high-end vs. ultra high-end amplifiers


It is quite frustrating to know that some amplifiers (Boulder, FM Acoustics, Accuphase) are sounding better than even very expensive ones from the big boys (Mark Levinson, Krell, Bryston, Spectral). I wonder why there is such a difference. Madrigal, Krell, Bryston, Spectral, they all belong to the high-end sector of audio industry and they are claiming they are making the best amplifiers. But I know that this is not true: I've heard amplifiers from Boulder and FM Acoustics and they sound just better than the Madrigals, Krells and so on. Is it because Boulder and FM Acoustics have more know how about amplifier design (I suppose not) or do they use more expensive parts and better circuit topologies? Do they have brighter technicians and designers? There must be an explanation for this phenomenon. It isn't magic! Maybe someone from the audio industry can reply to this thread.
dazzdax
Interesting observation, but I think you've drawn the wrong conclusion. It's my opinion that once you get into truly high end amplifiers (say $5,000+), then personal preferences begin to dominate what people consider better or best. As such, it's highly unlikely that any group of audiophile will ever agree on what is the best amplifier. As an example, I have the original Quad ESL, you have the $80,000 Wilsons. The amp that works best for me won't work all that well for you.
Having been through this situation personally, I agree with Daz. The reason is: that everything is built to a price point, & typically you get what you pay for. Not always, but mostly. I have tried out any number of famous-names equipment & was never really satisfied until I got my Accuphase; that is when I finally stopped trading & actually began listening to real music.
Like Onhwy says, personal preference remains a large factor at this level as well as system synergy, but I think that Daz basically has the right idea. YMMV of course...
About two years ago I managed to compare about a dozen amps in the $10k to $30K (new). They all sounded good. They all sounded different, some very different.

Fortunately, my wife, who is as golden an ear as I've met and very picky about the sonic signatures of our equipment, and I preferred the same amp. Some of our friends preferred other amps. That's life in high end audio.
Dazzdax = A very interesting and controversial post. Can you elaborate and edify us what comparisons you did with what gear? How did you come to your conclusions? In what specific areas did you feel certain amps bettered others? Were you listening in similar rooms/speakers/systems or different rooms and systems at different times?
May I approach this from another angle -- it is no secret that the price of a piece of equipment can be perceived by us in the hobby as directly related to performance (and maybe status). Could it be that some of these expensive pieces are designed above and beyond sonics, i.e., appearance, fit, finish and feel that can drive up these ancillary costs considerably? Not to mention the nameplate factor proudly displayed for all to see. Porsche does now, after all, offer a tiptronic (automatic) transmission. When I purchased my (then) SOTA Levinson 20.6's, I will admit that the black faceplate with the white lettering was more of a factor than I'd like to admit. But I still have yet to hear a finer sounding SS amp in my system and room.

So it does not come as a surprise that small outfits (George Wright comes to mind) can provide a superb product at significantly lower prices which can make us look at our priorities a little differently.