My Long List of Amplifiers and My Personal Review of Each!
mikepaul, The ML panels also need power to sound their best, so if you want to experiment with lower power amps, I’d hang on to your Krells until you find something you know is better. People often think that since the woofers have their own amp the power amp won’t affect the sound, but the internal amp is amplifying the signal your power amp is sending to it, which, as I’m sure you know, is different for each amp. Some people think that some Krells are bright and that the most recent generation of MLs are a little more forward sounding than earlier generations, so if you’re not happy with the sound the Krells are making through the panels, WC has recommended a number of amps you might want to try. |
@mikepaul, If you live in an apartment or townhouse, please disregard my thoughts. If you have an amplifier that has a strong bass ability, then maybe you can parlay that into the speaker outputs of the amplifier with some added subs. Martin Logan speakers have amplified woofers, but they only give you a full range feel that is not anywhere near what a true "full range" system can bring. My previous posts about Martin Logans in this thread says something about how I feel a stock Martin Logan speaker system needs more woofers. The other day I turned off one of the 2 subs that sit right next to my Martin Logan Montis. It sounded so much better than just the Montis alone. I flipped the switch to the 2nd sub and had a stereo sub representation, and viola. Feels like I went up to speakers that cost $50K or more. Even at low db levels, the extra 2 woofers with 2 passive radiators each, bring body to the upper bass and midrange that is palatable to the point of "never going back" to the system without them. Just a thought on amplifier choice. FYI... my amplifer choice is "rebuilt Vintage Krell". (KST-100, KSA 250, KSA 200S) inexpensive collectables that have current and low end out the "wazoo". |
Pass XA200.8 review up at ToneAudio. http://www.tonepublications.com/review/the-pass-labs-xa200-8-monoblocks/ |
People often think that since the woofers have their own amp the power amp won’t affect the sound, but the internal amp is amplifying the signal your power amp is sending to it, which, as I’m sure you know, is different for each amp.Now that's a goofy design.....to drive the woofer's amp from the main system power amp! The ML hybrid speaker does not provide a line level input to directly drive the woofer's amp? This would seriously limit the amps that are usable here as I could find a tube amp that might be magical with the panels but does not have the greatest definition in the bass and thus would affect the powered woofer's performance. No thank you! |
I have never read an online review saying bad things about Pass Labs. This is why a lot of audiophiles come here because WC does not fear to give honest information about how Pass compares to the other big guns in the category. So we can know Luxman 900u and Rowland 925 best the Pass Labs amps. And maybe the Macs 2301s, we will know soon when he receives the 200.8 monos. |
Techno, So much of it is system matching. Speakers to amps etc. We all know that. Here is what I am pretty darn confident in saying about Pass Labs. It's very, very rare that Pass doesn't at least sound "damn good" with just about any combo of speakers, cables, whatever tickles your fancy. Might it always sound "the best" (to a given listener), maybe not. But, it's very, very rare that you put Nelson's design with just about anything and go, oh crap, that sounds awful. That is a pretty magical thing that Pass does. |
WC, thanks for your useful list above. The Mac 2301 and BHK might make the list if you get the best grade of tubes from Roger Majeski. Thanks to grey9hound for the link to tubeaudiostore.com, Roger's website. Read all the technical sections to realize why Majeski is probably the most authoritative source. I believe that accurate sound is associated with the best specs if you know what to measure. In general, tube electronics have the worst specs, and Roger explains why poorly matched random tubes may be a big factor why. Get tube electronics to have the best specs possible, and then they ought to provide the utmost in realism aided by more accuracy than the stock versions have. I had one experience 30-35 years ago with Roger's best tubes in my Theta preamp and vouch for the big difference in accuracy obtained. The new sound was more real, as well as more accurate and still smooth but with cooler midrange, which I maintain is characteristic of the real thing. Let's hear from more experienced tube equipment owners here who try Majeski's tubes. |
Update: I just plugged in the 2301s into the outlet using wireworld world silver 7 cables and it feels as if a curtain was lifted. Far more clarity than ever before. I could be happy with what I hear right now for a while even if the bass is not the best. With this, I will say it once again: THE 2301s ARE THE BEST AMPLIFIERS TO COME FROM MCINTOSH THAT I HAVE EVER OWNED. it is just very sad how subpar their other amps are. No musicality, no engaging sound, no life, no soul. |
