Which amp for Tannoy Dorset T185?

[audio2]

Hi,

I've recently bought a pair of used Tannoy Dorset T185 (60W, 8Ohm).
I like the sound and I'm very pleased with my purchase.
The speakers are currently plugged to an old Pioneer SA-506.
I'm not an expert audiophile but I have the feeling that I can get more out of the T185.
So I'm now looking for an appropriate amplifier to combine with them.
I have been given a list of Denon amps, can somebody tell me more about them?

Denon PMA 860 / 1060
Denon PMA 1080R
Denon PMA 900V

Is the PMA 900V an integrated Class A amp?
What is the difference with a New Class A amps?


I'm open to take in consideration other models/brands, so any valid alternative is welcome.
Thank you very much in advance.
Musical greetings

[Mr Peabody]

I suspect Denon would not be the best match for the Tannoy, in my opinion the match may be a bit bright. What is your budget? You might look at Jolida or Peachtree on the budget end. The Tannoy wouldn't need much power and tube amps may be a better match. Jolida even has a 100 watt hybrid which I haven't looked at in a while but still should be under $600.00 new. NAD and Cambridge Audio offer very reasonable priced integrated amps, neither are tube but may offer a more musically satisfying sound than Denon.

[jrhymeammo]

Aren't they usually rolled off at higher frequency?
If you are not using a pair of external tweeters and Dorset t185s are free from low impedance, how about OTL tube amps? You might want to research t185's impedance curve.

[audio2]

To Mr Peabody & jrhymeammo:

Actually my budget is quite modest ($250.00).
I can eventually invest some more money (max $500) if in that price range falls a qualitative product (also second hand is fine) that will do for my need.

Out of curiosity I've been searching for used Jolida amps an found the following:
- Jolida JD 1501 (100 watt hybrid) year 2009 for $520.00

With regards to NAD or Cambridge Audio, are there specific models I can look for? How many Watt are actually sufficient?

I couldn't find any result on internet about t185's impedance curve, and I'm not that technical to measure it on my own...
You guys are introducing me into a new world and a new technical language (OTL tube amps?). I find this very interesting and makes my quest for an amp extra exciting.

Thank you for your time and knowledge.



PS:
In the meanwhile I've found an online ads for a used NAD C352 (80 watt per channel).
What do you think about it?
Anyway I would appreciate to hear advices on my previous questions.

[theaudiohobby]

Hi,

I've recently bought a pair of used Tannoy Dorset T185 (60W, 8Ohm).
I like the sound and I'm very pleased with my purchase.
The speakers are currently plugged to an old Pioneer SA-506.
I'm not an expert audiophile but I have the feeling that I can get more out of the T185.
So I'm now looking for an appropriate amplifier to combine with them.
I have been given a list of Denon amps, can somebody tell me more about them?

Denon PMA 860 / 1060
Denon PMA 1080R
Denon PMA 900V

Is the PMA 900V an integrated Class A amp?
What is the difference with a New Class A amps?


I'm open to take in consideration other models/brands, so any valid alternative is welcome.
Thank you very much in advance.
Musical greetings

Firstly, Congratulations on your new speakers. Choice of amplifier very much depends on the vintage of the speaker in question, word on the street is that most pre-1970s models prefer tubes. However from the 70s onwards, many Tannoy speakers were designed with SS amplification in mind, As the Dorset is a late 70s model, I'll suggest that you experiment with some SS amplifiers before jumping on the tube bandwagon. Tube amplifiers may work, but there is not much quality at the $250 mark, therefore if cash is tight its safer to stay with SS until you have sufficient funds to buy a decent tube amplifier.

I doubt PMA-900V is a pure Class A amplifier, but given that it was designed in the same era as the loudspeaker there might some synergy there. Denon amplifiers have a good reputation and should work well with your speaker. I only heard newer Denon models, but not with Tannoys, however all have been uniformly good in the setup in which I heard them.

Sonys, Pioneers and Kenwoods of that era should also work well. Note of caution, whatever amplifier you end up with, make sure that its rated for 4 ohms operation or at least comfortable driving a 4 ohm load as the speaker nominal impedance probably belies the speaker's ease of drive and a wimpy amplifier will do the speaker no favours.

[theaudiohobby]

To Mr Peabody & jrhymeammo:

Actually my budget is quite modest ($250.00).
I can eventually invest some more money (max $500) if in that price range falls a qualitative product (also second hand is fine) that will do for my need.

Out of curiosity I've been searching for used Jolida amps an found the following:
- Jolida JD 1501 (100 watt hybrid) year 2009 for $520.00

With regards to NAD or Cambridge Audio, are there specific models I can look for? How many Watt are actually sufficient?

I couldn't find any result on internet about t185's impedance curve, and I'm not that technical to measure it on my own...
You guys are introducing me into a new world and a new technical language (OTL tube amps?). I find this very interesting and makes my quest for an amp extra exciting.

Thank you for your time and knowledge.



PS:
In the meanwhile I've found an online ads for a used NAD C352 (80 watt per channel).
What do you think about it?
Anyway I would appreciate to hear advices on my previous questions.

Output Transformless Tube amplifiers( OTL) are an interesting choice, however I doubt you will find any of reasonable quality at your price point and IMO most of them require a bit more maintenance than usual

Not familiar with the NADs, is the 352 rated @ 4ohms, 80W is plenty but can the amplifier keep its poise when asked to drive a difficult load? Another decent amplifer brand is Rotel, and most models are rated for 4ohm operation and, there are many used ones floating around at your price point.

[audio2]

Firstly, Congratulations on your new speakers. Choice of amplifier very much depends on the vintage of the speaker in question, word on the street is that most pre-1970s models prefer tubes. However from the 70s onwards, many Tannoy speakers were designed with SS amplification in mind, As the Dorset is a late 70s model, I'll suggest that you experiment with some SS amplifiers before jumping on the tube bandwagon. Tube amplifiers may work, but there is not much quality at the $250 mark, therefore if cash is tight its safer to stay with SS until you have sufficient funds to buy a decent tube amplifier.

audio2 says:
Ok this is clear and makes sense to me.
Question: what does technically mean SS amp?



Sonys, Pioneers and Kenwoods of that era should also work well. Note of caution, whatever amplifier you end up with, make sure that its rated for 4 ohms operation or at least comfortable driving a 4 ohm load as the speaker nominal impedance probably belies the speaker's ease of drive and a wimpy amplifier will do the speaker no favours.

audio2 says:
mmm.... the PMA-900V has this rated output (20Hz - 20kHz): 120W (8 Ω) , 200W (4 Ω).
Is this what you mean with "rated for 4Ω operation or comfortable driving at 4Ω load"?

I'm all ears... :)

cheers

[theaudiohobby]

audio2 says:
Ok this is clear and makes sense to me.
Question: what does technically mean SS amp?

SS means solid state i.e transistor amplifer. The Denon PMA-900V is a solid-state amp.

audio2 says:
mmm.... the PMA-900V has this rated output (20Hz - 20kHz): 120W (8 Ω) , 200W (4 Ω).
Is this what you mean with "rated for 4Ω operation or comfortable driving at 4Ω load"? Yes, that's what I mean :biggrin5:

[audio2]

SS means solid state i.e transistor amplifer. The Denon PMA-900V is a solid-state amp.
Yes, that's what I mean :biggrin5:

Alright, I'm getting there...
I'll keep posted about the coming events...

[theaudiohobby]

Alright, I'm getting there...
I'll keep posted about the coming events...Cheers :thumbsup: , looking forward to reading your future posts. :D

[Mr Peabody]

Unless the 1501 is new $525.00 seems a bit high used. The 352 would be a decent amp I'd have to look up the specs to verify if stable at 4 ohms but I'd assume so. Rotel is a good suggestion as well. In my opinion NAD, Rotel or Jolida would be a step up from any of the receivers mentioned.

[RGA]

I agree with the others - tubes at the lower prices are not generally as good and frankly I would sooner start out with Solid State amplifiers.

Do the denon's have tuners(radios) built in? Many audiophiles like to suggest integrated amps(basically a receiver without the radio) because we feel it is clearer and more of the money went to better parts than spreading the cost too thin and thus cheaping out on the actual amplification parts.

I like all the new Rotel stuff - it's actually quite a lot better than it used to be and it was always pretty good for the money. All their power amps even the cheapest ones are fine with 4 ohms and surprisingly some are good to 2ohms and don't cost a whole pile.

The Rotel RA-02 is my favorite integrated for cheap - it may have been replaced though as it was some time ago. I don't know if it is 4 ohm capable. http://www.superfi.co.uk/index.cfm/page/moreinfo.cfm/Product_ID/1218

Interestingly when I directly compared the Rotel RA-02 versus the NAD 320Bee the former sounded so considerably better it actually surprised me because generally cheap integrateds tend to sound a fair bit the same (enough that I would want a blind session). The 320Bee was quite popular but practically sounded broken next to the Rotel. Now if Rotel could make a great sounding CD player they could really lay the boots to the price class.

If you really want the tuner built in then Denon is probably a fine choice as would be Marantz Yamaha etc. If the tuner isn't needed don't pay for it and go with an integrated. The RA-02 was about $500 new and probably half that now. If you need 4 ohms and it doesn't do it then the RB-1050 power amp is an option.

Other brands to look at - Cambridge Audio, Arcam (probably more expensive). A second hand Sugden, Creek Audio, Rega, Cyrus, Sim Audio, Audio Refinement, might be found in budget as well.

[basite]

Do the denon's have tuners(radios) built in? Many audiophiles like to suggest integrated amps(basically a receiver without the radio) because we feel it is clearer and more of the money went to better parts than spreading the cost too thin and thus cheaping out on the actual amplification parts.

I like all the new Rotel stuff - it's actually quite a lot better than it used to be and it was always pretty good for the money. All their power amps even the cheapest ones are fine with 4 ohms and surprisingly some are good to 2ohms and don't cost a whole pile.

The Rotel RA-02 is my favorite integrated for cheap - it may have been replaced though as it was some time ago. I don't know if it is 4 ohm capable. http://www.superfi.co.uk/index.cfm/page/moreinfo.cfm/Product_ID/1218


If you really want the tuner built in then Denon is probably a fine choice as would be Marantz Yamaha etc. If the tuner isn't needed don't pay for it and go with an integrated. The RA-02 was about $500 new and probably half that now. If you need 4 ohms and it doesn't do it then the RB-1050 power amp is an option..


