How far have ss amps really come in the last twenty years?

Ahofer, you never responded to my comment, as to why you own expensive audio gear ( what are your components ? ), as I suggested, simply for prestige. And comparing it to a watch ? Maybe, if it is all about prestige. I believe my comparisons were more legitimate, as it showed a certain ability, familiarity and expertise, by the individuals, in their respected interests and fields. You are welcome to go on and on, but simply, I will no longer respond to you, as this " need to know " thing, is " your " thing, not mine, or anyone else’s here. So take care, and Enjoy ! MrD.

Ahofer, you never responded to my comment, as to why you own expensive audio gear ( what are your components ? ), as I suggested, simply for prestige. And comparing it to a watch ? Maybe, if it is all about prestige. I believe my comparisons were more legitimate, as it showed a certain ability, familiarity and expertise, by the individuals, in their respected interests and fields. You are welcome to go on and on, but simply, I will no longer respond to you, as this " need to know " thing, is " your " thing, not mine, or anyone else’s here. So take care, and Enjoy ! MrD.

I did indeed respond in full (I have no problem enjoying it regardless of what I learn or unlearn), and I've described my system elsewhere on the forum. I can't make coherent sense out of the rest of your comment or claims of "legitimacy" whatever you mean by that.

But, by all means, show me the evidence I have missed or ignore me if you don't want to spend the time. That would be the best course of action for everyone.  

Feel free to augment or quibble, but I would call an "objectively audible difference" between amplifiers as follows: when the equipment is gain-matched to be sure the difference is not simply due to different overall volume levels, listeners can still repeatably distinguish between different pieces of equipment *only by listening*.

OK- 'objectively audible difference' sounds different (if you will pardon the expression) from 'objectively audible'; thanks for clearing that up.


The thing that bothers me about this sort of approach is that usually when I see or hear someone talking in this manner, they are usually only allowing for certain circuits (amplifiers) to be in the conversation, while out of hand rejecting others on an arbitrary basis.

The problem is that in high end audio, there is a community of designers that take different approaches to solving amplifier issues. Some of them are quite brilliant and their works stands easily on their own merits, such as David Berning or Nelson Pass and there are many more. Further, a good number of designers including those I just mentioned, are not completely convinced that they should be using amps with ultra low output impedances (which means that their amps may not act as perfect voltage sources either). In my case, I've avoided making our amps work as voltage sources with intention- as I see the approach as highly problematic. Chief among these is the well-known fact that in removing distortion, the operation of negative feedback adds some of its own, which is always audible as increased brightness and harshness. I'm not saying its bad but I am saying that most of the time its inappropriately applied or inexpertly applied, with a mediocre result, which I see as about 95% of all traditional amplifiers made.

Now the approach I take is nothing new- its what was around prior to Mac and EV developing the voltage rules that are used today. Most people don't realize that there was something before that! I'm by no means the only one doing it either- and in all cases the idea is simple: the ear will place a priority on tonality created by distortion over a tonality created by FR error. To this end, a system that has less audible distortion can sound more neutral than one that has flatter FR. You have to be pickier about the amp/speaker interface (which is what the voltage rules were designed to prevent) but it can pay off in spades, but DBX people don't like to even consider such an amplifier in a DBX trial.

@atmasphere     

Very interesting post. Why is it that you think that the DBX folks won't even consider the type of amp your are suggesting in a DBX trial? 

i owned a Rowland 5 back in the 90’s and it was a very warm sounding amp. alway’s liked Jeff’s gear. i recently down scaled and moved into a hotel and now have a Rega Brio. Terry Bateman who designed the Brio showed a prototype to John Gandy and John thought that it was a Class A integrated and was surprised to find out that in fact it was SS. the first time i heard it, it reminded me of my old Audio Note pre-amp in some furtive ways. yes SS has come a long ways. i am hearing rich harmonic over tones similar to what i was hearing with my old all tube system, but with fast transients and articulation. the holy grail has been to realized the best of both worlds like we achieve with a live performance

A perfectly designed and built amplifier would have no discernible sound- it would simply amplify what it was fed. While I agree many amplifiers sound different, they all should sound the same if done right. 

Worth considering is that you’re listening to each amp within the context of a system in a particular setting. You’re not only listening to the amps basically, but a chain of parts within a specific acoustical space. The end result is influenced by a lot of things where the influence of the amp in isolation is hard to tell.

