Your opinion on the evolution of amps since 70s?


What is your opinion on the evolution of high-end amplifiers since the 70s?

I use the word “high-end” here not in the snobbish sense, but as a way of separating amplifiers designed for great sound from those intended for mass consumption. I am interested especially in the sound- and design changes of these amplifiers but would not mind reading about other aspects as well, such as build quality, prices and values. I read lively discussions on this topic on another site. Below is my take on the subject. I look forward to reading yours.

I caught the Hi-fi bugs in high school in the late 60s. This hobby quickly turned into an obsession in the 70s while I was still in college. I was seriously into high-end audio equipment in the 80s and 90s until their prices escaladed well beyond what I was willing to spend. Now I am just coasting.

I feel that from the 70s to the 90s amplifiers steadily improved in design, construction, and sound, especially solid-state (ss) amps. Today’s high-end amplifiers are generally more powerful and more sophisticated than their predecessors with sounds that are noticeably more refined as well. Interestingly, the sounds of ss and tube amps, quite far apart in the 70s, came closer together every passing decade though they never quite merge. Today’s ss have the edge on power, bass and treble extension while improved tube amps remain king of the midrange.

It is really a shame that the mid-90s witnessed an unconscionable price escalation leading to the inevitable shrinking of high-end audio. The much higher prices made cost-no-object designs possible but they also caused the large community of audio hobbyists and enthusiasts of the 70s and 80s to dwindle down to a much smaller group today. The design progress suffers.

That’s my short take on the subject. I can’t wait to read what Audiogoners have to say.
justin_time

Showing 4 responses by jay_douglas_2879b79

the answer is no....even the vintage ss amps from tandberg,revox,mac,sumo,marantz,sonographe(cj)naim,quad,kenwood,and dozens of others sound as refined as anything being made today at any price. i recently came across an advent speaker brochure from the seventies that actually encouraged the consumer to spend as little as possible on an amplifier. kloss was a genius. a whole generation of us grew up on 'common sense' hi fi designed by guys who were as bright as any rocket scientist, yet loved music. the goal was music apreciation. well designed products favored no music catagory. a 'well designed' amp or speaker favored no catagory of music. hi end manufacturers and their consumers now have the same relationship as pushers and junkies. no amount of money is enough,and satisfaction is never guaranteed.
i have no problem with any specialty company making a healthy profit, or appealing to audiophiles who love the look and the touch as much as the sound. i've had a room full of audio toys since high school ('71) and have been in the music and movie business(and hi fi too) for over 30 years. as much as i'm passionate about music and as much as i love the hobby, it scares me that someone with the ability to spend $100,000 on hardware would do it under the myth that it has superior performance because it can only be purchased by 300 people globally. i've worked with the finest engineers and soundmen on the west coast and not one of them believes that hi end has gotten 'better' in any regard. they are always asked to add bass that wasn't originally there, and bring the voal up in the mix to give us the thrill of thinking the reissue is better. kill the tape noise, etc etc....no one wants a balanced presentation, not in the studio or the home. consumers should only trust their ears after they use common sense. the branding of gear from china to prompt the emotional purchase of a product that has a historically rich name, is shameful.
the cost of manufacturing consumer electronics as a percentage of wholesale(this includes hi end audio)has dropped from about 35% to less than 10% in the last 35 years. the only two places to see increases have been cardboard and transportation. that $20,000 system has a hard cost of around $2000 today. this obviously does not apply to the diy'ers who took out a second mortgage to fund a company commited to building an s.e.t. capable of....well...not much. i love music, but this industry has got to be based on value for the dollar like any other.
i;m sorry justin, the hafler was indeed a mediocre studio grade amp, more than a hi-fi piece. i was never a fan of the ar3, but as for the large advent, i have a vintage pair that will go toe to toe with most of the speakers you've named, provided it is used with a any powerful, clean amp ss or tube. ponderous and muddy in the bass, only if 'it' is in the recording. sort of a bigger, rowdier LS 3/5 or epi 100. it is more neutral than my gradient revolutions. many of the ss brands you have mentioned built their best stuff in the 1980's. the marantz and kenwood ss heyday was much earlier. i currently own mac ss and tube gear (as well as some other odds and ends)but even a vintage mac mc7300 is more neutral than the the models that replaced it. i currently have an mc602 (wish i still had the 7300). my mc275 II is nice but its no marantz 8b. even the marantz 8b knock offs and clones don't quite get there. somewhere along the line, we all forget that we enjoyed music more when we were just looking for something decent to play it on. the marketplace today is getting smaller by the minute. the inventory in a typical classical music dept turns less than one time a year today. jazz as a catagory(without nora jones)makes up less than 5% of music sales. artists are being dropped from major labels daily. meanwhile some guy wants to sell us a pair of loudspeakers that cost $10,000 and are sure to favor one catagory of music over another. i can see the ad now......'great for acoustic jazz and female vocals' GOD HELP THE AUDIOPHILE-me included