What makes you build a system around an amplifier?
Serious question. I almost always care about the room and speakers first, then build around that. However, this is not the only way to do things.
If you have ever insisted on keeping your amplifier, but were willing to change everything else around it, please let us know why. What made an amp so outstanding in your mind that it was worth making it your center piece. Imaging? slam?
Be specific about the amp and speakers or other gear that you shuffled through.
Hi Erik. Well, I'm sure you know you and I typically disagree on all things audiogon forum related, nevertheless, I'll engage in this thread. :)
I purchased a Musical Fidelity M6si in November 2015 and never looked back. I'm pleased enough with its performance - and more importantly overall value - that I chose to build around it.
Might I upgrade the amp at some point in the future, sure. But as to your question why I retain and build around it, simple; value and performance.
Hi @gdhal - I definitely am not looking for agreement, so much as understanding. Different audiophiles seek out solutions differently. I think the following statement is true:
Some audiophiles build their systems around their amps. Some around their speakers.
So long as we agree that is a true statement, then I think the question of WHY is interesting.
What I mean by "system building" are people who fall in love with an AMP's sound over all. I like my amps, but I'm not so enamored with them I would swap my speakers to keep them. I would be much more likely to fall in love with a pair of speakers, and do anything I could to get them to sound their best.
The only amp that I would build a system around is the Lyngdorf 2170. It is a one box solution and has great room correction software. My most loved component.
erik, This is a good question. I think that the choice of speakers is the most difficult, because it is just hard to find one that has all off the qualities that you want without any glaring faults. That said, once the speaker decision is made, each amplifier drives those speakers in a different way, and that may be synergistically or not. Even if it is satisfactory, it may not be optimal to our ears. I think that in my own experience , I have learned that the amplifier is really the soul of the system, and it has multi-dimensional effects on the way the music is reproduced. Even if you change speakers, you can still hear its personality, and if you love that personality, you want to keep it. It's almost like a trusted friend.
I’ve never had an amp I felt that way about, but: I would keep and design around an amplifier if it had high input impedance, several taps to accommodate different output impedances, at least average wattage, and good gain. If class A/B, I want to know at what point it leaves class A. I also want to know how much it weighs, a heavy amp makes me think lots of effort has been put into the power supply. Oh, I would want the ps shielded from other parts of amp.
Oppo 103 (the cheap version) Mytek Brooklyn driven by Linux server via USB Parasound P7 3 x custom Class D amplifiers with ICEPower 250 ASP modules. (L, C, R) because I can’t put up a full 5.1 in the room Hsu VTF-15 Mk II Sub miniDSP 2x4 HD for the sub EQ Custom speakers with Mundorf AMT’s and ScanSpeak 6.5" woofers, Clarity CMR caps. Room acoustic panels and bass traps by GIK acoustics.
IC’s are solid silver balanced.
My desktop is a Logitech Squeezebox Touch feeding an NAD D 3020 integrated, and custom loudspeakers, which you can build from here:
Blindjim > got to admit, I’ve never heard of those amps or speakers but I’ve sure either one would be a nice starting place.
I’ve generally always felt the ‘source’ was the main idea. Put the bulk of the funds there. Amp (s), next. Then speakers.
The first ‘from nuttin’ to sumptin’ rig as usual for me back then was via an amp. HT red in fact it was a Kenwood stereo receiver and a pair of Bretagne Geostatic monitors I bought in Naples Italy 1975.
Life took me away from home audio for a long time.
In the 90s another Kenwood discrete receiver and a pr of Phase Tech monitors dropped in. had a cup of coffee and split.
In ’00 I decided to get ‘deep into it’ and launched my devotion squarely at getting a very competent stereo.
A Sony ES HT multi ch rec had my eye, and a pr of BW 600 series FS took up residence.
A B&K amp camped out for a few weeks until I gave it walking papers and a krell KaV . 250 landed lying to me all the while saying, “I’m all you’ll ever need”.
More book shelf spkrs landed as well as a Velodyne sub.
A krell likewise preamp that probably used Craig’s list to find the KAV amp, sneaked in and new BW floor standers were requested by the newlyweds.