All the denon's the OP mentioned are PMA's, which is denon's "name" for anything integrated :)
so all the amps are integrated amplifiers.

I'm pretty fond of the Rotel's too, especially in their price class. We have a RA-06 here, driving B&W DM604's (from the previous 600 series), sounds pretty good, for the price especially. They pack quite some power for their size too, although they do get pretty hot.

That said, Rotel would be a good choice with the Tannoy's, but so would the Denon's. look into the 900V or the 1080r, the latter one is "optical class A", probably not true class A, but a class A/B design with a pretty high bias, which is controlled by some chips to get the bias as close to a class A design as possible. Technics did that too a while back, "new class A" I think they called it, they do sound good.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[audio2]

I'm actually not interested in amps with a tuner built in. An easy to use and reliable integrated amp is fine.

I've been checking NAD C352 specifications and it is 4 ohm capable.
Continuous power 80W both at 8 and 4 ohms.
Dynamic power output range: 8Ω/115W, 4Ω/185W and by 2Ω/240W.
(I'm mentioning this technical details for the audio gurus out there, but I have no idea about the difference between continuous and dynamic power...I'll take my time to learn about this stuff)

Newbie question: why is important to verify if the amp is stable at 4 or 2 ohms if my speaker's impedance is 8 ohms?



So, on my quest for an "affordable price/value4money" amp to pair up with Tannoy Dorset T185 I came down to the following [ please don't boo at me, I swear that I've been carefully reading all of your comments :) ]:

Denon PMA-900V
NAD C352

From reviews found here and there they're both rated as good and performing integrated amps with a warm and detailed sound. Denon is a vintage item and I like it (I know someone's quote is "It's a listening test, you do not need to see it to listen to it! ") and as suggested by 'theaudiohobby' the Denon amp was designed in the same era as my Tannoy loudspeaker so there might be some synergy there. At least this sounds logical, although is a presupposition....

On this website the PMA-900V scores higher then NAD (High-performance,Reliability,Ease of use,Value for money), although there are not as many opinions given as for NAD:
http://home-cinema-amplifier.diplo-best.com/review/DENON/PMA-900V
http://home-cinema-amplifier.diplo-best.com/review/NAD/C352

On this other website the NAD C352 is the winner of a test with other SS amps:
http://www.avreview.co.uk/news/article/mps/uan/652


This is it for now, tomorrow I have an appointment to check out a used NAD C352.
...to be continued...

[RGA]

There is nothing wrong with the NAD C352. But these comparisons can be somewhat skewed and it is important not to put all your faith in a review where a product gets 4 out 5 or 9 out of 10 versus something they give 5/5 or 10/10 to.

Here is why. Plenty of products in those tests that don't win are actually preferred for sound quality. I have read enough instances and reading between the lines that the reviewers actually liked the unit that got 4 stars better than the test winner. The 352 sounds a little more like a brute force amplifier - it is - it is more capable of driving tougher loads but it can sound a little pushy while another amp may not have the overall power and drive but it sounds better on subtlety and fine detail - which to me is more important. Also, at the time of this review you posted the Rotel was at the end of its production run - it has now been replaced by a different model. Further, it is not just the amp but how it reacts with the speaker - Ie which amp is a better match for the Tannoy. It may be that the NAD is but I would try and listen to both. A lot NAD dealers here also seem to carry Rotel so maybe in your area they do as well.

The specs don't mean very much. An 80watt amp will provide a 3db gain in volume level over a 40watt amp. 3db is virtually inaudible and only when played at the very extreme volume levels would it be differentiated.

As for your question about 8ohms that is the nominal or average rating. Some speakers can dip down to under 4ohms usually in the bass and or treble. This requires an amp to double it's power (or more than double its power) during passages where content is at those frequencies. Speaker makers usually don't provide the info. Generally though 8ohm speakers rated at 8 ohms won't go below 4ohms so they're pretty easy on amps. But not always. All of those amps will likely be fine with most 87db sensitive 8 ohm speakers. Tannoy is generally pretty benign here as well which makes them desirable for lower powered amps.

[theaudiohobby]

Tannoy is generally pretty benign here as well which makes them desirable for lower powered amps.That statement is not correct, Tannoys are generally sensitive but not necessarily benign loads, an amplifier comfortable driving 4ohms would work best, its also a better quality amplifier.

The specs don't mean very much. An 80watt amp will provide a 3db gain in volume level over a 40watt amp. 3db is virtually inaudible and only when played at the very extreme volume levels would it be differentiatedHmmm....3dB could be all the difference between an amp driven into clipping and one that's not..

I've been checking NAD C352 specifications and it is 4 ohm capable.
Continuous power 80W both at 8 and 4 ohms.
Dynamic power output range: 8Ω/115W, 4Ω/185W and by 2Ω/240W.
(I'm mentioning this technical details for the audio gurus out there, but I have no idea about the difference between continuous and dynamic power...I'll take my time to learn about this stuff)

Newbie question: why is important to verify if the amp is stable at 4 or 2 ohms if my speaker's impedance is 8 ohms?

Continous power - amplifier can deliver the amount of power all day long without suffering any damage.
Dynamic power - amplifier can only deliver this amount of power momentarily

Personally, I would try the vintage Denon before the NAD, I have nothing against the NAD but the Denon has some retro appeal, especially in gold livery. And its been around for a while, which should suggest a certain level of quality.

[audio2]

Dear all,

I'm literally overwhelmed by your knowledge and participation; I'm astonished of such a passionate debate sparked from my post and I really appreciate this.
I feel the need to make this statement, as I've just approached the audiophile world.
I can't say right now if this is going to be my hobby. Let's say for now that I enjoy listening to music when I have the time for it.
The Tannoy speakers I recently bought are the very first serious pair of speakers I ever had in my life!
Their sound has brought a fresh new perspective to my entire music collection, especially with live recordings.
Suddenly it's become very interesting to rediscover my music library and be amazed, or disappointed, by the recording sound quality and reproduction.
That's something I could have never think of before "my Tannoy era" and it has been an unexpected improvement of my audio experience.
Surely (and positively), the way I enjoy listening to music is radically changed.

Said that... unfortunately I don't understand yet this technical language and after reading RGA's comment "Tannoy is generally pretty benign here as well which makes them desirable for lower powered amps" I honestly have to say I began to doubt if my old Pioneer SA-506 with its 25W could have been fine...
(Btw, RGA, I also personally find subtlety and fine detail very important)


I think that keeping it simple is just fine until I'll have a better understanding of technical terms and operation of audio electronic equipment.
Step by step it "sounds" wise and affordable.
Of all the brands mentioned in previous posts, the Denon PMA 900v and the NAD C532 are currently the only (second hand) amps in my targetprice.

For these two amps I've currently found two online deals and they both seems to be in excellent conditions.
Denon PMA 900v (y. 1987) 230USD
NAD c352 (y. ?) 260USD

This afternoon I'll have a listening at the NAD owner's place, next week by the Denon.

The quest goes on...

[RGA]

The simple explanation:

Basically think of a speaker as bucket and the amplifier as a well. The speaker places a demand on the amplifier. If the amplifier and speaker are both 8ohm nominal(average) and the speaker and amp never changed in their demands then everything is fine. We call that an easy load for the amplifier.

However amplifiers and speakers are not just their average. When the impedance of the speaker drops it requires a lot more amplifier power to keep the same volume level

Consider a speaker for example that might be 8ohms in the treble. If in the bass notes the speaker drops to 4ohms, the speaker will now request twice the power from the amplifier to achieve the same volume in the treble. So if in the treble the amplifier is putting out 5 watts and the bass passage comes along the speaker would have to put out 10 watts to hit the same volume level it was doing in the treble. And if the speaker drops to 2 ohms then it would request another doubling of power or 20 watts. for each halving of the ohms requires a doubling of the power. At 1 ohm it would request 40 watts.

So the term a benign load of a speaker rated at 8ohms to me would be a speaker that does not dip below 3ohms. Most amplifiers can get close to doubling their 8ohm rating. It is not completely necessary to get double. For instance if you have a 40 watt amplifier and you are listening to a 90db sensitive speaker at an average 90db (quite loud) then you are using 1 watt of power. If the speaker hits a bass line and drops to 4ohms then the amp will need to use 2 watts to meet the demand.

If however you are playing very loud say at 105db - you would be using 32 watts of your 40 watt amplifier. If in that bass passage it drops to 4 ohms the speaker is requesting double the 32 watts or 64 watts. The amp is only rated for 40 watts. Still if the amp is rated for 70 watts into 4ohms it will still meet the demand even if it can't quite double it's rated output. Further even if the speaker demanded say 75 or 80 watts - In short bursts amps can likely handle this but if it is prolonged the amplifier will go into clipping or distortion and will send a high powered distortion to your speaker which could damage the loudspeaker or the amplifier. (if the speaker dropped to 2ohms it would request 128watts and this would be well beyond the amplifier and it would clip and possibly blow the amplifier's on board fuse and shut off to protect the amp and your speakers).

As you can see if you play very very loud and the speaker dips down a lot in ohms (impedance) then you can see why people tend to like higher power amplifiers with not so easy to drive speakers.

Plus many makers play with the numbers - some amps may produce 100 watts at 1khz but not necessarily anything remotely close at other frequencies.

Some of the better amps actually don't double into lower frequencies. The Sugden A21a at 20 watts into 8ohms only muster about 11 watts at 4ohms. So it's a double whammy. When the speaker dips to 4ohms and wants twice the power the Sugden not only can't double the power it actually halves it's power. This is why it is a bit of an idiosyncratic amplifier and won't just work with any loudspeaker. SET amps typically do this and it is a major drawback when partnering with loudspeakers - they have to be relatively sensitive but more importantly the impedance has to not drop much (hence benign or stable impedance).

Why you might ask would someone want an A21a if it can't double it's rated output - because many people feel that the sound quality of the single ended class A (no feedback) sounds very much superior to the high current (double it's power) push pull amplifier designs.

Benefits

* Simplicity. An audio amplifier cannot be much simpler than a Class A single-ended.
* Overall low harmonic distortion with small signals. By nature Class A amplifiers do not suffer from crossover distortion.
* Small roaming of anode bias current does not do anything catastrophic.

