Ben Campbell is right on the money.
First, you may need to look away from the American companies. Investigate products from Europe, many of which will be smaller companies most people have never heard of. They tend to offer amplifiers with simpler layouts and lower power. The foundation the companies you mentioned Jeff Rowland, Krell, Mark Levinson were built on. 25 - 100 watts, no more parts than it takes to do the job(signal purity, you know), care in the build, and making sure everything sounds just right. What I consider the heart of high end audio; a small(maybe just one person or family) outfit producing very good sounding equipment in a less imposing package.
Yes, there a lot of tube amplifier manufacturers in this lot, but you can find a wealth of solid state equipment.
I know this may go against the grain, but I find little innovation on this side of the ocean in the past 5 or so years. Focus has shifted from music(what AUDIOphiles are interested in) to home theater and multichannel. Our priorities are very different.
We seek out the recreation of a live performance or a natural presentation. We look to soft passages that are important as crescendos, refinement that pleases rather than irritates, and often a seductive, romantic sound.
HT seeks out the recreation of what is heard in a movie theater. Volume, Volume, and VOLUME, bloated midbass, screeching highs, and sound coming at us from all directions.
A few days ago a friend was trying to tell me why 6 speakers are better than 2. One point he made was that it is jaw dropping to hear the sound of a plane roar over your head. For that, rear speakers are needed. True. But I have never listened to a band and wanted to hear a plane fly over me, and I only want to hear bands. Musicians always play directly in front of me, or at least when I am able to get a good seat.
What we go after is different.
And, what is built is different.
Many of the great American companies created formed to make music have shifted production(rightly and smartly so) to where the money and demand is. While audio still plays a significant role, the consumer's focus this holiday season is on plasma displays and subwoofers that make rumbling sounds that I never hear in music or nature. Silver disc playback machines try to cram more and more into the same box; CD, DVD, MP3, and now even DVD - A and SACD - got to cover all the bases. Can a player which does everything master anything? Time will tell...
Many American companies have gone toward what Ben aptly puts as BIG. Designers, architects, electricians, and installers. 25, 50, 75, 100 watts? NO. We need 250, 500, 1000 watts. More power, more channels, more speakers, more lights, more effects, more gadgets, more trinkets. Movie theater seats. Stadium seats. Cupholders. A popcorn machine! The only less they seek is to have the whole kit and kaboodle on one remote.
And, the goal is me when we have Betty White sound like Barry White. After all, what good is a subwoofer if you can't hear and focus on it?
Maybe I am crazy, but I am looking for smaller. For less. Smaller room. Listening in the nearfield. Lower power. Less tubes, less transistors, less things in the box. Simple circuits, cable constructions, and crossovers. The more I think is good is more sensitive speakers. |
|
Thanks for the cogent response Maxgain. I think you are right when you say we agree more than we disagree. Even if we did not, this has to be one of the most interesting and thought provoking threads on Audiogon in a long time. I am both priveledged and thankful to be at least a small part of it. Thanks! |
Ron, I appreciate you getting involved in the discourse. You and Sean certainly make cogent points.
However, allow me to comment on your assertions as that of an outsider. One who values the McIntosh name, but does not see anything in the current lineup which would make me buy. What I have heard of the newer products does not interest me. Yes, they are high powered and can definitely put a lot of volume out. But, the sound does not appeal to me. I want a tube amp to be a tube amp. I want a tube amp to have delicacy, warmth, romance, musicality. I don't want to buy into the assertion that the sound of tubes and solid state is converging. I find that to be baloney. The best tube amps are not moving toward solid state sound. Tube amps which are moving toward that sound are companies like Audio Research(they may be abandoning this) and McIntosh. Tube amplifiers which many people buy because they sound like a Krell or Mark Levinson, but offer some sort of pride of ownership because the amp actually has tubes in it.
The classic, and most highly prized McIntosh products are those from the 1960's. Lower power, using less output tubes. There is always a buyer for these products either here on Audiogon or ebay.
These products, along with some other notable manufacturers, are what defined classic tube sound. I am of the opinion, and the comments of you and other McIntosh people sort of support this, that McIntosh considers these products to be a definite step down from their higher power stablemates.