In ’04 a new house was built with a room just begging for dedication.
Suddenly I stumbled onto Audiogon and the madness exploded. Wires and well, all sorts of insanity ensued.
BWs were replaced by monitor Audio Gold’s.
Passive power line conditioners, hippies actually, slid in looking for some sort of communal approach and opened a whole other bag of worms. Which try as they might, just did not sell. It must have been a poor market for worms.
The youthful Krells were evicted and a more mature couple from B.A.T. including a VK5 and VK 500 w/BAT pk, signed the lease agreeing to push the new Gold’s.
A Sony 777 CDP arrived and things got way better.
More wires brought along some power cords and they all sneaked in a partially open window along with a rack, and some dedicated circuits.
Then a pair of VSA VR4JRs in sinful red seductively slithered in bouncing the Gold’s out quite harshly.
Itty bitty tubes came and went as the vk5 line stage used a ton of them and my curiosity was seldom slaked.
The VSA spkrs got me onto the road for a real education on cabling.
A very nice DAC joined the band and the room got a full make over.
A new line stage fell from the Heavens and I was able to catch it and the accessories shortly thereafter had me squarely sitting at heaven’s gates. Or just down the street. Absolutely no further than the suburbs.
So it seemed a good idea at that point to sell it. So I did. Mostly.
Improving one area, speakers or amplifiers simply begged improving upon its mate. It is where I found out about speaker & amp relationships, and who is more demanding, and of what.
That little voyage schooled me on the glory or infamy of power cords.
This thread made me think back and I was surprised to recall I actually did exit one system to begin another by getting speakers first. Went from lower Eff to higher eff, and a tad more up the food chain, like by double MSRP, almost. VSA VR4JR > Silverline Sonata III
The old antique Velo sub trickled into the bedroom, and a Velodyne DD 15 took its place.
Truth be told at that point, there was no sane reason for doing anything else except pursuing my own curiosity about tube power amps.
Indeed, that outfit was the best sounding most resolving balanced rig I’ve had.
So of course, I began selling parts of it off beginning with the amp naturally.
Then, came a series of tube amps as a few rolled in and out until one pair finally pushed all of the necessary buttons. BAT VK 60; Dodd 120 monos were the last stop.
Around 2010 - 2012 life as I reported here suddenly altered my priorities and bit by bit my rig disappeared. Mostly.
Presently debating on my next epic voyage into madness, I feel I’m gonna start with the emphasis on the power train. I tend to feel this is where the soul of the music is being developed and conveyed. Loudspeakers are merely the messengers.
It’s a very good thing to have great messengers.
I did initially think to do as so many others and drop a large *(for me) wad on speakers first, then see what best suits them as the tour bus stumbles along. But it occurred to me it’s a mite more complicated than that, especially if one harbors a proclivity for a particular set of sonic parameters or in short, lower powered tube amps usually less than 150 – 100wpc. Possibly far less watts. Speaker selections automatically are reduced. Add in preffs for color and or esthetics, and still fewer models abound. Come to think of it, I suppose its vice or versa at the end of the day.
So the plan going forward now most likely, as nothing is set to stone around here, is to travel first. Once I’ve gotten a bit more educated on what this or that seems to sound like, then get the quality power line in, and then waltz in a few speakers from low to higher in costs, and stop where things feel more right than not, audibly speaking that is.
Or simply buy the one setup that sounds good enough right on the spot.
One of these paths appears best as I’m doubtful a slam dunk match made in heaven will burst onto the scene with the first volley. It could end up too that a completely different approach on power is developed if I choose to ignore one preference for sound and get deeply into lust for speakers whose demands are better suited to lots o watts.
Or just build it all starting with some really cool iso footers.
I think speakers, and preamp are more important ....so that is usually the foundation if you will. The amp is no doubt important , but i dont think i would start there. Maybe if it was something like a VAC integrated or something of that calibre.