The finest electronics which of some you’re mentioning also need the associated equipment necessary to reveal the differences and characteristics. Proper matching in between the components are also key, where one amp could work very well in one setting and less so in another.

Adding to all of this is of course your way of listening and evaluating, i.e, what you’re putting your focus on and find to be the most important qualities for your personal enjoyment.

So basically, to only switch the power amp in one particular system does only tell you a part of the truth and the potential of that specific amp.

/ Marcus, www.perfect-sense.se

@atmasphere

Thanks for both points - yes, I meant a *difference* that is objectively audible, sorry if that wasn't clear.

I too would be interested to know which amps are typically excluded and why. I agree that seems to be a gap in the discussion, and also an interesting point in general about design (would you call it optimizing knowingly inaccurate artifacts for real world listening?). I’d still be curious where the threshold of audibility is for some of these characteristics, and whether listeners can distinguish consistently between characteristics that are harder to measure. These seem like important design questions.

I definitely hear the criticism that objectivists overplay their hand. I’ve kind of felt that way since the Stereo Review blind amplifier comparison in 1987, although that was my introduction to self-doubt on the topic. At the risk of being a milquetoast "both-sides"-er, I’d say both sides should have more humility in their claims, and that might allow a more scientific approach to the truth. As it is, this looks like a "broken dialogue", per Dan Kahan: the more people learn, the more polarized they become. Climate change is the prototypical broken dialogue ( http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2012/5/27/climate-change-polarization-fast-and-slow.html ) It’s fascinating how new facts are assembled to be soldiers to one’s predetermined point of view. Jon Haidt (channeling Dr. Gazzaniga) draws the analogy to the rider and the elephant ( http://sourcesofinsight.com/the-elephant-and-the-rider/ ).

However you look at it, it seems to me the two camps have hunkered down in their corners. This guy gives me hope - https://archimago.blogspot.com/

Over the years, I’ve written on the unnecessary "war" between "objectivism vs. subjectivism" when I’ve thought it worth addressing articles written by some members of the press and at times the strange fear of scientific methodology in high-fidelity. We’ve talked about the basics of what subjectivity and objectivity mean, and further elaborated on it. In summary, "pure subjectivism" and "pure objectivism" are both extreme positions to take. The problem I find is that for decades in the audiophile press, subjectivism has been posited as somehow more important if not the only worthy position to take to the point where the vast majority of hardware reviews available these days including online sources have lost the objective component. In the process, most reviews have also lost the power to elucidate truth among the subtleties of sonic differences. Without objectivity, sound quality cannot be adjudicated based on the ideal principle of high fidelity.

@sidekick_i that’s no doubt true, but components are designed individually and contribute individually, and good experiments require controls. So in a perfect world, you’d build your system holding most of the chain constant while varying one part as you moved towards the right all-in system. Wouldn’t it be nice to have the luxury of infinite time and resources!

You guys are a hoot.

@doubleblindtest  i can't figure out whether your handle is sincere or sarcastic, but it suggests you might have a view.  Care to spell it out?

Gee I don't know. Has cell phones come along way, has vehicles come a long way, has internet  speed, computer speed come a long way? Silly question...

There are many vintage amps that continue to sound very good compared to modern amps.  Which is why I still use amps like the Classe DR3 VHC, Belles A, and Rowland 5.

As a friend runs an audio business, I have had the opportunity to compare several modern amps (fairly high end up to around $20K) in my system and so far although some have shown a difference, that difference hasn't always been a positive one and certainly wasn't anything that would warrant buying one.

Doesn't seem like a silly question to me. Differing pace of innovation, both in product, and in particular aspects of products, are everywhere.  Have we changed how we dry clean much?  Air conditioners and combustion engines and vehicle suspensions work basically the same way, but innovation in efficiency has improved dramatically.  I don't think progress travels in a linear fashion.

P.T. Barnum was right...

So, the question that keeps coming up in my demented mind is, if the goal of high end audio is to reproduce the sound of live performances, why isn’t the high end defined by the likes of Crown, JBL, ElectroVoice and other pro audio items of reproduction? After all, unless you are sitting in the first 10 rows of a concert venue, what you are hearing is coming from the pro audio world. I can buy a lot of Crown amplification (substitute any pro audio product here) for the cost of A Gryphon or Dartzeel amp. Just wondering.

