Most reliable equipment manufacturers

It's easy enough to declare a maker which is no less than first. The evidence is very strong for McIntosh. We should, of course, be speaking only of electronics...since most well made speakers could easily outlive their owners. And often have.

Audionut: Allow me to relate an event which happened a few years ago which may have been discussed here at that time. A very well known Florida high-end dealer accepted a challenge to his claimed ability to readily distinguish diparate amplification under controlled blind testing. The circumstances have been reliably reported (and not denied) by some of those in attendance. I.e., the dealer's system was all Pass. The test was done in his environment with his source material and he selected the equipment (a or B) which was playing a any given time. The challeging hardware was either a Japanese receiver or integrated amp. The dealer's and challenger's amp were very closely matched in output level to eliminate that common bias. When at the end of the test, the dealer could NOT identify the Pass system to a statistically significant degree, the usual excuses followed and the test was repeated the next day. This time, he and some of his friends participated with the same results obtained. This type of testing has been done many times and I don't believe that anyone has ever been successful in their identifications. The point is that the differences in reasonably well designed equipment(amplification) are negligible when subjectively evaluated under controlled conditions. Of course, we're all aware that gross differences are apparent to many (we're not talking about comparing Stereo 70s to Crown Reference amps). If you're capable of reliably making such distinctions under controlled conditions then you are a VERY unique natural talent who should be able to win lots of wagers. The principal reason that the high-end eschews controlled blind testing is that they can't reliably support their claims. You should also know that both Krell and Mac amps would make good doorstops and even better anchors. Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with their respective sonic capabilities.

Interestingly, Audionut addresses reliability by claiming ownership of several Krell models over ten years. I'm wondering what has prompted him/her to change so often? Reliability or old technology? The thread question emphasized reliability (which should be quantifiable) and not an audionut's subjective impressions on how an entire electronic product line sounds. I don't place too much stock in Stereophile's subjective classifications. But the last two McIntosh amps reviewed (one tube and one SS) were placed in the A groupings along side of Krell and others. Regarding reliability, I believe that I'm correct in stating that McIntosh has been in business longer than most or all of the above mentioned mfrs., including Krell. And of course, all true audiophiles (since there are no standards, what does that mean?) know that the many thousands of McIntosh customers over the decades do not have the sensitive golden ears required to select a product such as Krell. BTW, I own both Mac and Krell and have found them both to be reliable and enjoyable.