Amplifier Designers - Amplifier Differences - Can Someone Explain?

MrBuhl · February 2015

So I've been "lightly" shopping for a new amp and I have a few questions for the experts on the forum.

Can someone explain the basics of what makes a particular designers amp different/better than another and why? I know this is subjective, and will be similar to the great cable debate, but I find it interesting that there have been so many breakthrough designs, and reasons for them, and yet thinking still evolves.

As I look back through threads for amp reviews and recommendations, I see thinking changes on amps over the years of listening which I think is to be expected, audio bliss is a journey, not a destination, but wondering if anyone can enlighten me as to what makes these particular designers/designs extra special?

Thinking in terms of John Curl, Dan D'Agostino, Bob Carver, David Hafler, Nelson Pass, and Mark Levinson - maybe other names I don't know or have left out?

jeremymarcinko · February 2015

Morris Kessler. It seems to me that great ss amps need to have at least a very large transformer and massive heatsinks. These two components are not cheap to produce, so a sign of a good amp will not have skimped in this area.

tonyb · February 2015

Your asking for an encyclopedia there chief.

What makes one better than another ? Your ears. Seriously, there's more than one way to skin a cat, different designs/implementations. Comes down to quality of parts, well built power supplies. Different amps are built for different purposes so you have to compare apples and apples.

That said, I've heard amps made from name brands that you couldn't pay me to take. It all comes down to what your needs are and how it sounds regardless if there is a million bucks worth of engineering gold inside, or 2 gerbils on a treadmill.

MrBuhl · February 2015

I have always liked the idea of separate transformers and power supplies for each channel, one of the reasons I lust after Aragon amps as well.

What makes a particular design "magic" though?

tonyb · February 2015

MrBuhl wrote: »

I have always liked the idea of separate transformers and power supplies for each channel, one of the reasons I lust after Aragon amps as well.

What makes a particular design "magic" though?

That would be monoblock designs which are another animal. What makes one design magic ? Well, like everything else, one product is only as good as the sum total of it's parts. Magic to some, is garbage to another.....your ears dictate, on your system in your room. Synergy within ones own system.

In an ideal world, each speaker would run on monoblocks. Each speaker with it's own power supply is the ultimate, but who can do that ? It all comes down to quality power, not quantity.

tonyb · February 2015

I don't know how Aragon can claim a dual monoblock with only one power cord. That tells me it has a shared power supply for both channels.

leftwinger57 · February 2015

With my minimal knowledge I would say high wpc 200 depending on what speakers your pushing and what ohm load they are rated at. Then what's the current draw. if it's low this will clip your amp trying to drive those speakers. You named some heavy hitters w/ Mark Levinson's going for $15k and change. Some here love tubes I know nothing about them so I stick to ss and is very happy w/ my Adcom 555 at that 200 wpc and it sounds neutral to me and I have heard others. I would go for a Parasound next or a Carver tfm 55, or a B&K if I were looking used. Yes weight on amps is a determining factor as are those heat sinks. Mine are in the rear very tall w/ a count of 17 on each side separated by the speaker inputs, fuse holders and the outputs to my pre. transformer I think it's a large toridal design w/4 very tall blue caps.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/adcom-gfa-555-power-amplifier-john-atkinson-1990

polkfarmboy · February 2015

I think what brings new designs to the table is new methods of testing, design and manufacturing. This is what makes the industry go forward. There are some amps that sound great regardless of age providing the odd recap has been performed here and there.

MrBuhl · February 2015

tonyb wrote: »

Your asking for an encyclopedia there chief.

It all comes down to what your needs are and how it sounds regardless if there is a million bucks worth of engineering gold inside, or 2 gerbils on a treadmill.

LOL! thanks Tony - I hear you on your serious points, and got a chuckle out of the above (though I know you're serious there too!).

I definitely know it comes down to those synergies, one of the reasons I still have my ancient Audire that's "only" 100wpc, because it sounds great with my 2b's and my system, I'd have a hard time parting with it. I'm not so in love the the B&K though, even though it sounds good, I don't think it's great in my system. So I do get that, just wondering about other designs.

MrBuhl · February 2015

leftwinger57 wrote: »

You named some heavy hitters w/ Mark Levinson's going for $15k and change. Some here love tubes I know nothing about them so I stick to ss

I'm with you leftwinger, I just dipped my toe into tubes with the Dodd pre, but my intention is to mate SS amp with tube pre for now anyway - there seems to be a decent following for this setup and I'm going to start there for space concerns alone. I was thinking more along the lines of used Lexicon/Proceed Mark Levinson designs than the actual ML - those are WAY outside any budget I have or will have, even used.