Drawbacks

* Low efficiency. All Class A amplifiers consume power regardless of the signal amplitude.
* Second harmonic distortion at high signal level is a normal feature of single-ended amplifiers.
* Compared to the amplifier's low power the output transformer is heavy and expensive.

So when buying an amplifier you have to generally know the kind of speaker and at what level you intend to play. At low to moderate levels I have found that lowish powered Single ended amps have sound superior even with tough speaker loads and lowish sensitivity. However at louder levels these amps are not going to cut it. So do you listen louder more often or medium low levels more often.

With highish high and very high sensitive speakers that present an easy load they can be very comfortable with 2-30 watt amps depending. IME I have found lower watt amps tend to sound better and the systems using them have generally sounded better to me as well. But it also tends to cost more.

Some speaker makers do not provide the minimum impedance so generally it is safer to go with their minimum recommended power rating which kind of gives you a clue as to what will be powerful enough to still play loud. Both of my speakers can play to deafening levels with my 10 watt amp and I never get past the halfway point on either with very tightly controlled bass.

[audio2]

The simple explanation:

Basically think of a speaker as bucket and the amplifier as a well. The speaker places a demand on the amplifier. If the amplifier and speaker are both 8ohm nominal(average) and the speaker and amp never changed in their demands then everything is fine. We call that an easy load for the amplifier.

However amplifiers and speakers are not just their average. When the impedance of the speaker drops it requires a lot more amplifier power to keep the same volume level

Consider a speaker for example that might be 8ohms in the treble. If in the bass notes the speaker drops to 4ohms, the speaker will now request twice the power from the amplifier to achieve the same volume in the treble. So if in the treble the amplifier is putting out 5 watts and the bass passage comes along the speaker would have to put out 10 watts to hit the same volume level it was doing in the treble. And if the speaker drops to 2 ohms then it would request another doubling of power or 20 watts. for each halving of the ohms requires a doubling of the power. At 1 ohm it would request 40 watts.

So the term a benign load of a speaker rated at 8ohms to me would be a speaker that does not dip below 3ohms. Most amplifiers can get close to doubling their 8ohm rating. It is not completely necessary to get double. For instance if you have a 40 watt amplifier and you are listening to a 90db sensitive speaker at an average 90db (quite loud) then you are using 1 watt of power. If the speaker hits a bass line and drops to 4ohms then the amp will need to use 2 watts to meet the demand.

If however you are playing very loud say at 105db - you would be using 32 watts of your 40 watt amplifier. If in that bass passage it drops to 4 ohms the speaker is requesting double the 32 watts or 64 watts. The amp is only rated for 40 watts. Still if the amp is rated for 70 watts into 4ohms it will still meet the demand even if it can't quite double it's rated output. Further even if the speaker demanded say 75 or 80 watts - In short bursts amps can likely handle this but if it is prolonged the amplifier will go into clipping or distortion and will send a high powered distortion to your speaker which could damage the loudspeaker or the amplifier. (if the speaker dropped to 2ohms it would request 128watts and this would be well beyond the amplifier and it would clip and possibly blow the amplifier's on board fuse and shut off to protect the amp and your speakers).

As you can see if you play very very loud and the speaker dips down a lot in ohms (impedance) then you can see why people tend to like higher power amplifiers with not so easy to drive speakers.

Plus many makers play with the numbers - some amps may produce 100 watts at 1khz but not necessarily anything remotely close at other frequencies.

Some of the better amps actually don't double into lower frequencies. The Sugden A21a at 20 watts into 8ohms only muster about 11 watts at 4ohms. So it's a double whammy. When the speaker dips to 4ohms and wants twice the power the Sugden not only can't double the power it actually halves it's power. This is why it is a bit of an idiosyncratic amplifier and won't just work with any loudspeaker. SET amps typically do this and it is a major drawback when partnering with loudspeakers - they have to be relatively sensitive but more importantly the impedance has to not drop much (hence benign or stable impedance).

Why you might ask would someone want an A21a if it can't double it's rated output - because many people feel that the sound quality of the single ended class A (no feedback) sounds very much superior to the high current (double it's power) push pull amplifier designs.

Benefits

* Simplicity. An audio amplifier cannot be much simpler than a Class A single-ended.
* Overall low harmonic distortion with small signals. By nature Class A amplifiers do not suffer from crossover distortion.
* Small roaming of anode bias current does not do anything catastrophic.

Drawbacks

* Low efficiency. All Class A amplifiers consume power regardless of the signal amplitude.
* Second harmonic distortion at high signal level is a normal feature of single-ended amplifiers.
* Compared to the amplifier's low power the output transformer is heavy and expensive.

So when buying an amplifier you have to generally know the kind of speaker and at what level you intend to play. At low to moderate levels I have found that lowish powered Single ended amps have sound superior even with tough speaker loads and lowish sensitivity. However at louder levels these amps are not going to cut it. So do you listen louder more often or medium low levels more often.

With highish high and very high sensitive speakers that present an easy load they can be very comfortable with 2-30 watt amps depending. IME I have found lower watt amps tend to sound better and the systems using them have generally sounded better to me as well. But it also tends to cost more.

Some speaker makers do not provide the minimum impedance so generally it is safer to go with their minimum recommended power rating which kind of gives you a clue as to what will be powerful enough to still play loud. Both of my speakers can play to deafening levels with my 10 watt amp and I never get past the halfway point on either with very tightly controlled bass.

Thank you RGA, I'm gonna spend some time to digest all of this but I hear you.
I've been checking out for used (this my only way to try to get some good stuff, new is out of my wallet right now) Rega, Arcam and Rotel amps.
I'll be back with a report of my "hunting", now I must really go to sleep...
I must admit that I've been underestimating the importance of time/know how. I couldn't imagine at the beginning of my quest that I would have gone this far.
Too much hast on my quest, I think...typical me...
Thing is I got very enthusiastic about this vintage Denon and convinced myself that is a good occasion (or maybe it is, for what it is).
However I'm glad I'm learning something (a lot) here.

PS - I've been listening to the NAD today, but I can't say I've been touched. How is it possible to judge when the audio set up is completely different from the one I have at home...it's not realistic.

[audio2]

I'm reading this thread over and over and although not all the technical/operational concepts are 100% clear to me, at last/least the picture is finally getting sharp (....eureka!...).
I now understand why a low powered amp would be more suitable to my speakers.
Thank you.(!)


I've found for an affordable price the following products. Can I have your opinion about them?
Rega Brio
Rotel RA-930bx

Are they more or less equivalent or maybe at this point should I wait until I find a good deal for a Rotel RA-02?

With much appreciation

[Ajani]

Just to add my 2 cents to the discussion:

I owned the NAD C352... It certainly has loads of power (NAD and Rotel are notorious for understating their actual output power)... Also you would be in no danger of it making anything sound harsh...

My complaint with the 352 is that despite all the great reviews (which is why I bought it back in the day) I found it to be utterly boring... If you have wild speakers then it might be a good choice to tame them, but otherwise I'd look for something else (Rotel would be my choice in that price range)...

Note: by" wild" I mean excessively bright and lively...

[audio2]

Hallo hallo

On behalf of the extensive explanations I received to my initial question, I've spent some time looking around for an amp suitable with Tannoy T185 speakers.
I've almost made up my mind and I'm currently interested in one of the following amps:

Rega Brio (first serie, year 2000)
Rotel RA-04 SE (can't easily find a used RA-02; btw, does anyone know why a new RA-02 is more expensive then a new RA-04?)

I would appreciate to hear suggestions/comments before going for it.
I promise I will post a genuine review soon after I will have tested the "new" amp (hopefully a musically happy match:21: ....)

I just think it's appropriated and considerate after all this brainstorming. :wink5:

Seriously thank you

[audio2]

Hi all,

finally about two months ago I came across a good occasion and bought a Rotel Ra 04.
Since then I haven't spent much time on long and extensive audio sessions. I mostly played it when I had time as background music.
Anyway here is my first impression:

My previous amp was a Pioneer SA-506 from the 70s (25W) which at low playing level could reproduce a warm sound and full bass.
With the Rotel RA 04(40W) I miss this warmth when playing at low level but as I turn the volume up the power and potential of the audio system come out as a whole.
It's like giving gas on a fast car and enjoying being push into the seat, that's the feeling (just to make a very expressive comparison!).
I'm happy with this match (Rotel + Tannoy) and I especially I enjoy it with live recordings.
Of course the quality of recordings are now playing an important role and this system puts a strong accent on it.
The room where the audio system is installed it's not very big (approx. 14 square meter) but it doesn't seem to be problematic at higher levels, although I play more often at low/medium levels (I would also like to play louder but I'm considerate to my neighbors).
I'm now very curios to find out how it would sound a Sugden amp, maybe that's where I will move next, but I will take some time to enjoy and test the Rotel properly.


At last I would like to quote RGA's comment again as I find it an important consideration one should think about it before/when choosing components for an audio system:

So when buying an amplifier you have to generally know the kind of speaker and at what level you intend to play. At low to moderate levels I have found that lowish powered Single ended amps have sound superior even with tough speaker loads and lowish sensitivity. However at louder levels these amps are not going to cut it. So do you listen louder more often or medium low levels more often.

With highish high and very high sensitive speakers that present an easy load they can be very comfortable with 2-30 watt amps depending. IME I have found lower watt amps tend to sound better and the systems using them have generally sounded better to me as well. But it also tends to cost more.

Some speaker makers do not provide the minimum impedance so generally it is safer to go with their minimum recommended power rating which kind of gives you a clue as to what will be powerful enough to still play loud. Both of my speakers can play to deafening levels with my 10 watt amp and I never get past the halfway point on either with very tightly controlled bass.



Thank you and happy listening,

audio2

[Feanor]

Often overlooked by people with speakers of good efficiency are Tripath, "Class T", amps. They typically offer very clean sound with moderate power, and compact size -- and compact price. Personally I'd tend to prefer them over low powered NADs, Rotels, Adcoms, etc.

Here is an example from Parts Express, a Dayton Audio DTA-100a, HERE (http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=300-383) ...

http://www.parts-express.com/images/item_standard_xtra/300-383_sii.jpghttp://www.parts-express.com/images/item_standard_xtra/300-383_si.jpg

[Poultrygeist]

I too prefer the T-amp sound over the NADs, Rotels and Adcoms of the world. Amazing little boogers they are indeed.