Hi Roxy54, Although I know that each component in the signal chain is important I've come to regard my power amplifier as the "soul" (as you put it) of my system. In reality you can choose to build around speaker, source, amplification etc. and be sucessful. In my case getting a SET amplifier was the single and most profound decision I've made. 8 years of unadulterated musical joy and happiness. No doubt that choices will vary with different listeners. I'm just stating what's worked out best for me. Charles
Hello Eric, I use the Coincident Frankenstein MK II 300b SET mono blocks, BTW my system is posted on this site. My amplifier progression was Symphonic Line (transistor), to tube push pull class A/B X 2 different amps. I bought the Frankenstein out of curiosity to compare to my excellent 100 watt PP amplifier (Bella Extreme 100, V-Cap version). Speakers are 94 dB sensitivity and 14 ohm nominal load Coincident Total Eclipse II.
This speaker was really good with the 100 watt amplifier. On the very first listen straight out of the shipping box I realized that the 8 watt Frankenstein was superior sounding. No 2nd guessing required, better tonality, timbre, nuance, music ebb and flow. Most immediately apparent was more emotional involvement and communication. Realism was at a different level, just plain more.
The 100 watt PP has superior bass weight and impact, that’s it (and the SET bass is quite good). I went from a "very " good amplifier to sublime as presented by the Frankenstein. It’s more open, transparent and better at resolving the micro details and subtleties. It’s even more 3 dimensional than the very good PP which had bettered the Symphonic Line amplifier in this area.
No other audio anything has provided as much impact in my home. It is the heart and soul of my system. Needless to say YMMV. Charles
I think I have a situation that fits your post. Several years ago there was an ad here on A'gon selling a JAS Array 2.1 amplifier. Trades were also considered and although I really liked my Monarchy SE-160 monoblocks, I was eager to try an all tube amp (I'd had a few hybrids in the past including the Monarchy amps). The JAS could be run as an integrated with a passive line stage or, with the flip of a switch, could be ran as a stereo amp. Tube compliment included a pair of 805 transmitting tubes, 300B's, and a quad of 6DJ8's and the amp runs in SET.
So a trade was made and I installed the JAS in place of the Monarchy amps driven directly by a Theta Miles (bypassing the passive linestage ). The speakers were Von Schweikert VR-4 Gen II. I'd upgraded the tubes in the Monarchy amps to Ediswans while the JAS was filled with stock Shuguangs and and a quad of JJ's or EH junk. And you know what, the JAS absolutely destroyed the Monarchy's . The JAS was soooo transparent, details were so much more apparent, the soundstage not only had excellent lateral placing and front-to-back depth, but each sound had a very palpable 3 dimensional quality itself. It was a reach out and touch the performers moment and it was the first time I'd heard that even considering the many auditions at high end (big buck) stores with systems ever beyond my means.
I could go on and on but I'll try to keep it short(ish) and say that I found the best way to use this amp is with a custom pair of speakers that are similar in design to Legacy Focus using Eton drivers up top and Peerless woofers below. I biamp the speakers using the tubes up top and solid state below (everything from a Consonance Calaf to Face Audio pro amps). I am a bachelor with my own house and have accumulated enough equipment to set up at least 4 good systems (not because I am well heeled but have been collecting for years and can't resist a good opportunity). The JAS is what I listen to when I want to hear all the detail and immerse myself in that sort of critical listening with a limited SPL. I have a Cambridge Audio 840W/851C VMPS system for rocking out (and to keep from burning through expensive old stock tubes). I'm sure there are many better amplifier options out (and ones that weigh less than a hundred pounds and don't run so insanely hot) and they are probably within my reach if I were willing to consolidate systems, but I like being able to listen to multiple dissimilar systems and embracing their different qualities. Having said that, I really can't imagine not having a good SET amp around. It connects me to the music like no others have.
A relatively low powered single ended amp, if it sounds great, will force you to drop whatever your doing, sell all of your unnecessary belongings, and spend all of your time searching for the best sounding high efficiency speakers…this results in a great sounding system, albeit with a ruined life. Worth it.
That’s exactly how I felt when I first heard ARC VT-80 amp. Six months later, my rest of the system is now ‘tuned’ to extract every last bit of its goodness. The amp’s tonal purity, full bodied mid base, dimension and texture, all of which manages to relax me after a long day at work.
