Just a random thought, but I’m curious just how well the state of the art solid-state amplifiers from 20 years ago compare to some of today’s better offerings. For example, what does a pair of Mark Levinson 33Hs or a Krell FPB 600 sound like if compared to the latest offerings from Pass Labs or Ayre Acoustics?
Perhaps hype, but I have wondered this topic on many consumer products, esp. automobiles.
A Lotus Turbo, Ferrari, Porsche of 20+ years ago will qualify for antique plates in many states. Are they still SOTA, well that is in the driver's opinion.
As much as I have invested in great cars over the years (and great audio) most of the cars of yesteryear that I have owned and that were great have been passed by most technology. The thing that trumps all of this is design... The Ferrari Lusso, original Porsche 911, and yes, even old Packards are highly collectable and wonderful eye candy....can a modern car out perform them....well perhaps yes,....but as I learned in my collector days, a 30+ year old Ferrari is not a bad car.
Kosst, could not agree more. Too many people forget that they listen to an audio system, not a pair of speakers or amplifiers. The system is what needs optimization, as you have done.
I am still using a pair of CJ Premier 12 monoblock tube amps from about
20 years ago. They still sound glorious, warm and very engaging. I've
thought about having CJ upgrade the caps. Any thoughts about this?
As a CJ Premier 12 owner, I could have written that exact post.
Jafant, I'm sorry I didn't answer sooner, I've been so busy listening to the MF-2500A that I didn't notice till now that you asked a question about it. I love it!! It sounds spectacular from a cold start but here's the clincher, the sound continues to improve even over a 48 hour period of time. It is one t=of those power amps that if you are skeptical about power amps making a huge difference in ones system this one without doubt will change your mind.
The MF 2300A is no slouch either and both amps I strongly recommend as I started with the MF 2300A and moved up to the MF 2500A. The only other amp I would consider would be a Pass Labs and although these two products will sound uniquely different they are both good in their own right and would come down to personal preferences.
^Though this might appear as a left handed compliment, it most definitely is not. Perfectly lovely amps that are also powerful. Does nothing really offensive. Plays nice with a variety of pres, so long as they’re not balanced. Factory updates available. Perhaps not the most neutral, or best to drive the very most difficult loads. If compelled to live with them, I could be very happy doing so.
I’ve always been curious about the definition of a "well designed" amp. As if there is a universal design that is appropriate for all circumstances. Most audio companies build to a specific market audience at a specific price point.
For the purpose of the millions of people out there who love listening to music on their iphones, that amp is well designed. It fits in your pocket, doesn’t kill the battery and will play music without committing too many sins that one can detect with the supplied earbuds.
I’ve heard lots of engineers state unequivocally that all well designed amps sound the same. My experience is the engineers who say this do not work designing high-end audio amps.
I suspect they’re hearkening back to something they learned at school about a theoretical ideal; a black-box ideal where components have perfect specs, are operated within parameter in a perfectly stable environment.
The problem in the real world is that part ratings vary significantly from specs. Electrolytic caps within the same production vary by as much as 20%; transistor ratings can vary by as much as 100%. Tube ratings can vary by even more!
Designing an amplifier that can be manufactured using imperfect parts that consistently achieves low distortion and high linearity appears to be pretty difficult.
I recently replaced mysuperb Mcintosh MC30’s with a Pass F5 Turbo Version 2 that I built myself. Let me first say that the MC30’s were completely restored by me using modern high quality parts. I wager to say they sound better than they did when new. Simply superb.
The F5t is different. I’m not going to say better because at this level "better" is subjective. To my ears, at normal listening levels with my Klipsch Cornwall 3’s the sound is more dynamic, the background is quieter and the micro detail is much improved.
I don’t think anyone would argue that either of these amps are poorly designed. They both have legendary reputations and make people happy. But they sound very different as they should since they employ radically different topologies.
They’re both well designed; differently designed and the result is, unsurprisingly, different.
Lets not forget the Carver challenge to Stereophile Magazine (J Gordon
Holt) that he could make a $700.00 amplifier (specifically his model
1.0) sound indistinguishable from any high end amp of their choice and
he succeeded in doing so.