If they cost more, weighed a ton and came in a big chassis perhaps they'd be more popular.

[blackraven]

Here are a few used amps to consider-

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?intatran&1307646793&/Sansui-AU-717

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?intatran&1305919006&/Cambridge-Audio-Azur-640A-V2

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?intatran&1306112795&/Denon-PMA-2000R

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?intatran&1307746679&/Yamaha-A-S700

I also agree with the dayton amp.

[RGA]

Hi all,

finally about two months ago I came across a good occasion and bought a Rotel Ra 04.
Since then I haven't spent much time on long and extensive audio sessions. I mostly played it when I had time as background music.
Anyway here is my first impression:

My previous amp was a Pioneer SA-506 from the 70s (25W) which at low playing level could reproduce a warm sound and full bass.
With the Rotel RA 04(40W) I miss this warmth when playing at low level but as I turn the volume up the power and potential of the audio system come out as a whole.
It's like giving gas on a fast car and enjoying being push into the seat, that's the feeling (just to make a very expressive comparison!).
I'm happy with this match (Rotel + Tannoy) and I especially I enjoy it with live recordings.
Of course the quality of recordings are now playing an important role and this system puts a strong accent on it.
The room where the audio system is installed it's not very big (approx. 14 square meter) but it doesn't seem to be problematic at higher levels, although I play more often at low/medium levels (I would also like to play louder but I'm considerate to my neighbors).
I'm now very curios to find out how it would sound a Sugden amp, maybe that's where I will move next, but I will take some time to enjoy and test the Rotel properly.



What may be happening to you here is that the Rotel likes it better when played louder. Something i generally don't like about most SS amps is that you have to choose between the sluggish dead sounding amps that present some bass depth and warmth but lack clarity and don't do well at louder levels, or the amps like Rotel that sound thin and two dimensional at low levels "lack bass depth" and "drive" but sound clear and quite good at high levels. Although I like Rotel because it has these same problems that the likes of Bryston and Krell have at many times the price - ie I would nto spend much more than what Rotel is doing for a fraction of the price.

Sugden doesn't have any frequency limiter - this is why I liked the Sugden A48b so much because for $350 used (they rarely come up though) you get a class A/B amp with real bass depth and drive - far superior in direct comparison to a $3000 Musical Fidelity integrated with a 150 watts per channel. The MF sounds more open and bigger in terms of staging which I suppose some might like better on big orchestral works and who care about big staging. But on the finer points of intrument tone vocals and all smaller scale musci to me it is no comparison - and this on tougher to drive Paradigm 100V2 speakers. Had it been higher sentive the Sugden probably would have handled the bigger scale music better so the MF advantage would then have likely disappeared. And this was a Sugden amp that wasn't tuned up in ages was heavily used and rather battered. The A21a takes it up a whole other level.

The Sugden A48b though sounds better than my Rotel RC 1082 preamp and RB 1050 power amp in the same general way as the MF. It is a matter of what kind of sound you prefer. It's not that my Rotel combo sounds bad - it just has a certain take on the presentation that some will view as accurate. But the Sugden sounds better when listening to music and maybe the Rotel sounds better when reading the measured response. I prefer to listen to music than read the measured response. And the OTO sounds better than both of them - incomparably better, but sounds incomparably worse when reading the measured response. Funny how there is an inverse relationship - the better it measures the worse it sounds - the worse it measures the better it will likely sound. Confused yet.

What you want is the full range sound the speaker is capable of with the appropriate amount of bass depth and drive and warmth(when it is on the recording) without the amp to sound thin(bass shy zero warmth) across all recordings. A sound that is "thick" and "warm" is arguably more preferable than bright and thin but this too can be irritating in the long haul because it can lack clarity. Rotel to me still sounds lean but it isn't bright and etchy sounding so it's better than the average in the budget range - which is why I bought them. I get a healthy Solid State system with a damping factor of 500 and it manages to keep the edge off. I have this system to remind me of typical Solid State sound and the preamp is above average for the price range of what Solid State amps are capable of - and it is feature rich making it a good review preamp. Interestingly I like it better than an ARC tube preamp and more than Bryston's preamp that cost more (because of the paid for warranty).

System matching is also important because a bass weight strong amp could go too far with thicker bass weight speakers while the thinner leaner sound might make an old Cerwin Vega with too much bass sound better than if I matched my OTO or a Sugden A48b up to it.

I still maintain a good tube amp will be better on the Tannoys. SO long as the tube amp has 4ohm taps and most good ones do then that is probably where I would go down the line. SETs or SEPs are the easiest to own since you don't have to do any work with voltmeters and calibration. Just change the tubes like you would change a lightbulb.

[Mr Peabody]

RGA, your comments on Krell & Bryston are just not true. My Krell amps have been excellent with bass punch and detail at lower volumes, and if you knew anything you'd realize you couldn't have the amount of current Krell produces and not have excellent bass at any level. I also find your statement false with my Bryston 3bst. Rotel is a good value in it's range but nothing they make for power is in the Bryston or Krell league.

[RGA]

Mr. Peabody

I have heard most of the amps from Bryston since 1990 and I have heard top of the line Krell. I am hardly alone on not liking either one of them. But then I don't like most SS amps.

The statement is certainly true based on what I have heard.

I have yet to hear a system that I liked enough to want to buy with either Krell or Bryston attached. Even tough to drive speakers have sounded better with less expensive less powerful amplifiers (not just tube but certain SS amplifiers as well).

You may not like the opinion which is fair enough but I have heard them enough to know, with high end speakers to make the comparisons. Having "slam" isn't really what I am talking about. For a home theater I might like Krell or Bryston - for music playback - no thanks.

[Mr Peabody]

RGA, you are welcome not to like Krell but that's not exactly all you said, to say Krell doesn't do bass is like saying the sun isn't bright. It really takes away from your credibility when you make such outlandish comments. And, "better" is subjective, you must like thick undefined bass but that's not what Krell is about. Krell is about control, strict control, that hits hard.

[RGA]

RGA, you are welcome not to like Krell but that's not exactly all you said, to say Krell doesn't do bass is like saying the sun isn't bright. It really takes away from your credibility when you make such outlandish comments. And, "better" is subjective, you must like thick undefined bass but that's not what Krell is about. Krell is about control, strict control, that hits hard.

Yes and the same sentence will be used with Bryston - strict control that hits hard. That's hogwash IME as is your idiotic assumption that the opposite is thick undefined bass. No I prefer amplifiers that have control and hits hard and actually has depth and warmth when the recording calls for it. Bryston makes virtually all bass sound exactly the same way all the time regardless of recording. Krell's best is better but the costs often dwarf Bryston. Neither sound natural.

While it is true tubes and SETS lose the ability to control numerous loudspeakers (that a Bryston or Krell would not lose control of) and bass would be lumpy these are generally speakers that I don't consider to be all that great to start with.

The fact that SETs and lower powered amps control competently designed good sounding loudspeakers and can't control a bunch of crummy loudspeakers isn't exactly something the SET guy is going to sweat over. If the speakers can't be driven to very loud levels with excellent bass and extended treble - chances are it's not a very good loudspeaker. And the very few odd exceptions where the speaker is good - it has to be powered with those inferior amps which then make the otherwise good speaker sound worse.

I have heard Bryston and Krell on a lot of speakers and in every case a tube amp with the same speakers has sounded better - even on hard to drive stuff like Dynaudio Contours, Martin Logans, PMCs, Magnepans, Wilsons. Bass isn't even the primary area of concern. I could probably live with the SS slam take on bass - its the midrange and treble that is the complete disaster area.

But yeah I get it - I was there way back salivating over Bryston, YBA monoblocks, Classe and a few others.

Frankly it is nuts IMO to own a speaker that would need more power than a Rotel RB-1090 Even a speaker that would need HALF of what the RB 1090 can dish out is odd to me. Now perhaps I value my hearing more than some but if one is playing to those levels requiring that kind of level then it's not about hi-fi or audiophile quality sound - it's about boom boom - and if you want that buy a car stereo - you can blow your ear drums for a lot less money. But don't pretend it's about quality anymore - it's just volume. Thanks but I am more about quality - quality that will rattle the walls but no it won't crack the plaster.

What does Rotel need to do? "the big Rotel doesn't need help in that respect: with the toneburst and one channel driven it delivers 527W into 8 ohms and a whopping 2825W into 1 ohm!"

http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/100rotel/

[Feanor]

Yes and the same sentence will be used with Bryston - strict control that hits hard. That's hogwash IME as is your idiotic assumption that the opposite is thick undefined bass. No I prefer amplifiers that have control and hits hard and actually has depth and warmth when the recording calls for it. Bryston makes virtually all bass sound exactly the same way all the time regardless of recording. Krell's best is better but the costs often dwarf Bryston. Neither sound natural.
...
I don't doubted your ears, RGA. That is, I believe you describe is what the component sounds like. I mean usually -- you do far too many evaluations based on weird equipment combinations heard in lousy hotel rooms, (as do so many reviewers).

The problem is, I believe, that you have a highly subjective version of what music ought to sound like; not unusual for reviewers. This is most probably not accurate sound where I define accurate sound to be what the engineer heard from proof copy on the distribution medium.

Possibly you believe that you like what sounds like "live music". What does "live music" sound like? Like no one thing, that's for sure. Live sound is highly dependant on venue and the listener's location in the venue, and also on the instruments and performance. Personally I think many people create in their heads an idealized version of "live music" that isn't really a typical live sound.

[Ajani]

What may be happening to you here is that the Rotel likes it better when played louder.

That was my experience with Rotel. It sounded fine at lower volumes but really came alive when you cranked the volume... I've also seen that characteristic mentioned in several Rotel reviews (since I owned mine). So as long as you have freedom to turn up the volume a bit, I can easily recommend Rotel.

[Ajani]

The fact that SETs and lower powered amps control competently designed good sounding loudspeakers and can't control a bunch of crummy loudspeakers isn't exactly something the SET guy is going to sweat over. If the speakers can't be driven to very loud levels with excellent bass and extended treble - chances are it's not a very good loudspeaker. And the very few odd exceptions where the speaker is good - it has to be powered with those inferior amps which then make the otherwise good speaker sound worse.