I am using an old Amber 70 in my second system that with the revealing Thiel 2 2's is more musical than any of my more modern power amps.  No question a thorough parts upgrade would improve transparency.  But not overall ability to reproduce music that sounds like music.

@wspohn

You make a good point.  Most every time you change a component and often when you change a wire, you end up hearing something different...but that doesn't mean that the change you hear will be appealing to you!

@doubleblindtest

Maybe your goal is to reproduce that kind of sound it would not, however, be the goal of many others.

A consensus goal here among this community is likely to be able to reproduce the human voice accurately, to reproduce unamplified acoustic instruments accurately and to do both with proper texture, tone and dynamics. Next, another goal would be to reproduce the acoustic space as well as can be accomplished in the home. I have found if you can get these things accomplished to a reasonable degree, then amplified music seems to come along for the ride reasonably well. If you haven't been to Disney Hall in LA, Carnegie Hall in NYC, The Village Vanguard (with all its acoustic faults), etc, etc then you haven't experienced really fine music played within a very special acoustic space, largely without amplification.

The examples you cite are out of context. In a recording studio electronics serve a different purpose. In better studios, the microphone to the recording chain is not typically compromised with equipment like you describe although it depends on the engineer and the artist and their goals (and budget). The playback chain in many studios is determined by who they think their audience will be and that market's playback method. If it is likely car stereos or iphones(think podcasts), they may master a certain way. So why not Crown amplification and Yamaha monitors? (those white coned weapons of mass destruction!). The attitude follows the line of thinking that if you can make it listenable on that gear then you have something you can release to a wider audience that will likely sound ok through the wide array of playback channels. Never forget its the music BUSINESS. They want to sell things the work among a larger buying base.

Now, to your specific example. If something sounds ok at your local stadium concert where Crown amps are used to drive pro monitor horns to 120db of shrillness, knowing the acoustic environment there will tame the deficiencies in the electronic chain where volume trumps sound quality then consider yourself lucky. I am one of the unlucky who can't stomach that. I also believe if the Crown type of gear is 80% of the good stuff and you have 3 different Crown type pieces in your playback chain then the cumulative loss through the playback chain is too great. My 2 cents and you pay your money to get what you want. If Crown gear and the like gets you there, congrats.

Very interesting post. Why is it that you think that the DBX folks won't even consider the type of amp your are suggesting in a DBX trial? 

@daveyf  because the difference is instantly audible and they inherently don't like amps that aren't perfect voltage sources. This could be a made up story on my part, but so far that's been my experience. No matter how hard we humans try to be objective, in the end we fall well short. 

While I agree many amplifiers sound different, they all should sound the same if done right.

This statement is problematic- correctly stated this needs to be added: '...if the intention of the designers were the same and with that in mind also correctly engineered'.  Seehttp://www.atma-sphere.com/Resources/Paradigms_in_Amplifier_Design.phpfor more information.

I too would be interested to know which amps are typically excluded and why. I agree that seems to be a gap in the discussion, and also an interesting point in general about design (would you call it optimizing knowingly inaccurate artifacts for real world listening?). I’d still be curious where the threshold of audibility is for some of these characteristics, and whether listeners can distinguish consistently between characteristics that are harder to measure. These seem like important design questions.

We have the ability to measure what is important IME. What I find problematic is a refusal on the part of the industry in general and 'objectivists' in particular is to do the homework- which is to correlate what we hear with what we measure (for example, a weighting system is needed for the harmonic spectrum of distortion, placing less weight on the 2nd-4th and more weight on the higher orders, since the ear uses the latter to sense sound pressure). But if we did that, then amplifier spec sheets would tell you how they sounded, and the industry doesn't want that!

So, the question that keeps coming up in my demented mind is, if the goal of high end audio is to reproduce the sound of live performances, why isn’t the high end defined by the likes of Crown, JBL, ElectroVoice and other pro audio items of reproduction? After all, unless you are sitting in the first 10 rows of a concert venue, what you are hearing is coming from the pro audio world. I can buy a lot of Crown amplification (substitute any pro audio product here) for the cost of A Gryphon or Dartzeel amp. Just wondering.

The reason for that is simple- sound reinforcement is meant to be loud enough and reliable. The last nth degree of resolution is unimportant. I have done a few stage shows were we did install a high end system though (which was a royal pain); people kept asking us when we were going to turn it on. I'd then turn the volume down and they would sort of stand there with a surprised expression and say 'Oh.'.