I don't get the concept of building 'around' a specific component..
We all have some sort of starting system that usually is assembled by a combination of what we can afford at the time, what advice we get from friends and magazines and what we happen across in the local marketplace.
After that we upgrade, sometimes haphazardly, sometimes because a piece of equipment we covet shows up at the right price, or because something in the system breaks down and needs replacing. I don't have any audiophile friends that scrapped their whole system and started anew.
Sometimes one perceives that the front end needs an update, sometimes the speakers and sometimes the amplification - there is no rule nor commonest route, at least that I have noticed.
I don't even remember what order I upgraded in over the years, but I have equipment that has been in one or another of my systems since the late 1980s as well as systems with new (to me) speakers and amplification, but front ends that have been with me for some years.
I guess that I have to disagree with your premise - that people more often upgrade in any one manner.
Building a system around an amplifier or around speakers is so old school. The trend these days, and I'm just going by what I read here, is to build a system around fuses.
After reading all of this, "What makes you build a system around an amplifier?". For me, it is a very well-matched speaker. No matter how good an amp, they all don't play well with all speakers. Synergy is most important, not a certain amp manufacturer. How well an amp/preamp or integrated amp and a speaker work together is very critical. Get this wrong and you most likely will never be happy. IMO and YMMV of course.
My system is built around my speakers which is the way it should be.
I agree. Especially if the primary consideration is monetary value. In other words, I'm of the opinion that whatever it is the system is "built around", it should clearly be the most expensive piece. Typically, that is the speakers.
You **certainly** without reservation want to start with the amp first!
The reason is simple: you might have a preference for a certain kind of amp, for example, tube or solid state. Maybe you've heard how much better an amp can be if it lacks feedback. That sort of thing.
If you start with the speaker first, you may be painted into a very expensive corner. Here are some examples:
If you start with the Sound Labs because you fell in love with the speed, delicacy, bandwidth and sheer convincing qualities those speakers have in spades, you're screwed if you also only will deal with solid state. You will never get the performance out of that speaker! The speaker has a 30 ohm peak in the bass which is easy for a tube amp and hard for a solid state amp (IOW overall weak power with weak bass). At the other end of the range, the speaker is pretty low impedance (1.5 to 3 ohms depending on the position of the Brilliance control) which will cause most solid state amps to be too bright and nothing for it but to turn down the Brilliance control and deal. This is the case with most ESLs BTW.
If you happen to prefer tube sound, you will have a very difficult row to hoe if you get Magnaplanars. That speaker is very revealing, and there are only a handful of large tube amps that really make the bandwidth and power that are both needed for that speaker to sound right.
I can go on, but the point is very obvious- its a foolish act to get a speaker first and then discover that its incompatible with the type of amplification you prefer. You'll have to start all over again, which sucks.
Atmasphere, You present a very rational explanation for selecting an amplifier "then" choosing an appropriate speaker match. I’ve done it either way over the years but discovered that at least for me deciding on the amplifier first proved to be most sucessful.
I also acknowledge that this option puts me in the distinct minority in the audiophile community but that’s okay with me. What you wrote mimics my thought process in beginning with the power amplifier. Again, most will find eventual success with either approach. Charles
Hey…you asked...My current favorite amp (by a mile) is a Dennis Had "Inspire" Fire Bottle SEP (pentode) HO (high output, and the only item ever in my gear heap that says "HO" on it). Bought it on a whim when a slightly used one appeared, and it's been big fun…extremely sensitive (in a good way) to any tube swapping including rectifiers, only has 4 tubes so less cost to roll everything, is the cleanest and quietest amp I've ever used in a system, and has that sound that I personally got tired of hearing about…until I bought this thing…one of the few times the hype (mostly from Had himself in his Ebay rants with misspellings and unbridled enthusiasm) held up to the product. Note that I've realized in my enthusiastic support of these amps that they're nearly unobtainable relative to other stuff…somewhat randomly marketed on Ebay whenever he cranks out another one, although his well regarded headphone amps can be bought through Moon in NC. I bet Shindo and Audio Note amps sound great, but at 1500 bucks or so the Fire Bottle is so laughably inexpensive for a "boutique" hand wired and well thought out amp it makes you wonder how the other guys get away with selling their stuff for many thousands more.