Guido, thanks for mentioning the Technics R1 amp which uses GaN transistors. I also like the fact that even the heaviest mono Merrill 118 only weighs 65 lbs each. Almost all of the SOTA amps are beasts which nearly disqualify them from consideration by anyone other than young, strong guys with lots of friends to help with the lifting. The second to top 116 is still nearly as powerful as the 118 and only 40+ lbs and $22,000, a reasonable price for a SOTA new generation contender. The 114 will probably still be a powerful amp at way below $20K. Let the new generation devices de-throne the horse and buggy overpriced units like you know what, like the Japanese girl who just beat Serena Williams in tennis. Audio engineering is the most primitive of all engineering fields, unlike aerospace, IT, etc. The brightest engineering graduates go into fields other than audio. The typical audio designer never took advanced math, or is mostly a hobbyist with a smattering of technical training, like my physical therapist friend who is picking up carpentry jobs after he learned his new trade by watching youtube videos. But Merrill is a master-degreed engineer who is blazing new paths with better devices, unlike most of the big name audio engineers who are just making horse and buggy warmed over stuff. Today's cheap laptop is better and more advanced than the SOTA unit of 5 years ago. The opposite of overpriced today's horse and buggy audio. Everyone should listen seriously and critically and boycott most of today's overpriced mediocre junk. Encourage the deserving new underdog to prosper. |
| Post removed |
Audio engineering is the most primitive of all engineering fields, unlike aerospace, IT, etc. The brightest engineering graduates go into fields other than audio. The typical audio designer never took advanced math, or is mostly a hobbyist with a smattering of technical trainingWOW! This has to go down as nearly the most arrogant/stupid paragraph I have ever read on this site. |
jafox “Audio engineering is the most primitive of all engineering fields, unlike aerospace, IT, etc. The brightest engineering graduates go into fields other than audio. The typical audio designer never took advanced math, or is mostly a hobbyist with a smattering of technical training.” WOW! This has to go down as nearly the most arrogant/stupid paragraph I have ever read on this site. >>>>Commencement speech at Acme Audio Engineering School: “Many of you will go on to big things. The rest of you will go on to become audio engineers.” 🤗 |
To all, I would never want to appear arrogant. But I speak with lots of knowledge, a lot from my electrical engineering father, who worked in aerospace and knew many top engineers in all fields, mathematicians, physicists, etc. In high school I thought I was an excellent young mathematician, but his vast experience showed him that I was mediocre in comparison to the utterly brilliant people he worked with, so he advised me to become a practicing physician, which I did. Even worse, I thought I was a great young violinist, but my father was a critical listener and told me I would never make it as a professional musician. Years later after entering competitions, I realized for myself that my father was right. I find my career as a doctor very fulfilling, and enjoy playing music as an excellent amateur. The smartest thing I ever did was to listen to my father. So all you guys, respect what I say. I take lots of time to impart my experience. One of the most important benevolent things I can do is to expose much fraud in the audio industry and overpriced mediocre products which I have personally heard at home. You all work hard for your livelihood, and deserve to be protected financially from mistakes based on audio hype. I have made my own share of mistakes, and probably all of you have done the same. WC has done his big part in telling the truth about how equipment really sounds, in his unbiased way. I am doing the same, in my own way. And WC yesterday said it was sad how subpar most Mac amps are, except for the 2301. Most Macs are thus overpriced for what they are, according to the listening WC has done and some of my own listening. Mac lives by its glitzy appearance and marketing hype. Of course, I am not referring to Apple. As I said, in computers, phones, etc., you generally get value and quality for your money, vastly unlike consumer audio. Pro audio is different, and there is more value for the money there, because the demands of the production business means there is little tolerance for audiophile desires such as expensive casework, etc. Pro units have utilitarian appearance. One particular audio writer I respected, Peter Aczel of the Audio Critic in the 1970-80's, said the same things I am saying. Aczel, wasn't a trained engineer, but he knew several important pioneers, and he always stuck up for value to the audio consumer. I often didn't agree with his sonic perceptions or preferences, but that's OK. His heart was in the right place. |