In a nutshell pro audio gear for sound reinforcement is usually lower performance than good high end or even mid fi home gear.

Hi,

I’ve never responded or been active on this forum, but enjoy reading the questions and answers. How far has SS come in the last 20 years?... It really comes down to how that particular power or pre/amp is designed and the circuitry and quality of components that it’s created from. It needs to be designed for task at hand, be it high current for driving more demanding speaker systems, then an appropriate match must be chosen.  I think SS designs are great but must be far more complex than typical tube amps to reproduce music faithfully and listenable. The easy answer is that you generally get what you pay for. 

@czcharlie I don’t think that really answers my OP. Unfortunately, IME in high end ...a lot of times you really do NOT get what you pay for. As the pricing structure in the hobby has escalated, the fact seems to be that you more often do NOT get what you pay for as the price rises!
IMHO, a lot of manufacturer’s now depend on fancy casework to attract the hobbyist and to justify the very high pricing structure. This seems to be a little less prevalent in the tube sector than in the ss sector. Not saying that all of the ss manufacturer’s are going down this road, but a lot are. They seem to know where their customer base is and design the casework appropriately...regardless of the technical merit..or the actual SQ. All IMHO.

a lot of manufacturer’s now depend on fancy casework to attract the hobbyist and to justify the very high pricing structure.
They seem to know where their customer base is and design the casework appropriately...regardless of the technical merit..or the actual SQ. All IMHO.

Ditto.
And there’s a lot of these "Glitz Queens" in audio, they think if it looks the goods it must sound the goods, and ignore even if if their ears are telling them different (or they can’t tell).
They’re usually the same ones that put these "glitzy" components up on just as "glitzy pedestals" in between the speakers (unknowingly ruining the stereo imaging) so they can gaze at them in wonderment and awe at what they've purchased while "trying/pretending" to listen to music.

Cheers George

As Stringreen stated, amp designs have not changed so much in the last twenty years, but quality of parts has.

You can get a mind blowing upgrade in the same amp, by upgrading capacitors, diodes and resistors without changing the design one iota.

This goes for tube amps as well. Presently I'm upgrading a tube amp by changing to much higher quality capacitors.

Exactly right, in my opinion and experience.

This post is Awesome and has a fun amount of Drama! 

Can Audiogon update these forums so that pictures can be added in them?

I’d live to post my recent audiology examination and pictures of my current equipment, to share with others. 

Better yet, if I had a lot of equipment and opinions, I’d love to have others come to my home and listen to the four different solid state amplifiers in my system, and tell me that they all sound the same—BEL 1001 mkV, Plinius SA-100 mkII upgraded and updated by Vince Galbo, Aragon 8008B, and Benchmark ABH2–they all sound good, and very different from each other in multiple aspects. And I have two operational systems with the same Loudspeakers. 

Hello folks, this is tangential to the subject, but you may find it amusing. For years and many speakers and components I tried to eliminate ringing that occurred at extended high frequency and volume. Finally, I realized that it was my hearing and not the equipment. You may say how dumb, but hearing is complex. Have a nice day, Dan

 @danl77  I hope you had that problem looked at!


Meanwhile, please let's just stay on the subject.

Not sure what I have to add here, but I will bloviate anyway. I started in this hobby about the time solid state started becoming good--1978. I have had precisely 2 jaw dropping listening experiences since then. When the Rowland Model 7 was new, I spent an evening in Jeff Rowland’s house listening to his system. That was not one of them. The speakers were Sound Lab A-1s. Recently I toured the PS Audio factory and heard the Infinity IRS V with PS Audio’s top of the line gear. That was also not one of them. Both of my experiences occurred in stores. The first was the Audio Research SP-6 and D-79b playing through Acoustat 2+2s. The second, and most impressive, was Mark Levinson ML-2s with the ML-1 preamp through Magnapan Tympany IV panels. I was looking at the preamp when the music started, and my head snapped around and I uttered one word--"damn!" I remember it to this day.

Fast forward nearly 40 years, and I am now enamored with the sound of single ended triodes. I saw a speaker by Fikus Electric in Poland that is full range and will run on single ended power, but they do not export it out of the E.U. I decided to copy it using vintage Altec drivers which I already owned. The result, much to my surprise, was so good that it made my primary system, Sound Lab A-2s powered by a Musical Fidelity NuVista 300 and Nuvista preamp, unlistenable. I had been using this system for the past 18 years. So I started looking for a way to make my old speakers sound as good as the new, as I knew they could. Since the ML-2 was the most impressive amp I had ever heard, I started researching it. I had always thought that the output of that amp, 25 watts into 8 ohms, was insufficient to power the Sound Labs. But it turns out it is very high current and was designed for electrostatics, specifically the Quad 57. I found a pair, reasonably priced and recapped, and bought them.