Well... he was within 30 db if I recall that right.
What Bob Carver did in his challenge was to engineer an amp that copied to the best he could the transfer function of more expensive high end amps that people really liked. And he did it well.
@cheeg, Ive always heard such good things about the older McCormack DNA amps, as you described above.
The OP specified some higher end amps from 20 years prior, but I will say that right now I am listening to a Luxman R-113 35w SS receiver built 25 years ago in 1993, driving a pair of Zu Audio Omen bookshelves, 16 0hm. Sounds great!
I mean, the Luxman only cost me $65 at the local record store, but it is similar to Naim to my ear, but a bit more even keel (less PRAT-ish).
oh, and what about Naim amps/integrated? they have a cult following going back to the 70's, and still traded heavily on the used market, but may need recapping.
In regards to my above post, I think it begs the question if Mr. Carver can simply manipulate his circuit to compete with some very expensive amps why didn't he build his amps originally to sound that good? Would love to get Bobs answer on this question. I don't know if he is still around.
I think it is possible that Class A/B solid state amps made a significant jump in sound quality in the early nineties. If we go back twenty years from 2017 that puts us at 1997, so there were some very good amps even manufactured back then. To manufacture a Class A/B or pure Class A amp of that quality and metal content today would cost a great deal more money. It is no wonder why some audiophiles choose to refurbish some of those older great designs of yesterday.
Lets not forget the Carver challenge to Stereophile Magazine (J Gordon Holt) that he could make a $700.00 amplifier (specifically his model 1.0) sound indistinguishable from any high end amp of their choice and he succeeded in doing so.
This discussion i right up my alley. For years I have owned electrostatic speakers, the last pair being the upgraded Sound Lab M-1PX with hotrod backplates and a few other goodies. When I got my first Sound Labs, priior to these, I powered them with an old Moscode 600 which sounded wonderful, but was not enough power and mushy in the treble. Five years ago, I was approach by Stephen Sank of Talking Dog. he had redesigned the circuitry of the Moscode 600 with monstrous rows of caps, turning two stereo amps into two monoblocks. He, personally came to my house to set up the reborn monsters, which were making about 600W each, and I could not have been more pleased. The basic sound of the old Moscodes-liquid midrange and lack of aggression- combined with treble clarity and socko bass. These one-off prototypes were a marriage made in heaven for my electrostats. The only addition was a couple of Bybee Gold RCA adapters and Golden Goddess Speaker Bullets, utilizing crystal technology. What is old is new again. I guess the tribute tube McIntoshes made now would be cut from the same cloth.
@fisher_400, "I have not heard new Class D, but understand the new Class D amps can compete for the most part with tube amplifiers."
@fisher_400, "The newer Class D amps are superior to most vintage amps & receivers."
To avoid 1) contradicting yourself, and 2) talking about things you have actually experienced before making declarations about them, maybe you should put more thought into what you post
Strongarms post confirms items I have found extreme value in. For those that don’t already know it all— try an Equitech 2Q, some MIT Oracle AClll non networked power cords- and prepare to smile. Cheers. Pete
The newer Class D amps are superior to most vintage amps & receivers. Regarding vintage solid-state amps & receivers, the 1960s and many 1970s used all discrete components. The receivers & amplifiers around 1975 and later started using op-amps in the audio circuits that were not good sounding. New solid-state designs have higher performance op-amps.
I use a vintage Yamaha CR-220 that is good sounding & quite a deal for under $100. But, my tube amplifier is superior. And, not all vintage or new tube amps sounds good. I rebuild the tube amps with superior coupling capacitors and use select tubes for best sound.
Vintage SS amplifiers sound like, well vintage amps. Various vintage SS amps produce a state of being clear to somewhat muddy sounding. But I have not heard a SS amplifier that can compete with the open, fast & clear plus realistic soundstage of a tube amplifier. I am listening to a Yamaha CR220 Natural sound receiver right now. It is clear, but the soundstage is closed in compared to a tube amplifier. The soundstage extends far beyond the speakers width. The Yamaha CR-220 sounds like reproduced music vs a live performance from tube gear.