@viber6 You are sadly mistaken if you really think McIntosh lives by its glitzy appearance. There are many people who like the Laid Back sound of McIntosh. A lot of people do not like the hyper detailed bleached sound of a lot of amps , that some consider detailed or high end. If you can’t turn it up and listen for more than 5 minutes(which i have found with a lot of hyper detailed amps), then what good is it ? A lot of people consider the somewhat lush laid back sound of McIntosh to be very desirable,..... Musical. Not everyone is in agreement as to what "Musical" is .and not everyone likes McIntosh. BUT McIntosh amps hold their value better than any brand I know of ! |
viber6, I’m sure that I am not anywhere near you regarding intelligence or experience. (seriously) Having said that, I think that you just made two mistakes in your argument. Firstly, you state that most Macs are overpriced for what they are. Since "what they are" is subjective, their value to each owner will be different. You then state that Mac lives by its glitzy appearance and marketing hype. That’s probably impossible for any brand of anything over the long haul, but it certainly is not true of McIntosh. I’ve seen giants fall in it’s wake in my system, and by the way, the meters annoy me a little. |
Mcintosh holds it value not because of quality but because everybody knows the name (Like BOSE). Harley Davidson is the same way in the Motorcycle arena. Neither is ANYWHERE near being the best. VIBER implied that MACS are overpriced...I dont think so. You can buy 2-3 pieces of MAC gear for the same price as many other brands. With Mac you get what you pay for...and to me thats mediocrity...OK Musical Mediocrity. Waiting for WC to see the light of day when it comes to the 2301's. He just started down the TUBE road and I think he will be pleasantly surprised when he tried other TUBE gear in comparison to the Macs. If he tried ARC 250SE, 160M, Audio Note (SET), VAC, SHINDO Im confident he would be happy to see the 2301's exit the building. We'll just have to see wont we. |
First an Audio Engineer is an Electrical/Electronics Engineer. Specializing in particular fields such as Amplifier Design/Filter design, acoustic environmental design, etc. I strongly disagree with the statement made previously disparaging such Engineers. 1) because it is flat out not true, regardless of what someone's Father told him, 2) it is insulting and just wrong. I'm a pretty good Electrical/Electronics Engineer. Analog/Digital Design, and also amplifier and filter design. I'm pretty good with sonar detection circuitry, guidance system analysis, and I also am pretty good at amplifier and filter design. I received my advanced degrees and certifications and can't begin to express the ignorance of such a statement. There are elitist in every category that believe (falsely) that they are superior to others. Also, McIntosh retains it used price value because 1) they are pretty good products, 2) customer appreciate them, 3) they sound pretty good, 4) great design/construction quality (except for the MS300 music server, which is another story altogether), McIntosh is still around and services pretty much all (except for the music server, sigh) its products. Longevity in this business really says something. enjoy |
@viber6, thank you for your eloquent write up. Very brave considering the title of this thread. These words in particular mirror my own experience in audio. "One of the most important benevolent things I can do is to expose much fraud in the audio industry and overpriced mediocre products which I have personally heard at home. You all work hard for your livelihood, and deserve to be protected financially from mistakes based on audio hype." All anyone can do here is to share their experiences and warn others from the lessons learnt of their own folly. |
Roxy, Almost couldnt have said it better myself...except "poor" isn't a word I would have chosen. If someone is completely satisfied with their system regardless of brands in them thats great. I think if most Mac users actually ventured out and experimented with other brands maybe some of that satisfaction they currently have would fade away...maybe not. I hope I live long enough (and retain my hearing) to try just about everything. I wanted to try the 2301's but my local dealer...who carries both Mac and ARC...told me I would hate him if he let me buy the 2301's over the 250SE. So as I saved up for the 250SE the superior 160M came out. So I got the Auto Biasing 160M....Im hopefully ALL Tube amps in the future have the hassle free auto biasing. I cant believe that Mac hasnt been able to invent a Tube Amp in the last Decade thats an upgrade over the 2301. Thats a LONG time!! |
I have recently sold quite a number of power amps from my collection ( because I purchased a newer amp that just gave me more musical satisfaction, but mostly, thinning the herd ). One of the amps I sold was a Mac 2505 ( to a Japanese exporter ). Always sounded great, never had a problem, and past with flying colors the last Mac clinic I brought it to. These are the reasons people buy Mac. Is there better ? To my ears, yes. But build quality, reliability, beauty, and investment ( holding value ), are 2nd to none. P.S. I have had a number of Mac products ( mostly power amps, and the best to my ears was the MC 2002 ). Enjoy ! MrD. |