They are everything I remembered from that one moment circa 1980, and my Sound Labs are once again my preferred speaker. In addition to my three S.E.T. amps, using the 45 output tube, I have a single ended transistor amp, a kit designed by Nelson Pass. This experiment has caused me to draw the following conclusions: First, single ended class A amplification is by far the most appealing for listening, despite, or maybe because of their high distortion. The transistor amp is as pleasant as the tubed amps. These amps will not power electrostatic speakers. Second, push-pull class A is nearly as good. I have calculated that my ML-2s draw about 1 penny per hour of electricity, I can live with their inefficiency. Third, any amp with crossover distortion cannot, to my ears, equal class A. This means class AB. As for class D, I have never been impressed, but this opinion might change if and when I ever hear a high end class D amp.

To get back to the subject of this thread, since I choose to listen to 40 year old SS amps, and tubed amps that could have been built 70 years ago, no, I see no real advancement in electronics design, at least when it comes to audio amplifier design. This statement is obviously not true for electronic design as a whole; micro-miniaturization has brought us computers, cellphones, and class D amplifiers, among thousands of other conveniences. But is a modern resistor or capacitor really better sounding than what they used 50 years ago? Are modern amplifier circuits significantly different from the classic ones? To a basic amplifier circuit, all you can add is complexity, and that, in my opinion, is not necessarily a good thing.

Seems that some of the classic designs have stood up relatively well...I have not been motivated to explore potential alternatives to my Threshold SA/1 monos 

After a lifetime of success in modifying components with spectacular results, I’m going to share with you my latest endeavor, which is still in progress, but so far has been a series of errors.

To begin with, I didn’t make proper evaluation of the job. In the past, I used expensive parts to improve not so expensive amps or preamps; the "mono blocks" I’m upgrading now are not inexpensive, they’re PrimaLuna. Next I didn’t make a proper evaluation of space needed for the new parts; I simply projected this grand vision in my head as to how much better these mono blocks would sound after these improvements.

"Mono blocks" require twice as many parts as a single amp; "no crap"?. Acquiring these expensive parts was a problem because no one had the number of parts needed, which meant I had to go to more than one vendor, that took awhile. After I acquired them, I realized they’re larger than parts presently in the amps.

I’ve had this pile of expensive parts for a year now, and I have yet to pick up a screwdriver or a soldering iron. Let me explain: These parts are "much larger" than the present parts in the unit; that means I’ll have to modify the case.

These units have 8 tubes per side; the tubes have to be removed, and the unit turned upside down before taking the bottom off and investigating.

A prizefighter doesn’t just get in the ring and say bring it on, he must be mentally prepared; I have to be mentally ready for this fight, and so far that hasn’t occurred.

My quandary: while I’m certain these parts will bring about that glorious sound which I seek, these Primaluna mono blocks that I’m enjoying, are not exactly mediocre in they’re present state.

Since I’ve shared all of my past successes in modification of amps, pre-amps, and other components, I thought I would share one that is still in progress.

"But is a modern resistor or capacitor really better sounding than what they used 50 years ago? Are modern amplifier circuits significantly different from the classic ones? To a basic amplifier circuit, all you can add is complexity, and that, in my opinion, is not necessarily a good thing."

Without a doubt; resistors, diodes and capacitors have improved in the last 50 years. Utilizing new parts will make a night and day difference with the same design.

@jdl57  If your Sound Labs have the original toroid backpanel, there's a tweak you can do that makes the speakers a lot easier (and better sounding) to drive! Alternatively you could get the new "Toroidal 2" backpanel that pretty much does the same thing.  If you really want to hear what ESLs do, traditionally since the Quads first appeared, ESLs and OTLs have been the way to do it. If your Sound Labs are so old that they have the original EI transformers for the high frequencies then they are already easy to drive, unless the bias controls are damaged which is very common with the older Sound Labs.

Hi,
sure ss amps have evolved mainly in efficiency, transparency, having better parts and construction (new materials). Design philosophy basically the same, music presentation different.
A 20 year old top amp then will still sound top today.