An amp and a speaker make a "system", no matter what two they are. They are intrinsically, interdependently-related to each other. A particular speaker prefers (or even requires) a certain "kind" of amp, a particular amp performs better with certain "kinds" of speakers. An actively-driven speaker, a speaker with a dedicated power amp, is a really good idea.
Roger Modjeski of Music Reference is now offering an ESL of his own design and build, with a dedicated direct-drive tube amp---the amp has no output transformer, the ESL no input transformer, the ESL panels driven directly by the output tubes! THAT is the ultimate, perfectionist way to do it.
Roger Modjeski of Music Reference is now offering an ESL of his own
design and build, with a dedicated direct-drive tube amp---the amp has
no output transformer, the ESL no input transformer, the ESL
panels driven directly by the output tubes! THAT is the ultimate,
perfectionist way to do it.
Its a way that can yield excellent results but I would not call it perfectionist. If you encounter any circumstances that mean a change is needed (such as more power, want deeper bass, etc.) you have to start over from scratch.
First of all, the older I get, the more I'm convinced that the better systems are a "synergy" of the various component parts, including cables. Having said that, if I had to select between amps and speakers being the thing I'd build a system around, my vote would be for the speaker.
When I last tormented myself shopping for speakers, I was struck by how the McIntosh MC452 didn't seem to be "picky" about the speakers it was driving. So.....here comes the "brow beaten" part, I suspect I'll have my MC452 for a long time!
My first speakers, many years back, were Quad esl57s. At the time, there was no other speaker in the world that was as neutral and revealing. However, they had a nasty habit of not liking (i.e. destroying or being destroyed by) the vast majority of amplifiers at the time, and Quad’s own 303 was the perfect match, so that is what I bought. Anyway, in 1971 in the Netherlands, the choice of high quality amplifiers was extremely limited. In the next iteration of my system, about a decade ago (I don’t suffer from audio nervosa upgrade itches), it was once again the speakers that drove the decision, this time together with the room. I had decided to move up to the new 2805 stats, and these were less efficient than the old els57’s. I had also moved into a new house with a rather larger living room. It took me a while to realize that what I did not like about the sound was the simple fact that on more dynamic music played at higher levels the amplifier was strained. So I bought a competely refurbished (every resistor and capacitor replaced) 2x140 watt Quad 606-2. At lower levels there was no audible difference, but with symphonic repertoire at more realistic levels, there was a clear improvement with a much cleaner sound. To be honest, the speaker and room could perhaps still benefit from the even bigger power of two QUAD QMP monoblocks. The last iteration was the addition of a B&W PV1d subwoofer. The bigger room was begging for more bass, and now that I had completely given up on vinyl I also had the source quality to exploit. The last thing I needed to do was to tame the sub with a DSpeaker Antimode 8033 room eq unit. I have now decided that the next step will be a second PV1d sub, for even smoother bass, and more power. So in retrospect, all my decisions were driven by my clear preference for the Quad electrostats, and later the addition of a sub. I just bought the amplification that I needed to drive the speakers. I must add that I am not convinced that good amplifiers have much of a sonic signature, if any. They need to be powerful enough, however, because that is what power amplifiers are: sources of power, and preferably big power. Or to put it in Peter Walker’s words: straight wires with gain.
There is some logic to first starting with finding the speaker that you really like, and then finding an amp that works well with that speaker. The demands of certain types of speakers might rule out certain amps (e.g., low efficiency speakers ruling out SETs; speakers that dip very low in impedance might rule out high output impedance amps).
However, things are not necessarily that simple. Some of the most obviously different and great sounding gear that I've heard were amps. Some amps are so much better than run of the mill types that it makes it worthwhile finding speakers that work with such amps rather than the other way around. One such amp I heard is a custom-built OTL, that is quite astonishing sounding with many speakers, but, I thought not quite so great sounding with a very low efficiency, low-impedance speaker. The other great amps I've heard include a pushpull 252 amp and a pushpull 300b amp; both of which sort of demand high-efficiency speakers.
