vs. ultra high-end amplifiers


It is quite frustrating to know that some amplifiers (Boulder, FM Acoustics, Accuphase) are sounding better than even very expensive ones from the big boys (Mark Levinson, Krell, Bryston, Spectral). I wonder why there is such a difference. Madrigal, Krell, Bryston, Spectral, they all belong to the high-end sector of audio industry and they are claiming they are making the best amplifiers. But I know that this is not true: I've heard amplifiers from Boulder and FM Acoustics and they sound just better than the Madrigals, Krells and so on. Is it because Boulder and FM Acoustics have more know how about amplifier design (I suppose not) or do they use more expensive parts and better circuit topologies? Do they have brighter technicians and designers? There must be an explanation for this phenomenon. It isn't magic! Maybe someone from the audio industry can reply to this thread.
dazzdax

Showing 3 responses by gregm

Positioning and cost are significant factors. Larger companies (ML, Krell, etc) cater to a large part of our small hi-end market and have to sell a minimum volume in order to break-even. Their positioning is "hi-end" but they have to keep market-share in order to survive. So, some compromises must be made in order to price their products within the boundaries of their target market.

FM Acoustics, for example, keeps a small production capacity, sports prices that START where others stop, and, being a small-scale producer doesn't need to support large sales. So they take less head of design&production cost; whatever the asking price, they expect that their small sales volume target will be met whatever happens. Sales at their level, they believe, are inelastic. Their positioning is "top end".

More importantly, these so called "ultra" products, can only be justified as a purchase by a small part of the market: those that have the ancilliary equip to fully enjoy differences in sonic performance (such as these differences may be). Again, Krell etc, must play for market share, so sales volume and marketing are prime considerations, they have to cater to many who, a) can afford the asking price and b) will be aware of a "difference" by using this product with their GEAR -- what Krell etc expect that gear to be (upper-mid level hi-end, usually).

As to design: there is nothing to support (IM knowledge) that bigger Cos cannot design... rather, they target the best sonic result within given retail price constraints. The effort goes there.
I think Stehno joins my thinking...
Philefreak: no, the companies you mention (bar Accuphase) ARE little -- probably becaue they choose to be so.
Warrenh... give your excellent (IMO) machine & its manufacturer a break. Bernard-Andre did NOT produce it to kill others -- just to play music well, in an APPROPRIATE surrounding (i.e. driving the right load).

Pbb's mental sampling rate, as portayed in the latest post, is too high for me to understand the accompanying argumentation.

Surely, not all higher priced equipment is a scam; and anyway, we're not obliged to purchase it even if the price draws our attention to it. Cheers
Brian, thanks for your kind message. In fact, I just didn't want to sound adamant & use the word "obviously". Cheers!