The thing I would say to McIntosh is, look at the products that made the name of the company what it is. There are many out here that treasure the sonics of the older, lower power amplifiers. This is not an opinion, this is fact, borne out by the fact that when McIntosh reentered the tube amplifier market, it did so not with one of the newer, larger products, but a reissue of the MC275. Sales certainly reinforced the point that this type of product is viable in this day and age.
I have a dear friend who has some of the finest audio equipment that I have ever encountered. If it isn't pristine, both sonically and physically, he doesn't own it. In the first system one encounters in his home, a McIntosh 40 tube amplifier drives the mids/tweeters of a great sounding system. Countless people visit him, and are awed by the components he owns, yet the McIntosh amplifier NEVER fails to draw some of the most fervent attention.
I do not mean to refute your assertions. What you say is definitely valid. I put forth that there are those who go along with it, and those that don't. Otherwise, there would not be as many viable SET companies in the world as there are. Please allow the consumer the option of determining what is right and what is not right. There are people out here, who held fast in their tube amplifier(especially low power) love. They have driven speaker companies to address our need, those that cater to this market earn the sale, other speakers are overlooked. They are capable of taking a low powered amplifier and making magic with it. McIntosh need not lose sleep over the fact that they did not provide the buyer with 100, 200, or more watts. Believe me, these audiophiles will land on their feet.
What I am asking for is for McIntosh to recognize that some people wish to move to lower power, treasure the McIntosh brand, and would be delighted to be able to marry those two feelings. It would be a win - win situation; an amp for the buyer, sales for McIntosh. Personally, I will own a McIntosh amplifier at some point(my father claims we own one now, he says he has an old 40 laying around - but he's been saying this for about 5 years now...). Whether I buy new or used will solely be answered by McIntosh itself. |
Ron, my thanks again for your participation in this thread.
I do hear what you are saying. However, in my experience the new McIntosh tube amplifiers did not produce the sweet tube sound that I crave and have heard from older Mac products. Maybe it was the room, the speakers, the newer parts, I am not sure. Your stating that the MC2102 being sort of a goosed up MC275 is encouraging. For whatever reason, I was not able to hear the magic of the 275 in the newer product. Sid Corderman has and will always retain the respect due his long and illustrious career.
I am a fan of the 240, and that is the McIntosh amp I have most often been fortunate enough to be around most. I would not hesitate recommending it or the MC275 were they in production today, which is probably what a great number of us on Audiogon would love to see.
Personally, I am on record as being a fan of the KT88. I have no quarrel with McIntosh embracing the tube, as it offers a pretty full picture of the audio spectrum. While the EL34 is also a great tube, I can understand that McIntosh may not be interested in it. Most companies are not able to have an amplifier based on this tube produce the top and bottom octaves with the same verve as the larger tubes. In my mind, McIntosh would not really face this problem. The 6550 does not, and has never done much for me. Just a personal thing, but I prefer the KT88 or KT90 in any situation I can imagine. You may feel otherwise...
If Mac did produce a smaller amp, I believe the audiophile community has enough knowledge to make good use of it, and possibley even place it in the same exalted status as the MC240. Again, maybe the MC240 is an amp that the world wants to have another go 'round with. Perhaps a reissue? Might serve as a barometer for the company, as did the MC275 Reissue.
Twl, again your comments are on point. The transistor allowed a lot of speaker ideas and dreams to come to fruition from the 1960's through the 1980's. A lot of interesting development was put forth, and in no way do I demean any of it. Many of these designs offered loads which could only be described in generous terms as "difficult".
Jim Thiel, in particular, has often made the statement that he has no regard for the amplifier manufacturers. Thiel will build the best loudspeaker he can, and it is up to the amplifier people to design something capable of mating with it. There is something to be said for that, seeking excellence, all else be damned is a means of advancing the craft.
The early Apogees, also, were a good example of this. I have often heard that the ribbon was little more than a short circuit.
However, that was then, this is now. Loudspeaker manufacturers were in the driver seat for a long time. Their designs, creative or otherwise, dictated the direction of the hobby. They called the shots. Today, the field is more level than it was.
In the mid - 90's, a small but determined, some would say fanatical, following sought out a different path. The renaissance of tubes has only flowered further. More so than any business person would have ever believed or predicted. This, in an industry whose health has not flourished, is only more remarkable. These people, me among them, embraced the sound and culture of the vacuum tube amplifier. Along the lines of the rebirth in popularity of the Harley - Davidson motorcycle, this group was fiercely loyal and ready and willing to spend their money on a technology most had long written off. It was more than a purchase of an appliance, it was buying into a way of thinking. A way of listening. A culture. A way of life.