I have not heard new Class D, but understand the new Class D amps can compete for the most part with tube amplifiers.
I just sold my late 80’s era ARC D70Mk2. Replaced it with a pair of new Mono blocks that use the new KT150 tubes. The ARC was an awesome amp...even by today’s standards...back in the day...NOTHING could have touched it! However, the new amps are so much more resolving and a lot more capable at both frequency extremes. The new tubes may be accounting for this, but the fact is that the ARC was still highly competeive in my system after all these years...VERY impressive. Have we seen an increase in SQ from the latest amps compared to yesteryear...I vote yes, but not to the extent that one would expect over this period of time.
Parts are parts and they are greatly better now than 20 years ago, but I don't think well known makers have adopted newer circuit designs; they are all lights and copper. But grounding, controlling vibrations,ac purity and rooms are more important. I used to be a tuby with tubes only used having bought 2 ARC Dual 75s, a SP-3 preamp,, and Infinity Servostatic in 1973 and thinking nothing could be better. Now I have more invested in ICs, PCs, speaker wires, grounding, and ac supply than components. I just wish that I could have had this and enjoyed it since 1975.
@photon46 - I was reading another forum today and there was a reference to this old article on Tom’s H/W re: a blind audio test they performed. Its a perspective from outside the audio world although the conclusions are not as dramatic as the Stradivarius test you mention.
Mike has a lot of Takachi cases left over because of folks upgrading their original orders in his first three or four lots. Most people decided to upgrade from the Takachi case and wait for him to finish production of his own beefier upgraded cases. He isn't offering the Takachi case anymore because he can't get enough AS1200 modules from B&O to meet immediate demand and he wants to focus on his own in-house brand offerings/cases. Don't know if he'll ever decide to offer the kit again.
Chrshanl37, I'm only about 50 hrs. into the break-in process and most say you need 200 hrs. on the amp to hear the final outcome. It has changed quite a bit since first out of the box. I posted my initial impressions here @ Audiocircle's discussion about the topic: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=154910.60 Look towards the bottom of the page. I will say that the amp has continued to become even more nuanced and refined sounding since those comments were posted. Mike Davis, the owner of Mivera, opined that the B&O module was so good that most audio system owners would be better off with amps based on this module and spending subsequent money on better sources and ceasing the endless quest of looking for better amps. Assuming one likes the clean sound of the best current class D amps, that's probably not hyperbole. Knowing how audiophiles are always looking for the next big thing and won't be likely to accept that an amp as inexpensive as the AS1200 could really be that good, most won't take that advice. I've heard my Tidal speakers with $100,000 worth of amplification and the ridiculously inexpensive AS1200 is definitely not playing out of its league. ($1300 or so for the assembled and fully loaded with every upgrade Takachi case unit that's no longer offered.) I'd say the amp is the greatest bargain I've purchased in 40+ years of being in this hobby. Apparently B&O is having a hard time keeping up with OEM demand for this module and we'll see it incorporated in a number of amps in the future.
These endless arguments about whether all properly designed amplifiers sound the same are a bit amusing. As a previous post noted, "certain unique speakers present loading that will cause good amplifiers to sound slightly different." Arguments arise over the level of difference "slightly" means perceptually to each of us. Personally, I have difficulty imaging the perceptual apparatus of one who can't hear differences in amplifiers. Even my wife, who has stainless steel prosthetic implant replacements for stirrup bones in both her middle ears and wears high end hearing aids can hear the difference in good amplifiers with upper tier speakers and she really doesn't care that much about the issue at hand. I also find the insistence that blind testing is the only viable methodology for determining if there are differences between things like amplifiers, musical instruments, etc. places unwarranted faith in the ability of humans to make meaningful consistent distinctions in stressful testing situations. Many of us have heard a great deal made of the recent blind testing that alleged to have shown that concert violinists cannot really distinguish between a Stradivarius and a quality modern violin. The following account by a participant in the test rather succinctly points out the flaws in the belief that the blind testing was an accurate arbiter of differences: http://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20121/13039/ For those that are unaware of this test, here's a summary of the results as widely reported: https://www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell-stradivarius-violins-from-modern-instruments/994.article Closer at hand to the topic under discussion, I have a highly modified PS Audio HCA-2 (much improved over the stock amplifier) and a brand new Mivera Audio AS1200 amp with the latest iteration of B&O's Icepower modules. Fifteen years separate the two amps. I'm not sure I could distinguish the differences in a rapid fire blind test with short listening segments. However, when you have a longer listening sessions to familiar recordings one does hear differences in things like the way different parts of a snare drum more or less prominent, a vocalist sits in a different soundstage perspective in relationship to the orchestra, cymbals sound slightly different, etc. Subtle, perhaps meaningless to some, but apparent nonetheless.