MrBuhl · February 2015

polkfarmboy wrote: »

This is what makes the industry go forward. There are some amps that sound great regardless of age providing the odd recap has been performed here and there.

Thanks PFB, agree with you - I feel that way about my Audire.

So what are some of those always great sounding mid-fi SS used amps out there? I'm thinking Aragon, Proceed, Bryston, Nakamichi, McCormack, Acurus? Sub $1K?

MrBuhl · February 2015

Here's an interesting if not overly illuminating read - still subjective opinion, but some interesting thoughts on the subject and specific amps:

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/the-ten-most-significant-amplifiers-of-all-time/

MrBuhl · February 2015

And another on differences in amplifier classes specifically:

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-amplifier/amplifier-classes

MrBuhl · February 2015

I used to read SR back in the day and be a Hirsch fan, though not as big as this Audioholics writer, still - this is also and interesting read snipped from the Audioholics website - seems to speak to synergy to me as well:

Veteran reviewer Julian Hirsch of Stereo Review tackled the subject of amplifier sound in an article in the 1980’s. Hirsch was a meticulous reviewer, a formally-trained engineer who put his faith in rigorous, repeatable, scientifically-valid tests and procedures. He completely eschewed imprecise fads like green Magic Markers, Shun Mook M’pingo discs, and $1000/ft interconnects that had no discernable or measurable differences compared to standard cables.

After exhaustive testing of several amplifiers with several different speakers (some known to be “easy” loads and some known to be “difficult” to drive), Hirsch made some interesting observations that simultaneously explained why there were potential sound differences between amplifiers while at the same time remaining utterly faithful to the quantifiable, repeatable scientific process. It remains, in my view, the best explanation for this entire topic that I have yet seen.

Starting with the huge and all-important assumption that the amplifier under test is not being driven into distortion or being operated in a way that could elicit bad behavior, overheating, or engage any protection circuitry, Hirsch found the following:

Some pre-amp/power amplifier/speaker systems combined in such a way as to produce a very slightly rising or drooping frequency response across the entire 20-20 kHz audible spectrum. It could be a combination of the way the pre-amp and power amp combined on an input/output impedance basis, it could be because of the way a particular amp behaved with the specific load presented by that specific make/model of speaker, but there were system combinations where the frequency response showed a variation across the band.

These were not big variations. Perhaps on the order of + .5 dB in the bass to - .5 dB in the treble. A 1 dB total tilt, +/-. But over a wide range of frequencies—many octaves—that’s definitely audible. As a matter of fact, this phenomenon is formally known in audio engineering circles as “spectral tilt.” If system “A” is tilted up a dB across the band and system “B” is titled down a dB across the band, experienced listeners will definitely hear that, without question. Godehard Guenther, head of ADS Speakers in the 1970’s, talked at length about this effect when voicing his then-top-of-the-line ADS 910 speaker. Extremely slight changes to the speaker’s “tilt” made a dramatic difference in its perceived bass-treble balance and “weight.” Therefore, depending on the program material being used, the interaction of the different components, etc, such a spectral tilt variation could unquestionably lead a listener or reviewer to characterize the amplifier’s sound as “harsh” or “sweet” or “musical,” etc.

Hirsch also found that small—minute, even—differences in amps’ comparative signal-to-noise ratios often had a tangible impact on their perceived sound.

The s/n difference was not audible as hiss per se. But he did find that a few extra dB of noise could subliminally mix with the program material and lend a very slightly “brighter” or “harder” character to the sound. Granted if amplifier “A” had a s/n ratio of 80 dB and amplifier “B” was 75 dB, both would be considered more than “quiet” enough for high fidelity purposes. But the difference between their s/n’s could show up as a perceived difference in tonal character.

This was a great study, perhaps the best ever done on amplifier sound, for several reasons:

First, like the consummate scientific professional that he was, Hirsch did not enter his study with any preconceived notion as to how the study should come out. He did not try to fit the data to suit his preferred conclusion, as so many lesser “experts” do.
Second, his results were based on quantifiable, measurable tests. They were not “feelings” or “impressions” or anything else of an inexact nature.