This movement led to people seeking out loudspeakers which flew in the face of that which had all but owned the high end for so long. Simpler, rather than more complex. Low tech, where measurement and wow factor had so recently been the ultimate. Less drivers. Less parts in the crossovers. More archaic crossover topologies, no longer requiring a phD in something or other to design or even understand. And a rebirth of horns.
Right or wrong, the numbers of this crowd have only swelled, drowning out more "modern" ideals in the high end community. Speaker companies meeting the new paradigm rose up and flourished. Some of the other companies, Thiel(not my intention to single this fine company out) is even now turning its direction, producing a higher sensitivity speaker(wonder if this will be a trend). In this age of mp3 and satellite radio, how could this ever happen?
I often read about the death of high end audio. Reason upon reason as to how the hobby has already been killed. Staring down the road called the future, these sages only see even darker skies ahead.
Me, I see another vision. One of audio as it has always been. A small, dedicated group of people pursuing a hobby they have always been into. The people are often quirky, and hold on to ideals thought to be ludicrous by most, but never wavering. No, it may not be a place where snake oil salesmen can make millions slapping a name and some pretty braiding on a cheaper wire, and creating a cable. The dot - com 90's are over. But, companies producing gear like the McIntosh and Marantz products of old can survive and live the lives they always have. And, us, we'll keep doing what we have always done. Listen, tweak, coax, strain, buy, sell, enjoy, and maybe even talk about it on Audiogon. |
One thing I guess I should say that while I have an appreciation for low power SET amps, and the speakers which are needed to be partnered with them, that is really not my point in this thread.
I think I have gone out of my way to trumpet tubes in general, not specifically 3W amplifiers. The MC240 and MC275 amps which I have asked for are not low powered. The two amps I own, a Jadis and a pair of Atma Sphere monoblocks, are not low powered. My speakers are not very efficient, but are in no means inefficient. The products I own are sort of the "middle way" as a Buddhist would call them. Not SET, but not 200W either. Not 105 db/2.83V, but not 84 db/2.83V either. I see merit in both philosophies, and believe that both add to the harmony which is the high.
My likes and dislikes I make known, and feel strongly about.
What I have been trying to say is that I prefer tubes to solid state, or some newer tube amplifiers which do not sound very tubelike.
The original question of this thread is "where are the lower power" solid state amps. Amps, I point out that I am supportive of, and have heard those which I would not be unhappy to own. I stated earlier, that these seem to be most apparent from the European manufacturers these days.
Somehow, we have digressed into a comparison where Henry Rosenberg is on the one side, and Dan D'Agostino is on the other. I honor the work and contribution of both men. The discussion is fine, and makes for healthy and interesting pro and conversation. Which this thread has served up in spades.
|
Maxgain, I am glad you also joined the discussion.
I, for one, do not let the word "accurate" go so easily.
Why is it that the word accurate always is used to describe sound which is opposite of musical, romantic, lush, or warm? Why is the word "accurate" used instead of threadbare, white, emaciated, etched, sterile, or analytical?
My point is that I would love to see a more accurate use of the word accurate. People who do not favor a more classic tube sound do not have any more right to the use of the word accurate than does the other camp.
I am sorry, but I do not find the sound of the past few years' worth of Audio Research tube amps(I have heard the new design may be a departure from this - trying to win back the tube amp crowd - haven't listened/not sure) to be accurate. I find them all of the things on the other side of the spectrum from that which you deride as not being "accurate". Which doesn't make it any more accurate, just different. In my opinion, in fact, this sound is LESS accurate. To you, this sound is MORE accurate.
We disagree. No problem.
I submit to you, that the goal of an audio component is to make music. Not that I mind a nice set of measurements. But, I think making a voice, saxophone, or drum sound real is closer to MY definition of "accurate" than a component which seems to be a straight wire with gain on someone's test measurement but somehow alters what I know a voice, saxophone, or drum to sound like.
For every one thing someone says is not accurate about a tube amp, there is also at least one thing that is not accurate about a solid state amp. |