An audio engineer has about as much in common with a EE Electrical Engineer or electronics engineer or AE aerospace engineer as a bus driver has with a jet pilot. Cut me some slack, Jack. Typical Audio Engineering curriculum outline at: https://www.recordingconnection.com/courses/audio-engineering/ In short, it’s not rocket science. Compare and contrast with an undergraduate Aerospace Engineering curriculum of chemistry, physics, thermodynamics, strength of materials, dynamics, electrical engineering, nuclear physics, indeterminate structures, advanced mathematics, theoretical propulsion and fluid mechanics. |
minorl, thanks for your well considered thoughts. Since I am not an engineer, I will defer to your expertise. Just talk to engineers in aerospace, etc. to see whether audio engineers command the intellectual respect you say they do. Also, there is a crucial difference between the audio engineer who is catering to the subjective whims of many audiophiles who like a certain type of sound but may not value accuracy, and the other engineers like you who are designing for performance and applications based on objective criteria. If your product performs objectively poorly and causes mass disasters like environmental catastrophies, you get nervous about your job security and long term reputation. If your product performs at a reasonable level of accuracy but is overpriced, your company will ultimately lose business because the competitive marketplace with many brilliant engineers will encourage value and a reasonable price for the performance obtained. This is NOT the case with many of the expensive audiophile electronics out there, and even more so with many expensive dynamic speakers out there. If you value accuracy at a moderate, natural sound level, there is nothing like a decent electrostatic speaker whose technology dates back 100 years and is MUCH cheaper than today's dynamic speakers with their expensive drivers. Yes, I realize that to get dynamic drivers to perform with clarity approaching an electrostatic, it is expensive and time consuming in the R&D. The electrostatic principle is simple and inherently superior in low distortion to the dynamic. One of the tenets of good engineering is designing to a price point, optimizing the performance/price ratio. Most reputable engineers do this well, but not most audio engineers, despite their claims that they do. I don't have a test bench, but my hardnosed demands as a value for performance listener and musical expertise lead me to this conclusion. charles1dad, continuing this discussion and to acknowledge your points, perhaps I used too broad a brush, but not much. There are a few audio companies I respect for the value they offer. For example, Dan Laufman of Emotiva personally may not have the technical level of Dag or Pass, but Emotiva is putting out damn good products for the money. I almost bought their top amp for $1000 new. It was absolutely better than MANY high priced gear from other companies, and there is no question that it is one of the top bangs for the buck. When I returned the Emotiva, it took some time for me to get the refund, because they put it on the test bench thoroughly to make sure it was in top condition. That's professionalism which I respect. |
Interested potential students in the field of “audio engineering” perhaps look to sites like below to see what the BA/BS curriculum of audio engineering is : https://yescollege.com/degrees/bachelors-in-audio-engineering-technology/ These curricula will give you an idea of what graduates of these institutions were taught and how graduates define themselves - few are “hard science” engineers. Most professional audio engineers don’t represent themselves as having a foundation in electrical or other “hard science” engineering unless they do. Membership in the Audio Engineering Society for example is very eclectic including graduates of certificate programs. The AES is not a member of the American Association of Engineering Societies. |
Yes, well, I worked in Aerospace for some time as an Engineer, and I can tell you that Aerospace, is probably one of the most overpriced , exaggerated costs fields (with regards to their final products) out there. There is so much fat attached to the end products that you wonder how a hammer costs $600 or billions for an aeroplane. Yes, the planes are very high tech, but damn!!!!! Many country's economy is based around the military industrial industry, and will do whatever it can to keep it going, with few if any checks and balances. At least, in my opinion, customers and the market can make the determination if audio products are worth their time and money. I will agree that if the market was greater, you would see much more research into sound quality and real measurements. As an Engineer, I can tell you that pretty much everything associated with sound reproduction can be measured. Sorry to disagree with some out there, but, yes it can be measured. It