@atmasphere I just noticed your reply. I have the old style EI transformers and the back plates were sent to Sound Lab in the last few months where they were checked out by Dr. West himself. I had the panels rebuilt back in the '90s with what was the then new thinner mylar. I absolutely love the combination of the ML-2s and my Sound Lab A-2s.

@daveyf  "Nonetheless, aside from Class D ( which I also feel was, and continues to be, a step backwards ( except for the lower weight and heat issuance) ) it seems there really hasn’t been any true advances in the ss amp realm."

Comments like this are why Audiogon is slipping into irrelevance - for me at least.  Too high of a nonsense/substance ratio.

Class D is one answer to the question you posed at the beginning of this thread.  There are phenomenal implementations of this technology, and I will assert that they challenge everything that is upstream of them to be much better, from the recording process to playback.  If you have problems with good class D implementations, something else is amiss, and you are unaware of it because you have "synergistically" created a sound that YOU like.  When you replace your amp with a much more transparent class d amplifier - one with very little distortion, one which is able to easily control the impedance vicissitudes of your speakers, and one with plenty of clean power, you are hearing all of the upstream problems.  Don't blame good class D.  If you like your euphonic  concoction, rock on.  You are simply playing a balancing game of complementary distortions (I may have hit on one significant aspect of what much of audiophile activity centers around in that last sentence.) Been there, done that, am getting sick of it.

Transparent amplifiers (and there are others besides the usual class D suspects) will require a change to you audiophile aesthetic, and that is not something that, apparently many audiophiles can open up to.  But if you can get into it, you will have some interesting terrain to explore.

@daveyf "  @atmasphere  Distortion is an interesting term. Distortion compared to what? You mention that the human ear treats 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion favorably. Therefore, one needs to question whether these distortions are distortions at all. Since we, as humans are using our ear/brain to determine what is considered as a true  and pure signal, wouldn’t it make more sense to label a signal that doesn’t include these 2nd and 3rd harmonics as the signal that is actually distorted...?"

Are you serious!??  It is not the job of an amplifier to supply anything to the signal.  The recorded signal should contain the actual harmonic structure of the timbre being captured.  The amp should do nothing more than reproduce that - NOT add something to it.  @atmasphere is just trying to tell you that one reason that amps sound different is that they distort the recorded  signal by adding their own 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion in varying degrees.  If you are trying to behave as a chef and add your harmonic spice to suit your taste, then find an amp the has the distortion profile that you like.  If you want to hear the recording, get a transparent amp with little added harmonics and clean up the upstream equipment as well.  You may not like what you hear in a lot of recordings though.  If you have found  a way to create, by your choice of equipment, distortions that make all of your recordings sound decent, then fine.  I can understand that.

I have come to a place where accuracy is more interesting to me.  I am fascinated to hear the "flaws" in recordings and marvel when I hear record-engineering excellence.  But it does take some adjustment to appreciate the underlying performance when you have a relatively transparent system and the recordings have glaring problems.

@ttbolad   You like Class D and are here to tell us that it is the next coming, LOL.

Everyone has to agree with you...otherwise they have a liking of ’euphonic concoctions’...SERIOUSLY!! LMAO!!

I guess you have never heard of the phrase.... IN MY HUMBLE OPINION! As that is something that I would suggest you end ALL of your future posts with, LOL....Oh, that is IMHO...;0)

I ran a Sumo Gold 125w 90lb Class A amp for eight years after having it rebuilt. That amp dated from around 1975. A little over a year ago, I replaced it with a Gryphon Colosseum stereo amp 165w Class A, 175lbs, from 2011. The difference between the amps is night and day in terms of sound quality and musicality. I would never go back to the Sumo. I can’t go back, I sold the Sumo.

@larrykell I think a ss amp from the 70’s is a very different animal from one dating back twenty years! There did seem to be some major improvements made between the seventies and the turn of the century in this area. Therefore, it doesn’t surprise me a bit that you much prefer your new(er) Gryphon amp to your old 70's era Sumo.

@daveyf Yes, it's true. I'm reaching back a bit into the 1970s but a Class A amp from that period still provides a lot of bang for the buck if you get one rebuilt. I certainly had to spend a lot more on the Gryphon to come up with an amp that was significantly better than the Sumo Gold.

I think amplifiers are constantly being improved. To say otherwise, is to argue that there is nothing left to invent in the field of amplifier design. 

