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 1 response by rives

This should be interesting, and while I do not know any of these companies in depth enough to make any statements I will say this. New companies usually go into business because they think either:
1. I can do it better than the other guy
2. I can do it cheaper than the other guy
So for a new company to be successful, it has to provide something better or less expensive than it's competition to be successful in the marketplace (okay we know this isn't an absolute--but in general it should be true).
Then again there was PT Barnum who said, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, and that's good enough."