Lastly, even though he didn’t subscribe to the “subjectivist” approach to reviewing, he had no hesitation in saying that there were indeed differences, and then he proceeded to explain why, in precise, concrete terms. Too many reviewers have very strong feelings about their approach or personal listening skills and these feelings too often prevent them from making truly objective observations, especially if the observation is contrary to their previously-stated position.

Hirsch suffered from no such ego-based limitations, and therefore his findings were more defensible from a strictly scientific standpoint. In my experience, this study presents the clearest tangible, measurable, repeatable evidence yet that there are definitive audible differences between amplifiers.

So, sometimes (not all the time) there are differences in the sound of amplifiers, but according to Hirsch, probably not for the reasons we’d like to think. Are there other reasons for audible differences between amplifiers, such as the “gut feeling” one gets when viewing beautifully laid-out amplifier circuitry, massive heatsinks, storage capacitors with impressive uf ratings, and a large heavy torridal transformer, all accompanied by convincing technical literature text and an impressive array of reviewers’ quotes lauding the design’s sonic excellence?

It’s tough for any of us to say we’re unswayed by that.

mhardy6647 · February 2015

A topic akin to this one came up at AK yesterday - there are probably two perspectives: the technical (nuts and bolts) and the faith-based/spiritual ;- ) (i.e., all of the glowing audiophile verbiage that eschews hard facts and delights in the... arcane).

Here are a couple of decent looking "nuts and bolts" references that a quick googling on "amplifier classes" turned up for a newbie:

https://www.yamahacommercialaudiosystems.com/downloads/tech_docs/data/white_papers/yamahapoweramp_whitepaper_en.pdf
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1280784

This is my long-time favorite entry level primer on vacuum tubes in hifi:

http://archive.anthemav.com/OldSitev1//pdf/tot1.pdf
http://archive.anthemav.com/OldSitev1//pdf/tot2.pdf

From my perspective, the better one understands (even at a very basic level) the nuts and bolts, the harder it is for one to be duped by a hifi charlatan (and they're out there - even nowadays).

... and then there's philosophy. I like my amplifiers as simple as possible (but, to invoke Einstein out of context, no simpler). The less components (especially active components, but passives, too) between the input analog (music!) waveform and the loudspeakers, the better -- for me.

I also like the active components to be as linear as possible. The most linear amplification device extant was, and is, the vacuum tube triode.

DSC_0132 by mhardy6647, on Flickr

source: http://quotez.co/as-simple-as-possible-famous-quotes/

:- )

EDIT: oh, and just to be really clear, I care, first and foremost, how the danged thing sounds.

tonyb · February 2015

MrBuhl wrote: »

polkfarmboy wrote: »

This is what makes the industry go forward. There are some amps that sound great regardless of age providing the odd recap has been performed here and there.

Thanks PFB, agree with you - I feel that way about my Audire.

So what are some of those always great sounding mid-fi SS used amps out there? I'm thinking Aragon, Proceed, Bryston, Nakamichi, McCormack, Acurus? Sub $1K?

Well then your Audire has the "magic" you seek, why change ? Proceed is an excellent amp brand btw, I think they walk all over most of the ML designs. Good luck finding a McCormack for under a G note though, love their amps as well. Acurus to my ears is too bass heavy, but YMMV. Bryston can be a tad bass heavy too and not as extended in the highs.

Classe and Cary make some decent SS amps too. Krell, but is more system picky. You also may want to try a hybrid, SS with a tube driver stage. Musical fidelity is always high on the list also.

[Deleted User] · February 2015

I've been wonder about this and wondering where to add the color for
lack of a better term. Wouldn't a pre or amp that was SS and warm mean
you are in fact losing transparency? Losing information?

tonyb · February 2015

rednedtugent wrote: »

I've been wonder about this and wondering where to add the color for
lack of a better term. Wouldn't a pre or amp that was SS and warm mean
you are in fact losing transparency? Losing information?

Absolutely not.

tonyb · February 2015

It always comes down to synergy. That's why one amp labeled as audio gold in one system can be horse sh$t in another...as you evidently found out with the Plinius.

[Deleted User] · February 2015

I see.
Synergy is expensive to find. Is there another way?
Can't go to audiocraft anymore. It sounds like if I
read a review from a well respected Audiophile on
a new piece of gear, I should just pull out what it does
with Bass, mid-bass, mid, and high and forget the
rest except connection type and cost. I've been holding
off saying it but I'm trying to get a grip on the bass of
the 703's. It seems to be getting better by the week but
on some passages...

tonyb · February 2015

rednedtugent wrote: »

I see.
Synergy is expensive to find.