has to date, just not been cost effective for Engineers to delve into this and invest the time and money to really do it justice. However, that does not mean that there aren't some really talented Engineers out there in the audio world. For example, Mark Levinson, Nelson Pass, John Curl, YBA designer (can't spell his name), Vandersteen, Ralph (Atmosphere), and so many, many more from Europe, Japan, Switzerland, Germany, etc. past and present. These people really do know Engineering and know their stuff. it is one thing to take some one else's designs and build an amp. it is quite another to start from scratch and do it your self with the math, and measurements to back it up. A classic example is an Electronics design class where the instructor gives a project to the class. Design and build a Class A or Class A/B amplifier (including power supply), using all discrete components that have the following specifications below. build the device in the lab and demonstrate to the instructor that the device operates within specifications. Show an equations associated with the design, and provide an economic cost breakdown. Some specifications would include: 1. Power output: 100 wpc 2. Minimum Load handling capability: 1 ohm 3. power bandwith: DC to light 4. Power/Frequency stable over the entire bandwidth at rated power output. 5. Input impedance: specified number 6. Output impedance: specified number 7. Provide transfer curve equation for the device and be prepared to show simulation on computer model with transfer curve. 8. Power supply input voltage: 110-120 vac (60 hz) or 220-240 vac (50 hz. There's lots more, but you get the idea. And if you think this is easy, remember, they must show all of the math, for the amp and the power supply. Don't know how we got on this subject but, oh yeah, now I remember.... Anyway, it just ain't true. enjoy |
I agree with Minorl. I just finished listening to the Gryphon Diablo 300 driving YG Haileys. Yes there was a lot of clean power. But nothing magical. Im sure A Bryston 4b3 would do a similar job. Secret to great amp is just lots of clean power low distortion. Rest is the speakers the room and source! I have yet to hear Pass though. I was passing through Reno but couldn't make it to Reno hifi. |
minorl, you make valid points. First, Aerospace is a special case because the customer is mainly or entirely the govt. It is proper that big weapons should be restricted to govt uses and needs, but that limits the size of the market, and therefore prices will be very high. Despite competitive bidding by several manufacturers, it is like a cartel because everyone knows that the govt will pay exorbitant amounts for the very best items which are essential for national security and the drive to outrank rogue world govts. In contrast, the role model for value in sophisticated products is consumer computers, phones, TV's, etc. Second, you confirm that most aspects of sound are measurable. Better specs will correlate with more accurate sound, if you know what to measure and measure many things. Tube lovers may prefer laid back warm/lush sound, but their equipment often has inferior specs. My one past experience with Modjeski's tubes in my Theta preamp showed that better specs from his top tubes yielded more accurate, less laid-back sound, and a cooler midrange that was still smooth and natural. I want to hear from today's tube lovers who try Modjeski's tubes. I learned back then that whether tube or SS, more accurate and revealing sound correlates with less lushness, verified by better specs. I am not referring to grossly exaggerated highs at unnaturally loud volumes that nobody can tolerate. But normal sensible volume levels in equipment that reveals all the freq ranges in a balanced way without the high freq rolloff of lush stuff correlates best with live, natural sounds. |
| Post removed |
grey9hound, certainly you are correct that the entire circuit tells the story. But minorl states clearly that sound is totally quantifiable, and I extend his statement by adding, "if you know what to measure." There is a basic inconsistency between more accurate sound and worse specs, which I believe minorl would agree with. The fact that you like lush sound with rolled off highs and loss of information is your privilege, but don't claim it is high fidelity. Why don't you try Modjeski's tubes which as part of the circuit will yield better specs, and then tell us what you hear. I did this 35 years ago and found that the difference was like getting a whole new piece of equipment, much more revealing. I only did this once, which is why I am curious to hear what other people find today. If you hear more details of your music still naturally presented but with less lush sound, you will get more out of the music. Remember that most recordings utilize close microphone placement and convey much more highs and other info than the typical listener hears from midhall laid back positions. If you like to hide information relative to accurately reproduced systems, or convert an exciting recording into a laid back one, it is still your privilege. |
| Post removed |