1) What is a "competently designed" loudspeaker? The ability to achieve high volume levels with only 3 watts of power, is not what many (possibly even most) audiophiles / engineers would consider to be proof of competent design.

2) "good sounding" & "crummy loudspeakers" depends solely on who you ask... So while you think that Audio Note speakers sound good while Revel are crummy, many others make the opposite assessment. So the point is that arguing about whether a SET/HE combo sounds better than a Megawatt SS/LE Combo is silly and pointless.

[RGA]

1) What is a "competently designed" loudspeaker? The ability to achieve high volume levels with only 3 watts of power, is not what many (possibly even most) audiophiles / engineers would consider to be proof of competent design.

2) "good sounding" & "crummy loudspeakers" depends solely on who you ask... So while you think that Audio Note speakers sound good while Revel are crummy, many others make the opposite assessment. So the point is that arguing about whether a SET/HE combo sounds better than a Megawatt SS/LE Combo is silly and pointless.

HE is a good start because it generally creates an out of the box sound. One of the reasons I was SOOOOO impressed by the first electrostats I auditioned was that they don't sound like an echo chamber. One of the big and often cited reasons panel guys are panel guys is they don't like the sound of the box.

In general, the only speakers that get that degree of "no box" sound even though they have a box are higher efficiency speakers - which is why such a stupifying number of panel guys buy Audio Note E's. This is not rocket science. For a panel guy who owns panels for 20+ years to dump their panels for a boxed speaker they are ONLY going to do that if the boxed speaker equals or at least gets as close to an unboxy presentation as is humanly possible. Do that and several helpings of bass and retain the cohesion and you've got something. That's why I liked them so much when I first heard them and still do - and reading other reviews of even the cheap AZ Two floorstander and the reviewer said they reminded him so much of - drum roll...... ""Quad"" Not bad for a $1k speaker.

Since that time I have had more opportunities to hear other very good speakers that do similar things - like Trenner and Freidl, Acapella, Silbatone. None are super HE but they are high enough to escape sounding like they're in a box. Interestingly they also manage to escape their box resonances as well. A HE speaker can get away from the foibles of their box. Revel ALWAYS sounds like drivers in a box and a loudspeaker reproducing music. They may be great hi-fi in the measurements section but they don't sound natural and they don't escape the box. A writer on our staff owned Revel and switched to the AN E. I don't know anyone that likes those kinds of speakers over the AN E. And the only blind test that has had an AN E in it (twice) won both times against such speakers. The AN J won its only test group test as well.

This does not mean that someone still would not choose a panel over the AN E or other very good speaker - I just don't think the field is filled with really great speakers. But certainly I could see someone taking a good panel like a Soundlabs, King Sound, over an AN. But I am still betting that to beat it it's going to require a great tube amp - as both of those companies brought tube amps to demonstrate.

The issue here is not so much the speakers but the amps. Even Magnepan - I got great results with a robust but not big watt tube amp and disastrous results with a big SS beast. That's a good sign for the speakers - but frustrating because big power tube amps tend to not be as good as low powered ones either and the costs to keep the quality is very high. Maybe something like the Shengya amps I reviewed could be a killer combination because it has 300 watts into 4ohms. And the price is something like $1600 for the pair - and their built about as good as amps get built.

[Mr Peabody]

RGA, you are out of touch with reality. I don't understand how any one as yourself who lives in such a tiny bubble with such narrow views ever became a reviewer. According to you any one whose any one has SET and AN speakers. The fact is, those of you who buy into SET are the minority. You can make all the excuses in the world for why that is but if SET and AN speakers were that great surely more of us would recognize it. I have to admit I am not a frequent reader of audio rags but when I, have, read them I can't ever remember the reference system being SET or AN.

[Ajani]

HE is a good start because it generally creates an out of the box sound. One of the reasons I was SOOOOO impressed by the first electrostats I auditioned was that they don't sound like an echo chamber. One of the big and often cited reasons panel guys are panel guys is they don't like the sound of the box.

In general, the only speakers that get that degree of "no box" sound even though they have a box are higher efficiency speakers - which is why such a stupifying number of panel guys buy Audio Note E's. This is not rocket science. For a panel guy who owns panels for 20+ years to dump their panels for a boxed speaker they are ONLY going to do that if the boxed speaker equals or at least gets as close to an unboxy presentation as is humanly possible. Do that and several helpings of bass and retain the cohesion and you've got something. That's why I liked them so much when I first heard them and still do - and reading other reviews of even the cheap AZ Two floorstander and the reviewer said they reminded him so much of - drum roll...... ""Quad"" Not bad for a $1k speaker.

Since that time I have had more opportunities to hear other very good speakers that do similar things - like Trenner and Freidl, Acapella, Silbatone. None are super HE but they are high enough to escape sounding like they're in a box. Interestingly they also manage to escape their box resonances as well. A HE speaker can get away from the foibles of their box. Revel ALWAYS sounds like drivers in a box and a loudspeaker reproducing music. They may be great hi-fi in the measurements section but they don't sound natural and they don't escape the box. A writer on our staff owned Revel and switched to the AN E. I don't know anyone that likes those kinds of speakers over the AN E. And the only blind test that has had an AN E in it (twice) won both times against such speakers. The AN J won its only test group test as well.

This does not mean that someone still would not choose a panel over the AN E or other very good speaker - I just don't think the field is filled with really great speakers. But certainly I could see someone taking a good panel like a Soundlabs, King Sound, over an AN. But I am still betting that to beat it it's going to require a great tube amp - as both of those companies brought tube amps to demonstrate.

The issue here is not so much the speakers but the amps. Even Magnepan - I got great results with a robust but not big watt tube amp and disastrous results with a big SS beast. That's a good sign for the speakers - but frustrating because big power tube amps tend to not be as good as low powered ones either and the costs to keep the quality is very high. Maybe something like the Shengya amps I reviewed could be a killer combination because it has 300 watts into 4ohms. And the price is something like $1600 for the pair - and their built about as good as amps get built.

1) I don't doubt that HE may sound more like Planars than other boxed speakers...

2) So what? Many audiophile don't like the sound of "box-free" speakers...

3) Saying that Revel sounds better in a lab is merely an opinion. Even if every planar/HE fan thinks that way, doesn't make it a fact... Revel fans actually like the sound and prefer it to planars/HE... Same thing with Krell versus Audio Note...

You need to realize that just because you are in a small category of audiophiles who love a specific type of sound, doesn't mean that everyone else has similar/the same tastes...

[Feanor]

RGA, you are out of touch with reality. I don't understand how any one as yourself who lives in such a tiny bubble with such narrow views ever became a reviewer. According to you any one whose any one has SET and AN speakers. The fact is, those of you who buy into SET are the minority. You can make all the excuses in the world for why that is but if SET and AN speakers were that great surely more of us would recognize it. I have to admit I am not a frequent reader of audio rags but when I, have, read them I can't ever remember the reference system being SET or AN.
RGA has found true religion in SET/HE. :21: Poultrygeist and, one suspects, Tube Fan are other devotees.

[Ajani]

RGA has found true religion in SET/HE. :21: Poultrygeist and, one suspects, Tube Fan are other devotees.

Religion really is the correct word to describe a lot of audiophile attitudes... Once they've found a path they like, everything else sounds like rubbish and they can't imagine that anyone else could prefer a different path.... So they have to convert the unenlightened... I can just imagine someone knocking on my gate and asking if I've accepted SET/HE as my path to salvation...

[RGA]

The difference is I have heard most of the products in these discussions and on these forums and in "almost" every case the people who get defensive are the ones who have never heard an Audio Note system, never heard the speakers, and when they do hear it is some entry level product connected to a system it wasn't intended for - like to a SS based system.

Mr.P in virtually every room of note at CES - the associated equipment brought by the speaker manufacturers was a tube amp - well over half the room probably closer to 80% were tube based. And that's not counting some big tube makes who were on static display.

I look at percentages when I start evaluating what "might" be the truly great stuff when I don't have my reviewer hat on.

What I would do and I have done it, is I say right probably 99%+ of all amplifiers sold are SS amplifiers. The Majority of those - 95% of that 99% are receivers - that puts all people who buy amplifiers without a built in tuner or surround decoder in the "minority" - so by your reasoning because you and Feaner and Ajani and I did not buy one of those we must all be "wrong" because we're in the minority. Just because the majority is ignorant does not mean we're wrong. McDonald's sells the most burgers and Bose sells the most speakers - and just because most do something doesn't mean they're right.

Now if you understand that paragraph then please stop with this silly notion of what the majority rules mantra. The fact is that most dealers carry SS gear and don't carry any tube gear - that has nothing to do with sound quality but in most cases servicing. Tubes require dealers to do work and know something about audio - and it takes time to show people how to bias the tubes. Further it's a hard sell to the average Joe who is blinded by more numbers equals better like the folks who assume that a camera with 12mega pixels is better than a 6 mega pixel camera simply because of that one number without considering the quality of the bloody lens.

I say percentages. I look over several review sites and I see that tube amps are owned at a very high percentage relative to good SS amplifiers then it is pretty telling as on average reviewers tend to be more experienced than the average audiophile and has likely heard enough differing technology to be credible. In other words they've not just heard a SET amp - they have heard a couple of the best makers of SET amplifiers - Audio Note SET would count as one of the best SET makers - Wyatech Labs, Shindo and a few others.

Audio Note is just one company in a sea of tube makers and HE speakers and they alone are part of reference systems at virtually every major magazine - and that's just ONE company that has a whopping percentage relative to SS sales. Two reviewers off hand at 6Moons own AN amps, at least one owns speakers. Dagogo has three AN speaker owners, 3 amplifier owners. Stereophile has 2 owners of AN speakers, one amp and a third reviewer hail a system as the best he's ever heard - SET/HE and he's not a tube guy. Hi-FI CHoice uses the AN E as their reference loudspeaker and their editor hailed it as one of the five best speakers ever made. That editor now works at Hi-fi Critic. At least one reviewer at Soundstage (the measuring happy magazine) owns the AN E - pretty sure they have a second. Positive Feedback has one who owns the speakers and pretty sure there is a second with an amp. Enjoythemusic has 3 reviewers who own amplifiers 2 own speakers including the editor.