@stringreen Up until a couple years ago, I had an Ayre V-1xe. It was very musical. I'd argue that for around $4K, which is about the used price on this amp, nothing of current production could touch it. I've had to spend quite a bit more money to get better sound.
I can recall auditioning that 1st Sunfire amp circa 1995/96 on Vandersteen 2 series speakers. Very nice sound indeed. I want to say that the amp was 300wpc ?
I have an Ayre V1xe which is almost 20 yrs old....I called Ayre to get their view of getting a look at my amp for degraded parts. He told me that there was little sense in sending back the amp....unless I dropped it from the 4th floor, all will be working as designed.
Bruno Putzey said in an interview earlier this year that if Class D sounds good, it sounds good despite the fact that it is Class D, not because it is Class D. Bruno basically said that efficiency is the only reason to molest a signal so dramatically.
Did Bruno actually say this?
If he did, huge props to him. Give that man a hug. for, in class d amps..the signal is horribly molested and it is nearly impossible to put it back together without large amounts of micro levels of continual high order harmonic distortions.
These micro distortions are heard as tonality and mistaken for detail, by the ears that seek out the micro detail that they so desperately desire.
I’ve looked at such designs extensively, and done my best to correct the deficiencies. The problem came when I asked permission from the given manufacturer(s) to base a released product on said designs. They all said no. I spent almost a full year of design time energy, and even ended up creating a new power supply configuration in the process. All left on the cutting room floor. Oh well. Lesson learned. One pair of the monoblocks did make it to a show and was reported by most, as the best class d amps they’d yet heard.
Class d can be repaired but it is still a step backward before the power switch is even flipped on. Which is kinda what Bruno just said, if the quote is true....
@mikexxyz In regards to the caps needing replacement on my CJ MF2300a, I noticed for a long while that my lower frequencies did not sound as even or solid as I thought they should. I did some research and found a few companies that would do enhancements to the amplifier and when I sent a photo for the insides told me the caps were bulging which is a sign of capacitor failure. I decided to have them replaced and there was a marked improvement but I have recently acquired a newly built DNA-1 which I find much better in most areas of sonics and performance.
@hikmer - how did you determine that the caps needed to be replaced on your CJ? Was there a physical clue like bulging or leaking of electrolyte or did the SQ change?
Following this line of logic, the Bryson 7B is as good as the 7BSST, the 7BSST squared and the 7B cubed. The Pass Labs X350 is as good as the X350.5 or the X350.8. How do they manage to maintain this farce?
Hafler guy here again!...:) My 9180 is 23 years young and continues to delight. I am not an audiophile in terms of knowledge or equipment purchasing power. An audiophile in terms of enjoying music since I was very young. I presume there are many amps produced since Rockford Corp., stopped producing this gem that out pace it.
My CJ MF2300a hit 20 years old and all the caps needed replacing. Would have been a fortune if I sent back to CJ but found a local ex-employee to do it for a reasonable cost...from what I gather, capacitors from 20 years ago had a tendency to leak or bulge making them prone to failure. I'd avoid buying these devices and would opt for a newer device (and did recently).
For anyone that is uncertain if their 20 year old Krell or Levinson is still any good please send it to me and I will check it out and if necessary dispose of it in an environmentally safe way......
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