What are some amps from twenty years ago that you think represent a good value?

I tried a Class D amp for a while when my Gryphon fell victim to either a huge power surge tied to a transformer explosion in Queens or a failure in one small part of the power supply, I'm just not sure which, but I'm thinking more and more it is the latter. 

The Class D amp replacement did absolutely nothing for me after listening to the Gryphon for nine months. Too bad, as I could have recouped a lot of money by selling the Gryphon.

I got beaten up pretty badly on some other forums about the Gryphon, with such comments as a $500 amp is as good as a $10k+ amp, yeah, right, only to find out that the people who were dismissing my amp had actually never heard or seen a Class A amp, lol. One guy had only seen a Class xHD amp, some kind of proprietary Class D amp. 

I guess I'm showing my age but I've decided to die on the Class A hill. I could care less about the additional heat, weight, and cost of electricity. For emotional involvement in the music, nothing does it for me like Class A. IMHO.

@larrykell I think there are a number of very competent ss amps from that period that present a good (great?) value today, among them are the fore mentioned Rowland amps, several from Mark Levinson, Symphonic line, Pass labs, the Coda amps and a few others.

I agree daveyf. Symphonic line makes fine amps, and even an older one would hold its own today.

Another huge applause for Symphonic Line.  I had read about this product over the years but rarely saw any for sale to audition.  Finally that option came my way.  I got a killer deal on their smallest amp, the RG11 two years ago.  I think it was one of the earliest versions....maybe from the mid-late 1990s, but in immaculate condition, and a beautiful polished chrome faceplate.  It was just to be an amp for for surround speakers but it stunned me how this silly thing drove the big SoundLab A1 speakers.  How could this be possible!  And the clarity/detail was phenomenal.  I just shook my head.  What a most beautiful sounding amp.  And then I tried it on Sonus Faber Amati Futura, and it did pretty well with these difficult speakers.  This small amp was so far beyond Belles mono amps and the Odyssey Khartago amp in power drive without making any unique sonic statement.

I have since bought the RG1 amp, one level above the RG11, also with the beautiful chrome faceplate, and this amp with the SF speakers is stunning.  I run the Sound Lab speakers with BAT VK600SE amps and the result is a great match, but I would love so much to try a stereo Symphonic Line Kraft or mono amps, even from a decade ago.  So difficult to find!

jafox, try getting in touch directly with Klaus Bunge of Odyssey and ask him to keep his eyes open for SL amps for you.  He sold my Kraft 250s to me, after he'd imported them for someone else who only kept them for maybe a month, at a huge discount from list price.

The is no doubt that designs and execution have advanced over time.  Yet I have to ask myself after deep reflection, how much better is it really?

When I purchased my first decent system of separates, 50 years ago while in the service, I had a small amp, Sansui 555 with it’s companion tuner TU-555.  Paired with Sansui SP-100 3 way speakers, a Dual 1019 turntable and AKAI reel to reel, I was the n heaven.

No doubt my current 3.6 Maggie’s are much better speakers, and McIntosh MC501 mono blocks are much better amps, yet I MUST ask myself, does I enjoy the system I have more than the one I had with in 1971?   

Somehow I think NOT.   I would be interested to hear from folks in my age group if they feel the same.

Not trying to hijack this thread, but following a natural thought progression IMHO.

No matter how hard we humans try to be objective, in the end we fall well short.

(Just rant, not directed at anyone in particular) 

Of course, objectivity cannot and does not exist anywhere in the human world.

By all possible forms of human logic (as all that exists is human logic) Objectivity is a figment of human imagination. 

Subjectivity is the only thing we know is even potentially real, but we cannot describe reality, that can only be done from outside of it.

And if we did manage to do so, there is nearly perfect odds that the result would be unfathomable to the entire reality humans are subjected to and try to reason from within.

Objectivity, in it's worst 'disconnected from scientific reality' (which is most pundits who are not trained scientists) aspects, is almost purely illiterate projected dogma.

Most frightening of all, they don't know or recognize the insanity, which is the nature of insanity....

..they just keep on persecuting reason... cuz the dang bible of facts keeps getting smushy and smeary at the edges which they explore.

So, a person can carry, think, etc... and attempt to utilize the tool of objectivity, but it is a simple state of mind and does not otherwise exist.

Proper objectivity is a state of balance, more than anything else.