That's one company making SET and HE speakers. This doesn't even get into the likes of Cary, Wavelength, Shindo etc. Then factor in the reviewers who own some kind of tube amp (not just SET) and you could probably create a massive list just with ARC owners and get into Manley, McIntosh, CJ, Jadis, Antique Sound Labs, LAMM and numerous others.

It's nice to throw words like religion out there - but really it comes down to Listening to a hundred system A stereos where system A is some kind of tall slim floorstanding speaker with two to four 6 inch woofers and some sort of metal tweeter at the top (or on top as the case may be) with typical complex crossovers in usually some sort of MDF cabinet and more or less getting the same sort of sound over and over and needing a big power amp to get a semblance of control and then getting that it still just sounds blah.

Then some of the makers every 2-5 years will come out with some new model variant making some subtle change (not always for the better) like a new metal tweeter or they may change the materials to something more salable like - "ooh Kevlar it's bullet proof" and then add other exotic materials. Or they will change their metal tweeter and put in a ribbon tweeter - because that's the new in thing.

You might stop to consider that when a company sells a speaker for 20 solid years and puts out a 2 way butt ugly rectangle box with a freaking silk dome woofer and paper or hemp(which is not exotic) and charges $7,600 or $50k+ that it might just have something going for it since not everyone with money is retarded. They don't sell on looks, they don't exactly sell on technobabble or exotic drivers. And the higher level parts they do use - you can't even see. Hell they don't even have ferro-fluid cooling or a long warranty to impress like some. This somewhat also applies to their amps which have long runs unchanged and nothing to look at for sometimes stupifying sums. And yes there is real competition out there but it sure as hell doesn't come from the likes of Revel IMO. Note the IMO - But at least I've heard both. Come back when any of you have bothered. Go listen to an $7600 AN E/SPe HE ($500 stands) directly compared to a $10,000 Revel GEM2 standmount with $1400 matching stands with say a simple jazz band using a stand up bass. LMAO - you do this and come back to me. Revel - :rolleyes5:

[Ajani]

The difference is I have heard most of the products in these discussions and on these forums and in "almost" every case the people who get defensive are the ones who have never heard an Audio Note system, never heard the speakers, and when they do hear it is some entry level product connected to a system it wasn't intended for - like to a SS based system.

Mr.P in virtually every room of note at CES - the associated equipment brought by the speaker manufacturers was a tube amp - well over half the room probably closer to 80% were tube based. And that's not counting some big tube makes who were on static display.

I look at percentages when I start evaluating what "might" be the truly great stuff when I don't have my reviewer hat on.

What I would do and I have done it, is I say right probably 99%+ of all amplifiers sold are SS amplifiers. The Majority of those - 95% of that 99% are receivers - that puts all people who buy amplifiers without a built in tuner or surround decoder in the "minority" - so by your reasoning because you and Feaner and Ajani and I did not buy one of those we must all be "wrong" because we're in the minority. Just because the majority is ignorant does not mean we're wrong. McDonald's sells the most burgers and Bose sells the most speakers - and just because most do something doesn't mean they're right.

Now if you understand that paragraph then please stop with this silly notion of what the majority rules mantra. The fact is that most dealers carry SS gear and don't carry any tube gear - that has nothing to do with sound quality but in most cases servicing. Tubes require dealers to do work and know something about audio - and it takes time to show people how to bias the tubes. Further it's a hard sell to the average Joe who is blinded by more numbers equals better like the folks who assume that a camera with 12mega pixels is better than a 6 mega pixel camera simply because of that one number without considering the quality of the bloody lens.

I say percentages. I look over several review sites and I see that tube amps are owned at a very high percentage relative to good SS amplifiers then it is pretty telling as on average reviewers tend to be more experienced than the average audiophile and has likely heard enough differing technology to be credible. In other words they've not just heard a SET amp - they have heard a couple of the best makers of SET amplifiers - Audio Note SET would count as one of the best SET makers - Wyatech Labs, Shindo and a few others.

Audio Note is just one company in a sea of tube makers and HE speakers and they alone are part of reference systems at virtually every major magazine - and that's just ONE company that has a whopping percentage relative to SS sales. Two reviewers off hand at 6Moons own AN amps, at least one owns speakers. Dagogo has three AN speaker owners, 3 amplifier owners. Stereophile has 2 owners of AN speakers, one amp and a third reviewer hail a system as the best he's ever heard - SET/HE and he's not a tube guy. Hi-FI CHoice uses the AN E as their reference loudspeaker and their editor hailed it as one of the five best speakers ever made. That editor now works at Hi-fi Critic. At least one reviewer at Soundstage (the measuring happy magazine) owns the AN E - pretty sure they have a second. Positive Feedback has one who owns the speakers and pretty sure there is a second with an amp. Enjoythemusic has 3 reviewers who own amplifiers 2 own speakers including the editor.

That's one company making SET and HE speakers. This doesn't even get into the likes of Cary, Wavelength, Shindo etc. Then factor in the reviewers who own some kind of tube amp (not just SET) and you could probably create a massive list just with ARC owners and get into Manley, McIntosh, CJ, Jadis, Antique Sound Labs, LAMM and numerous others.

It's nice to throw words like religion out there - but really it comes down to Listening to a hundred system A stereos where system A is some kind of tall slim floorstanding speaker with two to four 6 inch woofers and some sort of metal tweeter at the top (or on top as the case may be) with typical complex crossovers in usually some sort of MDF cabinet and more or less getting the same sort of sound over and over and needing a big power amp to get a semblance of control and then getting that it still just sounds blah.

Then some of the makers every 2-5 years will come out with some new model variant making some subtle change (not always for the better) like a new metal tweeter or they may change the materials to something more salable like - "ooh Kevlar it's bullet proof" and then add other exotic materials. Or they will change their metal tweeter and put in a ribbon tweeter - because that's the new in thing.

You might stop to consider that when a company sells a speaker for 20 solid years and puts out a 2 way butt ugly rectangle box with a freaking silk dome woofer and paper or hemp(which is not exotic) and charges $7,600 or $50k+ that it might just have something going for it since not everyone with money is retarded. They don't sell on looks, they don't exactly sell on technobabble or exotic drivers. And the higher level parts they do use - you can't even see. Hell they don't even have ferro-fluid cooling or a long warranty to impress like some. This somewhat also applies to their amps which have long runs unchanged and nothing to look at for sometimes stupifying sums. And yes there is real competition out there but it sure as hell doesn't come from the likes of Revel IMO. Note the IMO - But at least I've heard both. Come back when any of you have bothered. Go listen to an $7600 AN E/SPe HE ($500 stands) directly compared to a $10,000 Revel GEM2 standmount with $1400 matching stands with say a simple jazz band using a stand up bass. LMAO - you do this and come back to me. Revel - :rolleyes5:

All that doesn't change the simple fact, that YOU prefer the sound of SET/HE... Not everyone does.... It is not a case, as you try to make it seem, that anyone who doesn't prefer SET/HE has not heard a proper SET/HE system.... That's just nonsense... Take Stereophile as a simple example: Art and Sam love AN... Clearly John Atkinson, MF and KR do not... Why? Is it that they have never heard a proper SET/HE system? Nope... They just prefer the sound of stuff YOU think sounds like rubbish... John Atkinson loves Revel and Mark Levinson, but clearly doesn't love Audio Note... So you can argue till you're blue in the face that Revel/Levinson only sounds good in a measurements lab, but that doesn't change the fact that persons who HAVE heard the setups you rave about don't share your enthusiasm... If I remember correctly, PoppaC or another member here heard the AN room at one of the recent shows and didn't think it sounded good at all, despite you're usual raving about it... Why is that? Because he has different tastes from you...

Why you can't understand that other persons have different tastes is truly beyond me...

Your failure to comprehend something so simple is why you are regarded like a religious nut... You lay down a challenge like "Go listen to an $7600 AN E/SPe HE ($500 stands) directly compared to a $10,000 Revel GEM2 standmount with $1400 matching stands with say a simple jazz band using a stand up bass." as if it is impossible that anyone could hear both and prefer the Revel... The fact that JA prefers Revel shows how utterly stupid your test is.... Since you are testing OPINION and not facts...

So let me try and make this clear to you yet again:

An all Audio Note System sounding better than Revel/Mark Levinson is an OPINION, not a fact.... And not everyone shares the same opinion...

[Feanor]

....

You might stop to consider that when a company sells a speaker for 20 solid years and puts out a 2 way butt ugly rectangle box with a freaking silk dome woofer and paper or hemp(which is not exotic) and charges $7,600 or $50k+ that it might just have something going for it since not everyone with money is retarded. They don't sell on looks, they don't exactly sell on technobabble or exotic drivers. And the higher level parts they do use - you can't even see. Hell they don't even have ferro-fluid cooling or a long warranty to impress like some. This somewhat also applies to their amps which have long runs unchanged and nothing to look at for sometimes stupifying sums. And yes there is real competition out there but it sure as hell doesn't come from the likes of Revel IMO. Note the IMO - But at least I've heard both. Come back when any of you have bothered. Go listen to an $7600 AN E/SPe HE ($500 stands) directly compared to a $10,000 Revel GEM2 standmount with $1400 matching stands with say a simple jazz band using a stand up bass. LMAO - you do this and come back to me. Revel - :rolleyes5:
The amazing thing is that Revel (Harmon International), were they to adopt the Snell/AN design concept, could, given their large-scale production capabilities, hugely undercut AN prices while delivering equivalent quality or better quality; (Baltic birch plywood is that rare or unique, though silver is getting expensive).

So why don't they? Because they are working to a different design philosoply that aims for scientifically-verified criteria that prove that what most people really want is accurate, flat response, low distortion, together with wide, even dispersion.

[frenchmon]

That was my experience with Rotel. It sounded fine at lower volumes but really came alive when you cranked the volume... I've also seen that characteristic mentioned in several Rotel reviews (since I owned mine). So as long as you have freedom to turn up the volume a bit, I can easily recommend Rotel.

Never had that experience with my Rotel. When turned up to where I can hear and beyond...it sounds great.

[Ajani]

Never had that experience with my Rotel. When turned up to where I can hear and beyond...it sounds great.

That's interesting, especially since we own(ed) the same RB1080 amp... I had the RC1070 pre though.

Note: I'm not saying it sounded bad at low volumes, just that it sounded much better as you cranked it... I found myself cranking the volume (and enjoying it) far more than my previous NAD setup....