It can be...which is why we buy used gear/cables. Your buck goes a lot further that way.

MrBuhl · February 2015

tonyb wrote: »

MrBuhl wrote: »

polkfarmboy wrote: »

This is what makes the industry go forward. There are some amps that sound great regardless of age providing the odd recap has been performed here and there.

Thanks PFB, agree with you - I feel that way about my Audire.

Well then your Audire has the "magic" you seek, why change ?

Point well taken, but to fan the flames of the synergy argument, I didn't like it (the Audire) as well with the 1c's as I do with the 2b's. I can't explain it, it just felt softer, like it had trouble controlling the larger 1c's (and lower impedance with the Erse's), maybe under powered?

AND - thank you for your thoughts on the other amps I mentioned!

MrBuhl · February 2015

DSkip wrote: »

I don't really like the underlying tone of that article. The information is OK, but there is something that strikes me as odd about the presentation -

Yea - I hear that too - there was a questioning tone to it that wasn't altogether positive, but as you said, I thought the information was useful for what it was...

polkfarmboy · February 2015

I just recently bought some old timer great sounding amps. The plinius sa50 mk3 and a Mark levinson 331, thesen are low watt class A classics.

tonyb · February 2015

....and both are excellent too. How do you like that 331? A tad sterile sounding ?

MrBuhl · February 2015

mhardy6647 wrote: »

there are probably two perspectives: the technical (nuts and bolts) and the faith-based/spiritual ;- ) (i.e., all of the glowing audiophile verbiage that eschews hard facts and delights in the... arcane).

From my perspective, the better one understands (even at a very basic level) the nuts and bolts, the harder it is for one to be duped by a hifi charlatan (and they're out there - even nowadays).

... and then there's philosophy. I like my amplifiers as simple as possible (but, to invoke Einstein out of context, no simpler).

I also like the active components to be as linear as possible. The most linear amplification device extant was, and is, the vacuum tube triode.

DSC_0132 by mhardy6647, on Flickr

EDIT: oh, and just to be really clear, I care, first and foremost, how the danged thing sounds.

Thanks MHardy - I appreciate the articles and agree that there is an arcane element that isn't explainable necessarily sometimes - it does come down to how the danged thing sounds. (BTW - glowing tubes are sexy - I don't care what anyone says)

To quote an instructor from a camera course I took a decade back... "you must always evaluate all new gear purchases scrupulously, do you want it or do you need it because it makes your rig better or takes you to the next level? To combat this, I suggest making a list 1-10 of the top reasons that you need this gear... with the understanding of course... that 1-7 can all be 'because I want it'..." LOL

MrBuhl · February 2015

Dupe post!

MrBuhl · February 2015

apparently... I'm posting challenged today. Another dupe sorry!

polkfarmboy · February 2015

tonyb wrote: »

....and both are excellent too. How do you like that 331? A tad sterile sounding ?

I dont yet have them Tony, but I am really looking forward to the 331 but thats been held up in customs because of missing paper work. I hope that 331 is not sterile but I was going to pair it up with the BAT VK30 and see how it sounds and do a shoot out with the Plinius.

jeremymarcinko · February 2015

Source material varies so much that it is almost impossible for a system to sound great all of the time. Getting the end frequency response as flat as possible without adding noise and distortion is very important if your goal is to hear the music close to the way it was recorded. However, a flat response sounds dull and lifeless at lower volumes and really needs to be turned up to sound dynamic, which requires lots of quality power in most situations. Therefore since we don't listen loudly all of the time we make choices that makes our music sound best to us at our preference level. This is why synergy is important and what makes it all jive is going to be different for all of us. There are too many variables for there to be a best anything, and none of us are receiving all frequencies to the same level do to our varying degrees of hearing loss and adjustments to our daily environmental noise.

tonyb · February 2015

polkfarmboy wrote: »

tonyb wrote: »

....and both are excellent too. How do you like that 331? A tad sterile sounding ?

I dont yet have them Tony, but I am really looking forward to the 331 but thats been held up in customs because of missing paper work. I hope that 331 is not sterile but I was going to pair it up with the BAT VK30 and see how it sounds and do a shoot out with the Plinius.

Cool...with the Bat it should sound pretty good. Actually both should do good with that pre, but my bet is on the Plinius as the better synergetic one.

Amplifier Designers - Amplifier Differences - Can Someone Explain?

Comments