How would you rate/rank these amp-makers? (1 Viewer)

[Ricky T]

Richard,

If you make that post on audioasylum, you might get different "types" of responses :wink: Of course, some of those guys have probably tried most of these amps and probably a few more, exotic ones

 

[EdNichols]

I do wonder, based on Richard's comment, at what point it does get to diminishing returns where you spend lots more $ for just a little better sound.

 

[Yogi]

Just after Level I in my classification you enter into law of diminishing returns.

 

[EdNichols]

Then comes the tougher question. How would you rate them within Level 1?

 

[Charles Gurganus]

Ed, I would rate them based on what speakers you will use the amp with. How is that for a dodge ball answer? But it is the truth.

 

[Yogi]

Good answer Charles Witty but very true.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Ricky- Good point. When I had the Aragon, I had a Def Tech based system.

I don't have the link at the moment, but if you go to the Madrigal/Proceed site, it says that Proceed is going to cease to exist, and be "sucked into" Mark Levinson. Maybe some good deals out there coming... (Probably not: a good amp is still a good amp whether it's "current" or not, but I can still hope...)

RHOS- I kind of agree. I know that *some* people view amplification as a "commodity." I.e., once you get above a certain price/performance combination, there really *isn't* any difference in performance, and some of those same people consider that price just below the level I category. Well, keeping in mind the impedance/efficiency of the speakers, size of the room, average typical listening volume, etc. (That's why I didn't sweat staying with Acurus when I went from 6.1 to 7.1 in terms of the other makers in level I.) But I would still *like* to think, that if you do some research, and if you do spend more money judiciously, that you can eak out a little bit better sound quality.

 

[Michael R Price]

Pass DIY. My Zen V4 (similar to Aleph 3) amp cost $300 to build.

 

[Marty Neudel]

>if you go to the Madrigal/Proceed site, it says that Proceed is going to cease to exist<

Kevin,

this is really disheartening news. Thanks for advising us.

Marty

 

[Lee-M]

McCormack should be inserted into group number two.

Is there no one on this forum who has ever listened to or owned a McCormack amplifier? Just a little surprised... I know their distribution network is not as extensive as some, but those who have heard them have nothing but praise for them, sound quality and build.

 

[John-Tompkins]

I owned a McCormack dna-1 for a month or so..to be honest it didnt do it for me. Its a very musical amp, but for HT it seemed to soft/rounded for my tastes. (kinda like a tube amp and not the best fit for HT imo).

 

[Michael R Price]

On a hopefully more helpful note,

Please keep in mind the huge network of used and DIY/kit amplifiers. Amps don't seem to change much over time and there is nothing wrong with buying an old one, even a really old one... a great example is buying and repairing an Eico HF-81 (1970s?) or other old-time tube amp and ending up with awesome sound for only a couple hundred bucks. AKSA, Pass and ESP offer kits to build amplifiers that offer world class results for $100-300 per channel if you're willing to put some time into it. (Or, have a friend do it.) Some low-cost commercial amplifiers can be greatly improved by replacing a few key parts (such as capacitors).

The other thing is to know how much power you want and know how much power to get depending on your budget. I have a gigantic amp now because of DIY, but if I was buying a new one on a budget then I would go for a higher quality 50-watt one as opposed to a lesser quality but more powerful amplifier... and my speakers are very power hungry. I know you've heard this a million times, but 50 watts is a LOT. (A decently loud music level of 85db with my 87db speakers turns out to be about 2 watts average.) And it's worth sacrificing that 6db of headroom you'd rarely use to get a better sound for less money. So, please consider this before buying a 400 watt Bryston.

 

[EdNichols]

Yeah, you guys are right. The amp/speaker combo does make a difference. I guess that is why this hobby is so frustrating, nothing is cut and dry. But that just makes it more of challenge to find the combination that makes you happy. If we are really are ever satisfied that is.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

I have a 50W/ch tube integrated amp on my list. Someday, for a dedicated 2 ch system.

 

[BruceD]

One important consideration for less efficient 4 Ohm speakers is to use an amp with high current capability, otherwise the amp can run out of power no matter what the watts/channel rating is.

Typically this high current capability equates to an amp that is "heavy" i.e. weight (lb).

 

[Michael R Price]

Bruce,

You're right but I would like to point out that good amplifiers are also rated into 4 ohms per channel so you know how just much power you're getting. For Class AB amps, if the amplifier produces almost double the power into a 4 ohm load compared to 8 ohms, that's a sign it has good current capability. I'm under the impression that some manufacturers rate their products conservatively at 8 ohms to give the impression that the power doubles into half the load. Weight's not the best sign of an amp's current capability, since efficiency varies a lot. There are some relatively light Class D amps that can still deliver a ton of current. And fancy cases and things can weigh a lot, adding to the perceived quality.

Solution: just know the power ratings. And know that that rating might mean less than you think.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Bryston 3b-s(s)t vs Lex nt212:

These are moderately the same amp, but anyone know why the Lex weighs only about 22 lbs (shipping wt is 26 lbs) vs the Bryston which tips the scales at about 40 lbs? The Lex isn't missing a transformer, is it? OK, just looked at some old eqp dirs. The 3b-st weighed 28 lbs. Both the 3b-st and 212 are 9" deep; the 3b-sst is 11" deep. ST and 212 are 120W/ch, sst is 150W/ch. The Acurus A200 I have weighs 32 lbs, and is 13" deep. All are 5 or 5.25" tall. OK.

 

[Al B. C]

Since nobody mentioned it, I guess my Sunfire's a piece of crap.

 

[Ricky T]

Kevin,

The NT212 and 3B-ST are the same amp, and yes they are not big. On all NT and ST amp, Bryston seemed to have kept the chassis height at 5.25" but varied the depth according. The Acurus A200 probably has a little more output than these two; the A150 is probably the same size.

Al,

There are alot of amps not mentioned here.

 

[Kevin C Brown]

Ricky- It gets even more interesting. I found a mention of 22 lbs for a 3b-st in an early review, but then a mention (later on) of it weighing 28 lbs. Maybe shipping weight? Or did the amp change at all during its production run?

I think I have convinced myself to weight (sic! ) for a good deal on the 3b-sst anyway.