[Ajani]

Mr.P in virtually every room of note at CES - the associated equipment brought by the speaker manufacturers was a tube amp - well over half the room probably closer to 80% were tube based. And that's not counting some big tube makes who were on static display.

RGA do you realize that Mr. Peabody owns Zu Omen definition Speakers with Conrad Johnson separates? High Efficiency speakers and tubes...

Yet he is still challenging you on your view that LE Speakers and megawatt SS only sound good in a lab...

Mr. P has moved away from Krell and Dynaudio, yet he can still appreciate the sound of such a combo and can clearly understand that other persons might well prefer that sound to the Zu/Conrad Johnson setup he now has...

I don't pretend that in 5 years time I might not be rocking a SET/HE system... But that doesn't mean that I'm going to start claiming that everything else sounds like crap or is only good in a lab...

[RGA]

Why you can't understand that other persons have different tastes is truly beyond me...

Your failure to comprehend something so simple is why you are regarded like a religious nut... You lay down a challenge like "Go listen to an $7600 AN E/SPe HE ($500 stands) directly compared to a $10,000 Revel GEM2 standmount with $1400 matching stands with say a simple jazz band using a stand up bass." as if it is impossible that anyone could hear both and prefer the Revel... The fact that JA prefers Revel shows how utterly stupid your test is.... Since you are testing OPINION and not facts...

So let me try and make this clear to you yet again:

An all Audio Note System sounding better than Revel/Mark Levinson is an OPINION, not a fact.... And not everyone shares the same opinion...

Umm that''s not necessarily the case. I can't get into this on a forum but there is something you should know about politics interfering with judgments about the players involved - JA and Peter Qvortrup go way back. Stereophile never covers an Audio Note room when Peter Qvortrup is in attendance. I'll leave it at that. Though I give JA credit for not letting his bias stop his reviewers from reviewing them or downright going over the top.

But to the main point you are making about preference - well that's all fine and good - someone may very well prefer a McDonald's Big Mac to the finest hamburger made by the best chef in the world. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I am entitled to tell them they're wrong and that there is a standard of quality they just "don't get" - and I can't help them.

Of course I am not suggesting that Revel is McDonalds here - I used an extreme example but there are people who have "opinions" that are very clearly suspect. In audio there is a subjectivity involved - MF likes big SS power from his same initials MF. And JA may indeed prefer those kinds of systems.

The job of the reviewer is to know what he himself likes - that creates for the reader an understanding of where said reviewer is coming from. MF is about as dogmatic on super high power Solid State as I am on SET. I am fine with that because I know where the guy is coming from and I doubt anyone here has any doubt whatsoever where I am coming from. SET/HE is to me clearly representative of the best sound reproduction and the next best is a major drop off the cliff. MF has said he "hates" SET. So there you have it - read the guy who preaches to what you believe but at least make sure you're auditioned the best of each technology or a something at the elite level of that technology rather than relying on forums and what you read in a magazine. And make sure that if you do put faith in a reviewer that you are absolutely positive he/she hears it exactly the same way. The fact that you agree with a reviewer on Revel doesn't mean you won't disagree with him on something else.

I don't often agree with JA about much but Acapella was one of the top rooms for me at CES and JA recently reviewed it and gave it a rave. So we could not be in more agreement on that speaker. So I don't want this to become an "Audio Note" debate - I use them as an example of high efficiency and SET (ONLY because I have the most experience with them) - that doesn't mean that they're "it" for everyone. Both Trenner and Freidl and Acapella I could very easily see people liking better than Audio Note - or Teresonic and several others. And obviously room size and positioning are factors.

It is pretty clear to me that people hear things fairly similar (when they actually bother to audition the same things in the same rooms and often when they don't). What were the best rooms I chose - A B C and then I see gee several reviewers on staff all own, did own, or planning to buy, those exact same speakers/systems that I chose as the top rooms. Other reputable reviewers also chose many of the same rooms or products I found to be the best ones. That isn't coincidence. It's not about AN specifically - and I am sorry I wrote the last posts rather badly - it was about a generality or direction of where the best sound comes from.

There are exceptions to my generalities. Of course there is SS I like - I am a huge supporter of the Sugden A21a and I loved this ugly little Heed amp on the relative cheap at CES. Sim Audio and Classe and Pass Labs I tend to like - I did just purchase SS separates. And I did like Usher and Sony Loudspeakers that both fit into the mold of speakers I generally don't like. Both were very good. Nevertheless - the best of the best that I have heard in most cases is run by a SET and or has high efficiency speakers.

At the end of the day - I am viewed as incredibly biased with Audio Note. I don't have a real problem with that since the best sound I have heard in Audio has been from Audio Note and it is in my opinion the reference for all others to be able to meet. Everyone has a reference point they judge against - or should have one. And some things I see do a better job in certain aspects.

One of the reasons I offload the bias to other reviewers. For instance Wes Philips a more experienced veteran reviewer for the industry heavy weight Stereophile and is a Solid State guy and a Measurements are all important in speakers guy says things in a show report WAY beyond the pale and way over the top even compared to what I write as a reviewer should at the very least cause a bit of pause and say gee - maybe there is something there rather than RGA is a religious nutter. I don't get the closed minds on this. When a guy like that "see what he has reviewed" says this "Forget best sound of show, for sheer emotional delivery, timbral clarity, dynamic agility, and, yes, the highest fidelity, the Audio Note system may have been the best hi-fi I have ever heard. It was one of those magical moments that we audiophiles put up with all of the hassles for. After the Audio Note demo. the rest was noise, so I quit on a winner. Not many people who come to Vegas can say that." http://www.stereophile.com/ces2009/ongaku_means_ecstasy/index.html

I think people do hear it similarly - whether you're a SS guy or not. I was a SS guy through and through. The first tube gear I heard was Copland and I liked SS more. Tubes didn't impress me.

[RGA]

The amazing thing is that Revel (Harmon International), were they to adopt the Snell/AN design concept, could, given their large-scale production capabilities, hugely undercut AN prices while delivering equivalent quality or better quality; (Baltic birch plywood is that rare or unique, though silver is getting expensive).

So why don't they? Because they are working to a different design philosoply that aims for scientifically-verified criteria that prove that what most people really want is accurate, flat response, low distortion, together with wide, even dispersion.

Not really. But keep believing the "corporation made science" all you want. Science in corporate America is not real science. And in independent blind auditions the AN J and AN E has yet to lose. Maybe they could allow a corner loaded speaker over there at harman - but they don't or can't or won't.

The fact is big or small Audio Note has patents and you can't just steal.

Although it may interest you to know that another company already shares the rights to the original Snell speakers - that company was Boston Acoustics (and now Denon). Terry at Soundhounds carried Boston Acoustics and the rep concurred that the AN E sounded far better than anything they built. Terry was constantly after BA to make a cheaper stripped down version of the speaker.

After all BA has an economies of scale advantage - less shipping etc. The reply was "that look won't sell." If you think for one second that it doesn't have "everything" to do with appearance you're living under a rock because Harmon and any corporation has only one interest - making as much profit at all costs as they can (if they could make more money selling lighters they would dump audio tomorrow and sell lighters). And when you don't actually have something that can sell to people based on "sound quality" you have to find another way to sell it - measurements, white papers with suspect testing, and a bunch of baffle-gab. Incidentally Harman doesn't make a lot of speakers that according to you they can just copy and sell for less - they don't make ribbon planars or Electrostats either and they could - the parts are even cheaper for them. But again "that look won't sell" - it's about selling. Slim sexy and cool looking drivers. That is what sells.

Quality is something that is somewhat hard to pin down because some companies simply don't advertise every little detail of what they do. Perhaps if people saw how an AN E speaker was made they might be a little more impressed by them instead of looking at the outside and making quick assumptions. They are highly labour intensive and the companies they partner with to make products are often specialists in given fields. Having Ferrari build you parts because no audio company has the machines to get the tolerances you need is something that adds tremendously to your costs. You may argue that it is not needed to get the sound - fair enough but it is costly nevertheless. That kind of stuff isn't advertised.

[Ajani]

But to the main point you are making about preference - well that's all fine and good - someone may very well prefer a McDonald's Big Mac to the finest hamburger made by the best chef in the world. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I am entitled to tell them they're wrong and that there is a standard of quality they just "don't get" - and I can't help them.
.................................................. ..........
say gee - maybe there is something there rather than RGA is a religious nutter. I don't get the closed minds on this.

Not respecting someone else's opinion and feeling the need to tell them they're wrong, is exactly what religious nutters do...

As for closed minds: Feanor, Mr. Peabody and myself are all willing to listen to SET/HE setups and see if we like them... In fact, as I mentioned before, Mr. Peabody is enjoying HE in his system now... None of us take issue with your suggestions that SET/HE sounds brilliant... We'd have to hear for ourselves to determine that.... The issue we take is with the constant bashing you do of everything else... You act as if SS/LE has zero sonic value and It's all about marketing etc... You dismiss the notion that an experienced listener could find actual sonic merit in a Megawatt SS system. JA, MF, KR etc must all be suspect because they don't share your views on what sounds good... That is closed minded...

[Mr Peabody]

RGA, you are like a toy, pull your cord and get the same song.

You made a false statement regarding Krell and Bryston, that's pretty much it. So stop trying to create another one of those tubes vs solid state things. If you notice I use tubes myself but I can't help correcting ridiculous statements made based purely on prejudice as you have. I own both and neither are bass shy and Rotel is not even in the same league as Krell.

Thanks for the amusing statistics you pulled from your backside.

[RGA]

Not respecting someone else's opinion and feeling the need to tell them they're wrong, is exactly what religious nutters do...

As for closed minds: Feanor, Mr. Peabody and myself are all willing to listen to SET/HE setups and see if we like them... In fact, as I mentioned before, Mr. Peabody is enjoying HE in his system now... None of us take issue with your suggestions that SET/HE sounds brilliant... We'd have to hear for ourselves to determine that.... The issue we take is with the constant bashing you do of everything else... You act as if SS/LE has zero sonic value and It's all about marketing etc... You dismiss the notion that an experienced listener could find actual sonic merit in a Megawatt SS system. JA, MF, KR etc must all be suspect because they don't share your views on what sounds good... That is closed minded...