The amps I own, are not slouches either: an Audio Note Kageki (parallel single-ended) and a Western Electric 133 (pushpull 349). Again, both require high-efficiency speakers. Both amps are of high enough quality to justify finding speakers that will play nice with them.
There will be no brow beating, but the point of this thread was to focus in on amps which are so unique and special that listeners want to keep them above everything else.
I worry that if we let the thread spread out into whether that is the right approach or not, we won’t get to hear about these exceptional experiences and the mainstream approaches will crowd out this set of ideas, which are definitely "off the beaten track." That is the point. :)
For me for instance, I am reading a lot of amplifier brands I do not normally read about. If we get stuck with mainstream products, we may never get the chance to hear these truly rare and boutique amps.
There are a fair number of people who find the Atma-Sphere OTL's so much better than transformer-coupled amps (more transparent, better bass, more extended high end, "faster") that they are willing to find a speaker that will work well with them, in spite of the limitations OTL's impose. Maggie owners use the Anti Cable Autoformer to raise the impedance of their 4 ohm load to help match them with A-S amps . I complete understand and agree with that approach, at least in the case of Atma-Sphere.
Generally speaking, the amp/speaker interface is a very important part of the game. OTLs in general like to see higher impedances (although the speaker impedance curve doesn’t have to be flat), and the same is often true of SETs.
First Watt solid state amps are also best used with speakers of more than 4 ohms. They don’t make a lot of power either, so you do best with them if you have an easier speaker to drive- 95 db or more.
I don’t agree that all ’well-designed’ amplifiers sound the same- far from it. A lot depends on the goal of the designer! For example, our amps are very wide bandwidth and low distortion, but they don’t use feedback, and that is with intention. This was to avoid the distortion caused by the feedback system itself, and the result of that was that we have to be quite selective about what speakers to use with the amps. But the upside is as far as we can tell, this allows us to get a lot closer to the music itself.
I’m pretty sure that if you talk to an SET designer, you will find that they say something quite similar, and if you read Nelson Pass’s articles about the First Watt amps, you will see the same thing espoused. I’m not saying that there is only one way and its our way, what I **am** saying is that making an amp that is a perfect voltage source is not the only way and that there are advantages to avoiding that approach.
This means that you can’t just buy a speaker and expect that any amp will work with it. In fact, the idea of the amp being a voltage source for flat bandwidth (which I call the Voltage Paradigm) really only works with box speakers where the impedance curve is also a map of the speaker’s efficiency. There are a number of speaker technologies that don’t fit that model and as a result, don’t work with that kind of amplification.
@willemj , I agree with you in regard to the Quad ESL57.
Though some never find one, I think acquiring a transcendental product anchors one's system. I've always thought the loudspeaker the most likely candidate. But in the past generation, I find the number of unique and more interesting loudspeakers have declined to the degree that much more of a chance exists today for a power amplifier to serve that role.
I've owned quite a lot of amplifiers. The Jadis DA60 comes closest to an amplifier I would build a system around. Fortunately, it also mates beautifully with a wider range of loudspeakers than most. Charles has long touted his 300B based amplifier becoming that for him, and found his happiness there, and many others have shared their stories.
But in the end, for me, it's the Quad ESL57 that so far outclasses any other component I've encountered, loudspeaker or amp, that it will serve as the foundation of my system for as long as I can see
I find the Music Reference idea ingenious! :) Why use a coupling cap and transformer, when driving an ESL with tubes? Drive them directly, and let the ESL become the coupling cap.
I get the idea of building around an amp, but that is only something I came to after going through several. Solid state years ago, through a variety of tube gear (modded heathkits, modded Dynacos, Fischer, McIntosh) to Naim and finally to Devialet. In part because I love the way the Devialet sounds, and also because I realize, or I found, that you can change speakers all you want, but the quality of the power and control often gives the results one is looking for in changing other components. I also, now, feel that way about digital sources and cables.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