You're not experience enough listening to different designs - sorry to point this out to you. But most of the industry is Low Efficiency and SS because it is far more profitable to dealers. It's about selling boxes and making money for most of them - all of them really since Soundhounds does the same thing - though at least they don't deny it and they do carry some stuff they actually like as well. The very top of the line SS gear is quite good - I have no problem with MF liking what he does - and I agree with him on some points - his take on Bryston for example. On the other hand and in the same breath I would take the Bryston over his MF gear in a second because the difference in SS is just not big enough there to warrant the expense in my view. Bryston I recognize to at lease be a value added product.

It is not close minded to want people to listen first then pontificate their vies about me and my views second. I grew up with SS and CD - not tubes and Vinyl. How would Mr. P, you and Feanor and several others here know they would not share my view unless they bothered to actually audition the stuff.

It's all very nice to try and infer what you think it might sound like because 20 years ago you heard a tube amp connected to some Klipsch loudspeaker - but it's not the same thing. Very few dealers carry (again because its not sexy looking) or easy to operate top flight HE systems. And don't assume that all these reviewers have heard it either. UHF magazine has been selling for 29 years and only very recently did they audition Audio Note. And liked it a lot to boot. That doesn't mean it will be your first choice - but there is clearly a gradation of gear and it is not all about "opinion" In my opinion Fremer's opinion is wrong. And his opinion of my opinion is wrong. I can live with that. But before you jump on my opinion of his opinion maybe you should listen to a system he thinks is great for around the same money as one I think is great and judge from the results.

[RGA]

RGA, you are like a toy, pull your cord and get the same song.

You made a false statement regarding Krell and Bryston, that's pretty much it. So stop trying to create another one of those tubes vs solid state things. If you notice I use tubes myself but I can't help correcting ridiculous statements made based purely on prejudice as you have. I own both and neither are bass shy and Rotel is not even in the same league as Krell.

Thanks for the amusing statistics you pulled from your backside.

MR. P. I was actually at CES - I actually walked into every single room at the" show. Were you there? No? Then how would you know?

As for Bass - read the review from UHF of the 3bST from a few years back. Or read the ST100 review in Hi-fi choice with the "lightweight" both magazines noted. I have had the 3BST at home.

One day you will hear a really good audio system around a SET based amp with speakers that have bass depth. Dynaudio Krell based systems are middle of the road sound - lots of slam type of bass - has some big wow factor macrodynamics. It's tiresome. Hopefully you will get the Wes Philips experience - he too is the Dynaudio/Krell type guy (was one of the reviewers that Put the massive Wilson Watt Puppy on the map) and a big Thiel supporter and finally after nearly 30 years reviewing he got to hear something that blows that stuff to the weeds. Luckily you may too at a much younger age and without having to go through so much stuff.

And again there is SS I like - but I just would not go over a certain point in paying for it. IMO it is better to go with a very good and not so expensive or high powered SE amplifier and put the bulk of the money into the source and speakers. Since Solid State expensive or cheap still sounds merely ok.

And the not even in the same league argument is silly - depends which products we're talking about - Rotel doesn't rip people off. It sounds like SS unfortunately but I'd rather have that SS sound for under $3k than spend to have that SS sound at $30k.

[Ajani]

You're not experience enough listening to different designs - sorry to point this out to you.

Don't BS me... You are not remotely sorry about lording your superior experience over anybody...

Though frankly, other than to float your own boat, I fail to see the relevance to the discussion, since I've never claimed to prefer SS over SET and have said repeatedly that I may well end up enjoying a SET system everntually... The difference is that I can keep my arrogance in check and respect the fact that others might not share my sonic preferences... You obviousaly can't...



But most of the industry is Low Efficiency and SS because it is far more profitable to dealers. It's about selling boxes and making money for most of them - all of them really since Soundhounds does the same thing - though at least they don't deny it and they do carry some stuff they actually like as well. The very top of the line SS gear is quite good - I have no problem with MF liking what he does - and I agree with him on some points - his take on Bryston for example. On the other hand and in the same breath I would take the Bryston over his MF gear in a second because the difference in SS is just not big enough there to warrant the expense in my view. Bryston I recognize to at lease be a value added product.

It is not close minded to want people to listen first then pontificate their vies about me and my views second. I grew up with SS and CD - not tubes and Vinyl. How would Mr. P, you and Feanor and several others here know they would not share my view unless they bothered to actually audition the stuff.

It's all very nice to try and infer what you think it might sound like because 20 years ago you heard a tube amp connected to some Klipsch loudspeaker - but it's not the same thing. Very few dealers carry (again because its not sexy looking) or easy to operate top flight HE systems. And don't assume that all these reviewers have heard it either. UHF magazine has been selling for 29 years and only very recently did they audition Audio Note. And liked it a lot to boot. That doesn't mean it will be your first choice - but there is clearly a gradation of gear and it is not all about "opinion" In my opinion Fremer's opinion is wrong. And his opinion of my opinion is wrong. I can live with that. But before you jump on my opinion of his opinion maybe you should listen to a system he thinks is great for around the same money as one I think is great and judge from the results.

As having a discussion on audio with you is a waste of time, I'll simply defer to your superior experience and listening preferences... Clearly the only reason everyone doesn't own a SET/HE system is because we haven't heard a good one... And if, like John Atkinson, we have then it must be that we are corrupt, deaf or hold a personal grudge against all SET manufacturers...

[RGA]

As having a discussion on audio with you is a waste of time, I'll simply defer to your superior experience and listening preferences... Clearly the only reason everyone doesn't own a SET/HE system is because we haven't heard a good one... And if, like John Atkinson, we have then it must be that we are corrupt, deaf or hold a personal grudge against all SET manufacturers...

You admit you have not heard one. So why not take a breath go listen and then see what happens. The fact that John Atkinson likes or doesn't like something doesn't interest me. I care about what I like and I believe more people will hear it like me than those who won't. And I have stated the reasons why. You keep using words like "we" when you are not part of the "we." Until you have tried it then you may be part of the "they" that likes SET/HE.

And how is it lording anything when I simply stated a fact. Several people on these boards like arguing against products that they have never auditioned - why? Is it out of some fear that indeed there may be greener grass over the fence and because you have already spent money you want to deny the possibility that something exists that could in fact sound better?

I don't believe people hear things completely differently - otherwise we'd all have trouble understanding eachother - we all see the colour blue the same way and we all know the sound of a dog barking or what a triangle or violin sounds like. But I have no dog in this hunt - I really don't care what you choose or what you prefer - but at least audition that which you are going to talk about. And if I come across as too opinionated it's because to me it's that much better and there is no going back

I go back to the owner of the top Bryston/PMC guy who pretty much nails it to a tee. You can pretty much insert "any" SS amp for his Bryston and pretty much any LE speaker for the PMC. (I actually don't mind that combo of gear) but in the vast majority of cases (some exceptions) the guy nails it. People say they want honesty in reviews - but they only want honesty from reviewers if it doesn't say anything negative of what they like/own. http://www.audioasylum.com/reviews/Other/Audio-Note/Level-3-system/general/345133.html

[Mr Peabody]

RGA, did you really say people here things basically the same?? That's one of the most absurd things you have said and you've said plenty. If we heard things the same we wouldn't be having this discussion. Frenchmon and I go listen to gear now and then, we sometimes disagree on a unit while being in the same room, same audition.

I think there are different aspects of listening, the musical experience, that excite different people. Clearly AN has given you what you like but to say that's what every one wants and needs is crazy.

[Ajani]

RGA, did you really say people here things basically the same?? That's one of the most absurd things you have said and you've said plenty. If we heard things the same we wouldn't be having this discussion. Frenchmon and I go listen to gear now and then, we sometimes disagree on a unit while being in the same room, same audition.

I think there are different aspects of listening, the musical experience, that excite different people. Clearly AN has given you what you like but to say that's what every one wants and needs is crazy.

The basic logic that RGA will never understand is that "hearing the same thing" is NOT the same as preferring the same thing... 3 of us could audition 3 sets of speakers together... And while we might all agree that one had the best bass extension, the other had the deepest soundstage and the last had outstanding midrange detail, we could each pick a different one of the 3 speakers to buy... Why? Because each of us may value one of those areas more than the other... All the quarreling in audio about what sounds best is just due to the arrogance of assuming that what I prefer is somehow superior to what someone else picks... It's a shame that so many supposed adults in HiFi can't just accept each other's preferences...

[audio2]

...

I still maintain a good tube amp will be better on the Tannoys. SO long as the tube amp has 4ohm taps and most good ones do then that is probably where I would go down the line. SETs or SEPs are the easiest to own since you don't have to do any work with voltmeters and calibration. Just change the tubes like you would change a lightbulb.

Since I started the original thread I have enjoyed the Rotel 04 that I bought back then, though I kept in my mind comments like this and alike about considering to upgrade to a tube amps, so here I am.

I've found a used Sugden a21a and I'm going to make an appointment for a listening session. As a novice I don't have any idea if are there things I should be aware of when buying a used tube amps.

I would like to be a bit more "technically" prepared for the appointment so that I can eventually ask specific questions or pay attention on certain details. Maybe this sound a bit paranoic, but I'm a perfectionist and I think it's always good to know what you're buying with your bucks.

PS: I don't know which year is the amp but I'll post here a picture, maybe can help.


Thanks a lot in advance.

Best regards
Audio2

[audio2]

I thought to complete this post by adding the conclusion of my quest.

It is now about 3 months I've been playing the Sugden A21A in place of the Rotel RA 04 and I really enjoy this amp.
The more I play it the more I love this sound.
This amp gets warm just like the sound coming out from the Tannoy I own.
The whole audio system has moved to a higher level and increased the quality of the soundstage.
The system is clear at low volume levels, rich and textured at mid-levels and dynamic and smooth at loud levels.
I usually play at low and mid-levels, very occasionally at loud levels, and I'm very happy how the system in these 3 different condition plays.


Also the system from the guy I bought the Sugden was very interesting.
This was the configuration:
Energy C5 speakers
Arcam cd transport and Arcam Dac model Delta
Sugden A21A

I was surprised of the accuracy and synergy of this system combination, though, when played at "loud" level, it seemed loosing dynamic and smoothness.
Also the sound was more home-theater alike.
That was my impression.
I know that he now has an Audio Analogue Primo in place of the Sugden.


Musical regards,
Audio2